ENVR 203 Midterm

Features of Complex Adaptive System - Ruhl

ADNDD •Aggregation of component parts: ecosystems- watershed, soils. Social- individuals, family, community •Dissipative flow of energy: eco- nutrients, energy. Social- currency, information, sanctions •Non linear path of system evolution: eco- disruption may result in invasion, change in pattens of biota, unpredictable. Social- intro to technology, reaction to prohibition, recycling: unpredictable impacts •Diversity of components and behaviour: ecosystem-multiple means to provide functions e.g. multiple seed dispersers. Social- boom&bust behaviour is unsustainable •Drive towards self critical behaviour as stable non equilibrium state: "stable non equilibrium" is changes within range. Ecosystems constantly dynamic in predictable range. "self critical" - ecosystems appear to be so. Social- capable of self criticism, attempt to reach goals

Deep Ecology: Platform Principles

IINDRFAO •1) Inherent value of living things •2) inherent value of diversity and richness of life •3) No right to reduce richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs: ambiguous use of vital •4) Desirability of decrease of human population: population policy affects women, population problem in 3rd world with consumption problem in 1st world •5) Reduce excessive human interference with nonhuman world: makes distinction/dichotomy. Not really principle, we need to figure it out •6) Fundamental policy change leading to deep changes in states of affairs: brutal aspects of population control ≠ joyful experience •7) Appreciation of quality, not quantity: appreciate quality vs high standard of living. Strike balance - zero growth in developed countries to make up for developing countries •8) Obligation to contribute to change

Eurocentric Approach to Wilderness

•"Wilderness" not term in many languages •State of mind, imprecise definition •Contrast: early settlers vs aboriginal people •Judeo-Christian: wilderness biblical, physical, psychological •Chaotic, frightening place, difficult to leave civilization •Present: place of sanctuary, authentic, refuge, cleanse, purify •Jerome: studies book with back to wilderness - place of solitude •Shame/guilt in admiring earthly beauty, turning back to wilderness •St Francis of Assisi: saw nature as pure, good (outlier) •Garden of Eden: paradise with no prey/predators, hospitable, food, clean, fresh. After expulsion: into formidable landscape without food/comfort, dangerous.

Why Precaution?

•'Don't need to be cobbler to show shoe pinches' - our own experiences teach us. Yet, for environmental issues we need to take knowledge of climate scientists on faith, trust conclusions

Mertonian Science Principles: CUDOS

•*C*ommunalism: results common property of community •*U*niversalism: knowledge must be universally valid •*D*isinterestedness: seek knowledge, not particular outcome •*O*riginality: results contribute something new •*S*kepticism: must be scrutinized before being accepted

Discussion: Obstacles of Using TEK in Decision Making

•Accepting new technology ≠ rupture of society •TEK doesn't lack vigour to Nadasdy •Difference in type of knowledge - elders vs biologists- science with jargon, specific knowledge. Elders knowledge disregarded as nonscience •Issue: power imbalance. Scientists conclude, decided where/when TEK is used. How TEK is used not controlled by first nations people •TEK and Mert can work side by side e.g. different paradigms of acupuncturists and doctors but still come together to heal •Objectives: Mert-rationally manage sheep population, manage larger ecosystem. TEK- maintain alliance with sheep and people, order of cosmos •Hypothesis: maintain rams (TEK) not good to Mert. Maintain ewes (TEK), good to Mert. •Mert take-up of TEK only in certain situations

Reading: Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind

•American culture: built civ. with materials of wilderness •Danger: loved to death, as much as exploited •Lines drawn between human and wilderness: hunter gatherer to todays "masters" •Ecological superiority complex: controlling nature, where wilderness = disordered, unknown. •Paradise = envr. suited to humans •First Nations: no distinction. Calling New World "wild" a misnomer •Wilderness product of pioneer mind - shift now to appreciation as asset •Defining wilderness elusive - Yukon trapper in Waskesiu would find it civilized, but wild to some •Origin of world: wild=disordered, out of control - wilderness=place of wild beasts •Romantic languages have no single word for wilderness. Wilderness can refer to N. Europe's forests •Biblical translation of treeless wasteland = wilderness •Today: uncultivated, undeveloped •Initially implied hostility, today has favourable connotation •Defining area as wilderness: difficult. How much civ. allowed? How large? •Let it define itself - what people think it is. Belief vs concrete discernible place •More of a spectrum: wilderness to civ. Pastoral/rural in middle •Wilderness = alien, civ. sought to control •Symbol of Judeo-Christain tradition. Paradise is where humans could easily live. Wilderness = evil. Wilderness = description and symbol. Difficult lands near Jerusalem. Cursed = lack of water. Blessed = lots of water. •Garden of Eden: antipode of wilderness. Wilderness and paradise spiritual opposites. •Moses' journey in "waste of wilderness" - sanctuary from sin/society, draw closer to God - purged. Harsh place as refuge, disciplinary •Through history: continually advanced human control •Greek/Roman: beauty of nature in cultivated spaces, pastoral - shunned "true" wilderness •Hostility: inability to control/use, but also mythological fears (demons, god, wild men) •Medieval Christianity: wilderness as realm of power of evil for Christ to overcome, success = clear forest/sacred grove. Still retained purity: mont to meditate •St Francis: preached to animals as equals = heretical. Implied men not dominant, set apart •Far East: Respect/love - India = compassion for all, men as part of nature. Taoist: wilderness part of unity of universe. Japan: nature worship. Art celebrated wilderness •New world allowed expression of bias against wilderness

Reading: Korsgaard, 'Facing the Animal You See in the Mirror'

•Animals: felt pain, terror, grew to pleasure, security, interest •How should we interact? Make decisions every day, often unaware. •Moral issues - ecological concerns present e.g. humans with other species as whole. Relationships with individual nonhuman animals. Can overlap e.g. population/encroachment on habitat with solutions at odds: preserve balance may require culling populations, killing off individuals. But will set aside these issues and focus on individual relationships •Why do we have duties to other animals? They can feel - we take, when we experience feeling, as moral claim on our worthiness of consideration. Yet, our capacity for feeling grounded in animal nature. Why impose suffering on nonhuman animals? People talk themselves into thinking animals lack consciousness - we underestimate their intelligence •People think reasoning weak to treat animals compassionately. Gradualists argue 'no big difference' between humans and nonhuman animals. Korsgaard thinks there is big difference. Animals said to be aware of world, not themselves. But some animals pass mirror test, may have rudimentary self consciousness - inconclusive evidence. •Humans: awareness in important way. Capacity to evaluate instincts, consequences - normative self governance. What are our duties to animals? They have no duty to us. •Kant: fellow rational beings give us obligations, regard ourselves as beings with inherent value. Natural concerns spring from animal, not rational nature. •Cruelty of animals built into society - hard to find cruelty free. It is built into nature itself, but we must attempt to do better e.g. vegetarian diet. Eating meat may be 'natural' predator prey relationship but humans should impose higher standards.

The Obligation to Endure

•Audience: over head of authorities •Objectives: awareness of public, acknowledgement by government - forced their hand •Reader's reaction: Talk about it, boycott substances, learn more about it. Carson didn't anticipate outcome •Modest, non accusatory, gives equal blame. Open ended, gives information •Risky to publish

Kepler

•Back to heliocentric, stickler for calculations •Student of Brahe - used Cop's theory and Brahe's calculations •Driven by logic, spirituality

Why Bother with Precaution?

•Before: carrying capacity, environment seen as 'sink' filled to certain point. Science would know when sink full. Efficient to externalize cost - we don't pay price for pollution •Still today: short/med term cost of environmental protection: most expensive to ignore longer, but in short term is expensive to address. Hard to impose rules for politicians in face of uncertainty. PP is powerful argument

Did Science Make the Modern World?

