Environmental Ethics Test #2 Study Guide

Aldo Leopold- "The Land Ethic"

- The ethical sequence - the first ethics dealt with the relations between individuals; later ethics dealt with the relations between individuals and society; there is not yet a system of ethics which deals with the relation between humans and the land. - We treat land as property - like Odysseus' slave girls. We think that we have the right to use our land however we choose; but we do not think of ourselves as having obligations to the land. - Ethics rests on the idea that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. "The land ethic enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters,plants, and animals, or collectively, the land." (p. 125) - This is somewhat strange to us to think of soil as part of our community. However, Leopold suggests that we are dependent upon the soil. The energy that flows through our bodies comes from the soil. For Leopold, soil is not just a pile of minerals. Soil is alive. When the soil is healthy, it is full of nutrients. It is part of an interconnected community of life.

Guha suggests that deep ecology is not as radical as the deep ecologists like to think it is. He says that it is a radical trend within the wilderness preservation movement. It suggests that nature serves as an antidote to modern civilization.

---Americans will drive hundreds of miles in their cars to spend a holiday in a national park. Doing this actually turns nature into a new product to be consumed. The deep ecologists, according to Guha, are not seriously challenging the consumer society. - The Green Party in East Germany is more radical, according to Guha, because it calls for a "no growth" economy. Zero growth is not really discussed by most economists. It would require a radical shift in our economic and political structures, and in our cultural values. It would require an ethic of self-limitation. - The Chipko (Hug the Tree) movement in India is a peasant movement against deforestation in the Himalayan foothills. It is a battle of peasant farmers who do subsistence farming against industrial logging. -The German and Indian environmental movements allow people to integrate ecological concerns into their work and their livelihoods, and put greater emphasis on social justice than the deep ecology movement does.

About Dave Forman

--Dave Foreman used to work for a group like the Sierra Club, or the Wilderness Society, that lobbied in Washington D.C. trying to get better laws to protect the environment. He said that when a forest was planned for destruction, they would ask that half of it be saved. The politicians would ask them to compromise, and they would agree that only a quarter of the forest would be saved. Eventually he realized that at the present rate, there would soon be nothing left to save. - Foreman and five other men quit their jobs as lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and formed Earth First! Their slogan was "No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!" They would fight to save old growth forest and other natural areas, and they would not compromise. Earth First! had a newsletter, but it did not have any official members. You could not "join" Earth First! There was no central office. There was no list of members. -- One of the things that Earth First! did was "monkeywrenching" - destroying the property of logging companies in order to save the forests. This, of course, was illegal. Foreman compares it to the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party was the illegal destruction of property. It is now celebrated as a part of American history. Unlike the Boston Tea Party, however, he says that monkeywrenching is not revolutionary. They are not trying to overthrow the government. Only to protect wilderness and natural diversity. -- According to Foreman, monkeywrenching is non-violent. It is not intended to harm human beings or other forms of life. It is aimed at inanimate machines and tools. Care is taken to minimize any possible threat to people. -- Foreman says that monkeywrenching must be targeted. Mindless destruction of property is just vandalism. He did not advocate destroying all bulldozers, or all pieces of logging equipment. Senseless vandalism will lead to loss of popular sympathy. -- According to Foreman, monkeywrenching is ethical. The purpose of monkeywrenching is to protect life and defend the Earth. This, he says, is the most moral of all actions.

Deep ecologists in the U.S. frequently invoke Eastern philosophies as antecedents to deep ecology. They are trying to suggest that deep ecology is not just a western idea. However, Guha finds this somewhat offensive.

--Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism are frequently lumped together as holding a "biocentric" view of nature. This ignores the important differences between these different religions. -The deep ecologists seem to view non-western cultures as primitive, but good. However, this is not really very far from the colonialist idea that non-western cultures were primitive and bad.

What does Muir think about the Hetch Hetchy Valley?

--Muir believed that the national park was a place where nature should be left alone, with as little interference from humans as possible. He was opposed to the dam. - Muir describes the Hetch Hetchy Valley as a grand landscape garden, one of Nature's rarest and most precious temples. Flooding the valley would, for Muir, be like flooding Notre Dame or the Taj Mahal. - Muir describes the Hetch Hetchy Valley as a place of spectacular natural beauty and as a temple. The value that he attaches to the valley seems to be both aesthetic and religious. -- Muir says that "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike. The destruction of Yosemite's nature beauty is, for Muir, part of the universal battle between right and wrong.

