Observations from film watched in class

I found it interesting that one guy made a comment about language being closely tied to consciousness, as it gives us the ability to have thoughts of our thoughts? Would we not be able to examine our thoughts if we didn't have a language? I know that quite frequently I have a thought that I am able to comprehend without being able to put it into words. One might suggest I am not really able to comprehend it, or as well as I think, if I cannot put it into words, but I think this is bullshit. Our consciousness has the ability to take the objective world in and make sense of it without explaining to itself (in words) what it is that it is entertaining. We see this in animals. Surely those animals that are able to comprehend some of their surroundings (i.e. the ability to remember the need for a tool to crack a nut open) is done without the animal talking in the type of language that is implied (built on a foundation of words with attributed meanings). Its consciousness is communicating to itself, but in a way that is beyond words.

In one experiment it was suggested that the chimp being tested was able to know what was in a human's mind. The chimp knew that a key was needed to open a box, and it knew that the guy wanted to open the box, and therefore showed the guy where they key was put. I just needed to type (think) this out to understand what was meant by claiming the chimp knew what was in the human's mind. Though it is likely the chimp only knew this through repitition, because the whole experiment was around the box being opened. The chimp always knew that the second man that came into the room would open the box, because that is what the man always did. Therefore this knowledge was drilled in the chimp's mind through repitition. What useful information does this tell us about a chimp's mind? Such experiments seem to be a waste of energy and resources.

As was mentioned in the film, I think it is most fascinating to know that nonhuman animal minds are different and unique from each other and from humans, andit is unnecessary to think of them as or prove them to be deficient human minds. Experimenting with them may do nothing but allow us to marvel when they might show they are capable of something we were unsure they were capable of and at the difference from humans. We should already treat all living beings with respect and fulfill obligations to them when able, and not have to understand their consciousness more before we do so.

Significance of Nonhuman Animal Consciousness

It is undeniable that many animals have some cognitive abilities, and are conscious to some extent of their surroundings and actions, but what significance does this knowledge have in terms of human treatment towards animals? It may seem amazing that an animal can crack open a nut through the same means over and over, or draw termites out of a tree with a stick, and then eat them off of the stick, but does it only seem amazing because they already appear so inferior than humans that any cognitive ability we observe from them makes us amazed? Is it really more amazing than the fact that they actually exist? I'm not sure any of these cognitive abilities we observe in them warrents any change humans treatment towards them. Of course I am assuming that they receive the general concern and care that they deserve by being living beings, and there is certainly a lot of unwarrented cruelty towards animals. I am referring mostly to consumption of animals for food as warrented human treatment. Come to think of it, this may be the only issue that I'm not sure should change given any recognized cognitive abilities. Whether it is known they have consciousness or cognitive abilities or not, I do not think animals should be subject to experiments, hunting for sport, or stolen from their environment for the entertainment of humans, apparent in zoos and circuses. I consider these acts of cruelty that no living being should be subject to, given the possibility that they may be consciously harmed from such actions. However, if a pig is known to have fairly highly advanced cognitive abilities relative to other nonhuman animals, I see nothing wrong in killing it for food if it will provide sustenance to humans.

Eating the Unknown

When children first begin to eat meat, do they realize that they are eating an animal? And whether they do or not, does this constitute as their first encounter (assuming they haven't encountered pets) with an animal? I doubt children are aware of what they are eating during there first few years. And therefore it might not be considered their first encounter with an animal, assuming their consciousness must play a role in the encounter. I'm not sure what implications any of this had, it is just something that came up.
When do people become aware of what they are eating? Because of being disattached from what we eat by having others kill, grow and prepare our food for us, many never know exactly what they are eating. We obviously become aware of foods, but much is prepared with ingredients we are not aware of. What we may call a chicken nugget is usually much more than a nugget of chicken. Of course many have also become aware of this, and wish to know what they put into their bodies, hence the movement towards organic foods, etc. This is a great reaction to chemically induced, mass produced foods, however, it is not always accessible and affordable. And I wonder whether it is necessary for everyone to adopt this way of eating. Organic foods are healthier, but many have survived quite easily without eating organic. And more than half of the world's human population is malnurished. Almost everyone of those persons would take any parcel of food available to them, organic or processed to shit. While I think people who can afford to shift their attention towards eating healthier, organic, etc. should do so, as one should take care of their own bodies first, I also think the world as an entirety should put more energy into feeding fellow humans. The two can be done simultaneously, but it is important that people eat before they eat as healthy as possible. Or not; maybe hunger and starvation has a necessary role in the cleansing of the overpopulation of humans on the planet.

