Aldo Leopold was an American author, philosopher, naturalist, scientist, ecologist, forester, conservationist, and environmentalist. He was a professor at the University of Wisconsin and is best known for his book A Sand County Almanac. Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) was a founding member of the contemporary environmental movement. His piece the “Land Ethic” has been a foundational text for Environmental Ethics. Published in 1949 as part of the A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethic” essay is a call for moral responsibility to the natural world. In the Land Ethic, Leopold attempts at a non-anthropocentric ethic, one that includes an evolutionary perspective of ethics. Leopold argues that humans need to extend boundaries of community to the “Land,” soil, water, plants, animals. Additionally, humans need to broaden their understanding of value beyond the economic. Humans are a regular member of the biotic community, not above it. Leopold explains the community concept as strong ethical feelings and obligations to family, neighborhood, and species. All ethics operate with the assumption that that the individual is a community of the interdependent parts. The ethics argues that humans need to extend the boundaries of what they consider as their community, and is therefore an important framework for meaningful conservation of land, water, animals, and plants. The Land Ethic is an important framework to be implemented to conservation. The Species Approach to the Problem emphasizes the importance of extending one’s community. This approach focuses on a small number of just one species of animal or plant with less focus on the whole ecosystem that supports the individual species. The species approach to conservation contradicts the Leopold’s ethic as in it does not consider the whole ecosystem, but it shows how humans can extend their community to a select few species. This approach is prevalent is population ecology. Through research and conservation programs, there is often focus on one species. Many environmental organizations use the species approach. Example environmental organizations are Panthera, which focuses on big cats, Polar Bears International, and Animal Rights Group that focus on a single species (e.g. Harpseals). A downfall of this approach is the primary focus of one species may not be that important to the overall ecosystem. Foundation species like otters and keystone species like wolves, which are maximally important for ecosystem health. The species approach may focus on animals that humans have bonded with because of the “cute factor,” and have therefore extending to what Leopold sees as their community. There is also a focus from environmental organizations on animals rather than plants, despite the vital role that plants play in all ecosystems. While there are numerous organizations that focus on one animal species, there seem to be no organizations that focus on a single species of plant. Leopold emphasizes care for the Land, which includes soil, water, plants, and animals. Critics of the species approach claim it is narrow, sentimental, and uninformed as it is only focusing on one species, and the approach is usually focusing on the preservation of a species that is not foundational to the ecosystem. The approach can be seen as anthropocentric as it is placing human needs above the needs of ecosystems and other species. Leopold emphasizes that humans are part of the community and not above it. The species approach is only beneficial when there is imperative need for focus on one foundational species to aid in restoring ecological balance. Placing increased focus on animals that have sentimental value to humans can be very dangerous to other species and ecosystems globally. This approach must take into account the Land Ethic, as the one species needs the ecosystem to survive. A single species is dependent on many biospheres and other factors of the ecosystem. The Ecosystem Approach to conservation is based on Leopold’s Land Ethic and therefore properly cares for the whole ecosystem. This approach focuses on large-scale ecosystems and biomes including biodiversity.The ecosystem approach implements Leopold’s land ethics that the whole is greater than the parts. Focuses on restoring or maintaining ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling are critical to the ecosystem approach. The approach makes it possible to support individual species like in the species approach by supporting habitats or ecosystem services necessary to the species survival. The approach corresponds with Leopold’s Land Ethics vs. Animal Rights approaches. The ecosystem approach is often seen in community ecology and ecosystem ecology. Examples of environmental organizations that use the species approach are the Nature Conservancy and Yellowstone to Yukon, wilderness corridor along mountain ranges from Yellowstone to Northern Canada. A case study example of the Land Ethic approach is the conservation of the Amazon rainforest. Sap from rubber trees in the Amazon was highly sought after as rubber was used for vehicle tires. Brazil had a rubber monopoly from the Amazon rainforest. Brazil formed roads through the rainforest to gain control of its resources. Since 1978, over 298,000 square miles of the Amazon rainforest have been destroyed through deforestation. A large amount of the deforestation is from subsistence farmers, who cut down the trees for their families. In 2004, conservation efforts aimed to reverse the trends of deforestation. Preventing deforestation not only conserves the ecosystem, but it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The trees in the rainforest sequester carbon. When the trees are cut down the stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. The loss of that tree also decreases carbon sequestration, greatly contributing to climate change. Forests are being replaced in other places by palm oil plantations. Plots are deforested in many places to build small farms. Governments can set aside large areas of wilderness or ecosystems for conservation. The Land Ethic justifies any action as morally right if it strengthens the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community. Therefore the Land Ethic serves as a strong framework for the conservation of land, water, animals, and plants. How can modern conservation work better integrate the Land Ethic to prevent the species approach and lean towards the ecosystem conservation approach rooted in Leopold’s work? Word Count: 980 Conservation of ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest must implement the Land Ethic.
