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/

Get sustainable or get out

Keller and Brummer bring up the production paradigm and how little it accounts for the ecological and aesthetic values of agriculture and the agroecosystem. As of now the only main concern is for the "greatest possible quantity of agricultural product." They call for a postmechanistic framework for a more sustainable agriculture. This method includes five principles, one of which describes the fact that we must begin to adopt a "plurality of methods,"rather than a single farming system. It is necessary to incorporate many systems, each adapted to its own region, to particular farmers and their regions as well. The point here is that postmechanism involves the non-economic values in land.

I'd like to call attention to another idea that Keller and Brummer bring up at the beginning, but perhaps leave out at the end. That is, the 'fact-value gap,' which explains that when we assert that a thing has "value," we are judging it based off of our own emotions, not of fact. We need to target this emotion factor (a very human factor) if we are to start using these "plurality of methods" in order to be more sustainable.

We live by emotions daily, why not use them more in the agroecosystem.

Patagonia

Patagonia - The Footprint Chronicles: Tracking the Environmental and Social Impact of Patagonia Clothing and Apparel

This link connects you to the "footprint chronicles" of patagonia.. they seem to understand Elkington and Hawken's points about a business not being completely sustainable until everyone around them is as well. Their statement on this website proves that.

Also (with a bit of love)

I meant to share this when we were talking about Grizzly Man and whatnot, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btuxO-C2IzE

d'awwww!

Economics.... Ugh!

Hoho! Just joshing, I've got no problem with economics (...)

So, in "Making Capitalism Sustainable," Mr. Elkington lays out (in a very economic fashion) several of the factors that make sustainable developments within capitalism so very hairy. Once I got my brain into technical-reading-mode, I found that he's actually got some good points here. The most useful tool he puts forth is what he calls the "Triple Bottom Line."
Elkington defines a company's bottom line in economics as "the profit figure used as the earnings figure in the earnings-per-share statement", so I suppose a net profit. His point is that one bottom line just isn't enough, but that we need three criteria on which to judge a company's sustainability: economic, environmental, and social.

Elkington makes the valid and significant point that overall sustainability is not achieved merely when any single bottom line proves sustainable, but only when all three interact in an overall sustainable way. In other words, it should never be considered "profitable" to pour pollutants into rivers and rely on child sweat-shop labor in foreign countries, no matter how much money is being made. Any economic system in which such practices ARE considered profitable must be flawed. He compares the bottom line fluctuations to continental drift, all able to operate independently of one another, but all still part of the Earth's overall ~'sustainability geography'~.
I think it's very interesting to view sustainability through this lens. Environmental sustainability's meaning is fairly straightforward, but what about economic and social?
It seems that economically sustainable practices would be not only profitable, but continually and adaptively profitable. For instance, it's all well and good to design the iPhone, but once better technology is introduced it is only profitable to create new models so that the one people already have becomes obsolete. Cha-ching! Otherwise, your profit from the iPhone is just a flash in the pan. (Of course this isn't environmentally sustainable at all...)

The idea of social sustainability is also very interesting. This would require a level of comfort and engagement in the workingplace that kept employee minds sharp and able to contribute most bountifully to an institution's productivity, as well as business practices that did not participate in social injustice. Elkington cites instances of social uprising that have brought companies to their knees. If business-as-usual causes upset in the minds of and tension with workers and/or the public, it will eventually snowball and cause a collapse of some sort or another. Such practices are ultimately self-defeating for any company, and thus not sustainable.

Elkington's point is that accountants, when preparing account reports for a company, should include a much broader range of gains and losses. Even economic capital, which is usually the only capital considered, needs to be broadened, and to reflect actual cost of a resource or profit rather than the merely economic cost.
Social and environmental capital should also be included. If a business is regularly causing harm to people or the environment, those costs need to be included in "the bottom line" profit margin. Thus, costs/profits would be an accurate and holistic reflection of the ultimate economic viability (and sustainability) of a business.

Elkington seems, to me, to have his finger on some important holes in our capitalist system, and does a good job of entangling economic durability with social and ecological justice. When coupled with Hawken's "Declaration of Sustainability," we seem to have some very solid and practical arguments for the sustainability movement. Both of these essays do a great job of arguing in a way that will make sense even to someone who doesn't give a rat's backside about the environment or other people.

As depressing as it is, many people simply will not listen to an argument for eco-friendliness if it requires that they make any sacrifices, or take any initiatives, or turn of lightbulbs when they leave a room. That's why we need economic arguments like these that won't, aherm..... take away anyone's godamm rights as an American!

