Dear God... Wait, dear Mother Nature...

I was baptized Methodist, I had a First Communion and a Catholic Church, and I went through the Confirmation process as a Methodist.  In essence, I am one big religious hodgepodge.  I came to St. Ben’s identifying with the Methodist religion; however, I will leave more feeling more spiritual than anything.

I find myself experiencing feelings of confinement when in conversations or events of religious nature, partly because I have yet to find a complete doctrine that I feel comfortable with.  To me, spirituality allows me to be more holistic and at peace with myself.  Spirituality is more centering and I believe fully experiencing spirituality brings me closer to nature.  Over winter break I went dogsledding with a group of students/ Sisters from these institutions in Ely, Minnesota at the resort of a Johnnie Alum, Paul Schurke.  Throughout the five days we were there, we prayed the Monastic rhythm and spent a considerable amount of time outside meditating.  I learned a lot in that time.  I arrived at the trip with a very anthropocentric view of nature.  But after simply being in nature, I am more holistic. 

Through conversations with Paul, we learned of the possible plans to break in to the Boundary Waters for development and drilling.  I had never been to the Boundary Waters before but after going, I would strongly advocate against the development in any part of it!  I was able to appreciate what it means to be a human in my times meditating in the Boundary Waters.  We came in and left no trace of our brief appearance – a pattern I wish the human race in general can make happen more frequently.  

So although I know that there is a larger power up there, I don't know if I can say it's the same God that is recognized by other religions.  For now I think I'm better celebrating Mother Nature. 

One banana, two banana

                I was very impressed with the pollution group’s presentation.  Pollution is a very pertinent issue to all generations and often when it is talked about, the argument is very one-sided and flat out scary.  The pollution group managed to provide us with information about many different types of and sides to the pollution issue.  Focusing on many different types of pollution will help us see what areas of our lives we can change in order to help decrease the amount of pollution we are generating.

Laura’s banana segment was great!  I guess I always thought that since it’s a banana, it has to be healthy and have a healthy and safe history.  Not true.  After learning about the interactions between bananas and plastic bags it almost makes me want to seriously consider not eating the bananas that come from there!

My trip to Hawaii was enlightening for the reason I brought up in class.  Their state-wide plastic bag ban has really taken off over there.  The citizens are used to it – the tourists are another story – but I think we can learn a lot from the implementation of that program.  How easy would it be to keep reusable bags in your car or purse for use when you go to the grocery store?  So easy!  Although I have to admit there are lots of things that I do with paper bags: use as recycling bags in the house, making crafts with the kids at daycare, etc. that I would no longer be able to do.  But for the sake of my planet, that’s a risk I would be willing to take!

Brown chicken, brown cow

The in-class debate about the use of GMO’s helped me look at superfoods, or frankenfoods, through a new lens.  Until the presentation, I honestly believed that we needed to be producing more food.  However, after listening to the presentation I realize that we just need to be more mindful consumers.  Thinking at our school alone, we waste hundreds of pig barrels of food each year.

Western societies eat way too much beef.  Beef is an extremely inefficient food to produce, as it uses a lot of water and produces by-products of methane gas.  As an alternative, the group encouraged us to eat less beef and increase our consumption of more efficient foods such as greens, vegetables, and fruit.  Even small steps such as making meat an accessory to your meal instead of the main course can get us thinking in the right direction.  Now I don’t know that I could go as far as becoming completely vegan or vegetarian; however, I would be willing to take some steps to decrease the amount of meat I consume.  

My roommate’s boyfriend sells dog food and he informed me that there are 143 million chickens every year for the pet industry alone.  That’s 143 million chickens that 3^rd world countries could be eating!

Obviously, ignorance plays a key role in this issue.  A common solution to combat ignorance is education; however, I strongly believe that the issues of food production, GMO’s, and hunger are not going to see a change unless something drastic happens to our country such as a famine or a parasite infection that wipes out a large percentage of our cattle.

Not just human populations!

Putting together our presentation on population was very insightful.  Admittedly, I narrow-mindedly thought that population involved humans only.  It was not until other group members began suggesting animal and other populations for parts of our presentation that I realized the flaws in my thinking.  If you polled the class however, I doubt I was the only one who thought that way.  Our anthropocentric nature is to consider ourselves first.  Very seldom do we consider populations of plants and animals before our own. 

Looking into the zebra mussel population raised interesting ethical dilemmas for me.  Even after listening to the discussion points brought up by the small groups, I still am unsure as to where I stand on the issue.  Yes it is hard to give the zebra mussels rights.  After all, they are only zebra mussels.  But it was because of human intervention that they are here in the first place!  They are not intentionally choking out native species and causing recreational nightmares.  They are doing what they do best, living!  Jessey pointed out that the human population could be considered invasive and that seems to illustrate that it is not our position to determine how the zebra mussel population should be controlled.  It is likely social ecologists would relegate our interventions.  Their understanding of our domination over other species would likely be considered when determining how to appropriately control the zebra mussels population.