Q's

If science can give scientific explanations for the origins of ethics, etc., does this render theological explanations as useless or impossible? I ask this question pertaining to anything actually. Does a scientific explanation of anything render all theological explanations of that situation as something not worth bothering with? Is it possible that scientfic explanations are a component within something greater than science itself and beyond what science can explain? Is science limited, or is it possible for science to explain every phenomenon present to consciousness? As far as ethics, is it possible that the possible origins of stemming from social evolution was inevitable in the blueprint of the development potential within consciousness? What I mean is that humans reaching the state of ethical development was an inevitable step in the unfolding of the universe.

Widening the Gap

This is something that came to me after Christina pointed out our lack of equal treatment to domesticated animals: If a domesticated animal (dog) does something harmful (i.e. pitbull biting a human), is there some lawful punishment the dog can be given so it will not commit the act again other than putting it to death? If it were a human, other things could be done, such as send the human to a correctional facility, because the human has the potential to reason out his/her wrongdoings and change his/her behavior. If a human commits assault, there is a lawful punishment. I don't think we can create laws to punish animals other than having them be put to death. Perhaps there are training schools out there, that I am unaware of, that can train the dogs to become less aggressive, but we have no guarentee that the dog willl not perform the harmful act again. Perhaps the owner or trainer of the animal should be punished for not being in control of the animal it is responsible for. I love dogs as much as anyone, I just see the gap between animals and humans widening here in the fact that we can create laws for ourselves and hold ourselves accountable for our actions, and learn about our behaviour and change it through laws, which animals cannot do, nor can we do it for them.

On another note, something that animals can do, which humans cannot, was pointed out by Noah, which also widens this gap. It is impossible for humans to find an ecological niche, as we are always rapidly evolving and adapting to our surroundings. While every other species finds a niche in their habitat in which their obligations are already set and they are expected to behave in a specific manner. Humans can not find their place and get comfortable with it and have a routine of actions, as every other species can and does. Last week it was mud huts and hunting for food and this week it is a condo suite on the 40th floor of a downtown skyscraper and Chinese take out; who knows what will be next week. This appears to me to be a drastic difference between humans and every other species. How come every other species has their niche, while humans do not? Why can other species not evolve to develop the ability of reason in which they would use to forever progress themselves? Instead, they just waltz along in the backround, and sometimes we observe to take in their beauty.

Google

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-energy-2030.html



http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/



This may be old news, but its new to me (thanks Ben Todd), and encouraging news all should here, considering the negative shit we are lambasted with from the mainstream media. I still think, considering the environmental situation, among other things, all is going to hell, but this is the kind of thing I want to see before it all comes down. I want to see great effort from the human heart and mind to rise above greed and pride, and do what we can to salvage some of our greatness, before it all goes under.
When Murray Bookchin suggested we need to evolve into a "free nature" in which humans "intervene in the natural evolution", it was natural for me to throw up a red flag. But considering we've already intervened in the natural evolution to a point where we are facing the destruction of our own species, among others, we might as well intervene some more to attempt to patch the rotten sore on mother earth we've created, rather then letting her do it by herself (which I am confident that she inevitably will do if need be).
Bookchin also states that communal interest must be placed above personal interest in his ecological society. I think that if everyone took care of themselves and put their energy into that which is in direct relations to them on a daily basis, it will follow that the collective will benefit as a whole. The problem is people don't take care of themselves first, and they put their energy into concerns out of their reach, when the root of these problems lies within each of us and the way we perceive the world and conduct ourselves on a daily basis.

Anti-Sentience

If sentience is the capacity for pain and pleasure, are those who advocate for the practice of remaining indifferent to pain and pleasure, so to transcend the effects of the mundane, physical world (i.e. Eastern mystics) anti-sentient? If sentience is then taken out of the equation of determining which living beings should be given ethical consideration, does this make all nonhumans more like humans, or does it separate humans from nonhumans even more? Would the non-sentient still give sentient creatures consideration because sentient creatures are unaware of the deluded nature of pain and plasure, or would s/he give them less consideration because s/he sees pain and pleasure as fleeting illusions, as it would not matter if they received one or the other, and whatever happens to them, happens? Because humans alone can grasp this, and become indifferent to pain and pleasure, does this create a larger gap between humans and nonnhumans? Would this ability make humans superior, because they can avoid these disturbances?