•Belief in supernatural, sun revolving around earth, creation myth still prevalent •Confidence in science connected to tech breakthroughs not truth/weath/power •What is science governed by? •Irrelevance of scientific method •Mertonian vs Sci. Method: which generates more scientific knowledge?

Other Cultural Approaches to Wilderness

•Buddha: at peace with animals •Taoist: image of nature - beauty, contemplation •Northern Europe Approach not universal, depends on danger of surroundings

Section 2 Comparisons

•C=contrasting •Foundation of approach: P&M reach similar conclusions for different reasons. M-explicit. P-explicit- concerned with human dimension of inequality. C-difficult, not philosopher, speaks as scientist. Observes hubris of humans. •Naess: more difficult, doesn't show hand, only discusses different philosophy/foundations. •Singer: mostly ethics of animals, unconcerned about ecology. Korsgaard: ethical interactions, pushing argument in ecological direction •Types of discourse: P- unconcerned with philosophical, mostly equality. M-ecological, not v political. But both campaigned to change minds about forest. •K&S: not very political •Naess-stronger hint, must bring about change to adhere to deep ecology •Compare and contrast: scientific approach. C is scientist, easier to take ecological understanding. M is trickier. P-forests as resources, not as ecosystems but could take aspects

Reading: Callicott, 'The Wilderness Idea Revisited'

•Colleague considered L to be more concerned about human inhabited land than wilderness "set asides", L's early discussion was need for wilderness to have game - conquest of nature. Wanted unity between humans and nature •Eventually saw vital role of wild refugia •Callicott: 'wilderness fallacy' 1) N. America was in wilderness condition when "discovered" 2) Altering nature has to degrade it: must always be protected. Preservation must be augmented and refined - uncomfortable with idea of wilderness. Need to revise civilization, align economic strategy with ecology •Historic American philosophy: Muir, Thoreau - nature serves human spirituality, a higher/better use than as economic machine. P reduced nature to natural resources, made conservation = development. P and M parted ways as conservation vs preservation. •Leopold: worked for P, then realized conservation inadequate. Did not mesh with ecology - more max sustained flow or experiences. Transformed conservation to deep ecological state - switch of meaning 'wise use of resources' to 'maintaining biodiversity, ecological health' •"A thing is right when it preserves integrity, stability, beauty of biotic community. Wrong when otherwise." Seems to align L with preservationists. Started as conservation, moved to preservation. L's unfortunate legacy: black and white - exploit or preserve. But truly wanted to integrate wilderness and civilization. Envisioned farms integrated with the land, with modifications. Thought economic activity may enhance wild places. Alternative to P and M: Conservation is harmony between man and land •3rd world critique: Guha - poor evicted to create nature reserves, elite benefit. Callicott: wilderness idea as flawed as conventional development. •Critique of wilderness: 1) dichotomy of man and nature 2) ethnocentric, ignores aboriginal people 3) ignores time - preservation ignores dynamism of nature •Darwin: man as part of nature •Natural work of other organisms can help/hinder communities. So, work of man no less natural - can even be beneficial. Difference is, other animals actions are instinctive/protocultural. Human action much more developed culturally, can be reformed •Ethnocentrism: ignores aboriginal people, implies actions not "human". Truthfully, actively managed landscape. Europeans thought it was "wilderness", but it was just a different looking manmade landscape than what they were used to •Preservation: nature is very dynamic - to "preserve" implies keeping it the same, would require active management •Conservation via sustainable development - what does "sustainable development" mean? Could be economic activity that can be sustained, could be using substitution as legacy to future generation. To Callicott: economic activity limited by ecological exigencies (need/demand) - doesn't compromise ecological integrity or health. Provides examples of human/nature symbiosis e.g. bird sanctuary in US vs traditionally farmed area in Mexico - farmed area had more birds. Eg traditional ag in amazon rainforest - cultivate plot for 10 years (vs 3,4) and don't abandon, fallow with useful crops. Not suggesting to "go native", just examples of possibilities. Eg "extractive reserves" where traditional pattens are protected. •Solutions: wild reserves, expand to ecological boundaries. Overhaul grazing practices - increase game meat. Preserve old growth forests. Many obstacles in the way.

Compatible with PP

•Collect further data •Prohibit potentially harmful activity •Impose restrictions to lessen risk •Consult public on acceptability of risk

Sachs Harbour Stresses

•Community was permanently settled in 60's, permanence was difficult to group/regroup, fixed group size, less flexible/mobile. Hard to adapt to significant changes in structure. Mandated by government with good intensions. Strength was compromised.

Issues with Climate Change

•Complexity, uncertainty •Technical nature of evidence: laypeople have superficial perspective, leave it to experts to find facts, need to take their words for things •Scope of problem: large scale, can put it out of your head, doubt capacity to cure/take it in, use apathy as coping mechanism •Difficult to identify solution: reducing GHG emissions expensive, difficult. Cost and benefits not distributed equally •Impact of solutions: e.g. oil patch - dependent, highly affected by transition. •Sense of powerlessness, lack of influence

Discussing the Anthropocene

•Concept developed to generate debate, assertion about state of affairs •Epochs/eras names to reflect dominant qualities •Today: Anthropocene is epoch of human domination •Steffen: says it began during Industrial Revolution. Humans have affected environment for millennia e.g. Pleistocene extinction. •Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump: what is first nation's relationship with environment? Control ecosystem, is it wasteful, was it struggle for survival? •Orca killing baby whale "for fun": provides ecosystem with nutrients •Useful to think about, take responsibility for our actions, remind us of our power. Overwhelming due to scope - we need to erase distinction between nature and culture

Premodernity

•Cop: early modern, launched sci rev. Before: theology, philosophical understanding •Cop: universe created by god, sun at centre. Based on logical reasons- "beautiful temple" would be at centre lighting everything up •Hermetic conception: cohesive bowl, everything has a place. Elizabethan Hierarchy - man with head in clouds, then down staircase to 'lower' organisms, still important. •Macbeth: king murdered - order of things fundamentally upset •Early modernity: god still in heaven, Cop Kep and Brahe driven by spiritual need to understand •Modernity: fragmentation of science, economics, regions, art, ethics, law, politics - key to modernity was independent enterprises - Religion≠ science, morality

Reading: McLellan and Dorn, 'Copernicus Incites a Revolution'

•Cop: published his book on death bed of heliocentric cosmology. Launched scientific revolution - radical •Sci rev turning point. Role, power of science reconstructed. Simply an episode, "a", not "the". Experimental science, occult •New World: geographical revolution. Geography: observations, practical. New printing each: communication revolution, new lay people access to info. Art and anatomy revolutionized - military revolution. Occult/magic: astrology, alchemy - serious spiritual and intellectual effort. Hermetic philosophy- link macro and microcosm. Universe with 'forces', later found as gravity. Saw order in nature framed by math Magic: Anti-aristotle, extra-university. Protestant reform- questioned religious authority. Major step to secularization of society. Also, calendar reform •Cop: church administrator, timid. Went to uni. Last of ancient astronomers, not first of new. Successor to Ptolemy, not to overthrow, but to restore. Math of Ptolemy didn't make sense - better to be heliocentric. Feared backlash - young protege published notice, paved way for Cop. Not proving, just hypothesizing. Not observationally based. Aesthetic and ideological reasoning - refined, harmonious, pleasing. Happened to solve major issue. To Cop, sun very important. Also explained precession. Still included math, but had irregularities, issue of stellar parallax. Proved much later. Also showed how far away stars are - sounded absurd. At first not hailed as correct, superior, gradually accepted. •Tycho Brahe added to momentum. Built astronomical palaces, lab. Adept - used observations, built very accurate instruments. Demonstrated mutability of heavens. Proved 'crystalline spheres' not real. Rejected stellar parallax - distance between stares too great, religious objections. "geoheliocentric" model was good, if conservative, science •Kepler: obsessed with astrology, numbers. Liked Cop's idea, pleasing to mind. Pursued theology, then astronomy. First Cop like work produced after Cop. Was assistant to Brahe. Keep figured out elliptical path of planets. Truly 'new' astronomy. Used Brahe's data, Cop's original theory.