I honestly haven't any critique to offer "Making Capitalism Sustainable." Elkington understands the system he is writing abut much more than I do. Any economists in the house?
~~~

A Few Notes on Population Growth

"The collapse of the death rate was in fact followed by a collapse of the fertility rate. Around the time of the industrial revolution, women began bearing steadily fewer children. In America, for instance, the average white woman had 7.04 children in 1800. By 1944, that number had eased to 2.22. This gradual decline became an absolute collapse once the Baby Boom ended. Since 1970, the fertility rate has dropped by more than 50 percent in nearly every country in the world. In many countries the decline has been closer to 75 percent. In some countries fertility rates have reached “lowest-low”—which is to say, lower than has ever been seen in human history. Today, no first-world country has a fertility rate above the replacement level of 2.1. Most developing countries are still above that mark, but are falling, fast.

Which means that, while total population keeps increasing, the rate of increase has slowed dramatically. Seven billion people may seem like a lot, but what the U.N. isn’t advertising is that over the last few decades population growth has consistently lagged behind projections. The U.N.’s 1994 model, for instance, had us hitting the 7 billion mark nearly three years ago. The real story of the 7 billionth birth is that fertility rates have fallen so far that population has been growing much more slowly than anyone predicted. And, as a corollary, this sluggish growth is likely to disappear as global population peaks, and then begins contracting.

Indeed, nearly every population model in recent years has suggested that, between 2050 and 2075, world population will top out at 9 billion to 12 billion. And after that it will begin shrinking." - Jonathan V. Last, Weekly Standard, November 14.

Given that the vast majority of this shift in fertility rates occurred not through any conscious government policy but through social changes (i.e., individuals making private choices about their own families), one wonders whether the notion that population growth cannot possibly be left up to the Smithian invisible hand holds much water. I won't pretend my source is impartial, but I'd be interested to see if there are coherent factual rebuttals at hand.

Ultimate Sustainabiity

Paul Hawken's, A Declaration of Sustainability, clearly lays out an extensive plan to combat environmental degradation and promote environmental health which would work in a newly born society, however his plans need much editing to be applied to the current world.

He begins with the example of Ben and Jerry's ice cream company. Ben and Jerry's is a company I would assume the majority of us have taken pleasure in at one time. Their initiatives to "redefine their social and ethical responsibilities" are commendable compared to many other companies. However, I think Hawken does a great point of recognizing that their ultimate goal is still to advance, and grow, and using resources efficiently clearly helps them do this, as noted the company is now currently taking over competitor franchise Haagen-Dazs. In the U.S., Ben and Jerry's is a household name, however it is one recognized for their tasty sweet treats, not their attention to sustainability and the environment. Therefore, Ben and Jerry's attention to these matters is overall not one effective enough to produce social change or create sustainability. Nor is it one that challenges others to combat eventual environmental degradation and over-exploitation of resources. This comes to Hawken's argument that in order to have a truly sustainable society, "we cannot fully succeed until institutions surrounding commerce are redesigned," a company level simply effort will not produce the necessary results.

My favorite of his suggested strategies is number two, "Adjust price to reflect cost." Although, it would also take years to establish a system to do this, I think it would be the most effective and all encompassing. Companies would be forced to use more environmentally friendly products or their production costs would outweigh sales. Therefore growth and advancement would specifically correlate with environmental health. Companies like Ben and Jerry would grow specifically because of their policies of ethical responsibilities, not simply because of their tasty products, and this would promote a larger social change. People everywhere would make more environmentally friendly purchases, because they would be more affordable. And subsidies on corn and other agricultural products would be vanquished, because they allow people to produce products without taking responsibility for the environmental effects.

Ultimately though, there are many other strategies that could promote just as large of a positive effect on environmental issues. So, what is the key to achieving the ultimate sustainable lifestyle? Hawken's outlines a total of 12 strategies for sustainability, basically stating the necessity for a complete social and political reform. His 12 strategies, in theory, are a perfectly acceptable solution to creating a sustainable lifestyle. However, in reality, this large of a reform would be virtually impossible. If all of these strategies were in fact, implemented, it would take years and years to put them in place and see the comprehensive positive effects, especially strategy three, where Hawken claims the necessity "to throw out an replace the entire tax system." By the time a change such as this could occur and be agreed on, our resources could be already depleted to a level beyond repair. Although Hawken's points are valid, an outline of strategies this extensive can hold no true argument simply because it is unrealistic.

A defense of the Invisible hand

Today in class we talked about the global ramifications of continuing the global trends of over population and straining our finite supply of natural resources. We talked a lot about the global ramifications of continuing to squander our limited resources, but we did not focus on the consequences that apply only to us Americans.

One of the interesting points that I found in commoner that we didn’t get a chance to go over in class is the idea that at the current rate of population growth Americans will soon be overshadowed by the soon to be much larger populations of third world countries. This perspective interests me because when talking about overpopulation and the limitations of our earth sustainability, we normally do so from a global perspective. The argument made by some might be that because over population is a global problem that it affects everyone equally. This would be true if we were to limit ourselves to the lack of natural resources, and not also on massive over population in certain areas of the globe.

A nationalistic perspective on the issue of over population brings to mind a threat presented to the United States from third world countries. If third world countries continue to overpopulate, the United States and all other industrial countries around the globe are directly in danger of these populations, which the industrial world has exploited for so long. Therefore, even from a nationalistic perspective, it is in the best interest of individual nations, as well as the globe on the whole to control population growth.

This brings me back to another concept we discussed today in class: the invisible hand argument presented by Adam Smith in the wealth of nations. Smith argues that by a person acting in their own selfish interest, they inadvertently help the whole. We discussed today in class that the invisible hand model doesn’t work because of the problem of the tragedy of commons, or the idea that in a society where there is a limited amount of resources being used by an entire population, and that if one person in that population takes advantage of the supply of resources, the other people in that population will suffer.

My point is this, it is in the best interest of industrial nations to control the population growth of these third world countries so that they do not begin to outnumber those members of industrial countries and rebel against industrial nations. Thus it is in the best person interest of industrial nations to stagnate the population of third world countries, and at the same time by limiting the population of these countries industrialized nations would inadvertently help these countries achieve a higher standard of living and reduce the strain on the globes natural resources. This is how the invisible hand works and I contest that it applies just as well to this problem of overpopulation as it does in our nation, and Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

The Ecological Necessity of Confronting the Problem of Human Overpopulation

In his article “The Ecological Necessity of Confronting the Problem of Human Overpopulation” Garrett Hardin takes an essentially economic standpoint in assessing population. He critiques Jeremy Bentham’s idea of striving for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ yet retains utilitarianism conception of maximizing pleasures and minimizing pains. He uses this framework to explain how economic incentives can be used to assess situations of commonly owned property. The story of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ shows us that when property is not owned individually (or at least not privatized) each person using the land has an incentive to use too much of it because his costs are divided up between everyone who is using the land. He reaps all the benefits and yet suffers only a fraction of the losses.