What are Muirs views?

--that areas of natural beauty and ecological significance should be preserved in their natural states, and not used as resources, has come to be known as preservation. - In the battle over Hetch Hetchy, Muir was opposed by Gifford Pinchot, who started the National Forest Service. Pinchot saw the forests as an important natural resource that was not being used wisely. Over-logging threatened to destroy the forests. -So he wanted to engage in scientific resource management so that we would have natural resources to use now and in the future. His view has come to be known as conservation.

Paul Moriarty - "Nature Naturalized" (2007)

-According to Bertrand Russell, humans are a part of nature because we always act in accordance with the laws of physics. We are not supernatural beings who can transcend the laws of science. Moriarty agrees with Russell that humans are a part of nature in this way -we are not supernatural beings. - According to Robert Elliot, to say that something is "natural" is to say that it is relatively unmodified by human activity. This seems to say that humans and nature are two separate things. Humans are not part of nature. Moriarty agrees with Elliot.

Water Contamination

-CAFOs also cause water contamination. Feces and urine from the open air sewage pits often seep down into groundwater, contaminating local wells -runoff from the fields goes into local streams, causing both algae blooms and bacteria contamination -and when the sewage pits overflow or break, the contamination of local streams and rivers can be extensive

Jessica Pierce- "Canned Hunts"

-Canned hunts occur at hunting ranches where animals are bred in captivity for the purpose of being released and killed by hunters who pay large sums of money -Is it unethical to raise and hunt animals in this way? Some states have passed laws which ban canned hunts. -other hunters object to canned hunts bc they violate the rules of fair chase -but defenders of the canned hunts claim that they are more likely to get a clean kill so that the animal will not suffer. And they say that the animals are bred in large numbers, so it does not endanger the population

Ilea's List of Issues

-Climate Change -Workers -Community Mobilizing -Land Degradation -Water Contamination -Solutions

What does Cochrane think of these 4 views?

-Cochrane rejects all four of these views. He says that domesticated animals are different from human slaves, for example, because human care about their own autonomy, their ability to make their own decisions. Human slaves want to be free. Humans can understand what slavery is. Also, he says, some domesticated animals live very comfortable lives, unlike human slaves. -Cochrane proposes a fifth view instead of the four views listed above. He says that we should think of domesticated animals as individual beings with interests and needs of their own. The interests of a domesticated cat might be different from the interests of a domesticated horse.

Romana Cristina Ilea "Intensive Livestock Farming" (2009)

-Global production of livestock is expected to double by 2050 bc the worlds population is increasing, and ppl in the 3rd world are eating more meat as they move out of poverty and as meat becomes cheaper -Ilea does not focus on the harms which are caused to animals by factory farms. Instead, she looks at enviromental impacts, such as climate change, water pollution, water consumption, etc.

Is it important that an environmental movement should be committed to biocentrism rather than focusing on the needs of humans?

-Guha thinks that anthropocentrism is not the primary cause of environmental degradation. He says that the primary causes of environmental degradation are overconsumption by the industrialized world and by urban elites in the Third World, and growing militarization. --When rural farmers in India live in harmony with nature, this is not a major cause of environmental problems, even if they are focused on the needs of humans.

Should environmentalists focus on wilderness preservation?

-Guha thinks that wilderness preservation might make sense in the U.S., where there are large areas of land that are relatively unharmed by human activity. --However, India is a densely populated country where people have been living on the land for centuries. Trying to set aside wilderness areas using the American model of wilderness preservation has required removing peasant farmers from the land. The result is a direct transfer of land and resources from the poor to the rich. --One American biologist suggested that biologists must begin to buy tropical forests in order to preserve them. Guha sees this as an imperialist manifesto.

Solutions

-Ilea does not think that trying to pass new regulations to restrict CAFOs is likely to solve the prob. -its tough to pass laws which hurt big agribusiness bc the business has $$ and political connections & even if industrialized countries succeeded in passing regulations, this would push intensive livestock farming into developing nations. -Instead she thinks that we must decrease demand for meat & dairy products. ---This will mean trying to convince ppl that they have a moral obligation to consume fewer meat and dairy products. Even if each person reduces their meat & dairy consumption by 20%, this will have a significant impact.