Coping and Adaptation

•Coping: shorter time, smaller area, lower level of self organization •Adapt: long time frame, larger area, higher level of social organization. •Sachs Harbour - very adaptable, resilient, knowledgable, resourceful. Post posing goose egg picking, hunting more caribou •Adaptations: culture, sharing, technologies - culture changes slower. Rapid adaptation: local knowledge, impacts social structure. Puts Elders in weaker position, can't teach new technologies, unfamiliar with weaker sea ice

DDT

•DDT was seen as good, healthy thing - public campaign •Irresponsible not to use •Now: toxicity, still exposed to it. Biomagnification lasts in ecosystems. DDT contaminated animals in N. Canada who were never directly exposed, in search for control group •Dusted people who had lice with DDT, saw no effects, then concluded safe to be used on crops •Book controversial - Carson incorrect at times. DDT more harmful to ecosystems than people •Nobel Prize for usefulness of DDT

Critique of Wilderness

•Darwin upset Victorian society - placed humans in nature, antithesis of Genesis •Pilgrims thought North America was unspoilt - romanticized first nations people •Leopold: dynamism, where to situate? "Thing is good when it preserves integrity, beauty, stability of biotic community". Stability - ecosystems are dynamic, but fluctuate around stable point. Instability comes when too rapid to adapt. What defines integrity?

Discussion: Specific Roles of Public in Science

•Data gathering: tried and true •Hypothesis formation: what to ask, investigate. •Unlikely: reaching conclusions, data analysis •Not do you know what I know, but what do you know that I don't (Will Smith & Geology - not constrained by paradigms of universities) •At times: people right, scientists wrong: radioactive sheep, with farmers understanding holistic view

Science and Public Knowledge

•Deficit model: prevails today: public scientifically ignorant, misunderstand, nervous about scientific uncertainty. Patronizing. generally true but extend of understanding often underestimated. Belief: ignorance, need to educate, enhance insight. Scientists telling passive receivers •Critical interpretive model: Public has right to know risks, how to reduce, acknowledges right to participate. Public prioritizes and values things other than science - should weigh in on risky activities. •Hybrid Fora: science and public work together all the way

Co-Management of Resources

•Design institution that promotes adaptability/evaluates success - increase political influence of knowledgeable members, e.g. designed hunting season ill-adapted to changing conditions - if ice restricts access, can't get necessities

Reading: Shapin, 'Science and the Modern World'

•Did science make the modern world? it shaped culture, especially beginning in 19th century. Science understood as motive force in changes •Science guarantees triumph over barbarism, travels with unique efficiency, progress to modernity - quotes •Most important: scientific revolution. Influence & authority undeniable •Social science resents natural sciences place of pride. But social science students strongly learn methods vs natural. Mostly influencing what has value to research - natural science has more cash flow, directly results in 'advancing society'. •60's, 'technocracy' - concern about science's influence over politics. Now, concerned about politics influence in science. Natural science integrated with power and wealth. Science - delivers goods for military, industry (vs social). Since 60s-scientific enterprise exploding. •Do we live in a scientific world? Maybe not. Lots of public ignorance of society. Many people still religious. Scientific beliefs don't have grip on modern mind. But idea of science widely respected. Even intelligent design wants to be presented as science. American faith enormous, but little understanding therefore authority not in understanding. •Examining scientific method - no consensus. Doesn't only apply to science - not where authority stems from •Essential- knowing where to look, who to trusts. How to recognize? Not from moral authority. Not their place e.g. non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion. Tensions, unresolved. Turn to scientists but they don't decide what to do. No conflict in using technology and being religious. •Technology supplies what society wants while science gives society what they didn't know they wanted. 20th century - science enfolded into institutions dedicated to $ and power. Truly, authority stems from independence and integrity. Easy to describe science's authority in past, but not today.

Power: Traditional Lifestyle

•Different images come to mind for 'traditional' aboriginal life e.g. art, hunting, homes. Nadasdy suggests that, as new technology is adapted, considered as moving away from Chthonic society. Lost access to traditional settlements, shop at grocery stores, lost hunting grounds. More westernized. •Chthonic art- contemporary installation vs traditional •Rights/treaties: think of bands as unchanged, anchored in time. Seen as static - false, very dynamic •Chthonic people seen as westernized - dichotomy of traditional or not. but TEK capable of adapting

Arise for Need of Precaution

•Difficulty for environmental decision making •Time: lag time between input, effects. Long lag due to complexity of ecosystems, non linear causal linkages •Ease of perception: follows cause and effect: aerosols perceived as safe, science misled. Correlation≠causation •Nature of community: Aristotle- homogenous, united community. Global community - who benefits, who suffers impacts? •Nature of act: environmental degradation-acts can be seen as clearly degrading or innocent •Nature of Nature: earlier- nature unchangeable, today- nature seen as unstable, dynamic

Discussion of CUDOS

•Disinterestedness: Starting with Q or A? Wanting to be right, bias, paradigms •Aspiration: not forced to follow the principles to a T. Speaks more to institutions than individuals •Communalism: make data available for others to replicate. Knowledge belongs to everyone, yet still patents and secrecy. May be self interested-wealth, power, or institutionalized to prevent bias •Universalism: must exists everywhere - sometimes incomplete, imperfect •Originality: not always required. Sometimes research to verify, make small contributions •Skepticism: peer review - scientists may be attached to theory, yet must test conclusions of self and others •Controversial list

Shapin Article: Important Point

•Distinctiveness of scientific knowledge •Assume delineation of sci. knowledge e.g. sci and ethics, religion, economics •Social scientists - hard to draw boundary •Think of continuum •How to tell if science is 'good'?

What does PP accomplish?

•Draw attention to uncertain risk, shines light: we can't wait for 'gold plated' study •Dividing burden: science and politics. Science feeds into politics, politics reacts = linear model. Separation unfortunate •Equitable distribution of burden

Chthonic Society

•Dwelling in the earth •Experience, oral transmission, memory •Sacred character of cosmos •Unity/integration of knowledge systems vs fragmentation •Close connection with earth •Read sky, understand seasons •Knowledge accessible to everyone in community

Ethics and the Environment

•Ethics: often individual. Environment often collective •Objectives: what is good/bad? Uncover hidden bias •Choosing course of action: is plan right? Go with gut or turn to authority •Justify actions/objectives: ethical arguments, framework of values and priorities •Specific environmental ethic? Can we use old methods or do we need new ones?