Hardin then goes on to argue that the tragedy of the commons can inform the way we think about carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is “the maximum number of a species that can be supported indefinitely by a particular habitat, allowing for seasonal and random changes, without degradation of the environment and without diminishing carrying capacity in the future” (438). Hardin argues that how we treat the environment, animal populations, and ultimately human populations should be a function of the carrying capacity. He argues that through technology we can increase the world’s carrying capacity, but ultimately we, as a species, are going to have to take some serious steps to controlling our population.

While I agree that overpopulation is an extremely pertinent and difficult question, I believe that Hardin fundamentally is approaching the problem in the wrong way. He opts for an essentially technological solution to a technological problem. While he does include ‘knowledge’ as a part of his solution, the knowledge he advocates for is knowledge concerning contraceptives. Instead of knowledge, I would argue people need to better understand the problem. A well rounded education will do much more good than knowing how to use a condom. Perhaps at the heart of my critique of Hardin’s approach to the problem is that he sees human beings as things or objects instead of people. He says things like “the child who is saved today becomes a breeder tomorrow” and argues that dropping atomic bombs would be better than food: “for a few moments the misery would be acute, but it would soon come to an end for most of the people, leaving a very few survivors to suffer thereafter.” He denies the validity of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Hardin ends with this statement: “A country that gives food to other countries must also insist on evidence of responsible actions. Only by such insistence can the donor nation make sure that the next generation in the recipient nation has a chance at a decent life. Making these tough conditions is the kindest thing we can do for the needy peoples of the world. And ultimately for the whole world” (442). While I am all for oversight, this statement is naively patronizing at best, and violently hubristic at worst. It assumes that we ‘the rich’ know what is best for them ‘the poor’ and that we could and should make decisions for others because they are not are not capable of making them for themselves. Overall, I find that Hardin’s approach to be deeply troubling. In his attempt to secure a ‘better life’ he sacrifices the most important aspect of human society: the ability to be treated as a full and robust human being.

Only 1.3 kids per family, please

In “Impact of Population
Growth,” Ehrlich and Holdren offer their take on how recent human population
patterns are harming the local and global environment. Among the first
assumptions is that each human is ecologically harmful due to agricultural
dependence and resource use, a population’s total negative impact determined by
the size of the population as well as per capita consumption. However, it is
stressed that per capita harm is not independent of population size, the
following formula used to explain: I = P * F(P); I representing total
environmental impact, P representing population size, and F standing for per
capita input. Per capita increases due
to population growth are explained in terms of environmental thresholds; in
other words, once human demand is greater than natural availability,
exponential amounts of energy and resources tend to be consumed in order to
fulfill the extra demand. Among examples is water, as overuse required multiple
quality treatments, each increase costing more than the previous. Economies of
scale, therefore, are claimed to produce diminishing returns as opposed to
greater efficiency.
Attention is also called
towards the global scale, as increased pollution and overexploitation of
resources can lead to resource depletion, as seen in the fishing industry. In
addition, major consumer countries, such as the U.S., are mentioned as overdeveloped
due to the use of superior technological abilities in acquisitions of otherwise
depleted resources at the expense of developing nations.
Population density is
discussed as misleading in asserting population problems, as the Netherlands
may have 18x the density of the U.S. yet both countries suck up
disproportionate amounts of precious resources. Large scale environmental
problems from consumption were suggested to be independent of distribution and
it’s not like loading up a pattywagon with city dwellers for rural drop-off is
a feasible option, most people are there for a reason.
The fourth point
attempted to broaden the notion of “environment” in terms of overpopulation
with brief connections to prioritization of urban slums by the residents, the
tendency for people to get pissed off when in a crowd for too long, and the
viability of contagious diseases that could bring back the plague…
Lastly, the paper
criticizes modern technology for its inadequacy in practice, offering shifts of
environmental harm instead of solutions. The problem seems to be that
technology tends to cope with growing demands of swelling populations instead
of addressing the issues of their scarcity. Aside from population control,
redirection of technology from such goals and closed resource cycles are recommended.
Though I feel like the
point about the dangers of exponential population growth is valid, the general attitude
is a bit pessimistic. Perhaps it’s because the paper is from 1969, because
current clean energy movements and research such as hydroponic farming offer
hope for the future. Felt like the writers were hoping for another world war or
maybe the super-flu to take care of things and just not saying it. Still, its
2011, there’s more people than ever, and somehow we’re still living.

The Question Concerning Heidegger doesn't really make sense...

In the second half of his essay "The Question Concerning Technology", Heidegger argues that old-school technology was based in the four causes of Aristotle. This old technology was basically insturmental, yet it was still capable of being revealing. On the other hand, what Heidegger calls "modern technology" (I would hate to see what he would say about our current level of technology) is capable of challenging. By challenging, I think Heidegger means capable of forcing nature to supply energy which can be forced into a standing reserve. Thus, our view of nature is transformed into one where we see all of the natural world as merely resources to human control. This radical shift in our view of nature is one of the dangers Heidegger is most concerned with. However, he does argue at the end of the article that art can save us. Not really sure how that works though.. But in this modern technology with its ability to challenge nature, Heidegger argues that the entire world appears to be under human control. The problem with this is that eventually this can lead to humans being under the same control. The distorted world view that modern technology has created will inevitably end in humans also becoming part of the standing reserve. Our desperate need to control our world will lead to us enslaving ourselves. Interesting. The positive aspect that I did manage to pick our from this is that Heidegger must be some sort of a quasi-enviornmentalist. If he argues against the enslavement of nature and humans into the standing reserve, the most resonable alternative would be that Heidegger believes all natural things should be free from technology and control. In a sense, I think that is a hint of environmentalism.
But the big problem I have with Heidegger is his idea of "Ge-Stell". Heidegger's ambiguous, misleading, and completely unhelpful language did not give me an accurate understanding of what exactly this "ge-stell" was even by the end of the article. He says it is of non-human origin but yet is not technological.
What exactly does Heidegger mean when he says "Enframing is the gathering together which belongs to that setting-upon which challenges man and puts him in position to reveal the actual, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve"

Louis CK on technology

Humans ≠ materialists

http://comedians.jokes.com/louis-c-k-/videos/uncensored---louis-c-k----the-miracle-of-flight/

technology reading

Is this reading suggesting that humans are tools too in the process of revealing? The author states that "man is challenged, ordered" as nature is when it's used for its resources. So are we being used for our knowledge as a tool similar to natural resources?

Just trying to understand what the author is trying to say about humans in this whole process or line of thinking

Charlie Russell on Treadwell and "Grizzly Man"

Here's the link to Charlie Russell's reflections on the life of Tim Treadwell, and its depiction in Herzog's film. Though I think it's important not to conflate two very different lives, I think that Russell offers us a glimpse of what a project like Treadwell's might look like if liberated from the dark side of his personality, and from the (arguable) distortion of the documentarian's lens.

The Grizzley Man

First off, I'm sad I had to miss the class screening of this film (I had a soccer game), but I would love to hear some of the things you all discussed. I hope to raise some questions everyone can respond to as well.

