Environmental Ethics

Comment on Schmidtz here.

Professor Baker — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:06:31 +0000

Tuesday March 1st – Are All Species Equal? David Schmidtz, p. 96-103.
Due: Statement of thesis. Contrast to Taylor (this is easy, since he discusses Taylor.) Question 2, p. 82.

Final Exam Esay Questions- 1 and 2 from Sand Dollar Review

Professor Baker — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:31:55 +0000

1. A famous “deep ecologist” criticized a “shallow” ecologist by writing that “a sense of resposibility or duty is a trecherouse basis” for environmental protection. why?
A deep ecologist would criticize the “shallow” ecologist for citing resposibility and duty as reasons to protect the environment. A deep ecologist would say this because society today has a scewed sense of self in regards to the environment. I will assume the role of the deep ecologist and write in the first person hence forth.
The idea that protecting the environment is a responsibility of humans is rediculous. To view our environment as a responsibilty displays the arogance and the separation we, as a species, have acquired. Many philosophers, scientists, and former vice-presidents are frantically running around like lemmings trying to “fix the problem” with our biosphere. The way such characters are going about fixing the problem is the very reason a problem exists. Most view themselves as being separate from nature and this is the problem. If we “deself” and assume a less “progressive” lifestyle, the problem shall be solved.

2. Kreiger’s suggestions;
Kreiger would suggest that the government opens up the refugee as a tourist attraction for the elite. he would propose they do not drill and they caharge large summs of money for people to “take a trip into the unknown” and make it trendy. Kreiger beleives that people should be kept out of the wilderness, but the elite should be able to exprience it at a high price. the average citizen should then experience replicas and desire to go there but not be able to. this preserves the wilderness while popularizing it and creating awareness.

Milbrath and the Good Life, by Rebecca Boyan

Professor Baker — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:56:28 +0000

Milbrath believes that a good life is not simply aquired through prosperity, an idea that is commonly accepted by politicians, economists, advertisers, etc. He thinks that this notion is what has made our species sucessful but also what is causing terrible consequences for the planet. He argues that these consequences are due to overpopulation and drainage of our resources, and so we must redefine the good life so we do not destroy ourselves and Earth.

“Quality in living is not a thing; it is a feeling” (p.200). Milbrath wants us to stop defining a good life in monetary terms, but in quality. He says of quality in living that it is “experienced only by individuals and is necessarily subjective.”

He believes that persons who experience a high quality of life
1-have a persistent feeling of happinness with their life
2-have a sense of physical well-being
3-have a sense of satisfaction and achievement in life
4-greet each day with hope and excitement over every new day

Persons who experience a low quality of life
1-have a sense of despair, hopelessness, and fear
2-have a sense of having failed in life
3-have a sense of poor physical well-being
4-have a pervading sense of unhappinness

“It is easy to recognize that a decent life requires minimal provision of food, shelter, and clothing, and that society bears an obligation to provide at least that minimum” (p.201).
But what if this obligation conflicts with environmental policy? He uses the example of someone whose economic situation has been diminished in order to preserve some aspet of the ecosystem. He cites the loggers in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. Milbrath argues both the loggers and the owels who are becoming extinct because of the logging are important. However, logging is a privilege, not a basic right, and Milbrath suggests that priority should be given to the ecosystem in order to ensure a good life in the future.

In order to redefine the good life, Milbrath looked at the ways individuals reach a good life before such extreme material consumption existed. Really living would be getting back in touch with a way of life which is not centered around consumption.

Goods that are not Zero Sum
zero sum: economists call most goods exchanged in markets zero sum– because i have it, you can’t have it.
Milbrath argues “many of the most satisfying and fulfilling things in life are enhanced when shared,” so he lists goods which are shared and not zero sum:
1-Love: good for people and society. many people assume our affluent society has lost the meaning of love.
2-interpersonal relationships: socializing with family and friends; we should enjoy companionship
3-enjoyment of nature: this does not mean going to an overcrowded beach or natural park…that’s not fulfilling
4-nature protection and beautification: not only fulfilling but also necessary so we don’t run out of clean air, water, and soils
5-learning: deepens our understanding of of onesself and the world
6-creating, and appreciating literature, music, and art
7-play: for example, this does not mean going to sporting events, which is more a part of the entertainment industry. Games not only pass time pleasurably, but also nurture good health.
8-self-governance: everyone benefits when better laws are passed or when better community programs are undertaken

Milbrath also touches on
1-leisure: we should take time to enjoy personally fulfilling activities, but not at the expense of a “leisure industry” that encourages us to think that happinness must be bought with beach houses, boats, pedicures, massages, etc.
2-voluntary simplicity: Milbrath cites Duane Elgin’s book on voluntary simplicity. Elgin argues that people voluntarily choose a life of simplicity because it is richer than modern consuming lifestyles. This choice is deliberate and made consciously. “Self-reflexive consciousness” is an advanced awareness in which we are continuously and consciously ‘tasting’ our experience of ourselves.