Land Degradation

-Intensive animal farming causes deforestation---forests are cut down to make room for animal grazing, or to grow crops to feed animals. -the demand for meat in developed countries is having a large impact on other countries -grazing cows in the desert causes erosion, especially along the banks of streams -overgrazing can be very harmful to fragile ecosystems, such as the desert -7% of global water use goes towards irrigation for animal feed crops. Raising one cow for meat uses enough water to float a battleship

Community Mobilizing

-Sometimes communities have come together and organized to restrict CAFOs in their neighborhoods. -Ilea ays that we should be careful not to adopt a NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach to these problems- if wealthier, whiter communities succeed in banning CAFOs, this will just drive them to less affluent communities w/ larger minority populations, or to 3rd world countries- this can contribute to environmental racism

Some of the central tenets of deep ecology

-The distinction between anthropocentrism and biocentrism, and a commitment to biocentrism. -A focus on wilderness preservation. -Invocation of Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. -The belief that deep ecology is the most radical trend within environmentalism.

Deep Ecology Movement includes;

-The rejection of the man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image. Organisms should be seen as knots in a biospherical net -all forms of life have the equal right to live and blossom, even tho we cannot live up to this idea in practice bc we must eat -a commitment to preserving biodiversity -anti-class posture -Local autonomy and decentralization. In other words, local communities should have the ability to make their own decisions without a central authority making decisions for them. People in their local communities should have a sense of connection to the land and to the particular places in their lives.

More about Wangaari

-Wangari Maathai was given the Nobel Peace Prize for her work. - Frequently, Maathai and the Greenbelt Movement met resistance from the government of Kenya. Powerful men in the government make money from the logging industry. Maathai has been beaten by soldiers when she protested against logging. - Maathai sees a connection between environmental destruction, the oppression of women, and military violence. All of these things are caused by powerful men who are attempting to enhance and maintain their own power and wealth. They are also tied to the history of colonialism in Kenya. The people of Kenya are greatly affected by the history of colonialism. -The land that is called 'Kenya' today used to consist of many different tribes and many different cultures. They did not have a written language before the British arrived. Much of their culture has been lost, and since it was not written down, they are not able to go back and look at it. So, they try to use the things that the missionaries taught them. - The place of God is now in a church. The fig tree near where she grew up was cut down. And the stream is gone.

Alasdair Cochrane- "Born In Chains" (2014)

-What ethical issues are raised by the fact that we domesticate animals? -domesticated animals include dogs, coats, pigs, sheep, cows, chickens etc. -domestication is not the same as captivity. An AA elephant in a zoo, or an orca in a sea life park, is a captive animal, but the species has not been domesticated. We have not changed the species to serve human needs. -domestication involves both biological changes, such as the wild lynx becoming a domestic cat, and sociological changes. Domesticated animals are dependent on humans. -4 views 1. domesticated animals was -artifacts- Rolston & Callicott have said that domestication is unnatural and morally wrong. It transforms natural entities into human artifacts. They believe that there should not be any domesticated animals (actually, Callicott has changed his mind about this because he now thinks that everything humans do is natural) 2. Domesticated animals as strategists. Some biologists believe that some wild animals have evolved to live near humans as a survival strategy. About 9,000 years ago, wolves, or wild dogs of some sort, started living near humans. At first, they just ate the garbage that humans threw away. Over time, they evolved to become more friendly towards humans. Those wolves who were friendly towards humans got more food. This was a good evolutionary strategy. On this view, the domestication of dogs was a natural process - like two species evolving to become symbiotic. 3. Domesticated animals as slaves. Domesticated animals have been bred to serve human needs, to be compliant and servile. They are treated by humans as slaves -they are bought and sold as property, and they are forced to do manual labor for us. This is harmful to the animals involved. The characteristics which we have given them through selective breeding, such as unusually large bodies, are harmful to the animals. Animal slavery should be abolished just like human slavery was, and domesticated animals should be phased out of existence. 4. Domesticated animals as citizens. Clare Palmer (who used to be at Wash U) has suggested that domesticated animals are members of our families and members of our communities. Some animals live in our houses. We love them and give them names. Other animals (cows, chickens, etc.) live in our neighborhoods. We have a special obligation to domesticated animals that we do not have to wild animals because we have made them dependent upon us. Domesticated animals can live good lives, but we need to help them live good lives. We need to treat them as fellow citizens of our communities.