So, in summary, this documentary shows Timothy Treadwell and his footage from living with grizzly bears in Alaska for 13 summers. Timothy wrote that he felt more at home in wild nature than in the human world. He speaks of his troubles with women and from his tapes of himself you can tell that he is a unique individual who does not fit in with our world. This documentary is so significant because his life's work was to protect the very species that ended up killing him. Some may view this as ironic or horrible, but his friends in the film emphasized how Tim wanted to die out in Alaska doing what he loved. He always left the same woman's house before camping in Alaska and would say on his way out "I love you" and something to the effect of If I don't come back, it's what I want.

Timothy obviously does not feel comfortable in the human world, as is emphasized in his decision to stay in Alaska because of airline difficulties, which was the decision that ultimately proved fatal. Living in Alaska gave Timothy a replacement for social interactions because he viewed the foxes and bears as his family, naming them and loving them as such.

The eerie thing is that in his last few days, Treadwell emphasizes the danger he lives with every minute of every day.

He knew he should camp in the open, but he set up camp in the brush and made himself invisible in the Grizzly maze. He talks about how this is the most dangerous living situation than in human history:

"every second of every day...i am right on the precipice of great bodily harm, or even death...there is no,no,no other place in the world that is more dangerous, more exciting than the grizzly maze. come here, come here and try to camp here, do what i do and you will die. you will die here, you will freakin die, here. they will get you. I found a way, I found a way to survive with them".

So Timothy knew he was tempting fate by not abiding by his own safety rules and in the end, he ended up dying for his carelessness. One question that arises here is Do you see Timothy as someone with a gift, able to cross lines that have been established for thousands of years dividing humans and bears? Or is he undoing work and further endangering these bears as one man suggested in the film by allowing them to think that humans are compassionate and not dangerous, when the reality is that groups of poachers come into the area every year? Tim obviously views himself as at home with the bears and having a special relationship with them, but in the end he is obviously killed by these animals who were supposedly his friends or family. Is this because we as humans are not naturally allowed into their world? Is there inherently something that divides us as humans from the base nature that bears, foxes, and the like live in?

Overall Timothy seems to have a skewed vision of nature, ignoring the natural dangers or sadnesses that occur (such as the Grizzlies killing their young to survive the drought), but is there something to his vision that he has made a momentous step towards connecting with this species? Or is all of his work undercut because he was killed by the very animals he was defending?

The last point I want to touch on is how this film related to our reading from yesterday. Tim mentions how he lives on the edge of life and death each day in Alaska. Hatley hypothesized that this feeling you get when looking into the eye of death, as Tim was each day, you are given a new perspective on the world and a whole new moral compass in a sense. Do you think that Tim's skewed vision of the world and displacement from it was because he spent so much time with these creatures in constant danger and this drove him to consider the world totally different than other humans? Or do you see him as a unique individual who had his views set before he lived with Grizzlies?

Personally I think his experiences changed him, especially because of his parents' description of him when he was growing up, but I don't want to go into that because I want yall to have some input. Thoughts??

betsy

Video- akin to Food Inc. but with a religious spin

We just watched this film in my Environmental Theology class, and moved me more than Food Inc. so I would recommend watching it. It is less focused on the political side of our food industry, but the morals behind it taking a Christian viewpoint on the issues. It is still very graphic, just so you're forewarned.

Eating Mercifully - A Documentary that Explores Christian Perspectives on Factory Farming

This is a link I just found online, but I think you can check it out from Rhodes as well.

It was put on by the Humane Society and it's titled "Eating Mercifully: The Humane Society of the United States"

There's an offer going on now where you can order it for free! just FYI

Go to the humane society website, or google the movie and the link should pop up.

Betsy

Ethical Cannibalism

From reading this article by Hatley, I found myself wondering a seemingly strange question... Why is it that we demonize the eating of the flesh of man and not the flesh of other beasts?

We have focused most of our discussions around the consuming of animals other than human, and on whether they have moral standing, yet I wonder what the real physical difference is between eating, say bear, and eating human?

One might argue that we kill the bear and eat it for food, and it is not a moral agent so we are free to do so. To this argument, I ask, what of all of our deceased that die of natural causes? If they are merely meat, and we being omnivorous creatures prefer to eat meat, then why let such a bountiful supply of it (especially in the obese stricken countries such as America) go to waste? It seems to me that we are creating a distinction between meat and flesh and we are privileging ourselves with the qualification of fleshy creatures. This seems wrong to me when you realize that the two are one and the same.

I think the real reason lies within a sort of superiority complex combined with a species-chauvinism that allows us to believe that we shouldn't eat our own because 1.) humans are deserving of more respect, and 2.) we should show loyalty to those who are like us. But this seems to lead to many of the same problems that have been discussed previously about chauvinism, namely that we have seen this idea displayed regarding race and sexuality in the past.

What do you all think? Is there truly a real difference between eating man and animal meat? And if not, then is the carnivorous advocate necessarily also arguing for the possibility of eating man to be ethically allowed?

On The Uncanny Goodness of Being Edible to Bears

"I, timothy garton, being of sound mind but dead body, do hereby bequeath my mortal remains to feed the Grizzly Bears of North America. Respect my body. Do no embalm! (A little mustard would be appreciated.) Please put me in a deep freezer if I must be held for a few days. Should my family refuse to claim me, or should I be indignant at the time of my demise, please explain to the County that I can be mailed to a wilderness (as evidenced by the presence of grizzlies and/or wolves. Please remove my eyes, kidneys and heart for the living, but retain my liver because I think Griz would like that most" (Peacock 123-24).

Although this statement seems somewhat unconventional and sardonic, I believe that it gets to the bosom of Hatley's argument. Human beings are an amalgam of flesh and green: "Before one can be oneself, whether that self be human or bear, one's body is already inextricably interwoven with all other bodies" (22). In that sense, we are no different than the Grizzly Bears that are the major protagonists in this narrative. In fact (to the dismay of many I am sure), it is likely that the deaths of many human beings have served to fertilize land and soil that has then provided a place for seed to grow yielding plants that we have eaten. Our appropriation of nature has produced in us a distorted perspective of how flesh is recycled into other organisms. Human beings have created a false reality where every living organism is available for ingestion with the exception of ourselves (15). This skew in our understanding does not atomically make us any more or less edible to predatory animals; however, most consider it inhumane, when a bear eats a human being. The Kantian explanation for the immoral act on behalf of the bear is that now the human being has become a means to an end, rather than an end. Of course, in his "critique of judgment," Kant recognizes many animals as ends in themselves. Importantly, Hatley points out that this is predominantly a construct of western thought: "To conclude that eating another being necessarily involves its reduction to a mere means ignores the testimony of many non-Western cultures that one's relationship to food should be structured primarily as sharing with it, in the very act of eating and being nourished by it, a communal participation in lie that crosses over the boundary between the human and the non-human" (18). Becoming part of one of the most powerful mammals on Earth sounds a hell of a lot better than being burned to ash or rotting away in a casket (cremation, by the way, apparently takes hours and consumes a ton of energy).

