Climate Change

Climate change is easily the most frustrating thing we have studied so far.  It seems like everyone but a few denialists knows that its happening, but nobody is really willing to do anything substantial to fix it.  I recently sat through a really well done presentation in my PRC class about China and the environment, and many of the things he talked have been reflected on in our class.  He talked about the social injustices of the sustainability movement with the exportation of plastic recycling to China from the United States, he talked about the Cancer Cities that have sprung up around the high tech regions, and he talked about water pollution and land degradation in the name of progress.
None of these are new issues (with the possible exception of the cancer cities) yet the Chinese government has not done anything concrete to change it.  Our presenter listed several plans that the Chinese had, and then told us that none of this plans are really able to be enforced in China, the government values expansion and growth of environmental sustainability.
This seems to be like an extreme example of the world's opinions and actions in general.  Everyone pays lip service to the environment then passes laws with enough loopholes to be a pretty goof fishing net.  Not that you'd want to eat any of the fish you could catch in 7 of China's main 9 lakes.

Oh, Grizzly Man

Timothy Treadwell, to me, seemed crazy.  Apart from that, however, I think he was a very interesting person and had nothing but the best of intentions.  Treadwell spent 14 summers living among the grizzly bear and other wildlife in the wilds of Alaska.  He did this as a self-described "gentle warrior."  Being a gentle warrior meant that he came in kindness and love, but when challenged, he would rise up defend himself.  It also meant that he felt he would serve as the protector of the grizzlies (as though they need protection from puny humans) and save them from evil humanity in its many forms.
Some aspects of his escapades in Alaska have an ecofeminist feel to them.  Tim does not believe that he is superior to nature, or that he should dominate it in any way.  Tim went to Alaska to become a part of nature, to commune with the wildlife, to learn from them and to become a part of their society.  It is in that last aspect, however, that I think Tim deviates from established ecofeminism.  I don't think that traditional ecofeminism would call for its followers to leave human society and try to become a bear, which I firmly believe Treadwell would have loved to do.  Apart from deviating from ecofeminist theory, I think Tim deviates from pretty much every other environmental theory we covered so far.  The closest he comes to fitting in anywhere is the deep ecologist theory.  However, he doesn't feel that humanity in general is evil, and he doesn't disdain human relationships.  He dated several women, and throughout his filming, he showed a desire to be in a successful relationship.  He did think that humans caused suffering for animals, and as his filming progressed, he got more and more pissed off at society in general, especially at the people he felt were most at fault, the Park Service.  This made no sense to me whatsoever.  The Park Service in Alaska regulated bear hunting in order to sustain healthy grizzly populations and it was the Park Service that was responsible for allowing Timothy to get to his beloved Grizzly Maze in the first place.
I think the goal Timothy was trying to accomplish could have been achieved more successfully if he had used different methods.  Tim was trying to save the grizzlies don't need a human living among them to save them.  They need educated people who know that bears are intelligent, powerful, and important to the ecosystem to protect them.  Tim could have lived with the bears for however long he wanted, shot footage that was actually useful, not just him professing his love for bears, and then taken this footage to schools and tried to teach children to love bears from a distance.  That a distant respect for grizzlies would prevent poaching and over hunting, as well as preventing more people from dying the same death Tim and his girlfriend did.

Deep, Deep Ecology, and 'Into the Wild'

Deep ecology, in practice, means giving everything thing in nature value beyond its mere utility to humans,.  Deep ecologists focus on ecosystems for reasons beyond ethnocentrism, rather, they focus on the value of nature for its own value.  In theory, they believe in asking deeper questions than what can an animal/plant/ecosystem/environment do for me.  That is where there name comes from, asking deep questions.
'Into the Wild' showcased an individuals approach to deep ecology.  Christopher McCandless, or Alexander Supertramp (as he calls himself in the movie) quits a potential life of relative ease and begins tramping across the country.  His experiences tramping, and the people he met were all in preparation for his great Alaskan Adventure.  After gaining what he felt like was enough experience, Alex dropped everything again and left for Alaska.  He spent about 100 days in the Alaskan wilderness, eventually dying there as a result of eating a poisonous plant by accident.  Alex was a true deep ecologist.  He shot a moose, and was not quick enough in the processing of the meat and lost the entire kill to flies and maggots.  This devastated Alex, because he felt that he killed a massive animal for his own personal need.  Personally, I think that failing to properly use his kill made Alex feel like he didn't belong in the ecosystem he was in.  I feel this because the filmmakers showed a pack of wolves doing what Alex could not, eating the wolf.  I think that the realization that Alex did not belong actually reinforced his sense of deep ecology, learning the valuable lesson that there are things that are more important than humans.

