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.