But are we not intrinsically valuable and non-humans merely extrinsically valuable? Well, Hatley answers this question by referring to another ethicist called Holmes Ralston who contends that viewing organisms as being either intrinsically or extrinsically valuable is paradoxical. In one sense, all living things are natural ends; therefore, they are intrinsically valuable. At the same time, as members of the ecosystem, they help perpetuate the stability and biodiversity of the whole; thus, they are also extrinsically valuable.

I think Hatley's most important point is that "humans are called in a way that the bear is not to limit our notion of the edible" (23). With our rationality, we have the opportunity, in most cases, to decide what we eat and how we come about that food. Human beings are the only species with a sense of morality--a conscience--but we are also the only species that needs that. The bear cannot be inhumane in the same way that humans can be: "Bears are inhumane in a manner that is beyond the humanly inhumane. For this reason, it can be claimed that their claim upon us as their food is uncanny. Or more than human" (24).

Soybeans over Cattle?

Singer's paper raises many interesting points in the support for veganism over meat consumption in relation to environmental conservation. One of the facts that Singer uses for this theory is the vast t of grain used to feed steeds. Singer claims that this is not only wasteful (13 pnds of grain per pound of beef & a 3 to 1 grain ratio to chickens), but also places a greater demand on the environment. This is due to the large amount of argricultural land needed to produce the grain for animal feed, despite the protein equivalence in meat and soybeans. Singer also discusses the deforestation of the rainforests for grain production, claiming that we are indirect causes of deforestation wether or not we consume american beed fed on american grain. Due to the "global" market, rainforests are being cut down ar a rate of 6million acres/year due to the influences from meat production. Another point brought up by Singer is the large amount of water needed for cattle consumption and grain production for cattle. According to Singer, the most reliable research has found that 792 000 gallons of watre are needed for a 1 000 pnd steer, which is 12 x the amount for bread, 64 x for potatoes, and 86 x for tomatoes. Additonally, over grazing by cattle produces barren lands due to soil erosion and causes stream pollution.

I found that these facts made me want to agree with Singer that vegans are better for the environment. However, I wonder how the environment would look if cattle were not eaten but soybeans and grains dominated the landscape. I feel that we would still be using water at a rate which is too quick for aquifers to be restored and stream and lakes to be restored. Additionally, if soy consumption were to increase, clearing of the rainforests would not decrease. I imagine that it would stay level, but instead of being shipped off as grain feed, it would be shipped away as vegetarian burger patties. Also, agriculture, no mater what the crop or animal, always creates poor soil and pollution. However, one fact brought up by Singer is the death of thousands of coyotes by ranchers trying to protect tehir livestock. I feel that coyotes would more less likely to be killed or maimed if the ranchers were protecting soybean harvests since I seriously doubt soybean is a favorite food for coyotes.

Therefore, I'm not sure I can agree with Singer. I feel that the agriculture production needed to be a vegan, no animal products whatsoever, would have its toll on the environment. Thre are so many products that come from meat, but I like the idea of over 6 thousand not dead or tortured coyotes. Also, it would be great if I produced 1.5 tons less CO2 than I do now. However, I feel that Singer's ethical argument against animals may work better than the envornmental argument because we do not know what the environmental effects would be if meat consumption was non existent.

Thoughts on "The Cove"

Last Wednesday the philosophy film series showed “The Cove”: A film about the practice of dolphin hunting off the coast of Thaiji Japan. I didn’t get a chance to view the film at he screening with the rest of you guys, so I watched it over fall break and decided to air my thoughts on the blog.

What caught my attention was not that Ric O’Barry advocated for the rights of the dolphin to be protected, and thus guard against hunting them. Instead, what caught my attention was the argument Barry uses to defend his position that dolphins should be protected under the Whaling commission’s regulations. Barry says that the first event which caused him to question the way in which dolphins were treated in captivity was on the set of “Flipper”: the T.V. series. While Barry was training one of the dolphins that played the part of flipper, Barry says that the dolphin knowingly and consciously chose to stop its own breathing, resulting in the dolphins death. Barry claims the dolphin, “committed suicide”.

Barry claims that it was at this moment of watching this dolphin lose its life as a result of it being depressed. This depression Barry claims was a result of living in captivity for several years. Barry argues that dolphins are, like humans, “social creatures” and that they have very complex ways of communicating. Barry says that the sonar calls which dolphins use to communicate with one another is more complex than we humans can imagine. This leads Barry to the conclusion that dolphins are “smart”.

We have seen before in thinkers like Aristotle and Beacon that the ability to communicate is something that separates the humans from the animals. Other criteria like reason, and intelligence have also been classically identified as the standard for a being to be recognized as morally considerable. This is where Barry’s argument that dolphins should be protected because of their intelligence loses its footing.

While I don’t wish to condemn Barry for advocating for dolphin rights, I don’t think any person would except for maybe the fishermen of Thaiji, it bothers me that his argument is a thin veil hiding a speciesist attitude. If Barry wishes to extend moral considerability to dolphins on the basis of their intelligence, Barry must also concede, which I don’t think he would be happy doing, that there are plenty of animals which aren’t intelligence, but are being poached every day, and in greater numbers than dolphins. If human-like intelligence is the basis for Barry’s claim that dolphins should be equally morally considerable to humans, he must also consent that those animals without signs of human intelligence are not morally considerable, or change the basis for his advication for dolphin rights.

Egg Carton Labels

Hey guys! This is the egg label site I showed you guys Friday!

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/guide_egg_labels.html

Food, Inc. and the Conscientious Omnivore

We spent a lot of time in class the other day talking about Singer’s different classifications of ethical eaters regarding meat. Food, Inc. covered a lot of ground, so I’m only going to focus on the sections on meat, since that’s the subject on which we’ve been discussing and reading. While I didn’t rank the conscientious omnivore as the most ethical of the choices (I don’t know if anyone did), after watching the film I am convinced that they are the most important group in enacting change in the modern practice of meat farming, and, by extension, the most optimal in a utilitarian context.

We discussed how dumpster divers have essentially “opted out” of the entire system by eating the waste that would be there either way. When it comes to the meat industry, Vegans and Vegetarians (for the most part) have essentially opted out as well, along with responsible hunters who get their meat by their own means. The meat industry would obviously not be interested in serving their needs and listening to their preferences since they have no financial interest to do so. The only relevant groups to the multinational meat producers, then, are factory farm omnivores and conscientious omnivores.

The large mega-slaughterhouses that were displayed in the film not only create more hazards to the consumer (i.e., an increased risk of E. Coli) but also inflict upon the animals substantial pains both in their lives and their deaths. The film also showed an alternative to these slaughterhouses in the farmer guy wearing a goofy hat whose farm was substantially more humane and still economically viable. The animals raised and slaughtered under those circumstances were also shown to be healthier for the consumer. The brief section of the film on the growing organic branch of the food industry clearly showed that the large food companies are only as tied to certain practices as they are to the profits those practices produce, as corporations like Wal-Mart were jumping onto the organic bandwagon with both feet. If conscientious omnivores become numerous and vociferous enough to make changing the method of raising and slaughtering animals economically appealing, the same large meat companies that treat animals so deplorably now will change those practices and laugh all the way to the bank. How is that transformation going to happen? Probably very slowly, with media like Food, Inc., which exposes those current practices that the large meat companies take great pains to hide.