Jessica Pierce - "Zoos and Euthanasia"

-When animals breed in zoos with no predators and ample food, this can result in an overpopulation of zoo animals.. what should be done?? -In the US, most zoos have decided to use birth control hormones for animals like zebras. -One worry with this approach is that it prevents the zoo animals from engaging in their natural behavior of reproducing and raising young -In Europe, zoos have chosen not to use birth control. They allow the animals to breed, then when the babies are old enough to leave their parents, they are euthanized. -Which is better? -A third option would be to prevent all zoo animals from breeding so that the zoos can be closed

Why do people disagree about the ethics of GMO's?

-When people disagree about the ethics of GMOs, there are two sources of disagreement: 1. Factual/empirical claims. ---For example, some say that GMOs are harmful to human health, but most scientists who have studied them say that there is no good evidence to support this claim. 2. Value/normative claims - claims about what we should do.

Martin H. Krieger - "What's Wrong With Plastic Trees?" (1973)

-Why do we decide to "preserve" a natural area, such as the giant redwood forest of northern California, or Niagara Falls in upstate New York? - One reason we may have for wanting to preserve such natural areas is because of their unusual beauty. Another reason is because they are considered "rare". We may also consider them to be of great historical significance. -Some economists have argued that we should preserve significant natural environments rather than exploiting them for resources because we can always use other resources which do not come from unique and beautiful natural places.

Workers

-Workers in CAFOs and ppl living nearby have experienced respiratory problems such as asthma---this is caused by ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other gases released by CAFOs. -Working in a slaughter house is one of the most dangerous jobs in the US. bc workers are exposed to diseases and susceptible to accidents and injuries

What do you need to have land ethic?

-people must have love, respect, and admiration for the land. - One thing that makes this more complicated is that modern society is separating people from the land. A few generations ago, most people were farmers living on the land. -Today, many people live in cities and have very little connection to the land. Another obstacle to developing a land ethic is that modern farmers view the land as an adversary to be conquered.

Climate Change

-the most common greenhouse gas is CO2,- which is primarily emitted when we burn fossil fuels, such as gasoline, oil, coal & natural gas. ---Methane is another greenhouse gas- less common than CO2, but it is 23 TIMES more powerful in causing global warming -Methane can come from natural sources such as plant decay. also comes from anthropogenic(human caused) sources, such as leaks from natural gas wells and animal agriculture. It is released as the flatulence of farm animals- cow farts. ---Farm animals are responsible for 35-40% of anthropogenic methane, as livestock increases that number will increase -2 problems---we are raising more animals than ever before, and we are feeding them a diet that increases their methane production

What is the "key log" that must be removed in order to allow for the development of a land ethic?

-to stop thinking of our relation to the land as strictly an economic relation. "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."

What ethical principles should guide us? Comstock suggest three popular ethical principles:

1. Act so that we respect human rights by treating human beings as autonomous individuals who should be allowed to make their own decisions. 2. Act so that we maximize good consequences and minimize harmful consequences. 3. Act in the way that a good, just, and fair person would act. --The first ethical principle - respect for human rights - leads Comstock to conclude that people in different parts of the world have a right to decide for themselves whether to use GMOs. -- The second ethical principle - producing the best consequences - leads Comstock to conclude that it is likely that, at least in some cases, GMOs would have more good consequences than bad. -- The third ethical principle - act in the way that a good (virtuous) person would act - leads Comstock to conclude that using GMOs for the benefit of humanity would exhibit the virtues of ingenuity and caring. -- Thus, all three moral principles lead him to conclude that using GMOs could be justified in at least some circumstances. -- We cannot be sure that we are doing the right thing, but we must act. We might make a mistake by using GMOs, and we might make a mistake by not using GMOs. In this situation, Comstock believes that some compromise is appropriate. We should not, however, ban all use of GMOs at this time.

What information do we have?