Silent Spring

•Exposing facts - the American public was ignorant, lied to about impacts of chemicals •Explosion: approachable writing, questioning effects of pesticides, new argument, Carson was popular and trusted, references to warfare, evokes emotion •Convey urgency: well crafted/presented argument •Appealed to those in urban area (M couldn't reach) •Large audience •Used poetic, accessible language compared to most science literature

Reading: Carson, 'Silent Spring'

•Fable for tomorrow: Harmonious town in America, many animals - went under "evil spell" with livestock dying, people sick, children dying, birds gone. People did it to themselves. Not real places, but based on real communities with those issues •Obligation to endure: man recently altering nature - recent contamination and pollution. Nuclear fallout, crops being sprayed. Upsetting balance, rapid changes. Can't keep up: War against nature to kill 'pests'. Chemicals leading to gene mutation. Use of unselective poison. Implies we don't need those chemicals - over production is real problem. Insects affect food, disease. Mono cropping caused insect issue, invasion. Act like we have no choice. Not wholly against insects (utilitarian?), but against too many, exposure to unknowing people, lack of investigating effects •Elixers of death: every human is in contact with chemicals from conception to death. Pesticides everywhere, long residence time. Stems from WW2, chem found to kill insects. Biologically potent. If we live with them we should know about them. Arsenic - used by royalty as poison, kills livestock but used in sprays/dusts, kills bees. Explains chemical structures. DDT: nobel prize for discovering effects. Discusses biomagnification, passing from mother to child. Examples of dying children, accidental deaths, dying bees. Dangers to workers who didn't know, synergistic effects. Medea's robe - make plants poisonous to kill insects - systemic insecticides. Bee's honey poisonous. Herbicides affect animal tissue, poisoning water.

Comparison: Muir, Pinchot, Leopold, Carson

•Foundation of approach: P = lumber child, atone for father's sins. C = scientist. M = wilderness. L = unclear - elements of C, blends M and P, slightly aligned with M •Central objectives: M = preservation, P = conservation, C = environmental protection, L = harmony •Carson: anthopocentric or ecocentric? Written for human health, yet fable ecocentric. Could be using anthropocentric spin to be more alarming - difficult to tell •Leopold: Less wilderness focus except at first was instrumental. Focus on harmony, human as part of ecosystem •P: utilitarian - greatest good for greatest hummer for longest time (vs Mill's greatest happiness for greatest number). Brought in time dimensions. P wanted well being for people, ecosystems secondary

Science and Ethics

•Fragmentation in modern world - separate systems. Scientifically central society may still be religious •Using categories to produce different insight •As universal language - not everything should be in sci. terms (Einstein)

Copernicus

•Heliocentrism is a bold assumption. Adopted due to aesthetic and ideological reasons. •Math wasn't adding up with geocentric theory •Not driven by observations, math. New way to tell story that made sense to godly universe. Couldn't prove with observation (stellar parallax) as didn't have the right instruments. Theory was accepted before that was proved - don't need definitive proof? just need to persuade

Do We Need Fear?

•Heuristics of fear: need fear, threat of catastrophe in mind •Too much fear: no action, difficult to control reaction, refusal to believe, acknowledge

Low Income People and Nature

•How does Yosemite's beauty relate to tenement flats? Camping/enjoying nature is exclusive to high income people dude to expenses, inaccessibility, need for time off •Message of P and M reached mid/high class. P wanted to reach lower class people too. Would M appeal to poor? how do they benefit from preservation? Today we acknowledge ESS, benefits. Then: M wanted to expand appreciation, return to pastoral, diminish economy/industrialization

Reading: Berkes, Jolly, 'Adapting to Climate Change: Socio-Ecological Resilience in Canadian Western Arctic Community'

•Human adaptation to climate change under-examined •Sachs Harbour, Inavialuit people •Coping mechanisms, long term adaptive strategies: switching species, timing of hunting=coping, change in seasonal hunting pattern and traditional knowledge = long term, culturally ingrained •Case study: dynamics of nature, culture in local scale •Arctic: earlier, stronger climate change effects. Inuit people lived with high degree of environmental variability through history •Adaptive responses: to increase fitness •Coping - individual/household, small area, emergency response •Adapt: higher up, larger area, cultural/institutional change •Coping may develop to adapting. •Sachs Harbour: mixed economy, hunt and fish. Focus on change in socio-ecological system •Collaborative project - Inuit observations of climate change. Permanent settlement since 60s. Project - produce video on climate change effects, educate people, authorities. Contribute TEK. •Sachs Harbour: 30 households. Project: local experts on change. Facilitated collaboration, accurately reflected situation. •Change in annual harvesting cycle: changes seen by hunters and elders - more than ever. Sea ice extent, timing and intensity of weather events, fish and wildlife distribution, permafrost depth, soil erosion. •Impacts: access to resources, safety, predictability, species availability. Resources: related to travel on land/ice - safety, predictability. •Coping: Inavuialuit way of life very flexible. Modifying subsistence activity patterns, harvest mix of species. Adjust timing of hunting, where, more careful with travel. Draw on accumulated knowledge. Contemporary mixed economy means wider range of food options. Lonely for sea ice. •Adapting: learn/reorganize/cultural response. Conditions suited for small mobile community to come to together only temporarily e.g. beluga hunt. Success - comprehensive back up plans, alternative found sources, detailed local environmental knowledge. Risk diversification. Generalists, not specialist. Food sharing important, social event, trade very important •Adaptive strategy: human history in Arctic series of adaptations. Permanent settlements meant less mobility, fixed group size. Still resilient. But elders less knowledgeable about uncertainties. New skills acquired - old skills transmitted later in life, incompletely. Sharing still, but favour hunters, tend not to provide for non hunters. But new reciprocity between cash rich and food rich. Increase in inter community trade •New responses: linking inuit communities with government agencies. Eg: hunting season shouldn't be fixed, too variable. Co-management allows for greater participation.

Reading: Steffen, The Anthropocene

•Human/society as global geophysical force •Began at industrial rev. •Atmospheric CO2 as indicator •Alterations: biological fabric of earth, biogeochemical cycles, earth's energy balance. •Left Holocene (present interglacial state) to less diverse, forested, warmer "terra incognita" •Shift in relationship: humans and nature •Preanthropocene: humans affected envr. at local/regional scale. Widespread impact: predation, land use change. Fire/tools important. Hunting to language to transfer of knowledge •Pleistocene extinction: waves of extinctions following human invasion. Agriculture, animal domestication, irrigation all major Holocene human impacts - cleared forests and rice irrigation prevented ice age? •First fossil fuel use: coal in China (11th cent.), then decline. Coal for fuel in London (13th cent.). Both regional exceptions - wood, charcoal elsewhere •Stage 1: Industrial era. Tradition began in 1700s, by 1850s well established. First coal, then oil and gas. Before relied on inefficient energy capture, now used huge energy store. Used 4-5x energy of Agrarians, who used 3-4x that of hunter gatherers. Industrial rev. shattered bottleneck on number of humans, economy. Many new activities, improved old ones. Spread control of Earth surface. Spike in GHG - exceeded upper limit •Stage 2: Great acceleration. Increase in population, economy. Past 50 years, most changes to ecosystems in human history, 6th extinction, rapid warming. Public health, moving to city. Accel. stalled by wars, then exploded post WW2. Globalization - no one cared about earth system. CO2 increased by 70 ppm. •Stage 3: Stewards of Earth System: need strategy to sustain life support system. 60s: rise of environmentalism. Envr. considered in economy, policy. Rapid research, understanding. Power of internet/open and free societies, democracy. Approaches: business as usual (dangerous). Mitigation: improve tech, wise use of resources, control population. Need societal, cultural change. Geoengineering: controversial, severe consequences

Wilderness Timeline

•Humans as part of nature •Humans gaining mastery over nature: scientific revolution, but leaned it controls us ultimately (flood, drought) •Humans protecting nature

Categorizing Pinchot

•Instrumental value: good due to its use for achieving something •Utilitarian: Philosophy examining consequences •Conservation: Protect resources to remain available for exploitation •Anthropocentrism: Care about human interests, objective

Discussion: Why would poor people want to preserve Yosemite?