He lists 4 reasons living more consciously is better:
1-we can see things as they really are and life will go smoothly
2-enables us to respond more quickly to subtle feedback that something is amiss
3-we are less bound by our habitual patterns of thought and behavior and so we have greater choice in how we will respond
4-it promotes an ecological orientation toward all of life
These qualities are essential to our further evolution and survival.

“Conscious simplicity is not self-denying but life-affirming.”
“Simplicity is not turning away from progress; it is crucial to progress” (p.204)

So in general, Milbrath is saying that we must redefine the goodlife, and this redefinition must be learned. If we do not learn this new good life, our actions will lead us to destruction.

In respect to Matthews, both philosophers seem to agree that consummerism and over consumption is quickly leading the world to its demise. Matthews would agree with Milbrath that we currently define progress in terms of growth in material consumption. They differ, however, in that Matthews would say yes, progress in terms of growth in material consumption is bad, so just stop and let things be as they are. Milbrath wants to redefine progress so that it means growth in terms of self discovery and satisfaction in life. Milbrath wants us to pass new legislation and create new community programs because these things give us fulfillment. He wants us to be proactive in preservation. Matthews discourages creation of new ideas, institutions, and physical things like apartment buildings.

Explication of Deep Ecology, Chas D’Huyvetter

Professor Baker — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:59:40 +0000

On March 13th, we discussed the philosophy of deep ecologists and how it differs from most of the philosophies we have covered. The term, deep ecology, was introduced by a Norwegian philosopher named, Arne Naess in 1973. As the saw it, there were two forms of environmentalism, long-range deep ecology movement and the other shallow ecology movement. The long-range deep ecology holds the principals and ideas of modern day deep ecology. This view digs into tough questions about environmental issues and looks to make changes, basically redesigning life as we know it. Making drastic changes in our beliefs, values, and culture are the only way to save and preserve the natural systems around the world. In contrast, the shallow ecological view avoids the issue of making fundamental changes, and instead focuses on things like recycling, hybrid cars, organic farming, etc. to address the problem. Deep ecologists aren’t fans of these “quick fixes” and their supporters, like Al Gore. Instead, they see the need for a spiritual revolution so that we become molded into the environment, breaking away from the modern division of human and environmental realms. Their goal for us is to “deself,” or attempt to integrate with the whole by losing our sense of individuality. They want to return to a place where we don’t listen to our rationale, and instead get lost in nature and become apart of it. They feel that doing things like showering, wearing make up, shaving, owning property, and even socializing are not good because they separate us further from nature. Deep ecologists also are against human reproduction and think that population must immediately be reduced. Traditions like Taoism and Zen Buddhism have influenced deep ecology because of their non-dualistic approach to subjects and objects. They suggest that we lead non-complex lives, which can still be rich and full of positive experiences. Respecting diversity, reducing human consumption, restoring ecosystems, promoting nonviolence, and ending authoritarianism through decentralization are all important aspects of this rather new and quickly spreading philosophy. Deep ecologists are humble and recognize that they aren’t perfect themselves, they just do their best and encourage others to do so as well. Many ideas of the deep ecologists have been borrowed from well-known philosopher’s and historians such as Aldo Leopold and Lynn White. Deep ecologist’s have accepted Leopold’s famous statement in “The Land Ethic”: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” The view of historian Lynn White has also been blended into that of the deep ecologists. White argued that environmental problems are rooted in religious worldviews and that real solutions must involve a change at that fundamental level. While deep ecologists have, indeed, borrowed several thoughts and ideas from others, they do have their own ideological “bible”, known as the Deep Ecology Platform. It is a list of eight principles and can sum up their unique viewpoint…
1) The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6) Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8.) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

Deep Ecology

Professor Baker — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:24:52 +0000

INTRODUCTION
The deep ecology movement was first introduced as a political movement in the 1960’s. The phrase was coined by Arne Naess. Many people who were all concerned with the detrimental environmental effects of industrial technology came together. These people believed that we should respect nature and everything in it with intrinsic value. The word “deep” refers to the deep questioning that is involved when questioning our purposes and values in nature. This is different from shallow ecology because shallow ecology is more concerned with fixing technology. Deep ecology seems to be more a long-term approach to solving the environment crisis rather than a short-term approach.

BELIEFS AND GOALS
This theory is more of a spiritual belief rather than a philosophy. It calls for a complete overhaul of the way humans live on earth and requires a rethinking of our values as a society. They believe that everything has intrinsic value (or value that is independent of human purposes), and we need to realize that we are not superior to anything. Deep ecologists also feel that if we were to identify ourselves with things in nature (instead of ourselves and other humans), than we will develop a respect for nature. For example, if we were to really identify with our environment, we would never purposely destroy a plant just as we would never cut off our own finger.