1. Comstock thinks that this is a case in which we are missing much important information. We do not know what the ultimate effects of GMOs will be. 2. When we are lacking information, one popular response is to adopt what is called the Precautionary Principle, which says that the introduction of a product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. The idea of the Precautionary Principle is that we should err on the side of caution so that we do not end up making a big mistake. 3. The Precautionary Principle has been used by people to argue that we should not create, produce, or consume GMOs. However, Comstock does not think it is that simple. 4. He says that if we had enough healthy and tasty food for everyone, then there would be no good reason to take the risk of using GMOs. But when there are people without enough nutritious food, there is a risk involved in not using GMOs. 5. There is a danger of using GMOs, and there is a danger of not using GMOs, so the Precautionary Principle cannot really tell us what to do. Which action would be erring on the side of caution? 6. Furthermore, he says that sociological research has shown that telling people about potential risks can actually scare them into making irrational choices. If people are given positive information about a product, and negative information about a product, they are more likely to be influenced by the negative information, even if they are told that the negative information is unreliable or unscientific. 7. Comstock worries that even if GMOs turn out to be perfectly safe, and even if they would benefit people in the Third World who suffer from malnutrition, fear of GMOs in the developed world could result in the shutting down of all GMO research.

Three basic ideas of the land pyramid

1. That land is not merely soil. 2. That the native plants and animals kept the energy circuits open; others may or may not. 3. That man-made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive than in intended or foreseen.

What are the harms/benefits envisaged for GMO foods?

1. The research that is done on animals to create GMO foods is harmful to the animals. 2. GMOs could be harmful to ecosystems - they could cause a loss of biodiversity, and they could cause degradation of air, soils, and waters. 3. GMOs could be socially harmful to humans. For example, they could contribute to social inequalities between the developed world and the third world. Or they could cause a lack of food security for future generations. 4. These potential harms are serious. However, it remains possible that the harms will be minimal and will be outweighed by the benefits. 5. GMO foods may allow us to produce more food, to feed more people, at a lower cost. 6. GMO foods may allow us to address malnutrition in the developing world, such as "golden rice" which has been genetically modified to contain vitamins and nutrients that many people are missing. 7. Looking at the possible harms and benefits does not tell us whether GM crops are ethically justified. We do not know enough about how the harms and benefits will actually turn out. But we cannot rule out GMOs just on the basis of the potential harms.

Even if the best evidence available suggested that GMOs are likely to be beneficial to some people in need, some people would still object to GMOs in principle on the grounds that it is unnatural to genetically engineer plants, animals, and foods.

1. The way this argument is most commonly put is that we should not genetically engineer organisms because that is "playing God." We are messing with something that should be left up to God. 2. Comstock is unconvinced by this argument. He says that it assumes, first of all, that a certain type of God exists, and we should not make this assumption for everyone. 3. Even if we were to assume that a Judeo-Christian God does exist, it would not follow that God does not want us to "play God". God gave us the ability to use our minds to figure things out. Comstock believes that God wants use to exhibit ingenuity. 4. We do not complain about people "playing God" when we selectively breed animals or plants, when we kill animals and eat them, when we put people in prison, etc. So why is this any different?

What are the options?

1. We try to let everyone hear "both sides" of the argument, including unreliable and unscientific information both for and against GMOs. 2. Or we could try to give people only the most reliable information we have.

Gary Comstock - "Ethics and Genetically Modified Food"

Comstock used to believe that genetically modified foods were unethical. He has since changed his mind. He now believes that GM foods may be justifiable. Much of the food consumed in the U.S. today is genetically modified (GM). We have genetically modified corn, soy beans, rice, etc. - One of the leading producers of GM foods is Monsanto, based in the U.S

Dave Foreman - "Strategic Monkeywrenching"

Dave Foreman describes what North American looked like 150 years ago. o There were 60 million bison roaming the Great Plains. Now almost all of them are gone. o There were 100,000 grizzly bears in the western half of what is now the U.S. Now almost all of them are gone. o There were packs of wolves all over North America. Now almost all of them are gone. o There were flocks of passenger pigeons estimated at 1 billion birds. Now they are extinct.o Where there were once tall grass prairies, there are now corn fields. o The forests were so dense that a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River without touching the ground. o According to Foreman, "In the space of a few generations we have laid waste to paradise."