•Intrinsic value, use value. •May not care •Existence value - even if they never see it

Categorizing Muir

•Intrinsic value: inherent value, value in itself •Deontology: first principles - always follow •Preservation: wild spaces shouldn't be diminished •Ecocentrism/holism: all within ecosystems matters, humans "part of the equation"

Jonas vs Latour

•Jonas: Nature entity unto itself, wants fear, authoritarian governance •Latour: Nature not separate from human, shaped by human action, wants inquiry, deliberation, democratic government •Hybrid: nature meets human e.g. GMOs •Authoritarian govt tends not to be benevolent

Naess: Deontologist or Consequentialist?

•Kand and Naess: inclusivity, open to interpretation, figure out for yourself •Deontologist: deep ecology has underlying moral principles. Kantian to take higher principles and apply at various levels, focus on inherent values •Consequentialist: difficult to know right/wrong answer without impacts. Testing maxims - understanding consequences, adhering to principles may at times be counterproductive •Eat meat and be a deep ecologist? Naess - support vital needs, if required you can

Deontology

•Kant: what would happen if everyone acted like that? •Murderer comes in and asks where friend is hiding- to Kant, you must tell where they are, maxim is not lying •Kant doesn't think of personal cost/benefit - keeping promises is key, a violation = violation of principles, don't make promises based on potential future benefit •What to care about? The good will - Kant. Word of deity as related to humans - religion. •Philosophers: first principles as revealed through reason. Principles - rules - decisions.

Particle Fever

•Kaplan: supersymmetry not confirmed, 'all models disproved', but 'awesome'. Not last particle to be discovered - career can continue •Using Sci Method: T-create theories: 'art', 'beauty'. E-test theories •Why did we watch film? Mostly male in T, more female presence in E. No capital return - don't know if project 'useful'. Media presence - influencing conditions. Helps us understand what scientists do, how they produce scientific knowledge. Climate gate -lots of $ at stake in climate science. Society can be naive - no yes/no answers, just possible ranges. Politicians look to science, but feel like they can't act because scientists can't give concrete answers. Theorists: distance between scientists and phenomena. Experimentalists: not not 'seeing' boson, indirect, at distance. Einstein: understand whats happening behind face of watch - need to interpret •How relevant is scientific method

Uncertainty

•Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns

Mertonian Takeup of TEK

•Land and resource management: recast/modest shift to self governance. Decisions made in conjunction - govt. mandated obligation to work together. But not working well •Dual identity: seen as abandoning identity in favour of another •Data: TEK can offer more/better data from community/personal experience. But Mert disrespects - not "good" •Unified knowledge vs reductionism: Elders see intense focus of Mert as not enough knowledge. •Nadasdy: don't treat TEK info as data points - holistic. Mert: take piece of data thats narrow in time and larger in space •Need to understand each other's methodology: e.g. microscope - helping eye to see. Gallileo looked to moon with telescope, saw imperfect celestial being, not believed. Problem: need to understand how eye worked. Biologists, elders have paradigms, decisions and judgements require assumptions. TEK makes sense in Chthonic society, Mert makes sense in western

Deep Ecology: Methodology

•Levels: philosophy to deep ecology platform to hypothesis, policies, to action, decisions

Role of Sanctuary

•M's wilderness, or monastery •Simple, aesthetic life, sparse housing •Isolation: close to deity, undistracted - meditation •Still close to modern society - short retreat for some, tourism revenue, monks collect alms/beg, givers get sense of forgiveness, privilege to support •Humans 'need' wilderness •Intrinsic value •Spiritual restoration •Limit on human activities •Compensate for destruction elsewhere •Island of purity in sea of corruption, degradation

Tycho Brahe

•Meticulous, rich observer •Had sophisticated equipment •Skilled scientist, but put earth back in center

Sachs Harbour Existing Structure Favouring Resilience

•Mobility •Flexibility - enhanced by local knowledge •Knowledge and skills - general, diverse knowledge •Sharing: important to subsistence of all community members •Trade: inter community, symbolic, deeply ingrained, traditional. Giving/accepting gifts ingrained in culture •Pressures on adaptability: rate of change, rapid and can't react. Depth of response takes time to learn, adapt

Judeo-Christain Motifs

•Muir: spiritual, deist •Genesis 1:26-31: creation myth. Animals and plants for use of humans. Mindset complex relating to envr. crisis •Can interpret: dominion not the point, stewardship is responsibility. •What god made is "very good" •Muir: intrinsic value •Genesis open ended, open to interpretation •Distinguishes man from nature

Poetry in Silent Spring

•Mysterious disease and death in heart of America •Cloak of Medea: plants killing bees •Myth of necessity: do they need substance for higher yield? •Myth of harmlessness: to animals and humans

Beyond Lobbying/Protest

•NIMBY: not social issue - keeping backyard clean •When it is easier to organize, will communicate better with politicians e.g. rich people. •Push issues to poorer community •Protesting: not responsible for end decision e.g. how to solve problem. •Policy decision making: science knows about causal links but not preferences, risk aversion •Co production: links public and science together early on

Science in Silent Spring

•Nature of chemicals - how they work, where they end up, impacts •Questions: how did scientists not examine impacts? •"Not quite fatal world" - policy to keep just below harmful effects. But dynamism of system makes that difficult to predict.

Environmental protection

•New paradigm - worthiness of protection •3 generations old •Search tool: spike in 70s, now downward trend •Replaced by new buzzwords: sustainable development, green economy

Post Normal Science

•Normal: constrained paradigms •Post Normal: shift in paradigm - facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, decisions urgent. •Coproduction most necessary

To Shapin, What is Authority of Science Based On?

•Not in understanding/acceptance within society - can't understand other's work •Sci. method: no, not agreed upon, can be used in other context to make decisions •Confidence in capacity to accomplish: dangerous, can be caught by $, power •Independence, integrity: yes, key to uniqueness of science. Science may have risk of coming up with something amazing or nothing (Particle fever). We trust science (e.g. IPCC) because in independence, integrity. Check funding, reputation, test against other conclusions to verify integrity •Uniqueness of scientific method: good way to generate conclusions, but not unique to science

Korsgaard Article: Deontological

•Not telling us what to think, only how to test principles - Kantian •Deontological means and ends - inherent value •No right to treat sentient beings as mean to end •Self awareness indicates human quality e.g. mirror test •Capacity for normative self governance: right from wrong. Start with humans, extend to dolphins, whales, great apes. Not cutoff point - imposes duties on humans •Good will: echoes of Kant •Darwin: people avoid doing wrong from shame. Just humans? •Korsgaard: normatively self governing being avoids doing wrong due to wrongness •Doesn't hand us the answers - figure out for ourself

Scientific Method

•Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Analysis •Is it unique to science?

Reading: Smith, 'The Value of a Tree'

•P and M adversarial relationship •P: conservations, efficient management of natural resources with long term economic benefits •M: preservationist, protect against modern society •Both wrote in books, magazines to (sub)urban middle class - sentiment view of nature as moved further from rural origins but still wanted high SOL, exploitation necessary evil •Combo of sentimentality and pragmatism: boy scouts, country life movement •M: Preserve wilderness as sanctuary •P: conserve to continue growth/prosper •M: interconnection of human and nature, concerned with wealth from exploitation •P: utilitarian philosophy - evangelist of forest policy. used media to promote conservation •P&M: need for change, activists with different approaches •P: economic argument, M: health & spirit •M temporarily advocated conservation but then condemned it/his involvement. Promoted wilderness as refuge for modernity •P: management could be "loving". Man dominates, big threat of diminished prosperity •M: religious tone, perfection of creation. Tried to cultivate respect for nature, sometimes grovelling pragmatically •P: civic duty to support conservationism. Poverty, decay due to mismanagement - not disconnect from nature. Message well received - spoke of community, revitalized democracy. P was educated, manipulative with words - assumed religious rhetoric •M: criticized focus on economy, "ruined eden of selfishness". Wanted to reform individual behaviour - coaxed people out of the city to understand need to protect •Hetch hetchy: P-benefit as reservoir > beauty. M- place of refuge, was supported by people but was still dammed. •M: private utilitarian views •P: later went more preservationist •Both religious.. P used new morality, M used restorative power

Scale and Scope

•Phronesis: practical reasoning. Inward, individual, recurring. Draws on lived experiences. •Precaution: outward, whole system. new novel situation.