The only important things to measure in the utilitarian calculus are pleasures and pains that an action causes. While vegans, vegetarians, responsible hunters, and dumpster divers are all well and good, the vast majority of Americans, the factory farm omnivores, have little interest in converting to any of those. The chance for a good amount of them to become conscientious omnivores, however, seems entirely feasible. That conversion on a large scale, I think, would be the best way to reduce a large amount of pain while increasing pleasure as well, not only for the animals, but also for us.

Yikes.

Yet again another serious outbreak of food-born illness as a result of poorly monitored farming practices: In colorado, there was a out break of Listeria, which has killed twenty-five already.

Arne Naess, "The Shallow and Deep Ecology Movement" : Saving the World in Seven Points

Arne Naess is careful to distinguish the conceptual foundations and practical agenda of "deep ecology" from its shallower cousin, which Naess identifies with the effort to reduce pollution and resource depletion in isolation from broader questions concerning human ways of life as a whole. This "shallow ecology" is very much on the to-do list of many prominent governmental and non-governmental elites, but in Naess' view it is Deep Ecology which in fact resonates with a much broader audience, which he appears to identify as any of the critics or discontents of modern global capitalism. Deep Ecology represents a much more comprehensive series of prescriptions than merely fighting global warming or saving endangered species; indeed, for Naess it is a "system" or "ecosophy" of wideranging normative and deeply political claims, which generally fall into seven key points:

1. A systemic orientation, whereby systems (such as the biosphere) must be thought of as greater than the sum of their parts, rather than in terms of individual entities which ostensibly compose them.

2. Biospheric egalitarianism: a total rejection of anthropocentrism in principle, even if implementation of this ethic must progress in stages which contain vestiges of "exploitation and repression".

3. Principles of diversity and symbiosis; that is, that diversity in both the non-human and human spehres (in terms of cultures, traditions, economies, etc.) as well as a "live-and-let live" ethic are guiding principles.

4. Anti-class posture: as a consequence of this preference for diversity and cooperation over competition, dominating social structures by any group over another are reprobated.

5. Combating resource depletion and pollution: This point is fairly obvious, but Naess is keen to emphasize that it should not be taken in isolation from the others (such would be "shallow" ecology).

6. Complexity, not complication: This point is part epistemelogical and part practical, emphasizing the limits of human knowledge in regard to complex systems such as the natural world and an "elastic" approach to problem-solving, which Naess argues would combine conservative and radical principles in its political approach.

7. Local autonomy and decentralization: The value of diversity as well as the negative ecological effects of globalization entail a preference for local decision making and self-government.

Some questions for Naess' ecological program arise from the tension between this preference for decentralization and the seeming need for centralized power to effect some of the other sweeping changes he advocates; Naess notes this apparent contradiction but does not fully attempt to reconcile these positions. More broadly, the platform of the Deep Ecology movement stands for changes with "consequences for all aspects of human life"; one wonders as to the prospects for such a movement, given that they aim to change the material conditions of human existence in a manner that has not been accomplished since the Industrial Revolution: and that development was not a directed, normatively-driven shift.

The question then, is of the moral and political merits of this prospective Deep Ecological Revolution, and perhaps whether it stands to gain any traction in the world as we find it.

Andrew McLaughlin's "The Heart of Deep Ecology"

Deep Ecology refers to the belief that all nature has value. Deep Ecology does not just say that pollution is bad. This would be shallow ecology. Rather Deep Ecology looks at the greater web of social issues that can stem from the poor relationship that humans have with the environment. Andrew McLaughlin lays out a platform of eight claims about the relationship of humans to the rest of nature. Nauture in this instance is not just living creatures and plants but extends to the soil, rivers, and oceans etc. The platforms promote non anthropocentrism and "entail radical social change." The platform is as follows:

1.) human and non-human life is important. It has value apart from the way it can be used by humans.
2.) Life forms are different, but we should cherish the diversity not see some forms of life as higher or lower than others.
3.)Humans have no right to be excessive in their use of diverse natural beings. We must use nature to sustain ourselves, but we must not indulge in wants and consumerism.
4.) A gradual depopulation of people will save cultures and make lives better. As it is now, the lives of many people are not fully satisfied because there are not enough resources for everyone.
5.) humans excessively interfere with the non-human world: if we stop doing this we can even help save diverse indigenous cultures that can live off the lands we destroy sustainably.
6.)policies must change: what exactly should be sustained? We must sustain the diversity of life form.
7.)We need to appreciate life quality rather than always wanting a greater standard of living. in this way, humans will be happier.
8.)We have either an indirect or direct duty to make the changes necessary to implement the other 7 claims.

I personally think that I like this "deep ecology" platform because it shows that there are greater social implications to why we need to stop pollution and why we need to not clearcut forests. I do have some questions about the movement.

1.) McLaughlin talks about how if we save wilderness from industry we can in fact be saving diverse indigenous cultures. While I do not thin kits wrong to save these places or these people I'm not sure about whether or not McLaughlin is discrediting his and our unique culture. He talks abut how important this diversity is and I'm not sure he gives enough credit to how diverse a people we are apart from indigenous cultures.
2.) On a similar note, McLaughlin is solely thinking about saving these indigenous cultures from "us" the big bad people who are ruining the planet and all its diversity. He does not think about what these cultures may want. His view is from our perspective and we have no way of knowing what is best for these cultures or if they want to exist completely separate from us.

I think McLaughlin gets a lot of things right especially when he talks about how we must appreciate our life and appreciate the quality of the things we have and not always want a constant replacement of consumer goods. His idea about the population being far too large is pretty spot on but I cannot fathom enough social change to happen to stop population from growing and rather decrease.

Biotic ethics

Callicott is on a quest to find where (and how) our ethical thoughts first originated. He aims to follow the development of our ethics through history, with specific references to Leopold's "Land Ethic."
Did our ethics come from God (or gods)? Callicott says that can't be right because scientific principle states that such supernatural explanations (like religion) can hold no water with regards to natural phenomena.
Hume and Adam Smith believe that our ethics came from our animal feelings and sentiments.
Darwin argues that the tight bonds that families have with their kin spread throughout larger populations, giving rise to such ethical feelings. Callicott goes further, quoting Darwin: "the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts" (203).
Callicott proposes ecological thought, which also involves an individual's relationship with the whole (in this case, the whole environment).
So ethics and society or community are correlative.
But it is also true, according to Callicott, that ecological relationships determine the nature of organisms, not the other way around (207).
The whole ends up shaping the parts that make it up. So, the very soil, solar energy, food chains and death and decay are part of this biotic whole. We are in there right along with everything else, and I agree that there is a certain level of respect that goes along with being a part of this whole. It is not as if we will no longer be a part of the whole if our laziness and neglect of consequences of our actions will get us kicked out. We will be in in no matter what, so we best continue thinking how we affect the whole, because this whole represents us as well.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2340#comic

For those of us who care for our animal friends-

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3

For every click, sponsors donate money to help feed and care for animals currently in shelters. =]

Bias, A Dish Best Served Hot

In Singers article, “All Animals Are Equal”, singer argues that humanity as a whole is guilty of discriminating against nonhuman animals. Singer calls humans that discriminate against animals in this way: Specialists. Singer’s argument is that if one views the treatment of animals in accordance with the way that humans have been discriminated against throughout history, one will see that the plight of the nonhuman animal is very similar to minority humans.