0 Comments
Naomi Klein is the New York Times bestselling author of On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal. Naomi Klein is a number one international and New York Times bestselling author, social activist, and filmmaker known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalization and of capitalism. In 2019, she published On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal, which makes the case for a Green New Deal and how bold climate action can and should be the blurbing for a just and thriving society. In the third chapter of On Fire, “Geoengineering: Testing the Waters,” Naomi Klein refutes the rogue activities of geoengineers and their attempts at offsetting climate change. Klein explains many geoengineered proposed solutions to the disastrous effects of climate change. For example, ocean fertilization is of the process of pumping the ocean with iron to reduce the effects of ocean acidification and climate change. She uses the notable example of Russ George, a man who dumped 120 tons of iron into the ocean in 2012 to help encourage algae blooms and sequester carbon. Despite how appealing geoengineering can be for some in that it gives a false promise of continuing life without sacrificing overconsumption while still helping to protect the environment, “the appeal is easy to understand. Geoengineering offers the tantalizing promise of a climate change fix that would allow us to continue our resource-exhausting way of life indefinitely… Is there any wonder that many are pinning their hopes on a break-the-glass-in-case-of emergency option that scientists have been cooking up in their labs?” (Klein 107) However, geoengineering irreparably disrupts natural cycles which can cause catastrophic effects to the global environment. In another example, Klein illustrates how if sulfur were to be released into the atmosphere to blind the sky and offset greenhouse gas emissions, it could lead to incredibly damaging drought seasons in Africa and Asia. In the chapter Klein emphasizes how geoengineering is not an alternative to protecting the environment, and that humans need to learn to change their behavior and protect natural systems and cycles to protect the planet’s health. She begins the chapter with “Wouldn’t it be better to change our behavior - to reduce our use of fossil fuels - before we begin fiddling with the planet’s basic life-support systems?” (Klein 104). Geoengineering provides a false sense of hope of fixing the climate catastrophe with little accountability placed on humans to change their behavior. Additionally, very little accountability is placed upon geoengineers as they literally alter the life-support systems of the planet. Currently, there are very little laws in place to prevent geoengineering, and the geopolitical ramifications are thus enormous. Klein explains that a drought in India could be caused by decisions of geoengineers on the other side of the planet. Hypothetically, how would geoengineers and the countries or other government entities be held accountable for disturbing the earth’s natural processes and wrecking havoc in another country. The political and financial implications that Klein speaks of are already occurring. Coastal management is currently dominated by geoengineering. Management of coastal erosion falls into categories of hard and soft structures. In general, hard geoengineered structures, such as, jetties, groins, seawalls, bulkheads, are costly and ultimately increase the instability of the direct and indirect areas downwind they intend to protect; they may also have adverse effects on the biodiversity of the area, but there is an immediate sense of ‘protection’ and security afforded by a sturdy physical structure designed to withstand predicted storm levels. As a result, society values these geoengineered structures, though their parameters are often over-simplified in the design process, and climate change relative to future scenarios is rarely considered, making their operational lifespan less predictable. Beach Replenishment is used widely across the United States and parts of Europe to slow down erosion, reduce storm surges, and create more recreational opportunities. Replenishment is a form of soft stabilization. Shoreline stabilization is geoengineering to hold a shoreline in place. However, beach replenishment is an extremely costly, Band-Aid solution lasting only 3-7 years. The project also damages the beach’s ecosystem and swimming conditions (Charbonneau & Cochran 2019). Despite the negative effects of coastal geoengineering many governments enforce their usage. For example,The state Department of Environmental Protection is using eminent domain laws and government funding to seize private property and enforce the project along the NJ coast. Like all of the geoengineered practices that Klein mentioned, beach replenishment and other hard geoengineered forms of coastal management are implemented so humans do not have to change their behaviors and