Whiteside: Fundamental Change

•Precaution challenges age old assumptions, reorients fundamental frameworks.

Yosemite

•Preserved from humans, antidote of civilization •Shift from viewing it as "unproductive", where productivity = forestry, hotels •Poets and authors change people's minds

Reading, Nadasdy, 'Politics of TEK'

•Project of integrating TEK and Mert. Effort to co-manage resources, environmental impacts. But assume TEK conforms to Mert, doesn't acknowledge power relations. Assume TEK is just 'new data'. Must express TEK in new Mertonian way and they don't have control of what happens to the knowledge. Concentrates power in scientists, administration •Objectives: collect, document, integrate TEK. Increase understanding, empower. Difficult: what is TEK, how to integrate •Case study: Kluane First Nations •Arguments against integration: two knowledge types incommensurable. TEK-qualiatative, intuitive, holistic, oral. Mert- quantitative, analytical, reductionist, literate. •Difficulties: access, collect TEK and translate to 'usable' form. Act of integration reinforces Western cultural biases negatively to local community. •Hidden discourse: perhaps vague uneasiness, to racist, to thoughtful concerns. 1st Nations: Mert scientists don't actually want to use TEK, its just politically expedient. See failures as calculated strategy. View official talks as insincere. Mert scientist: doubt existence, efficacy of TEK. View it as eroded, political attempt to take back control. •Assumptions in TEK: jargon eg 'subsistence' have no language counterpart in aboriginal language. 'Traditional' = frozen in time, dismiss more recent practices as 'inauthentic', allowing non-native people to choose what is authentic. Denying adaptability, dynamism. 'Ecological' = bias to Euro-Canadian paradigm, shows man-nature dichotomy not present in paradigm of aboriginal people 'part of land, part of water'. If asking elders to speak of environment, speak of kinship/respect - ignoring this imposes our standards of reference. 'Knowledge' = to aboriginal people is a 'way of life'. "Knowledge" is western construct. But still treats TEK as discrete product, separated from culture. •Incorporating TEK: treat TEK as supplement, don't examine own assumptions on wildlife management. 'Incorporating' implies value of TEK is use by wildlife managers. So if you combine 'data', new 'integrated knowledge', goes into unchanged management system. Must express TEK in mertonian form. •Compartmentalization: Mert=subdivisions, TEK=complain about govt consulting all experts (many) who only know one thing. Kluane elders/hunters know about whole system. Mert praises TEK's holism, but still publishes compartmentalized papers. Focuses on small thing, not view of Kluane - but suits need of govt. Dall sheep: integrated holistic view of hunters not accommodated. •If activity/practices don't resemble aspects of reality to scientists, its 'distilled out'. •Dall sheep: not just only interested in sheep, but only certain types of info on sheep. Number, location. Distills out stories/value/social relations. Committee only used the 'Mertonian aspects' of TEK. Ignored/chose when to apply TEK. Disregarded TEK about social structure of rams. Suggested not shooting full curl - ignored. Quota system would spread kills more evenly through population. Ignored because- trophy sheep, didn't take 'social' info, can't be expressed quantitatively, difficult to 'prove'. TEK: don't kill ewes as reduces future population accepted as mathematical, biological vs social. •TEK and Mert- different interpretations of data, statistics vs experiences. •Kluane people frustrated with TEK projects: data 'filed away', not passed on, transcribed to something categorized, analytical, written. •Distilling knowledge: those who know least about TEK set standards of relevance. •Co-mgmt projects: Elders and hunters take time to interview, attend meetings in uncomfortable places, spit at with jargon, disrespected - brings back 'on topic'. Frustrating. •Power imbalance: all knowledge embedded in larger social process that gives it meaning - Latour: production of science produces artifacts. Utility of science/theory depends on physical, conceptual networks that produces them: connected to power. Mertonian: render in form able to be mathematically manipulated. Power in manipulation and interpretation. power: not that there is 'truth' in maps, but that they are used. TEK projects renders TEK into 'usable' form, concentrates power at centre of calculations, at expenses of Kluane. Mert. uses these TEK studies - Kluane find them useless. Think: ask aboriginal people for TEK to use vs asking scientists for Mert to use. Why are scientists qualified to use TEK? TEK artifacts aren't substitutes of TEK. Must be part of decision making process. •Co-management prospects: Use of Mert. condensed TEK problematic. Solution: all decision making should be in hand of locals - way of life undervalued.

Reading: Whiteside, 'Precautionary Principle'