It is obvious that the zebra mussel population cannot be controlled by predators here (in the United States).  My suggestion is very anthropocentric.  I think the policy and regulations are moving in the right direction.  Referring to the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, invasive species do need to be carefully tracked and monitored.

Well hello climate change! It's me, an American.

Climate change is real.  Although scientists haven’t been able to piece together many individual answers, the big picture is complete.  Climate change is a normal pattern for the Earth to go through.  Throughout the existence of the Earth, the temperature has fluctuated from extreme to extreme on both ends.  However, the temperature increase our planet is going through seems expedited by human behaviors and lifestyles.

What I find appealing about the climate change debate is how preventable or sustainable this problem is.  As discussed in class, individuals can make a difference in the ‘carbon footprint’ they leave.  I do not write this blog with the ultimate solution to climate change.  As a society we need to encourage the discussions that bring people of multiple viewpoints together.  We tend to gravitate towards those who have the same or similar viewpoints as ourselves; meaning, we may be losing out on opportunities to cultivate ideas from both sides.

So what do I have to say to the skeptics and contrarians?  I would tell them to practice open mindedness and explore the science behind climate change.  It is extremely difficult to reach absolute conclusions in science because many of the mediums are changing.  Scientists do their very best to create models that explain climate change and predict future happenings.  That is not to say that that the numbers they find are null and void. 

It seems that we have reached a point in the climate change progression that we cannot prevent climate change.  Instead, we need to work with the resources and knowledge we have to adapt our lifestyles and behavior to make them more sound with what is best for us and the environment.

A Grizzly Interpretation of Treadwell's Lifestyle

Honestly, I did try really hard to interpret the documentary, Grizzly Man, with an open mind.  I found that really hard to do.  Timothy Treadwell lived a confused, controversial, and lonely life.  I was unable to see which ethical lens Treadwell would most likely identify with.  His unique relationship with animals in combination with his deep hatred and resentment for the human population negates him from many of the traditional ethical theories we have learned about.  Treadwell would not fit in with deep ecologists as they believe and support the untouched natural world.  Through his research, it seemed as though he only found sanctity in the grizzly bears and foxes.

Although I may seem a bit critical of Treadwell’s life choices, I do think that he managed to do something very few humans ever can do.  He managed to surrender all obligations to human civilization and live in conjunction with a species that met the needs that he had.

Do I agree with Treadwell’s lifestyle?  No.  Would it be one that I would ever choose?  No.  Ultimately, I believe that he caused more harm to the bears than help.  He humanized the bears which is very dangerous.  In the scene where the other filmmakers were throwing stones at the bear, he had an opportunity to step in and stand up for the bear but he didn’t.  Yes, he exposed many hours of natural footage of the bears but in the long run if he really believed the bears needed protecting, he should have left them unexposed.  

A Common Ground for the Extremes

Both deep ecology and ‘Into the Wild’ are extreme in their field.  Deep ecology represents a radical environmental viewpoint; and ‘Into the Wild’ depicts a young man’s escape from the life box he felt he was trapped in. 

            Alex Supertramp, as he dubbed himself, grew up in a very affluent home.  He followed the traditional life path for many men his age.  He graduated from high school with good grades and soared through college.  Upon graduation he fled to the unknown.  Jumping from state to state, he befriended homeless people and old men to survive.  There was more than anger and rebellion that was driving him to establish this new life.  He was trying not to be found!

It is clear that Pojman and Pojman find humor and little validity to deep ecology.  Described as ‘an ideological toxic dump’ (167), the meaning in the title deep ecology seems to undermine everything environmentalism stands for.  The vocabulary used to describe the philosophy is extreme.  They describe famines as ‘nature’s population control’ and argue against immigration into the United States as to ‘protect our ecological resources’ (167).    

Reading about deep ecology reminded me of the speaker we had on campus last week.  She criticized environmentalism.  “I have a real problem with environmentalism because you portray such a strong hatred for the human race”, she said.  I hesitate to even say this but I think deep ecology is the type of environmentalism Ann has a problem with; and for the matter, I do too!  I have a problem with a theory that magnifies the destruction by humans on the Earth.  Deep ecology lessens the superiority of humans (169).  However, Pojman hits the nail on the head when they point out a hole in deep ecology – the failure to account for the ‘social nature’ of humans.  We are products of the relationships we make – something most animal species cannot form.  I could see Alexander Supertramp as a deep ecologist.  He enters the wild to become one with nature.  The culmination of his life represents a tie between deep ecology and ‘Into the Wild’.  Nature took its course and Alexander Supertramp was taken home.  