Deep ecologists are concerned with the current problems in our environment and feel that we need to respect nature and everything in it. Here are some of the current issues that they believe has contributed to the crisis:
• Our loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that observe the intrinsic value of the natural world
• The economic and development patterns of the modern world because it places primary importance on the market and not on nature.
• The increase in technology and an unlimited faith in the sciences
• Overpopulation that is making the world an unsustainable place to live in.
If these problems are not fixed, every part of nature will suffer. Deep ecologists feel that many other philosophies that address these problems do not take the right approach since they are mainly attempting to fix the problems to benefit humans.

There are two basic components of deep ecology:
• Self-realization: We need to identify with the whole biosphere and everything in it, such as trees, animals, and plants. Doing this would then make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on earth.
• Biocentric equality: We need to see ourselves as integral threads in the fabric of life. We are only a part of nature and not separate beings. We do not have any right to take control or manage the world. Everything has a right to live and humans cannot take that away from any nonhuman thing.

In addition to these, there are 8 basic principles that deep ecologists follow. I’m not going to write them down because someone has already posted them on here. However, these eight principles are essential to deep ecologists. If a person were to follow only a few of them, then they are not considered a deep ecologist.

CONCLUSION
The deep ecology movement is still evolving. Many of their beliefs are collected from different philosophies, and may seem unclear. However, the general goal is to preserve, conserve, and respect our environment. They want to develop a much more fragmented society with new kinds of relationships.

JULIA BUTTERFLY
The movie that we watched in class was about a deep ecologist who called herself Julia Butterfly. She changed her last name to Butterfly in order help identify with nature and take on a more natural name. She is an Earth First! activist who is well-known for the Luna Tree sit. She lived in a 180 foot tall California Coast Redwood tree from December 10, 1997 until December 18, 1999. Her two-year fight for the Redwood became the longest tree sit in U.S. History.

SOME LINKS
Here are some links on deep ecology:
• This shows the interview of Michael E. Zimmerman, a deep ecologist. It helps to explain the views and goals of deep ecology: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm
• These are some critiques of the deep ecology principles: http://www.thegreenfuse.org/deepcrit.htm
• This site helps to explain deep ecology: http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/185/harding185.htm
• This site has information about Julia Butterfly Hill and her upcoming events. You can also ask her questions and see her blog: http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/185/harding185.htm

By Allison Rice

Tom Hill, by Jessica Frederick

Professor Baker — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:38:40 +0000

Tom Hill’s paper focuses on the need for a different perspective of the problem of environmental destruction. He states first that most people have a moral uneasiness at the destruction or disrespect of nature. He says that in order for someone to destroy the natural environment, he must not have an appreciation for his place in the natural order. This stems from either ignorance or a lack of humility. Usually, people come to care more about the environment as they learn more about it, but one must also have an emotional attachment to the environment and a humble view of one’s place. In order to be humble, one must have the right kind of self-importance and self-understanding. One must learn to value things for their own sake, not merely for their utility. Equally important is self-acceptance. If we cannot acknowledge that the same natural laws that govern all living things also govern humans, we cannot see ourselves as part of nature. Without viewing oneself as part of nature, the disconnectedness allows one to exploit nature. In order to gain this self-acceptance, one must see himself as he really is. Communing with nature can increase self acceptance. Finally, Hill says that we must cherish things, particularly natural things so that we will care for these things, and ultimately learn to cherish and protect the natural environment.

Freya Mathews / March 20

Professor Baker — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:52:39 +0000

According to Mathews, “nature is a process rather than things” and “whatever happens when we, or other agents with the capacity for abstract thought, let things be, let them unfold in their own way, run their own course”(221). It is great to keep relate with nature such as mountain biking, keeping animals as pets, and surrounding with wastes, she dose not like to clean up rooms. Natural is non-artificial and things do not engage with products. Classrooms do not natural, because there is no nature and animals, but desks, chairs, and computers. Nature itself is intrinsic and to let it be is great. Therefore, she likes to keep animals as pet because they are great due to disrupt our lives, embarrass us, and make a mess. Psychological benefits of the nature for humans are important so that our stress can be reduced.

Definitions:
>Wilderness-In the east, nothing other than land, designated as wilderness by the west. Humans engage in the conscious and dynamic manipulation of nature. There is a constant interaction between humans and nature.
>Artifice- when we intentionally apply abstract ideas to nature
>Reification-to make a non-thing a thing
>Returning to nature-reinstating an instinctual, free-and-easy, impulsiveness (for human),
Letting process to be anew (for nature)
>The natural state of ourselves-reinstating an instinctual, free-and-easy, impulsiveness
>To solution to our environmental crisis-it never be late to start thinking about it

Objections:
There are artifice she likes, such as buildings in Hongkong.
We could not live without technology to keep up with population growth.
Some people reduce with artificial things, not nature.