Singer recounts the black liberation movement, and the women’s rights movements as two prime examples of minority groups that have demanded the same rights as their white male counterparts. The striking parallel that is drawn in this essay is not merely the parallel between these movements and the avocation for animal rights, but instead how blacks, women, and Native Americans all were portrayed as animals before they received their position as equals among white males. Singer notes that, like animals, these groups were seen as commodities that only served the end of the majority. Women were seen as concubines for child bearing before they received equal rights as males. Both Africans and Native Americans were used purely for their labor, and could be held as property into the nineteenth century. All of these groups were before they achieved equal rights, like animals are today, only a resource for human ends.

This way of thinking about animals as a product is something that Singer argues is a consequence of our bias towards them and nothing more. This bias first and foremost is formed in the way that we interact with animals. Singer notes that for most of the human population we only interact directly with animals at the dinner table, or we interact with them indirectly when we purchase products, which have been tested on animals. Both of these examples color the lenses through which we understand and interact with animals. These lenses are the bias, which Singer refers to, and it is a viewpoint that we need to adjust in order to talk about the issue of animal rights.

Singers next move is to present a couple of thought exponents. Singer claims that one common justification for using animals as test subjects in experiments is that using them ultimately spares thousands of human lives. Singers counter argument to this is the following: what if by using an orphaned human infant for chemical-testing thousands of human lives could be saved? This example may seem farfetched but Singer is able to show why it is not. Singer points out that nearly any line we may draw in an attempt to divide moral obligations to human and moral obligations to animals is not clear-cut. If we use reason as our basis it is easy to find humans that lack reason. If it is that humans are purposeful, it is also clear that animals have a natural purpose. While it is clear that we are “different” from animals to me, it is not easy to say exactly how we owe or don’t owe the same moral consideration to them as we do to our own species.

It is clear after reading singers article that I too am bias towards my own species. If I were forced to choose between a person’s life and an animal’s life I would most certainly choose the person. Singer’s argument revolves around and irritates this bias that I have, and I think I am safe in saying we all share. But, the difference that I see in myself and singer is that I am ok with that bias. I do not think that I am justified in choosing the life of an animal over the life of a fellow human, but I feel completely at ease with that choice nonetheless. It may not be morally right, but I do not think we owe the same moral considerations to animals that we do to other people. Besides, animals taste too good not to eat anyway.

No one is equal.

Peter Singer's write this piece to advocate a liberation movement. He believes that humans particularly view equality with an anthropocentric eye and says that it is now time for this equality be "extended to other species" (169) outside of just our own. I think Singer has a very interesting perspective on this, and has great examples to back up his rhetoric. As he says " it simply is not true that all humans are equal" (170). If equality was based on the actually equality of all human beings, equality of human beings would be impossible to argue. We are not all equal in skills, abilities, intelligence, etc., but knowing this still as Singer draws out does not detain us from holding needs of the intelligent or less equal humans less important.

However, I would argue with this point and say that we do not view ourselves equally as a species. There are many instances in society where we undervalue the needs of others because we feel they are subordinate. I do not believe Singer can accurately suggest humanity believes in equality among our own society, because we are all self-interested and do not necessarily consider the needs and interests of others at all. We hold are selves higher than any other. Therefore, when animals promote our own well-being, humans are also likely to view their needs more important than a fellow human's who we feel to be less important than our selves.

Although, I personally do believe that animals should be considered in the actions we daily take, I am not convinced this can be done through Singer's idea of spreading equality to species outside of our own. I think we already do this, in so long as it benefits our individual good. I think the solution still lies in detoxing humans of their anthropocentric views, in order for any advances at all to be made in respecting animals and other humans for that matter.

Animals as Subjects-of-a-Life

Tom Regan begins his article Animals as Subjects-of-a-Life by saying that he is an advocate of animal rights. He argues that the wrong being done to animals is a function of the entire system. While details may be more heart wrenching, we need to address how we conceive of animals on the whole. Regan addresses three accounts that he argues ultimately fail to provide an adequate understanding of morality with respect to animals. He first looks at the ‘Kantian account,’ which says that one has an obligation to animals not for their own sake, but because if one treats animals poorly, one is more likely to treat humans poorly. Regan dismisses this as speciesism. He then looks at the ‘cruelty account,’ which says that an act is immoral if it is cruel; that is to say, if the actor takes pleasure from the pain of another individual. Regan dismisses this because it relies on the mental states of the agents. Lastly, he looks at the ‘utilitarian account,’ which he says advocates two principles: that desires are equal regardless of the individual that has them and that the greatest good (satisfying the most desires) for the greatest number should be promoted. Regan dismisses this because it can lead to speciesism if certain individuals (namely animals) are not considered in the moral calculus.

After rejecting these three accounts, Regan argues for an ‘animal rights’ account. This account advocates that “the rights of the individual trump the goals of the group,” except if one has “very good reason” to believe that violating a right will prevent a “vastly greater harm” (165). (Although he doesn’t articulate what these ‘good reasons’ are or what constitutes a ‘vastly greater’ in reference to harm). Regan grounds his animal rights theory in the Kantian notion that individuals have a kind of inherent value. He argues that this inherent value comes not from being an end in itself, but from having a life (as opposed to merely being alive). It is not clear exactly what this distinction entails, but Regan argues that disallows prejudices on the basis of species. If humans have rights, he argues, then animals have rights too.

intelli-junts

Chip Ward gives his take on intelligence with plenty of examples and cynicism in "Is the Crown of Creation a Dunce Cap?" Ward begins with the concept of human intelligence, suggesting that the vast advances and developments of the human race that have placed us at the peak of power on Earth don't reflect the intelligence of the common human; imagine if the educated generations and recorded knowledge disappeared, subsequent generations would quickly plummet to a primitive lifestyle. Furthermore, Ward infers that while we judge the importance of beings on their intelligence, our intelligence largely depends on accumulated mechanical predictability and lacks understanding of long-term dynamics, often leading us to self-harm. Our susceptibility to emotion is also noted as a downfall as it repeatedly results in societies thinking they are smarter than they prove to be with time, seen with each collapsed civilization. Intelligence, according to Ward, can be described as the ability to learn from experience and apply the knowledge for future benefit. Ward links this notion to the "intelligence" of mushrooms that adapt to soil change like computers or the flu virus that annually overcomes the efforts of our top drug designers but I found it hard to buy (the mushroom example being merely mechanically advanced in nature and the success of the flu being due to rapid replication/mutation, as you never actually have the same virus twice). Ward also discusses swarm intelligence, dependent on following simple rules and local stimuli, as highly functional and, thus, valuable. The part about Earth itself having intelligence through feedback loops kindof lost me though, as things like ozone production in response to heightened CO2 levels would be happening if that was true. An important part of Ward's argument was conscious intent as a criterion for learning, suggesting that living things learn differently and thus we cannot make judgements on their intents or value of intelligence. Intelligence is also paralleled with viability through time and the changes it brings, the point being that if we kill ourselves off in our relatively short stay on this planet, we can't be that intelligent. The other side of that claim would mean that the slim-brained sharks are among the most intelligent creatures, as they've been consistently doing their thing since dinosaurs. The connections Ward draws to other animals sometimes came off a bit far-fetched but the point that we should respect this self-organized intelligence and not let our own get out of hand is valid; because if we finally kill ourselves off with war and bound-to-fail sustenance schemes, the sharks will probably laugh pretty hard.