rather can be led to believe that technology will save their wrongdoings. Despite the constant reminder of climate change’s threat, the US continues to see heavy development along the coastline. Geoengineered solutions are prioritized in affluent communities and where it will lead to an increase in tourism revenues. The geoengineered structures then consequently send wave energy elsewhere creating further damage in other areas. Just as Klein predicted, there is no compensation for the communities damaged by the decisions of another. How can we then create laws to hold geoengineers accountable and disincentivize geoengineering because of its resounding disastrous effects? Word Count: 855 Beach replenishment is a soft armoring technique that involves pumping sand onto an eroding shoreline to widen the existing beach. Charbonneau BR, Cochran C, Avenarius C. What we know and what we think we know: Revealing misconceptions about coastal management for sandy beaches along the U.S. Atlantic Seaboard. J Environ Manage. 2019 Sep 1;245:131-142. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.008. Epub 2019 May 28. PMID: 31150904.
Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher, and a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition of philosophy. In Martin Heidegger’s Basic Writings from Being and Time (1927) and to the Task of Thinking (1964) he addresses technology in his essay entitled “the Question Concerning Technology,” 1953. Heidegger lived from 1889-1976. The goal of his essay is to search for the essence of technology so that human can develop an independence and free relation to technology, as Heidegger believed if humans failed to think about their relationship to the essence of technology, they will remain “unfree and chained” to technology (Heidegger 311). The essay advocates for humanity to open eyes to blind spots and understand technology for its essence. Heidegger believes we should not view technology as a neutral entity as this blinds humanity to its essence. He is concerned with the orientation of humanity towards technology rather than its existence. Heidegger begins evaluating the essence of technology by first beginning with the commonsense conception of technology. Heidegger defines the instrumental and anthropological definition of technology as a means to and end and a human activity respectively. However, he still believes these definitions have blindspots but that the instrumental can lead humans to the essence,“ff we inquire step by step into what technology, represented as means [instrumentality], actually is, then we shall arrive at revealing. The possibility of all productive manufacturing lies in revealing. Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing” (Heidegger 318). Regardless of how the definition of technology is deconstructed, it leads to the essence of revealing. While the framework in which Heidegger arrived at the essence of technology as revealing was in relation to craftsmanship, modern technology is also a mode of revealing:“the revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such”(Heidegger 320) ´ It differs from older technology in that it transforms our orientation to the world. Modern technology challenges nature by unlocking and exposing it. Technology always drives toward the maximum yield at the minimum expense. Technology reveals humanity;’s orientation towards nature as resources are extracted for the sake of being stored and readily available for humans immediate desires. Modern technology has thus effectively revealed nature to be something at our command. I agree that we must not view technology as a neutral. Technological solutions to climate change and ecological destruction imply that technology is neutral or inherently good. Humans have not analyzed the essence of technology and continue to be chained to technology, seeing no other path forward than continual industrialization and so called innovation. Modern environmentalists advocate for technology as environmentalism “through its so doing the deceptive appearance arises that modern technology is applied physical science” (Heidegger 328).Technology is used to progress forward and mitigate climate change with large-scale solar farms in the desserts, clearing forests for biofuel plantations and placing offshore turbines in the ocean: “this is business as usual: the expansive, colonizing, progressive human narrative, shorn only of the carbon. It is the latest phase of our careless, self-absorbed, ambition-addled destruction of the wild, the unpolluted and the non-human. It is the mass destruction of the world’s remaining wild places in order to feed the human economy. And without any sense of irony, people are calling this ‘environmentalism.’” (Kingsnorth 71). Instead of changing human behavior, humans implement technology and shallow ecology, revealing nature as a mere means to an end and a resource at the command of human. With increasing technological innovation, humans see the only path