Marisa Imado

Schmidtz Elephant Preservation

Professor Baker — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:05:01 +0000

Brendan Mahoney

Notes for class on 4/12

-In class we discussed Schmidtz point of view on the preservation of Elephants in Africa.

-His main idea is that a main resource of the Africans is the elephant, from an elephant one can gather enough meet to feed a small African tribe, Africans may also sell of the ivory tusks for economic profit.

-What Schmidtz is trying to show the reader is that, elephant preservation is not up to the wealth Western world, rather it should be left to the Africans, who have little to no resources as it is.

-This discussion led us into another discussion on shipbreaking, in 3rd world countries and India in specific.

-This was especially interesting to me because I lived in India for 5 years of my childhood, and had experienced first hand the poverty that we were discussing.

-This discussion is very similar to the last, and the idea is that once again the wealthy western world should not meddle with third world country affairs. Though shipbreaking is causing an average rate of one death per day, and chemicals are being spilled into the ocean throughout the process, Indian natives are so poor that any work is good enough, so that they may feed themselves.

-The conclusion that we have come to is that it up to the western world to balance the amount of wealth spread through the world, in order that no one may be forced to live the way these Indians have. If the western world does this then cheap practices such as shipbreaking may come to an end.

Site:
I found this link to an article about shipbreaking of the Greenpeace website:

http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/india.asp

Elephants

Professor Baker — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:09:55 +0000

Alison Rowland-April 10, 2007:
Today in class we discussed Ian Whyte’s article on elephant managment. The class discussed the pros and cons of a complete ban on elephant poaching. We talked of how elephants, in a Shmitz-like mindset, are very majestic creatures and superior to most creatures, i e rabbits. We talked of how elephants are very special and social creatures due to their characteristics and instinctual qualities. We talked of how Taylor would view elephant poaching and how it is adaquate to keep elephant populations at bay. Elephants deem destructive to the environment by uprooting trees and trudging along river banks; they are equivalent to the weight of vans and just as destructive. The Kruger National Park is a haven for many creatures in the heart of africa but increasing elephant populations raise questions regarding their affect on the environment.
Some solutions have been proposed such as translocation and birth control to downsize the birthrate. Whyte proposes that it must be in Africa’s self interest to keep elephants around. Some philosophers think there should be a monetary supplement to legally kill an elephant and that money should go towards conservation, others feel as though the killing should be justified and reluctant to the assasin.
I found an interesting website about the kruger national park. It provides insight and information into the reservation. The park itself monitors population growth among its creatures to keep populations at a healthy level. The website provides information about all of its animals and plants; and, It encourages people to visit and view such animals in their natural habitats.

Mathews and Milbrath

Professor Baker — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:08:46 +0000

Laura Mudge

Notes from class: Thursday 3/22
Mathews:
-doesn’t like things that are maintained or artifice (something you would need a drawing
board to dream up)
-likes to work with what’s given/already exists
-objections:
-suburbs are nice-people can be happy living here
-some say personality of people can flourish when they transition from a hard to
good life-so wouldn’t they be happier in the good life?
-maybe people are born one way or the either
-nature-preservation

Milbrath:
-recommends living more consciously
-he thinks living more environmentally conscious leads to being happier
-accuses us of false consciousness-he tells us what we feel
-objections:
-happiness is not always related to moral obligations
-happiness is not a formula-this won’t work with all people

Interesting Site:
On the website for Forbes magazine I stumbled across a “calculator” they have that helps you determine what it costs to live well throughout several cities in the United States, including Charleston. You enter in a net income, chose your city & certain amenities (houses, cars, etc), and the calculator will tell you how much more money per year you should be making in order to live well. I thought this was interesting because Milbrath stated that he thought that one of humans “fundamental mistakes” was that we define what a good life is based on the material goods we have, which is exactly what Forbes is doing. Forbes defines living well with a “4 bedroom house in a good neighborhood, a vacation home, a BMW and a Lexus for cars, eating out a pricey restaurant once a week, taking 3 luxury trips a year, and sending one child to a local private school and one to a private college”. In my personal opinion I think this is rather excessive to just be “living well”. Milbrath would hate this website because its definition of living well does not include any sort of environmental activity that would contribute to a good life.

Link:

http://www.forbes.com/realestate/2005/07/08/living-well-cost-calculator-cx_sc_0708calculator.html?income=35000&citySelect=CharlestonS&home=1&cars=1&dining=1