Biosphere as Human Dominion

Murray Bookchin argues for an ethics in which "humans complement nonhuman beings to produce a developmental whole - not as dominant species but as a supportive one." Can humans be a supportive species while also being a dominant one? The act of willfully supporting nonhumans is an act of domination in the sense of excersing a power over other species that they do not have. Sure, other nonhumans support humans, but they don't take the initiative to do this willfully. Perhaps, humans are obligated to support nonhumans, being a dominant species. Again, it is humans who need to make the recognition of support to all species, and this could be because everything else is within their domain; and in their domain, because humans alone can willfully cause help or harm to the whole. The ability to do this would come from the development of our "second nature" as we evolved into social beings, according to Bookchin. And to agree with what I said about our ability alone to help or harm the whole, Bookchin says our second nature "contains both the danger of tearing down the biosphere and, given a further development of humanity toward an ecological society, the capacity to provide an entirely new ecological dispensation." (pg 468) Whether true or not, perhaps humans need to see the biosphere as their dominion in order to take the steps necessary to preserve it. I am not speaking of a dominion in the sense that we can do anything to whatever lies within it because it belongs to us, but more that it is our responsibility alone to take care of it in order to preserve it for our existence and the existence of everything else within it that is a vital component of its preservation and component of its beauty and uniqeness.

Climate Change at Walden Pond

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/28/walden-pond-flowers.html

Here is an interesting article about the effects of climate change in the woods at Walden Pond, where Thoreau lived while writing Walden. The temperature here has increased 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and 27% of the species Thoreau documented cannot be found there anymore and another 36% may be gone soon.

Thoreau often stated that in nature could be found the most sublime society. As far as the society humans have devleoped today, Bookchin says, "social development... often becomes more problematical for themselves and nonhuman life." The findings in the above article show, in one sense, this quote to be true.

Fencing the Atmosphere?

I find it interesting (and sad) that humans will likely show more concern towards the natural environment, out of necessity for survival, before humans show more consideration towards each other because of prejudicial attitudes toward sex, race, religion, etc.

Quote from Terry Anderson/Donald Leal: "If free market environmentalism solutions spark the imagination of environmental entrepreneurs, technological progress toward fencing the atmosphere may be accelerated." --They can't be serious. Why? To hope environmental organizations will purchase the entire atmosphere, so to eliminate the pollution of it? And how? Is it even possible to mark and divide portions of the atmosphere? And the entire atmosphere would have to be purchased from the beginning of it being available on the market from environmentalists; because if say half was owned by environmentalists, and half was owned by corporations which pollute, the pollution would surely move from one portion of the atmosphere to another with wind currents. And it certainly isn't possible to construct physical walls (fences?) to ensure pollutants don't travel into someone's elses property. (Which brings me to a thought: pollutants travel quite far from their source into areas that are privately owned. Shouldn't these polluters be held responsible for that?). Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Anderson/Leal mean by fencing the atmosphere and my response is only good for some laughs. But if that is not what they mean, what do they mean when talking about fencing the atmosphere?

Some Questions

Does meat sell products for men only? Can it not sell for women too? I'd like to see the statistics... but I imagine women eat meat just as much as men do. There can't be significantly less women who eat meat than there is men. I don't see the connection between men and meateaters. Men might traditionally kill the animals, but they are not the only ones who eat their kill. I find it interesting that it was noted that plant-based economies are more egalatarian. Do men discriminate more against women when they are eating more meat? I find this hard to believe. But if it so, what is the connection? Eating meat provokes discrimanate behavior?

Do most human meateaters think that they (humans) are more superior than animals, and this is why they don't eat humans? Too most humans, I would think it is obvious that it is taboo to eat humans; but why? Is this the case with other species who are carnivores? Do they also not eat their own kind? Perhaps it is because of the sentimentality other species have towards their own kind. If this is so, perhaps every conscious species recognizes a difference between their own species and every other. Perhaps every species has a mentality of survival, not only within each individual for itself, but for its own kind as well as for itself, and therefore only survives off species that are not of its kind.

I found this following comment that was made in class interesting: If a man is gay, he would reject meat. If he hasn't rejected meat, he hasn't made the connection yet. Maybe I misheard something, but I don't know where to begin to try to understand this. As above, is eating meat associated with being a man, or masculine? And are homosexual men always considered to be feminate, and to associate themselves with anything masculine would be a misunderstanding on their own part of the way they should behave for being homosexual?