•Protect against our own ignorance: pondered by Socrates •PP: Long term, invisible dangers. Unprecedented political theory required. Not just 'risk management guideline', challenges deepest assumptions. Take responsibility for biophysical surroundings. How much deference does science deserve in policy making? •Unique predicament: it is dressed up version of 'better safe than sorry'? Bad assumption. Traditionally, shorter term problems vs envr problems with long lag time. Tradition: people know they are in trouble, but gradual change in envr problems. Scientific mediation required, but non envr values (civil liberty) need consideration. Traditionally: political theory within limited geographic area, between neighbours but envr has global scope. Traditionally, refers to rational beings. But Envr 'evils' are irrational e.g. pollution, and envr issues affect nonhuman beings. Traditionally nature is considered as 'fixed' but today we realize its fragile, dynamic, uncertain •Need new political vocabulary. Phronesis preceded precaution. Phronesis relies on experience, empirical knowledge. Prudent action between fear and heroics. Individual level, oriented inward. PP=specialized, methodical. Deals with unknown effects vs phronesis's recurrent, typical situation. •Jonas: crucial to PP. Accelerated population means apocalypse of 'too much'. Cumulative effects endanger future population. Self propelling change: tech. Scale >> predictive knowledge. Only at beginning can change course of path. GMOs: investment, R&D, patent - agro crop management system vs just seeds. Not tested extensively. Heuristic of fear: fear arises because we can imagine it especially for future generations. Altruistic fear. Democracy addicted to consumption, won't discipline ourselves. We need 'responsible tyranny' (didn't define well). Ecoauthoritarian: rely on coercion, expertise. Pessimism about PP - not from studies, just assumed. Dictators rarely benevolent, usually self interested. System would require mass surveillance. If you dismiss authoritarian leanings, you can extract philosophies. Jonas predicament due to failure to recognize intrinsic value. Hierarchy: man over nature. Thought people needed to govern nature like a parent/child. But facticity of nature underwrites conclusions. Jonas thinks our crisis interpreted by and prescribed solutions by scientists. Philosophers can't contribute. •Latour: humans within nature. PP flows from new understanding of rational action. PP: debate the risks, what we want, under what conditions. Latour: PP=science in line with democracy. Science is in fact a political process using persuasion to make hypothesis credible. Science is not privileged access to truth - he collapses society's distinction between nature and society. Modern constitution: nature and science dichotomy. Science and polities dichotomy: don't disturb each other's business. Late 20th century: hybrids- partly human controlled, partly processes out of control. Not natural, not social. Need to abandon modern constitution. Bring hybrids to political scrutiny. Parliament of things: hybrids- debate desirability. PP critics: worry about response of crowd vs experts. Later: elites trying to protect position as 'sole arbiters of truth' about nature. Clear path for people to be involved- bring science into democracy. •parliament of things: Upper levels debate how to detect phenomena, scientists, spokespeople. Jury: how phenomena affects constituents of policy. Lower house: policy as whole: can we live together? Establish hierarchy, priorities. •Common world: no need for absolute certainty to take action. Not 'protecting nature', but take change of large diversity of entities and destinies. Take charge: PP rethinks institution, not one single 'rule' New philosophy of nature. Precaution: democratic decision how humans and non humans can work together. •Uncertainty&fear: Latour lets us question things that are uncomfortable, not necessarily global catastrophe. Jonas: trigger responsibility due to global catastrophe - restrictive view of precaution. Jonas: Kantian principles, but is critic, consequentialist. To be a consequentialist plus have absolute morals: large scale catastrophe gives us no choice but to act. Later: broader array of concerns. Suggests monitoring, procedures, debates. Ideas stop debate on what is 'natural' vs 'artificial'. Examines risk instead. But concerns with Latour: limits to interference? Later accepts experiments - his PP doesn't block development. Values lost - what if we don't want to live in a lab? Bringing science to democracy - cuts out some major concerns. Latour: people make own decision, even about technical matters. Jonas: PP remedies failures of vision, long term moral responsibility. Latour: parliament of things widens representation, isn't necessarily precautionary. •Why use PP? Jonas: apocalyptic fear. Latour: skeptical of danger, doesn't specify risk. Jonas may have grasp of PP's underlying ideas. PP at intersection of uncertainty and risk. Many philosophers reject Jonas's heuristic of fear. •Opinions: PP doesn't rein in economy, creates condition of harm. Issue: not that we don't know of risk, but we don't believe in it. Use worst case scenario to guide principles. But too easy to project apocalypse scenarios. Other opinion: don't imagine worst case scenario, but test potential for damage in science. Closer to Jonas's intentions, he believed in looking at scientific evidence. •Early view of nature: big sink without limits. Later changed. Risk: can foresee all possible outcomes and probability. Uncertainty: foresee outcome, but not probability. Ambiguity: can't foresee all outcomes. Ignorance: know nothing. Calls for precaution: surprises e.g. CFCs and ozone. Precaution: anticipate surprises- assemble incomplete knowledge, perspectives in new ways. Difference methods: asks for people outside of science. Bring on qualitative concerns: culture, equity, power. Build on Jonas but reject authoritarian ideals.

Phronesis

•Prudence, practical reasoning •Influential: consider actions •Science of what is good, fine, and just for humans

Singer's Article: Utilitarian

•Pursuit fo pleasure and avoidance of pan = intrinsic value, distinguish if entities have moral standing. •Draw line at sentience •No grounds to prefer interests of one sentient being over another •Test positions: what about humans who can't feel pain? Belong in class of beings who do, so deserve respect •Moral standing of non human species: philosophy draws line at humans but Bentham questioned this •Eating roadkill: replace human with animals, so no - paying respect to dead •Vegetarian "chicken" - symbolic, but imitates power over animals. Replace chicken w human - unethical •Singer speaks to wealthy Westerners with access to alternative proteins •Ecosystems in general: speaks of animal, not environment. Has no sentience, can't be considered •Animal suffering through environmental degradation - directly affects a sentient being

Pinchot and Muir

•Reactions overlap, different motives •Compare: logging wrong way to harvest. P: right way to manage. M: no forest should be cut down. At times his opinion more pragmatic - tactical? •Compare: Hetch Hetchy Dam. P: willing to accept. M: dead set against •Agree: forests valuable, exploitation by robber barons is bad •Disagree: why forests should be protected, why robber barons are bad •P: forest: manage responsibly, worry about low/middle class people - tenement flats •M: Forests intrinsic value, any exploitation bad, anthropocizes nature •Yosemite: M: dwellers of flats should access. P: concerned about eliminating poverty, improving housing

Reading: Singer, 'All Animals are Equal'

•Recent history: campaigns for equality. Liberation - sexism 'last form of discrimination'. But its difficult to recognize our own prejudice. Habits previously considered 'natural' later recognized as prejudiced. •Extend equality to other species. Sounds far fetched, but can't compare to sexism e.g. dogs can't have right to vote •Extending equality ≠ treating in the same way or granting same rights. Means equality of consideration - may lead to different treatment/rights. Not denying differences •Fact: humans not equal. Using differences whether genetic or environmental not sound argument. •Equality - moral ideal, not assertion of fact - doesn't describe differences, but prescribes treatment •Bentham: moral equality in utilitarian calculus: all interests weighted equally. He toyed with equality of nonhuman animals. Suffering is right to equal consideration. Capacity for suffering/joy is prerequisite to having interests. •If a being suffers, immoral to ignore. Sentience boundary of concern - not arbitrary like intelligence/skin colour •Proving people are speciesist: eating animals, inflicting suffering while still alive for pleasure of taste. Moral obligation to cease. Experimenting on animal - why not do it on babies/braindead? Speciesism in contemporary philosophy - dances around granting animals same equality of consideration. Claim distinctive human dignity/worth: Judeo-Christian doctrine. But why are humans (Hitler, psychos) worth more than an elephant, pig etc. What relevant characteristics do only humans possess?

Incompatible with PP

•Refuse to consult scientific evidence of threat •Wait •Choose to ignore threat until science conclusive

Vanderbilt Cottage

•Robber barons: fortune built on exploiting resources •Resources seemed inexhaustible

Coproduction of Scientific Knowledge

•STS/Jasanoff. STS (Science and Technology Studies) implicated in 'science wars' - public skepticism about science-safety, risks. Exposed scientists as humans with bias, mistakes. STS questioned objectivity - universally valid scholars? Latour debunked science - faith in it, but doesn't believe its just about observing then reporting facts. •Coproduction: side by side, work in lab/field, analyze •Broader: scientists look at things with paradigms, make mistakes •Questioning divide between scientists vs nonscientists

From Ethics to Politics

•Science and religion to knowledge, society, politics. •Shift: individual to collective decision making •Broader political ramifications of writing - not just to government but to group with common objectives •C, M, P involved in politics

Shallow vs Deep Ecology

•Shallow: more anthropocentric, less radical •Deep: Naess doesn't promote ecocentrism, instead deeper understanding, expanding principles and values •Shallow: fisheries with total allowable catch - doesn't understand ecosystem dynamics. Recycling - not enough without reducing and reusing. Energy Star appliances - Jevon's paradox

Stocktaking Section 2

•Situating Leopold: Callicott- unique approach. "Conservation = harmony between man and land". Callicott- possible to be sustainable, nondestructive and manage land. Contemporary e.g. amazon rainforest. Norwegian government - incentives to preserve, alternatives to extraction •Sustainable development: can be traditional (bucolic pastoral) or high tech. Defined in many ways. Brundtland report: development that meets present needs without compromising future generation's ability to meet needs. 70s: backlash, 'antigrowth'. Brundtland reconciled environment and economy •Current: environment, economy, society •Essential growth in developing countries, must be sustainable -Win-win vs zero sum. •Integration of pillars: Callicott made achieving harmony seem easy

Resilience

•Sociological, ecological •Change a system can handle without losing control of structure, function •Capacity for self organization •Ability to build capacity for learning, adaptation - ecosystems don't 'learn', but their behaviour appears to. Social systems learn in explicit way

