So about that paper...

Hey guys!

I decided after my presentation that my topic may not be the strongest or easiest to write about. In a last minute risky maneuver, I have changed my topic. I'm now writing about how whaling by the Japanese in particular, is morally wrong. I plan to start out giving some background on whaling and the Japanese culture that is connected to the sea. I will still use the argument that our relationship with nature decides how we treat it, but it will no longer be the central tenant of my paper. The Japanese have never sustainable used their natural resources and are known world wide for their blatant environmental degradation. They don't view wildlife as valuable, and they therefore are not inclined to protect it. The Japanese kill hundred of whales each year under the veil that they are needed for "scientific research".
I plan to argue that:
1)- biologically harvesting whales is not sustainable
2)- killing whales, which are subjects of a life, is morally wrong (relying on Raegan here)
3)- scientific experimentation on animals, especially when it results in death, is morally reprehensible (animals rights)


If you have any sources or ideas for directions I should go with it, I'd love to hear your input!

Thanks!
-Kimber

Handout from the Griswold lecture on Vengeful Anger

It was a pretty interesting presentation, here's the handout of quotes he passed out if anyone's interested.

Environmental Issues and Org's Around the Country

I’ve done some traveling for mock trial this semester, and because of that I’ve missed a lot of good class discussion. So I thought I’d try to make up for that by finding some environmental ethical issues in the places I’ve gone to and give some perspective on how these things are being dealt with around the country.

Los Angeles, CA
LA is pretty notorious for how smoggy the air is. I found this neat organization called TreePeople; they’ve planted a couple million trees around the LA area to try to reduce the effects of air pollution. Here are some links:
http://www.treepeople.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/tree-people-improving-los-angeles-environment_n_863850.html

Athens, GA
Athens is the most hippy town in Georgia, which may not be saying a lot, but it’s a pretty cool place. They expectedly have a lot of vegetarian and locavore options, but this one is notable because it’s a co-op: Daily Grocery Co-op. They have some great information about how grocery co-ops work and how to get more involved in finding out where your food comes from.
http://www.dailygroceries.org/

Murfreesboro, TN
Murfreesboro is home to Middle Tennessee State University, whose biology department houses the Center for Environmental Education. Beyond just coursework and projects, which can be expected from any school with an environmental studies curriculum, they put a lot of focus into educating as many people in the community as they can. They have programs as diverse as collecting donated microscopes and teaching schoolchildren that bats shouldn’t be scary. I think Rhodes could learn a thing or two from MTSU when it comes to promoting widespread environmental education.
http://www.mtsu.edu/mtsucee/about.shtml

Horsing around with Monkey Business

It's hard to get into trouble just for speaking your mind in America these days. Well, legal trouble at least. One of the ways you can still get locked up is for inciting what courts call "imminent lawless action" with your speech. You know, things like telling someone to go out and kill another person, or burn down the nearest Krystal, or put spikes in trees and blow up bulldozers. Dave Foreman and the people over at Earth First! know that, and they're toeing the line about as well as they possibly can. In "More on Earth First and The Monkey Wrench Gang" Foreman is obviously playing dumb and saying what he needs to say to keep his quasi-organization out of trouble. He expresses vague support for extreme pro-environmentalist action (thereby staying true to the tenets of what he believes in and inspiring others) while carefully abstaining from advocating and embracing it (thereby keeping the feds off his back). It seems absurd to assume that Foreman actually has the kind of lukewarm stance toward "monkeywrenching" he feigns in this short essay; "I do not advocate it nor do I not advocate it". In the essay we read earlier this week, he was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it from the establishment anymore. He was even throwing out the phrase "Neo-Luddite" as early as the first paragraph. Foreman rebuts the claim that the environmentalist movement has been successful and rattles off a laundry list of problems immediately after stressing how important action is in philosophy. The call to arms cry at the end is missing because it would very likely get him arrested. So props to Earth First! for toeing the line, and toeing it well. They may be radical, but they're sure as hell not stupid.

Environmentalism-Not Just Monkey Business

Earth First! and The Monkey Wrench Gang

Response by Edward Abbey (author of Monkey Wrench) to the editorial about his book. Abbey first clarifies that in no way is Earth First! “pledged to ecological sabotage”, but rather they are dedicated to saving the environment and therefore must engage in “acts of civil disobedience where useful”. He then explains that the book is a fictional work, not a manifesto, and not to be taken as such. He ensures that however the reader chooses to interpret his work is the readers business and that if anyone feels impelled to act out the exploits in the book, that is a matter of their own individual conscience and to be decided on their own.