Sharkwater

Last class we mentioned some of the ridiculous decadent delicacies our human species consume, such as shark fin soup. Well, estimates are that the shark populations have decreased by 90% (mostly from illegal fishing), and will surely become extinct if the market in southeast Asia continues to demand shark fins for medicinals (which is more of a superstition than a scientific proven ailment) and shark fin soup (popular at weddings and among the highest classes in southeast Asia)t. Sharks are 400 million years old, the second oldest mammal next to the whale I believe. The role they play in the universe and on our earth cannot be known for sure, but one obvious problem that will/has arisen with their decrease will be the decrease of oxygen on our planet. Eliminate sharks and the fish they consume multiply, and these fish consume more phytoplankton... which gives the planet the majority of it's oxygen. I highly recommend checking out this film, Sharkwater, as it reveals the cruelity towards sharks caused by a fairly new market for their fins, that has decimated 90% of the shark population. They are captured mostly illegally by the hundreds and nothing is used save their fins.

Peter Singer

I had previously (see below) hyphothesized a question to Peter Singer about the over-population of deer species, and interesting enough, almost the same question was proposed to him during his lecture at Williams College this past Thursday. He was asked something along the lines of, "with regards to hunters, what do you think about killing deer, especially with the problems caused by their over-population?" And Singer responded that he was not entirely opposed to killing deer to quell the problems they have caused, as long as the person killing them is a good shot, and is killing them almost immediately upon impact, so to not prolong any suffering. He also said he thinks it is more ethical to kill and eat deer than cows. He did say (even if indirectly) that we should continue consuming cows, because their existence depends on humans. Though the treatment of cows during their life should be reevaluated so to assure they have a more enjoying life.

I also found it interesting that not once during his lecture did Singer say flat out that he thinks it is ethically wrong to kill or eat animals. The lecture revoloved more around taking steps towards eating more ethically, as in locally (better for the environment, less travel) and organically/free-range so we support farms that allow their animals to live a life with minimal suffering before their death. He did, however, claim that he thinks becoming a vegetarian or vegan is an even further step toward eating ethically. The ethics were not just taking into account the life of sentient beings, but also the environment. Overall, I thought his lecture was very realistic, as it is not likely for the entire population to just stop eating meat over-night.

Necessary Egoism

Is the "golden rule" (treat others the way you wish to be treated) egotistical? If so, are there any environmental ethic schools that are not egotistical (utilitarian and deontological schools fall prey to this egoism, as Callicott shows)? Must the concern of human life be a precursor to the concern of the life of other organisms?
The respect for other organisms needs to start with the respect for oneself or humans fellow species members. A human surely cannot see the value in another organism, if it cannot see the value of itself or its neighbor. Should these ethics be considered egotistical, is this a bad thing?
Although some people certainly sacrifice there own well-being (physically) for the well-being of another. Where does this action come from? Is the motive for this act some benefit the one acting thinks will come for sacrificing one's well-being for another's?

Evolution

"Humans have evolved to a point where we are in control of our own evolution." Professor Johnson made a statement like this last week. Does this mean we are no longer natural? Though, is it in our nature to evolve to a point where we are in control of our evolution (and are no longer moving along a natural evolutionary process)?; and therefore the evolution up to this point is natural, but is no longer? Can we have natural actions against nature? And have ethics evolved, or come about, because we have moved to this point (an unnatural point, perhaps), as Betsy considered?
..........

In determining superiority, if one would ever want to do such a thing, should one consider who is superior by measuring one single merit (such as speed or climbing prowess) or by abilities that no other species has. Cheetahs are faster than humans, but humans can run. Monkeys are better climbers, but humans can climb. Only humans can sit around and discuss the issue of environmental ethics, no other species can. I don't think it's how good a species can do something, but what one species can do that another cannot that should be used to determine superiority.
...........

I find it interesting that, according to Clare Palmer, Paul Taylor says that one can only have duties to individual organisms with a good of their own (and not things like rivers, for example), but also says that in our duty of restituive justice we should concentrate on ecosystems to maximize the good we give back to organisms we took good away from.