forward through technology. While it is technology exasperating ecological destruction humans it is done through human’s constant desire for progress and consumption, “since man drives technology forward he takes part in ordering as a way of revealing” (Heidegger 324). As IPCC reports predict the little time that humans have to reverse their behavior to save the planet, many look to technological solutions to save the planet instead. For example, Elon Musk is investing in technology to colonize Mars when Earth’s resources are eventually depleted and the planet becomes inhabitable. Musk plans to bomb the planet and pump it with nitrous gas to create an environment solely at human’s disposal. Even though technology has led to the current dire state of the planet, humans see the only option as to continue technology, recreating technology in the imagine of the planet; “technological problems, we say, require require technological solutions which no layman can fashion or fathom” (Heidegger 308). Technological solutions to solve climate change are harmful for humanity, as they place their trust in the guarantee that technology will save them. With the inevitable rescue of technology, humans have no incentive to change their behaviors. How can we motivate humans to except the dangerous reality of technology in combatting climate change, an issue technology created? Word Count: 815 Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, in his "Occupy Mars" t-shirt.
Iris Marion Young (1949-2006) was an American political theorist and feminist who challenged the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice.Iris Marion Young was an American political theorist and socialist feminist focused on the nature of justice and social difference. In her paper “Justice and Hazardous Waste,” Young addresses the philosophical underpinnings of disputes around the siting of hazardous industrial facilities. In her paper, Young particularly focuses on the sitting of a hazardous waste treatment plant and the residents of the community proposed as the site of the plant. Members of the community raise the question of the decision making structure and justice of locating the plant in the community. Young’s focus on the justice of the decision-making process herself, distinguishing her work from other frameworks of evaluating justice. Young focuses on a specific community in her paper to emphasize the importance of the decision-making structure itself in questions of justice. The central argument that Young makes contradicts dominant philosophical conceptions of justice that address the distribution of benefits and burdens. Rather Young believes that these conceptions are not equipped to deal with questions of justice,q as they do not put into question the decision making frameworks but solely the distribution of benefits and burdens. From this philosophical perspective, decisions of justice take place under the assumption that there is a neutral ideal observer, “this assumption, moreover, has a political counterpart in the assumption that the liberal democratic state functions as such a neutral arbiter among conflicting claims to right and justice” ( Young 171). However, Young believes that the assumption of a neutral arbitrator is misguided. Empirically, the liberal democractic state is not a neutral arbitrator in conflicts of justice and rights. Many biases exist in the democractic process with those making the decisions' interests prioritized, “moreover, state agencies usually have specific interests of their own which direct the way they make assessments and decisions. In practice state legislatures and agencies do not function solely to mediate among private interests” (Young 179). Therefore, it is impossible for the state to be entirely neutral, putting into question the reliability of the neutral arbitrator and the decision making process. Young corroborates this claim through a case study of Warren, Massachusetts. The case that Young analyzes follows the State of Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Committee declaring a site in the town of West Warren as "feasible and deserving" for building of a waste treatment plant by the Industrial Tank Corporation in 1981. The town of Warren, Massachusetts was deemed feasible for the siting of a hazardous waste site. As mentioned earlier, most considerations of justice focus primarily on fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Young points to three ways fairness of distribution is typically addressed. Laws, utilitarian reasoning, or a Rawlsian approach are typically used to address the question of fair distribution. For the residents of Warren the issue of justice lies not in the distribution but in the decision-making process that led to deeming the community as a feasible and deserving location for the hazardous waste site. Consequently, Young continues to show that prevailing philosophical conceptions of justice are not equipped to deal with many questions of justice.