Ramachandra Guha - "Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique" (1989)

Deep ecology has become a popular, although radical, environmental movement in the U.S. Guha thinks that the ideas of deep ecology cannot, and should not, be applied to other parts of the world.

Is it ethically justifiable to pursue GM crops and foods? According to Comstock, there is a correct answer to this question, but how can we figure out what the correct answer is?

He proposes that we begin by trying to answer the following questions: 1. What are the harms/benefits envisaged? 2. What information do we have? 3. What are the options? 4. What ethical principles should guide us?

John Muir - Hetch Hetchy Valley

John Muir created Yosemite National Park in California, the first national park in the U.S. - The Hetch Hetchy Valley is a beautiful valley within Yosemite Park. In the early 20thcentury, there was a proposal to build a dam which would flood the valley in order to provide water and electricity to San Francisco.

Judi Bari - "The Secret History of Tree-Spiking" and "Monkeywrenching"

Judi Bari was a member of Earth First! She believed in protecting old growth forests, and sometimes they used methods such as monkeywrenching and tree spiking. In 1987, a mill worker named George Alexander was injured and almost killed when the saw blade in the mill broke after hitting a nail in a tree he was cutting. George felt that the mill was partly to blame because the saw blade was old and had been shaking a lot. "I'm against tree-spiking," he said, "but I don't like clear-cutting either." Judi felt that Earth First! was not very sympathetic towards this innocent man who was injured and almost killed. Earth First! just said that they were not the ones who spiked the tree. It appears that the tree was probably spiked by a neighbor who was angry at the logging company. This neighbor had a history of disturbing behavior, such as mutilating animals. Still, Earth First! had encouraged people to spike trees. They were probably the ones who gave the neighbor the idea. Judi Bari felt that Earth First! should take responsibility for encouraging tree-spiking. And she felt that she did not want to be involved in something that could injure or kill people. She also contends that tree-spiking has not been a very effective tactic. There may be a few cases in which tree-spiking has prevented a forest from being cut. But in most cases, it is the National Forest Service that pays to remove the nails from the trees. -Most of the old growth forests are on National Forest land. When the National Forest Service sells the logging rights to a forest, they first prepare the forest for logging. This includes building roads into the forest so that the logging company can easily remove the trees. The National Forest Service loses money on most of these sales. That is because the National Forest Service is a government agency, not a for-profit business. The logging companies have used tree-spiking to turn public opinion against the environmentalists who are trying to protect the old growth forests. Judi Bari believes that overall, tree-spiking has done more harm than good. Bari also suggests that Earth First! needs to change it tactics. EF! has engaged in both civil disobedience - public actions in which demonstrators are arrested on purpose to call attention to unjust laws - and sabotage - illegal destruction of equipment (monkeywrenching). Bari suggests that these two activities should be done by two different organizations. If secret sabotage is involved, the public protesters who are doing civil disobedience may be killed. Earth First!ers should continue to put their bodies in front of bulldozers, but they should not engage in monkeywrenching. One is a public action, the other is a secret action. They should not be mixed together.

What does Krueger want to do?

Krieger, however, wants to find a compromise between preservation and conservation. When possible, he would like to allow us to extract natural resources and still be able to enjoy the beauty of these natural places. - One point he makes is that a natural area can be restored after it has had resources extracted. We can extract the resources, and then replant the species of trees, bushes, etc. that were previously there. We can recreate the habitat for native animals. Given a little bit of time, the area were resources have been extracted can look very much like it did before it was disturbed. And we can continue to enjoy its beauty. - Another point he makes is that when we decide that something should be preserved because it is "rare," we are not making an objective decision. We are saying that there are not a lot of other things "like this." But how many is a lot? And what does it mean to be "like this"? -And why do we care about things "like this"? When we say that something is "rare," it is a decision we are making, and it is somewhat arbitrary. - If we were to cut down the 2000 year old giant redwoods in northern California, we could not simply restore the forest. We could plant new trees, but they would not be 2000 years old. They would not be giant trees for a long time. We want to preserve them so that people can continue to have the experience of seeing giant redwood trees. - But if it is the experience of seeing giant redwood trees that we care about, we may be able to recreate that experience with giant redwood trees made of plastic. People in the future might be perfectly happy to have the experience of seeing plastic trees.