Land As Alive

A few classes ago we briefly commented on the connection humans feel with their natural environment (forests, etc.). Some of us agreed that humans used to feel more connected with their environment as they lived with it and from it more so than the average human does today, sometimes on a daily basis (specifically tribal cultures like Aboriginals, Native Americans, etc.). Along with living with the natural, physical world more, came a different perception of the land as it appeared more "alive" and at times had a mystical force about it to the people living with it. The closer people lived with the land, the more the land appeared to have a life of its own. Aldo Leopold claims that the largest obstacle to adopting a "land ethic" is the detachment many humans have with the land. The average human lacks a conscious understanding of the natural environment, and as Leopold puts it, "Your true modern is separated from the land by many middlemen and by innumerable physical gadgets." (Environmental Philosophy pg.114 Leopold, Aldo. The Land Ethic) Rather than work with the land ourselves, we have people (middlemen) to work it for us, and this is where the biggest problem in our society lays, the dollar. We have other people grow our food for us and build our things for us, and we can just let the dollar flow, so we have more time to sit around and play with our gadgets. I imagine Leopold is talking about other kinds of gadgets when he used the word gadget, like using machines instead of horses to deforest and other sorts to farm, etc. I agree with Leopold that widespread education to change our consciousness about the land is required if we as a species are going to continue to live with it in a sustainable manner. And, while awareness is spreading, it is not nearly doing so at the rate it needs to. What are we to include in the education of the our environment to have it catch on, in which people will genuinlly feel connected to it, and therefore care about it. Should we attribute to it some mystical life-force, even if this is an educational ploy to enforce a greater connection with it, if this would indeed create a connection. Humans may very well have to work with the land themselves to see it as something alive, but if so many don't work with it, this may be something to consider, as perceiving the land with a life of its own may generate more concern for it.

This Is Wild

Consider a collective "consciousness" that is pure mental energy, within which is absolute knowledge. This consciousness permeates all the universe (and therefore, unites it on a mental level), as it is the blueprint (think Plato's Forms). With the ability to rationalize and intuit, humans alone have the ability to tap into this consciousness so as to use it (through willful reason/intuition) and know the universe to a degree that no other species can, as others only carry out the nature of their blueprint. We are the medium through which this pure consciousness knows itself. Other species owe their existence to this consciousness, but only humans can move within it, knowingly, and manipulate nature and even change their value to the universe through it. This is not to say other species have no importance. They have essential importance, as humans rely on other organisms for their very existence as human; and it is humans, who alone recognize this, who are obligated to care for and respect the interconnectedness of the universe. And it is humans, who understand the effects and flatout wrongness of deliberatly causing (and experiencing) pain and suffering to anything, that must take this into account every time one encounters another organism. Just because humans alone can change their position in the universe on a mental level through the collective consciousness, doesn't change the life of other organisms who are susceptible to physical pain and are vital in the existence of this physical universe.
And the existence of a collective consciousness does not imply that any organism can make a rational connection (trees understanding their surroundings) with another, even if the forms find their origin in the same mental level.
If one is to view the world from an organisms perspective, as Taylor suggests is the criterion for having a teleological center, can this only be done through a collective consciousness (by a human)? We cannot know whether something is good or bad for an organism itself, as an organism, which does not have cognitive faculties, may be indifferent to everything. An organism would need to be subject not object for humans to know its true Form and what is good or bad for it, if anything. And this may be only be possible through a collective consciousness, as I described briefly above.
This may seem wild (impossible or unprovable), but I'm willing to work with it.. and shift thought around a bit.

Thoughts from 9/24

About sentient beings having life, but not all living things having sentience... Professor Johnson brought up the idea of some super computer possibly being able to acquire life. Is a blade of grass considered alive? If not, what can a computer have than a blade of grass cannot to say it is alive? If yes, what does the grass have that the computer does not to say it has life? I guess I am curious to see if there is something that a non-human made (natural?) thing has something that no human-made thing can have.

On another note, Taylor suggests that living things can have interests without being interested or having consciousness, and also be harmed or benefited without the awareness of this. If a tree is "harmed", it is us, humans, who decide it is harmed and have the knowledge of it, not the tree. It is only we who know it is harmed, the outcome of the harm is of no matter to the tree, and we therefore designate the tree or anything else for that matter to have a "good" as Taylor puts it. This "good" does not seem to me to be inherent, but only comes when we put it there. The harm is not so much the harm of the tree, but more to us who recognize the interconnectedness of the earth's biotic communities, as the destruction of forests lead to the destruction of other living things, including humans. I don't think a non-conscious living thing can have an interest in developing into its full biological powers. The interest is a human interest (if we choose it to be) who recognize the living thing's potential to benefit the community as a whole. If this is the case, the idea of organisms all being unique, irreplaceable individuals is disputed. I think many organisms are replaceable, especially non-conscious ones, and if not irreplaceable, at least easily forgotten in its original form, even though the energy must go some where. I think many organisms are not any more beneficial to the universe in a "living" state than in a new one, whatever that is, dead or something else.