Unrelated, PETA is apparently now in the porn biz? http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/peta-to-launch-its-own-porn-site-does-exploiting-women-promote-animal-rights-2561409

Hate, hate, hate. Hate, hate, hate. Double Hate. LOATHE ENTIRELY! -The Grinch

First off, I really enjoyed this article. I thought that the author presented a well thought out and well supported argument against the current connotation of the word "anthropocentric". In short, Midgley argues that the human species as a whole must place atleast a little importance on ourselves, even though it should not be to the level that assuming the earth was created for us. Science shattered this former idea of a universe truly centered around humans. Many, in response to this realization, overcompensated the importance of the human race when they realized what small and insignificant players we are in the universal drama Midgley explains. For example, the followers of the Anthropic Principle represent a radical group who vastly overestimate the importance of humans and even bring us to the level of God. However, Midgley argues, we need a little bit of this drama (emphasis on a little bit). Humans needs to have some sense of destiny and place in the universe. The author suggests that instead of placing ourselves as dominant or supreme above all other living things, we should instead love the other living things a little more (partially because we have indirect duties to our environment and there might even be a tinge of the "human good = natural good" argument in here).
I think the author's stance is very applicable to the world's curent position in the midst of a "go-green" or enviornmental movement. This movement tends to create almost a sense of self-loathing for the humane race. After reading online articles about the evil deeds of those self-centered humans, it is easy to walk away thinking "Gosh, those humans sure do suck". We don't have to be the Grinch! I think that in part, this methodology isn't the most effective way to convince people that the environment is worth saving. Although it does do some good to reflect on ourselves and our society as a whole, I agree with the author that it would be better instead to focus on the good in other living things. If we keep only a mild sense of self-importance, just enough so that we care about ourselves enough to continue personal hygiene and maybe even holding the door for a stranger, then we have more respect and care to spread for the natural environment. Unfortunately, however promising this arguement sounds, I feel like the total transition it would take to get to humanity to the point of reducing our human-centric view of the world would be exceedingly difficult. I'm not sure if we have reached the end of anthropocentrism, but at the very least the author outlines an enticing strategy to improve our conditions if the time does come where we can move past our own big egos and realize that the Earth is something worth saving (is that human-loathing of me?)

On The Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgement

"There is a God; but all that is allowed to us humans is the restricted formula: We cannot conceive of a purposiveness which must be made the basis even of our cognition of the internal possibility of many things in nature and make a comprehensible except by representing them and the world in general as a product of an intelligent cause (a God)" (270). I am constantly frustrated by philosophers who appeal to the existence of God--something intrinsically metaphysical--as an explanation for physical attributes that cannot be explained. However, when the temporal context of these inquiries is taken into account, these thinkers can easily be excused for coming to such a conclusion. After all, Kant is not trying to prove the existence of God, he is simply saying human understanding is limited to the point at which postulating the existence of God is the only way that the seemingly infinite complexity of nature can be explained. I would argue that resignation to not know is more of a testament to the beauty and magnificence of nature than the limits human understanding. He even goes as far as saying that living organisms are not merely machines (woot, woot!): "An organized being is thus not a mere machine, for that has only a motive power, while the organized being possesses in itself a formative power, and indeed one that it communicates to the matter, which does not have it (it organizes the latter): thus it has a self-propagating formative power, which cannot be explained through the capacity for movement alone (that is, mechanism)" (246). Kant appears to responding to Descartes way of explaining nature in terms of art, or techne: "But inner natural perfection, as is possessed by those things that are possible only as a natural ends and hence as organized beings, is not thinkable and explicable in accordance with any physical...it is not thinkable and explicable even through an exact analogy with human art" (247). Art is merely ( I don't mean to demean art only celebrate nature) an imitation of the natural world. It cannot, therefore, fully grasp the complexities that are characteristic in nature, because the imitator can never equal up to its model. We are then left with still much to ponder over, and little to know for certain about the inter-workings of nature (or how to explain them in relation to causes). When we appeal to God, it is a indicator that all other means of understanding have been exhausted.

what about when people walk their dogs and after the dog poops, the owner thoughtfully leaves it on the sidewalk for someone else to step in. The owner clearly cares about the dog, otherwise they would not have been walking it. But they don't give a rat's ass as to who's gonna step in it once there dog has relieved itself. They are arguably being indirectly morally obligated to humans by walking the dog and therefore caring about its well being, but I think that it directly harming people who don't want to walk in waste every time they're walking down the sidewalk.

Kant's "Critique of Teleological Judgment"

Here's Betsy's post on Kant:

Once again I was assigned a long, confusing article, but I will try and summarize Kant’s points concisely and correctly. The ultimate end of his argument in Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment is to prove that there is a God. This is revealed at the end of the article, so I’ll go through the points that lead up to this conclusion. In the first section, Kant describes natural ends. A natural end is a thing that “exists as a natural end if it is cause and effect of itself”. He gives an example of a tree and how it is its own means to an end or cause and effect. Its species continually regenerates from its own kind; the individual generates or grows from its own material which cannot be provided from an outside source; and even its smallest parts, such as a leaf, depend on the whole and the whole upon the tiny leaf. The tree cannot create energy without its leaves and the leaves cannot exist on their own, so it is a product and an end.

Now that Kant has established what natural ends are, he goes on to explain how they are organized beings. He contrasts key terms in this section, efficient causes and final causes. The first is real causation, or what we think of cause and effect literally. An example would be dominoes hitting each other and creating a chain reaction. The key to this idea is that it only works one way; once the dominoes fall they do not cause the reverse reaction. The second, final causes, is a more ideal, theoretical causation. This connection requires the use of concepts to see how the causation goes in a circle and does not work solely one way. Again he emphasizes that a natural end must produce itself and from its parts that only exist for the sake of the whole.

Next he describes the difference between machine and an organized being. An organized being has capability beyond simple movement, it has “formative power” to organize itself and exist apart from outside causes. At the end of this section Kant seems to undo all he has been arguing by stating that no analogy is appropriate to describe the “inner natural perfection” of organized beings. By saying this, he argues that his own previous analogies are not adequate and cannot explain his argument fully.

Kant’s final point is that we cannot conceive the world or concept without admitting to a being that intentionally started the whole cycle and acted as the “supreme cause”. The last statement seems contradictory because Kant is arguing that we cannot judge if a greater being acts as a catalyst for the world’s processes. In the same sentence he follows with the statement , “we absolutely cannot base the possibility of those natural ends on anything except an intelligent being” (271). My question is what conclusion does Kant ultimately make on this issue? Is he actually trying to prove there is a greater being, namely God, or does he refute this claim by saying it is past our comprehension?