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.