Not Evil, Just Wrong.

I am not afraid of being proven wrong.  Not being perfect, it actually happens quite a lot.  When someone presents a legitimate argument that counters my points, either with evidence or better logic, I will do my best to change my opinion.  That might not happen every time, or even most of the time, but I usually try.  My problem with Ann McElhinney was not her point of view.  That is her prerogative.  I don't agree with it, but that is irrelevant here.  In her original presentation, she constructed an eloquent argument, with facts that I was unaware of, but I'm sure were true.  Again, I didn't agree with pretty anything she said, but her arguments were valid for her point of view.  My problem with her presentation was her inability to answer any question with an answer that didn't have to do with children dying of malaria in Africa.  Ask her why it was bad for this university to support a year of sustainability, to support recycling, to build a solar farm and a windmill, and she answered with: "the banning of the use of DDT is the direct cause of millions of children's' deaths a year."  Actually, I lied earlier when I said I had only one problem with her presentation.  My other problem was the open hostility she displayed for or Abbot and our University, but that is a personal problem.


Now I'm going to pose a couple of questions that I wish I could have asked her.  One of her largest defenses of her hostility towards this school and our Abbot was that we were a catholic institution, and as such we should follow the Bible word for word, literally, as written in Genesis and beyond.  She further supported this literal approach to Bible reading by saying that God put the coal under the ground for us to use.  I'm sorry to offend anyone's religious beliefs, but that is wrong.  Coal comes from the natural process of decomposition of plant and animal matter under intense pressure over millions of years.  I would have liked to ask her just how literally she used the bible, and if she eats shell fish, keeps slave, stones adulterers, or anything like that.  But that would have just me being mean and spiteful, so its probably good that I didn't get to ask that question.  She also said that she loves unnatural things such as chemicals, pesticides, and modern technology.  She said that she wanted anything that allowed her to live a better life right now.  An example she gave was of her mom or dad's artificial hip.  That hip was a good thing.  The gross overuse of DDT and similar chemicals in the USA and all over the world is another example she gave.  It is easy to make your point when only focus on obviously good that and obviously bad things that support your side.  Where do we draw the line from good chemicals and bad?  Hip replacement is an easy good.  What about acid of LSD or some other unnatural chemical that makes you feel better as long as you use it?  I feel like that is very clearly bad, and following the logic that Mrs. McElhinney used, you could easily come to a different conclusion.  That goes the same for other obviously bad chemicals that seemed great at the time.  I did get to answer my other question, and that was "what is wrong with University sponsored recycling, wind and solar power, and energy conservation?"  Her answer briefly addressed the point, saying that people who didn't want to recycle were being forced to against their will.  This would have been valid if it were true, but no one is being forced to recycle.  It is simply a matter of the school telling students that it is a good and environmentally sound idea to recycle.  After saying that, she then continued to berate the student body for being conservationists, when it was conservationists that caused DDT to be banned, thereby directly killing African babies, and that I should address my concerns about plastic to the mother of a child killed by malaria.  I think that is everything I had a problem with, and everything I would have asked her.  If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.  Also, check out the video of McElhinney's presentation, it should be up on the SJU website.

Animals

I cried why my dog of ten years died.  I also go fishing on a pretty regular basis and have no problem whatsoever filleting still flopping fish.  My experience on a couple different farms has forced me to work with a lot of people who treat their animals on varying scales of truly terrible to mild neglect, and I can't handle working with the people who treat their animals like crap.  However, when a cow is being stubborn, I have less than no problem reaching for the cattle prod.  I suppose this could lead to some questions about my ethics standing regarding animals.  

For me, it comes down to matter of deciding what animals mean more.  To the casual reader, that might seem harsh, but to me it makes sense.  A mosquito does not have the same moral standing as dog.  This goes doubly so for animals that are actually self-aware.  I have no problem eating meat, as long as its beef, chicken, fish, or anything that I know is not a conscious, thinking, future planning animal.  I would never eat a chimpanzee.  This argument is the driving force behind "The Cove," a documentary about the slaughter of thousands of dolphins in a cove outside of Taiji, Japan.  I have visited cattle slaughter houses before, and I know how horrible those places are, but cattle do not have the capacity feel joy and fear.  Dolphins, on the other hand, do.  Mr. O'Barry, who was the driving force behind the documentary, was the principle dolphin trainer for the TV show Flipper.  He changed his views on captured dolphins after realizing that the dolphins he was training for the show could feel joy, sadness, fear, and knew that they were in captivity.  