What does Lisa suggest?

Lisa Newton suggests that the public has an interest in what happens to forests of 2000 year old redwood trees, and that it should be the responsibility of the government to represent the interests of the public. These ancient trees are irreplaceable, and private profit-oriented companies should have to operate within the guidelines created by public authorities. -However, in a country dedicated to free enterprise, it is assumed that private land owners can do almost anything with their land, including cutting down 2000 year old trees that were on this land long, long before it became privately owned. Ecologists warned that clearing the old growth trees would damage streams, fish, birds, etc. It would be very harmful to an ecosystem that depends upon old growth trees. -- Greg King of the radical environmental group Earth First! said that all harvesting of old growth timber should cease immediately. - What followed was a battle between environmentalists and loggers. -Most of the people in the area were employees of Pacific Lumber, and they wanted to keep their jobs. They saw the environmentalists as a threat to their jobs. - In 1988, Earth First! staged some public demonstrations, such as blocking the road into the old growth forest to prevent loggers from getting to the ancient trees. - They also tried to get the state government to pass a new law making it illegal to clear cut virgin stands of old growth redwood trees, even on private land. -The proposed law would still allow selective cutting of redwood trees, and clear cutting of younger trees, but not clear cutting of ancient virgin forests. - Opponents of the law said that the government should not tell private land owners what to do with trees on their property. They also said that environmentalists were endangering jobs. They said that people were going to lose their jobs in order to protect a small bird - the spotted owl. - The members of Earth First! tried to protect the old growth forests by blocking roads so that bulldozers could not get through, sitting in giant redwood trees for weeks at a time so that the loggers would not cut the trees, destroying bulldozers buy putting molasses in the gas tanks, and spiking trees - putting large nails in the trees to damage logging equipment - and telling the timber company that the trees had been spiked.

Elizabeth Willott - "Restoring Nature Without Mosquitoes?" (2004)

Many wetlands have been drained. This was done to create farmland, or land for construction. -Wetlands were known as "swamps" and were seen as mosquito-infested wastelands that did not serve any useful purpose. By draining the swamps, we were putting the land to good use. - We have come to understand that wetlands are very important ecologically. They serve as habitat for many species - birds, alligators, turtles, etc. - They also serve as a kind of buffer between the land and the ocean in many places. -In Louisiana, for example, the loss of marsh lands at the mouth of the Mississippi River has resulted in erosion and caused the coast to recede. New Orleans may soon be under water if we do not take action. - We have recently been restoring wetlands. By removing dams, we can allow the water to return to these places. We reintroduce species of grasses, mangrove trees, birds, etc. to recreate the original ecosystems. But the original ecosystems included many mosquitoes. - In addition to being annoying, mosquitoes carry many diseases. - This raises a question -what is the goal of ecological restoration. Do we want to recreate the original ecosystem exactly as it was? If we want to promote the "integrity" of the ecosystem, as Aldo Leopold suggested, then itshould have all of its parts, including mosquitoes. - But maybe there are other factors, such as human health, which may be more important than restoring the ecosystem exactly as it was. - If we choose to restore wetlands without all of the mosquitoes, this will probably require frequent human intervention in nature to keep the mosquitoes from returning. So what should we do?

Paul Watson - "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

Paul Watson founded a group called Sea Shepard which tries to protect whales, dolphins, seals, etc. by enforcing existing international treaties and laws when nobody else will enforce them. They have been described as vigilante pirates, and he says that this may be true. But they have never been convicted of any criminal charge. They have never caused injury or death to a human. And they encourage their enemies to file charges in court. Sea Shepard has cut expensive fishing nets, sunk boats, etc. Why haven't they ever been convicted of a crime? Watson says that they are the ones who are trying to uphold the law. Their enemies are the ones who are breaking the law by engaging in illegal whaling, killing dolphins, etc. When they sink a boat that is engaged in illegal activities, the boat owners do not usually want to bring the case to court. They do not want to explain what they were doing there. In 1990, Watson describes an incident in which they sailed to the North Pacific to confront six Japanese fishing boats that had set out hundreds of miles of drift nets, killing sharks, dolphins, and endangered sea birds in violation of a treaty signed between Japan and the U.S. The Sea Shepard ship with its reinforced hull rammed two of the Japanese fishing vessels, putting them out of commission for the rest of the fishing season. They also sunk $1 million worth of fishing nets. Nobody was injured during this encounter. After sailing to Hawaii, they contacted the Japanese Consulate and declared that they had attacked the ships and destroyed Japanese property. They said that they were prepared to go to Japan or anywhere else to contest charges in court. The Japanese decided not to press charges. Are these actions by Sea Shepard morally defensible? If not, what can be done about illegal fishing and whaling that threatens marine animals?

