About concepts of basic ethical orientation understood as "existential environmental philosophy" presented in this site.
Much of this is originally written on Twitter.
Origin of Ethics
All human has "invented" is actually discovered from nature, then altered/mutated – that is called culture. By stealing from other species, people manage to neglect their very being, leave them in trouble as a threat to their self, pretending superiority in search of extraterrestrial intelligence ("rationality").
This alteration, mutation, called invention is based on conflicts in nature. While trying to escape cynicism of death and predation, human opportunistically tries to benefit from it and use it for (bitter) entertainment - or even religion. As a byproduct, eventually destroys the nature.
Natural source of ethics and understanding are the warnings and signals other animals have given to human, to make them aware of what is ahead of them, and what will follow. Scoundrel as human is, it even takes this to it's own unbalanced benefit. Why nature developed human? What is it's purpose?
Human-centricism is entertaining people, making things easy, flow. Generalizations sound nice and they answer questions, but in the end make life extremely dull as they're neglecting too many things. ("In the Digital Age It's All About People", p. 32-35, Next Magazine - Issue 5.0.)
Egocentricist is worrying about one self, human-centricism may be worrying about people (it's even called responsibility), but then it may be troublesome in many ways to worry something that is not self and not human as even human language can be against it.
a) System that aims at productivity often has a narrow interpretation of the economy it creates/uses (partly because it tries to benefit from it too). Perceived minimal efforts to achieve desired benefit demands additional efforts to handle all problems created as a byproduct from the whole system.
b) In other context: if some natural economy (ecology) is accepted as is, popular science phrases (like "biological cycle" or "balance") may easily start sound like a cheap religion. People lose something when they get any kind of enjoyment or excitement from predation as they often do, or in any other way give in to be a part of it. Primary attitude must be that something is wrong to maintain or perceive anything meaningful. This doesn't imply adding any aggressive actions in to world against predators, but instead to perceive it's presence, which isn't something to calculate away. If this leaves nervous that's the way it is – this uncertainty can't be explained away.
Aggression in nature is not aggression of an individual or (for) species, but responding to (against) the pressure of environment as it is, based on species related features. Aggression may not be targeted against individual or species where it seems to, but what's between them.
Purpose of the culture is to carry (all maltreatment and exploitation) until the ultimate end and finish what production has started.
Enthusiasm over predators should rise concern over people dealing with the nature: the opportunistic hypocricy. Nature (by nature) is nature, but to take (accept) any excitement from this.
Veganism itself needs to be redefined. By definition it is related against production maltreating animals, but it doesn't grasp what it culturally is itself. On the pet side, empathy based on predatory instincts of dogs and cats and then eating vegan like a carnivore is not yet the solution.
Veganism as it is presented is trapped inside captive animal relationships as it can't grasp it's own predative drive. It is based on animals used in production and entertainment, and it doesn't have a way to survive without them.
Veganism survives within a culture it doesn't accept and is amused of it's amusements. It still consumes violence from movies and humor that's based in cynicism and indifference which is actually based on violent behavior. (What actually is katharsis and other dramaturgy it still accepts.) It's primary only act is the refusal to directly harm animals, but it doesn't see or handle aggression it is actually surrounded – it still follows the drive.
It's primary practical mistake is that it thinks all aminals should be liked, loved and shown compassion. However nature's reality is that they don't need that, and it's love in nature is actually to be trapped within predation. All animals don't deserve that, and to some it may be directly harmful in it's predative form.
Their dogs and cats are primary animals used to control and exploit other animals. If it's not them, vegan may be amused and mezmerised by colors of a ... magpie.
Nature's unity and relation to it is much more complex than to linger in contagiousness created by mass culture and it's movies and stories.
By loving something, you're effectively killing something, so the answer can't be some grand (all conquering) feeling like love, which should instead be a warning that something's about to be lost.
(Some meals looks like meat, and they may be eaten the way too. Human mistakes are easily repeated in different forms.)
Basic philosophical elements or principles (a sketch)
1: Ethics are a mental state
See for example Narendra Modi "The green sate of mind"
2: It's a form of thinking origining from nature other than calculation.
... and this "green state of mind" can't be just scientific calculations (like contemporary "all you need is carbon calculation..." or) like presented at Birds as Environmental Indicators (these are important of course), but there must be some primary and direct natural (ethical) understanding that is applicable.
3: "Ethical thinking uses/takes psychological space/capacity"
(likely Bernard Williams... "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy"?)