This is the same view I hold for animal rights.  I believe that every animal has the right to continue living.  In this view, there are certain exceptions.  This right to continued life does not necessarily mean that every single organism has the right for life.  It is a more holistic view, that the species has a right to life, and the community is the important part.  That is true for every organism that is not self aware.  As soon as consciousness and the ability to fear pleasure and pain come in to play, that dynamic changes.  Every single self aware animal has the right to a decent life.  That is what I believe.

The Big Bad Land Ethic

Leopold's Land Ethic is highlighted by an extension of the moral considerations we give to man to nature and the land around us.  This extension of ethics to land, in Leopold's eyes, did not mean that animals could not be killed for or, or that the resources of the land could not be harvested for use by man.  Leopold himself was an avid hunter, and was clearly not an individual animal rights activist.  However, Leopold view the land ethic as holistic.  There is a land community and that community is what is important.  Leopold viewed the relationship between predator and prey as healthy, and viewed the destruction of predators as a direct threat to the overall health of the ecosystem.

Janisse Ray's book also describes a type of land ethic.  Growing up in a place she called as a place as you could find, Ray still managed to love the land she grew up in.  This love is similar to Leopold's views which grew out of his relationship with the land he lived on.

Growing up on a farm in rural southern Minnesota, I feel some of the same connection that Leopold and Ray felt with the land.  Farming done properly fits in marvelously with the land ethic.  The resources of the land can be harvested and maintained by man as long as the ecosystem as a whole maintains its overall health and vibrancy.  Farming, especially in the modern sense, changes the landscape.  However, farmers like my step-dad strive to be stewards of the land.  Most farmers use chemicals to fertilize the land, and chemicals to kills the weeds and bugs and fungi that naturally inhabit the land.  I don't know if Leopold would agree with me, but I think the chirping birds and the grasshoppers buzzing over the dark green corn fields in the summer is a relatively healthy ecosystem.  Leopold thought the most important important aspect of the extension of moral consideration to the land was the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and I believe that growing up on a farm has helped me gain a similar perspective.

Perspective on Environmental Ethics

In our brief, week-long introduction to the arena of environmental ethics debates, we have come across several wholly independent schools of ethical thought.  The ethical perspective that I found most interesting, not necessarily the one I agreed with most, but the one I found most interesting was the individualist consequentialist perspective.  The was first put forth by Peter Singer and Donald VanDerVeer, and is essentially hedonistic, meaning that the only things that are ethically consequential are those things that can feel pleasure and pain, or things with interests.  Singer's original definition was pretty straightforward.  Anything that felt pleasure and pain was important, and anything that didn't was not.  Basically, sentient mammals were the only morally considerable life-forms.  Further adaptations of this approach, both by Singer and other environmental ethicists created a sort of hierarchy, with sentient, self conscious beings (people, whales, apes) on the top, then sentient, non-self conscious beings (pretty much every other animal) , then non-sentient things (plants, bugs, rocks).

The reason I find this approach to be the most interesting is the debate of replaceability that follows.  Someone following Singer's original hypothesis would be able to find it morally sound to kill a human being (provided the killing was entirely painless) as long as he replaced it with another, because it was only "the total experience and not the organism" ( P&P p. 15) that mattered.  Singer himself saw this as an issue and later revised his perspective with the above mentioned hierarchy, but replaceability is still morally sound for any tier of that hierarchy that is the self-conscious one.  

If I cut down a tree for firewood, I plant another in its place.  Personally, I just like the idea of there being more trees on this planet, so I plant trees even if I haven't cut one down, but regardless, I replace my trees.  Following the individualist consequentialist approach, that is a morally sound thing to do.  I am also the son of a farmer, and my step-dad raises beef cattle for a living.  A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of raising an animal solely for the purpose of butchering it, but I personally don't mind.  Our farm raises the male calves from some local dairy farms (animals the dairy farms have no use for) as well as some other cattle we buy on auction.  As long as our farm replenishes the animals we sell to be butchered, we are following a individual consequential ethic, and I find that it works pretty well.