We Have Been Given the Power to Take so Much

I left Thursday's class absolutely disgusted.  I mean really, I had just watched a group of people stab and slaughter innocent animals.  My reflection of what I had just seen brought me back to the readings on Kant’s view of animal rights.  Relating Kant’s views on animal rights helps me understand human actions a bit better.  Kant’s distinction between humans, animals, and things is explained.  After reading and digesting his reasoning around the relationship between the three, I too believe that Kant’s view on animals may be taken more negatively than intended. 
So if Ric O’Berry presented Kant with the ethical dilemma in Taiji, I can hypothesize as to how Kant would approach it.  First of all, Kant would recognize that the dolphins and whales do have rights.  They have rights because they are organized beings with will and intrinsic purpose.(63)  The whales and dolphins do differ distinctly from humans though, because they do not have the ability to defy their instincts.  Kant would remind us that we have indirect obligations to these mammals because they are like us, and thus our treatment of them matters.
The section that resonates with me the most in Kant’s explanation deals with the repercussions of the inhumane treatment of animals on our civilization.  He warns, “cruelty to animals should be against the law, not only because it harms animals but also because it harms our humanity and makes us more likely to be cruel to humans (68).”  Think about it, if we cannot treat animals humanely, that behavior is more likely generalized to our behavior to each other.  Sound familiar?  The Holocaust, Colombine, other mass murders.  All are situations in which humans failed to see themselves as equal to another.  The result?  Death.  So looking at what’s happening in Taiji I get very hesitant.  If a group of Japanese fishermen can murder thousands of dolphins and whales a year without hesitation, what else is going on in other parts of the world that we do not know about?  As humans, we are instilled with a sort of intrinsic power over that of other species.  But with great power comes great responsibilty.  We have an obligation to reason for those animals who can't, speak up for those without voices, and protect those in vulnerable positions - not to kill them just because we can.   

Also, here is a clip from an article I found that talks about the suspension of the dolphin slaughter in Taiji.  They didn’t say they were stopping the dolphin wrangling altogether but they were going to release the dolphins that were not chosen for captivity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6530785    

Wooden Skeletons and Recycling

To any adult, I grew up in a one-story ranch style house, and a double car garage with a grey exterior, with a happy four-person family.  But to me I grew up in a fantasy world.  Behind my house were the makings of a new housing development.  The skeletons of future homes were trapezes for imaginary gymnastic sets.  My neighborhood posse and I spent hours upon hours in our own version of the ‘thingfinders club’ only to come home with priceless items.  The accessibility of the environment and the frequency in which I took advantage of it helped shape my current land ethic.  Although I view the land from a very anthropocentric perspective, I was taught that the environment is meant to be very interactive- it had no hours of availability.  I could venture over the manmade mud hills and run through impending backyards at any time I pleased.  As I aged, I spent less and less time outside freely gallivanting about.  Instead, I spent more time in structured activities outside – running, biking, rollerblading.  My land ethic was never explicitly outlined for me.  I derived it by observation.  I watched my parents recycle and experienced firsthand the joy that came from utilizing the outdoors for family bonding.  Now, I see the outdoors as treasured, kind of a novelty in some sorts.  I have respect for the land, yes.  I see great value in spending time engulfed in nature.  But do I view it as superior or even equivalent to me, sadly no.  

"P" is for Perspective

These first few days of class have been quite insightful.  Determined to catch every piece of information that left anyone’s mouth, I took way too many notes!  It was only after I sat down after class and really thought about the different theories we had discussed that I truly began to understand the information.  Disclaimer: I am nowhere near an environmental expert; however, I am no longer an environmental ethics novice.  I do not know the answers to the environmental issues we have briefly discussed, as I doubt many do otherwise we would not have such issues, but I could hold my own in an educated conversation about the issues from many different perspectives.

Being able to discuss issues from a variety of stances is a skill I have developed from attending these liberal arts institutions.  The readings and presentations on the different perspectives have reiterated the importance of that mindset specific to environmental studies.  Consistent with much of our nation, I am coming into this class from a very utilitarian perspective but by the end of class I hope to have a more eclectic approach to environmental issues.  My analytical mindset makes it very easy for me to default to cost-benefit analyses when searching for answers.  Utilitarianism allows us to justify decisions with facts.  That is, the morality and principles behind a choice may be trumped by cost-effective solution.  The anthropocentrism in this perspective blinds us from seeing the repercussions of our decisions on animal species and entire ecosystems which has led us to this scramble to protect and preserve the planet we are currently in.    

EthicsBlog1

Hi team members!
Please join me in my journey through Environmental Ethics!
     I'm Alison, a senior Psychology major.  Here is my brief run-down.  I am from River Falls, Wisconsin which is about 45 minutes from the Twin Cities.  Being from Wisconsin I am a HUGE Packer fan and WILL be watching the game Sunday.  I do however switch over for baseball season and sport Twins apparel.  I love to workout and do crafty stuff, minus drawing and painting.  I am terrified of bugs, the dark, death, and cruise ships.  My favorite book is Before I Fall, my favorite movie is Step Brothers and my dream job is to be on a S.W.A.T. team (long shot, I know).  My brother will be attending St. John's next year and although my mom and dad are not alums here, they support and love these institutions (probably because half their life savings are invested in it...). 
     I have zero background in Environmental Studies so I am looking forward to learning about the relationship between us as humans, our environment, and the moral obligations/philosophy between the two.  I also apologize in advance for misuse of any environmentally-related words and would appreciate patience as I embark on a surely-entertaining adventure through the world of environmental ethics!

See you all tomorrow!
Alison