Arne Naess- "The Shallow and the Deep" (1973)

Talks about the shallow and deep ecology

Lisa Newton - "Chainsaws of Greed: The Case of Pacific Lumber"

The Pacific Lumber Company is based in Humboldt County in northern California, where 2000 year old Sequoia trees can be found. It had a good record of caring for its workers and for the environment. They conserved the giant redwood trees and planned for the long term, rather than clear cutting the forest to make a quick profit. When the company was bought out by Wall Street takeover artists, they immediately doubled the timber harvest. The takeover was a "hostile takeover" financed by junk bonds. -Thismeans that the buyers were able to buy enough Pacific Lumber stock to take over the company even though the company did not want to be taken over. To raise money, they sold bonds that promised a high interest rate, but had a high risk of default. - Before the buyout, the workers had steady jobs. The workers rented their houses from the companies at low rates. And the workers' children were even promised jobs with the company. - Before the buyout, the company was debt-free and had cash on hand. The workers' pension was overfunded. - Before the buyout, the company practiced selective cutting - cutting just a few trees here and there, rather than clear cutting. After the buyout, the company began clearcutting old growth, virgin forests. -Clearcutting causes all of the wildlife to disperse or die due to habitat destruction. It also causes erosion of the soil, and silting of the streams. These ancient redwood forests were home to such species as the endangered spotted owl. - After the buyout, the workers got a lot of overtime at first to increase timber harvest. But once the forests had been clear cut, the work decreased dramatically, and workers had to be laid off. - By clearcutting the old growth forests, the Wall Street buyers were able to pay off the bonds that they had used to buy the company, and raise a large sum of cash for the new stockholders. -Short term profits were high.

How can Moriarty agree with Russell when he says that humans are a part of nature, and agree with Elliot when he says that humans are not a part of nature?

The first answer is that the word 'nature' has more than one meaning, as John Stuart Mill explained back in the 19th century. -One meaning of 'nature' is anything that follows the laws of physics - anything that is not supernatural. -Another meaning of 'nature' is anything that is not produced by humans - anything that is not an artifact. Describing culture in this way does not in any way suggest that humans transcend nature -that we alone have been created in the image of God and been given an immortal soul. We have simply developed a new way to accumulate and pass on information, and it has given us the ability to transform our environments on an unprecedented scale. - Thus, we can say that 'nature' is that which is not a product of human culture, without saying that humans are supernatural. - Furthermore, when we say that something is "natural" or "unnatural," this should not be seen as an all or nothing thing. It is a matter of degrees.

Wangari Maathai - Film - "The Vision of Wangari Maathai"

Wangari Maathai was the first woman in Kenya to receive a PhD She describes the stream she played in as a child and the large fig tree that grew near it. -Her mother described it as a tree of God and told her never to gather firewood from this tree. This stream began as a spring coming out of the ground and contained clean water, tadpoles, fish, etc. - Many women in Kenya walk long distances to gather firewood and drinking water. - When she was older, Maathai noticed that many of the forests in Kenya were gone. And the streams were gone too. - The forests were gone because they had been cut by the logging industry - first by the British, then by logging companies supported by the Kenyan government after independence. -- Maathai decided that many of the things women need, such as firewood and clean water, could be provided by trees. So she organized peasant women to start planting trees. -Over a period of 30 years, the women planted millions of trees. - They called themselves the Greenbelt Movement.

Shallow Ecology Movement

is a fight against pollution and resource depletion. -The central objective of the shallow ecology movement is the health and affluence of ppl in developed countries

The Land Pyramid

top to bottom: carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, insects, plants, soil -For every carnivore, there are hundreds of his/her prey, thousands of their prey, millions of insects, and uncountable plants.