He then draws the distinction between the term terrorism and sabotage. Terrorism, he writes, is an act of deadly violence carried out against people and/or living things and gives the examples such as the government committing terrorism against its own citizens (like the incident at Kent State) or corporate entities doing the same against land and all the creatures who depend on that land for their lives and livelihoods (like Exxon or Mobil Oil). He draws the distinction that a bulldozer that tears up a mountainside for the possibility of strip-mining coal is the true terrorism; damning a flowing river or cutting down trees—these are examples of terrorism. The people who stop these machines and save the environment, he argues, are practicing sabotage. Sabotage is merely the application of force against inanimate property (such as machinery) and that is never used to conjunction with any violence against living creatures of any kind.

In the story, the Monkey Wrench Gang uses sabotage to protect the land against the true terrorism: that of industrialism. They do so only when all else fails and they are morally justified to defend nature. My favorite point he makes is here: “not only justified but a moral obligation, as in the defense of one’s own life…family…home…one’s own nature, against violent assault” (Abbey 335). Most people, environmentalist or not agree that endangered species issues are worth raising awareness if not worth protection (I know not everyone, but much more seem to agree on this than other issues); why can’t people raise awareness about endangered climates? What about endangered habitats and endangered ecosystems?

In lieu of our class discussion on Wednesday, I think his writing is extremely important. Sometimes you have to revert to extremes to get the job done. I refer not to sabotage directly, but even the justification of the sabotage and the language used in doing so. I think Hargrove’s quotation on page 334 about how Earth First! seems to be more radical than any other environmentalist group from the past is entirely accurate and the very point of their organization!! He writes of how environmentalist movements from the 20^th century were effective; they were only effective in raising awareness of the issues. Nothing has truly worked thus far; just like in political campaigns, maybe it is time to resort to radical, extreme actions. If that works, then I see less harm in engaging in these ‘dangerous’ conversations than in NOT doing so. If I am not in class on Friday, don’t worry; I’ll be dancing on Rick Perry’s desk.

On Ecological Sabotage: Pranks or Terrorism?

Hargrove suggests that ecological sabotage will ultimately reserve the positive results of the environmental movement of the 1960's and 70's. He asks "what could be the justification for acts which could easily create a terrible backlash?" From the reading we did for Wednesdays there are many practical justifications for ecological sabotage. Sabotage is meant to be extreme and show just how moderate the moderates like the Sierra Club truly are in what they are asking. Foreman says that when they are inspired they act. Sitting around and waiting to be politically bullied got the environmental movement no where. So long as they are not physically injuring people, there is little harm to throwing a monkey wrench into the paving machines and logging equipment. Clearly large companies can economically recover from these acts, so even if they are financially harming a large company saboteurs who are not physically injuring people reside more in the prank than terror realm.
Hargrove uses Locke's statement that "a man who destroys property declares a state of war with society and in that state, society has the right to destroy the offender." As this relates to the environment this statement is rather problematic. Basically every issue that weve talked about this year about nature and how we should act toward it are brought into question. Hargrove means to use this as proof that sabotage will get you killed and its wrong, but does anyone really own the environment? Some argue yes because you can have a little slip of paper that you bought telling you you own but the collective good of keeping ecosystems intact gives all of us a little bit of ownership since we all feel the benefits and consequences of destroying nature.
Hargrove is convinced by Locke's logic that saboteurs who are not first killed by society will begin killing society to save the earth. Hargrove has a legitimate concern as professor Grady pointed out with the tree spikers. I agree that there is a tipping point that turns ecological sabotage from prank to terrorism, but I do not think that the environmental movement would premeditate how to kill the people who are clearing the forests. It seems more like pranks gone bad that have unfortunately turned into terrorism because people have died as a result. I dont know a lot about this tree spiking but I would hope that after realizing it killed the harmless blue collar worker it would end. When it doesnt is when it turns into sabotage.

Interesting Short Article About Lies' Effectiveness

Here is a link to a little blurb I found about how lies are more effective

In summary, the author thinks that truth is always better in theory but that we don't live like that. In our modern world, reality is based in practicality and often we must lie to get our point across/bring attention to our problem.

Seems to me that the massive number of lies in our reality are perfect products of an imperfect society; we use them as bad means towards a good end.

http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/07/08/how-to-use-lies-for-good-or-why-honesty-isn%E2%80%99t-the-best-policy/