Deer

I'm curious as to what Peter Singer would think about the act of thinning out the deer population for the benefit of the deer population as a whole (utilitarian?). The over population of deer is not only a problem for humans, but for deer themselves. Their food has become scarce (partially due to humans from urban sprawl and continuous development), and the competition for it has increased. This has made the average deer weaker than normal, and more susceptible to disease and sickness and a longer, more painful death. Are we obligated, having the awareness of this situation, to help out the deer population as a whole and allow responsible deer hunters, whom will use the deer to feed their families in an economic crisis where people need to choose between feeding their family and heating their house, to thin out the deer population, in which deer would experience a quick death, when many are dying slowly from hunger and sickness? Humans are partially responsible for this problem within the deer species, and we can help solve the problem by killing a few.

Animals For Food

I am not sold on the pain/pleasure justification for equality, from Singer's argument of humans and nonhumans should have equal consideration of interests (capacity for pain/pleasure). Especially with nonhumans, and even more so with instant death (or killing), as opposed to prolonged suffering. If one can justifiably kill in animal, once killed, it does not know or feel pain or suffering upon death. Of course the capacity for pleasure is taken away, but this is not known or felt upon death either. How can one justify killing the animal in the first place? I think with the lone intention of killing the animal for food. I think we are obligated to treat animals with respect and to not make them subject to suffering, however, if one makes animals a part of one's diet and always has, killing the animal for this purpose is in the nature of many humans, as it has been done since our dawn. I think animals which we make a part of our lives on an emotional level, etc. such as domesticated dogs and cats, and humanize them to a sense should not be killed for food, and the same applies to endangered species, which may play a vital role in the evolution of the planet and of our own species, as well as many others. If one species is removed, it effects many other components of life (ie. remove sharks, smaller fish populations explode, which will consume larger amounts of phytoplankton, which supplies most of our oxygen). Not much of an argument yet... but its my intuitive thought on the matter, and maybe I can build an argument as the class moves forward.

Breaking My Blog Virginity

From the comments about Hitler having good (moral) qualities for being a vegatarian:
If everyone has good (moral) and evil (immoral) qualities, can anyone rightly be called moral or immoral? There must be some line where one's morality outweighs that one's immorality or vice-versa for one to be labeled moral. And those (im)moral qualities must vary in degrees of (im)morality, because how would anyone outweigh one over the other? Or, does one have to have entirely (im)moral qualities to be labeled (im)moral?

Near the end of Sylvan's article, he (perhaps indirectly) brings up the problem of widespread ignorance of what is environmentally ethical (or could be), in the possible scenario of killing blue whales as an economically permissable act by the collective demand, because many are either misinformed or do not know if these whales even exist, what is happening to the whales, or the significance of their possible extinction. In such a scenario, could there be an environmental ethic that applies (legally, as in to outlaw the killing of blue whales?), whether people are ignorant to the situation or not? As Sylvan says, "Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see in television." With the environmental dilemmas we face today, however, people would need to subscribe to an environmental ethic on a massive scale. To stop the amount of CO2 we emit, for example, nearly the entire population would need to agree on an environmental ethic which would make emissions ethically wrong, as the effects of emission will devastate life which we are obligated to take care of, including our own, as we depend on environmental factors that are in danger of being destroyed.

The first step for the masses to adopt an environmental ethic of this kind is widespread education and awareness. As this is a pressing issue in which our survival, and the survival of other species we depend on, is at stake, ignorance on the issue cannot be tolerated. I think, therefore, what is taught in basic, pre-secondary education should be reevaluated on a global scale, to educate the masses with knowledge that is necessary for our survival, such as environmental issues, and other topics which closely effect the environment in which we live, such as sex education, which is being done in many countries with fast-growing populations; but are these people also educated on the environmental repercussions of over-population, and if so, in a way in which the educated actually care? Perhaps people should be educated in a way in which sexual activity as merely a pleasurable fulfillment is wrong, not just for the children that may come of the act, but for themselves, as they could be using the time given to them in a diffrent manner. I know this is another ethical issue in iteself and is breaching the lines of a religious-spiritual tone. But anyway...