Leopold: Ecological Preservation

•Started out pragmatic, moved into conservation •Focus on balance of environment and economy •Somewhat aligned with Muir, different approach •To Callicott, Leopold between conservation and preservation •1st environmental preserve in 60s was wetland - ugly but had many ESS, preservation of wildlife habitat •Leopold first concerned about preservation of game, recreation. Shifted to caring more about ESS later

Reading: Beryl, 'Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Environmental Movement'

•Style: vivid, beautiful. Carson had credibility: scientist and writer. Accessible to public. •Didn't think it would bring about "complete change". •Combined love of biology and writing. Wrote about the sea •Carson "assumed burden" about pesticides - realized she couldn't accomplish much so took into own hands. Courageous endeavour. Went through personal issues during writing - still published. •Instant bestseller. 40 bills about pesticide use introduced in one year. Serious attack on credibility, errors •Proud of achievements, excellent scientist, thoroughly researched subject. Accused of bias, hysterics. •Chemical industry pushed back •Stated she asked for moderation, not abandonment of chemicals •Believes what threatens the environment threatens us, challenged "safe tolerances", pushed "right to know" •Impact: JFK committee critiqued government programs, suggested alternatives. Already some negative perception of pesticides, but changed general public perception. •Died of cancer - didn't live to see full impacts

Reading: Naess, 'The Basics of Deep Ecology'

•Supports of deep ecology come from diversity of background beliefs •Common platform of deep ecology: from features of philosophy, religion, ethics formulated as set of norm, hypotheses. Platform = short, concise vs premises of religion, philosophy •Platform derived from higher principles - manifold of views compatible w transcultural character - wording may vary depending on where you are •Apron diagram: 1) Ultimate premise, worldview, ecosophies. 2) Deep ecology platform principles.3) Normative or factual hypotheses and policies. 4) Particular decisions and actions. •Testing apron diagram: treespiking eg. 1) Spinozist premise 2) Platform of deep ecology 3) Hypotheses- logging = bad, needs to stop, is illegal, all normal means to prevent have failed. Norms- should be nonviolent. Treespiking justifiable. 4) Begin spiking •Room for different premises, not just focused on 'biosphere as whole'. Distinctness of levels is useful. Level 1: most can agree. Level 3,4: may disagree, depends on person •Formulations of platform principles: 1) life refers to biotic and abiotic, whole ecosystem 2) Simpler organisms contribute to diversity, species richness - need them 3) Strong - takes into account situations that can't evoke/appeal a right. 'Vital needs' deliberately vague 4) Reducing population takes time, need to realize how serious situation is. 5) Difficult to quickly reduce, issue is extent. Need to focus on ecological function. 6) Economic growth is incompatible with levels 1-5, need to work on solutions. 7) Quality of life - supposed to be vague. 8) Frontier is long - need cooperation with other movements

Search tool: Sustainable Development, ESS, Ecology

•Sustainable development overtook environment protection in mid 90s •ESS spike •Ecology more popular than environmental protection •Ecology - emergent from Silent Spring, started from Leopold as a science. At first was not readily accepted - broad, holistic, generalized

Reaction to Modernity

•Synge meets Darwin: world turned, upset, brutal shift in understanding - Biblical universe ceased to exist •Harder, 'The Oxen'. Kneel at midnight on christmas. Conflict: premodern as child, modern as adult. Unquestioned, unfaltering belief for adults and children. Modern - people question. Nostalgia about this faithful time •If premodern people were to see oxen not kneeling, how would they react? May explain away, may question. Shunned if question? Something wrong with oxen. Form of punishment for questioning. Resistant to evidence. 'Doubting Thomas' - transgression to seek evidence, rationalize away.

TEK vs Mertonian

•TEK: qualitative, intuitive, holistic, oral •Mert: quantitative, analytical, reductionist, literate •Communalism: present in TEK •Universalism: TEK hands down knowledge, tested •Disinterestedness: must have correct knowledge •Skepticism: unclear in TEK, disproving hypothesis in Mert

Environment: Historical Perspective

•Thames: polluted in times of Henry VII •Coal pollution: Edward I - saw visible impact of smoke, soot, ash

Silent Spring Themes

•The pastoral, where many Americans lived and worked. not wilderness - talks about the regular uninspiring places •Scientific: intuition about carcinogenic effects, doesn't directly link exposure to cancer. Lots aren't, evidently •Commonsensical: conclusions presented as such, contrasted to lack of curiosity by scientists to study effects •Scientific-poetic language: speaks to the people, turns table to accuse chem industry of lying about need for substances •Tragedy: Innocent victims, many injuries/deaths esp in civilians/worker/children who didn't know danger, were uninformed. Directly connected to readers - they spray their garden with these substances

Particle Fever Questions

•Theoretical vs experimental: motivations, objectives •How do both relate to science/sci method? •Mertonian behaviour - does it stray? •Kaplan's reaction •Significance of weight •Context of 'beauty' •Why did we watch •Utility of experiments

Spectrum of Wilderness

•Thoreau's cabin: wilderness/retreat, but not completely "wild". •Suburban backyard •Shift from viewing "wild places" to immediate environment as worthy of protection •Movement from environmental protection to sustainable development •Opposition: nature vs culture, wilderness vs civilization •Critique of binary - environment vs people. Rethink environment to include civilization •Humans are part of nature, rely on it. Special relationship - we inflict harm, but can reflect upon it

Silent Spring and the Anthropocene

•Urgent, running out of time: pace of evolution, science. Nature can't establish equilibrium - insects adapting well to chemicals •War against nature, especially insects - mono crops are vulnerable •Being better than nature - the Anthropocene (mono crops) •Living intimately with chemicals •Permanent transformations - stopping use ≠ no more risk

Ethical Approaches: Types of Claims

•Utilitarian: what will be the consequences? •Deontology: decide what is right/wrong in principle, regardless of consequnces

Consequentialism

•Utilitarianism subset of consequentialism •JS Mill: greatest happiness for greatest number •Eg: person knows where bomb is - endanger/torture one to save many? To deontologists it depends on first principles - wrong to torture, fundamental to not harm. e.g. surgeons inflict pain to help, heal - not to harm •Utilitarians care about intrinsic value, what is inherently good •Singer: if it can feel pleasure, pain figure out rights from there •Happiness: some people happy from 'bad things' •Utilitarians care about utility •Can they suffer? Where to draw the line. Judeo-Christrian: draw line at humans •Act utilitarians vs rule utilitarians

Precautionary Principle

•When there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific uncertainty shall not be used as reason to post-pone cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation •Use of 'cost effective' problematic. What is type of threats, presence of uncertainty, obligation for action? •*No* scientific certainty does *not* mean that *no* action will be taken - triple negative, doesn't contain obligation, open ended

Moral Standing

•Who/what deserves concern? Humans as a starting point. Consider humans and nonhuman animals, living things, ecosystems •Whose interests are worthy of consideration? What has interests - animals, ecosystems? •Who/what has rights, who/what do we owe duty to? Usual is humans. Growing is nonhuman entities' legal and ethical rights. Maybe we owe duties to something without rights - what is utility of "rights" holders? •Resolving conflict: interests, rights, duties - job of politics to resolve

Callicott: Challenge to Wilderness Preservation

•Wilderness as monastery (L) vs Old Testament: harsh but cleansing. •M: discover wilderness itself •Cronon, Uncommon Ground: controversial critique of wilderness as retreat. Disservice: attention placed on wild, unspoiled areas. Excuse ourselves about our affects on urban/pastoral environments, slums etc. Untouched places give us false sense of security - only small group of society can access/exploit it. Shift of attention from wilderness into local environment/impacts •Callicott: careful, still claims favour of preservation - its not enough