The residents of Warren are victims of injustice because the law denies them participation in the decision of the location of the hazardous waste site. The state’s sitting board essentially performs the risk assessment in a vacuum void of community input. “Questions of who has and ought to have the right to make decisions, and according to what procedures, are surely questions of justice. For the most part, however, theorizing about justice in contemporary philosophical and political discourse does not raise questions pertaining to decision making power and authority” (176). The reframing of justice that Young is arguing for echoes the ideas of decision making presented by Robert Bullard. Robert Bullard is renowned as the father of environmental justice. In 1994 Bullard published a piece entitled “Decision Making,” where he outlines how inequalities persist despite the recent attempts by federal agencies to reduce environmental and health threats in the United States. Bullard argues that modern environmental protection has “traded human health for profit, placed the burden of proof on the ‘victims’ rather than on the polluting industry, legitimated human exposure to harmful substances” (Bullard 3). Bullard thus argues that communities need to be at the forefront of environmental decision making as they are bearing the burden. Current systems of decision-making like the laws that placed the hazardous waste site in Warren do not include community input despite its great effect on the community. While Young shows that the burden of the environmental harms is placed on the community of Warren, Bullard also explains that the burden of proof is also placed on the community as the decision-making framework has legitimated hazardous waste sites. The state is deemed the decision-maker on the assumption that only the state is disinterested and can take all points of view of the issue fairly into consideration. However, with the town of Warren and Bullard’s work we see “the primary conflict opposes the interests of a corporation to those of local residents affected by its operations, citizens rarely believe for long that the state is neutral and impartial. They find themselves having to struggle with the state, which they perceive as representing interests other than theirs.” (Young 178). Human health continues to be traded for profit without community input and questioning of decision-making frameworks. With prominent political scientists and philosophers advocating for the same transformation of decision-making, why are environmental decisions still a function of politics as opposed to meaningful interaction with the communities impacted by these environmental harms? Word Count: 921 Robert Bullard Robert D. Bullard, known as the father of environmental justice, is the former Dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning and Environmental Policy. Robert Bullard is renowned as the father of environmental justice. Bullard published a chapter “Decision Making,” in 1994. The larger piece is considered one of the fundamental works of the environmental justice movement. In the chapter, Bullard details how inequalities persist despite the recent attempts by federal agencies to reduce environmental and health threats in the United States. Bullard points to the fact that communities that are poor or inhabited largely by people of color, likely receive less protection than a community that is affluent or white. Bullard corroborates these claims by pointing to several studies that show strong correlation between the locations and distribution of air pollution, landfills, toxic waste dumps, lead poisoning, contaminated food supplies, and food desserts with primarily lower-income and people of color communities. This unequal environmental protection thus undermines three basic types of equality: procedural, geographic, and social. Environmental justice includes equitable and just inclusion of all people regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, or socioeconomic status with respect to environmental concerns, particularly in the implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policy. Environmental justice is incredibly important within social justice, justice in terms of the distribution, wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. Environmental degradation and climate change disproportionately affect marginalized groups, despite these issues being largely created by the wealthy majority. Because of this environmental justice is essential to social justice and environmentalism. Many environmental injustices exist around the Fordham University Rose Hill Campus in Bronx, NY. The Cross Bronx Expressway, unsurprisingly constructed under Robert Moses, displaced more people than almost any highway in the US. Because the Cross Bronx Expressway intersects with much of the Bronx, most residents are exposed to extremely high levels of pollutants. Many large distribution centers lie just north of the Bronx, so the shipments to New York and New Jersey directly affect the surrounding areas as large diesel trucks transport the shipments. Additionally, a study conducted by a Fordham student revealed that there are much higher levels of particulate matter in the public green spaces in the Bronx, as opposed to private green spaces like Fordham’s campus and the NYBG. Consequently, the Bronx has been the New York City borough with the highest overall rates of asthma hospitalizations, deaths, and prevalence among children. The Bronx is also the poorest borough in New York City and is primarily Black and Latinx. This example shows how environmental issues, pollutants, and lack of green spaces, are also an issue of racism, classism, and public health. The pollution and health conditions in the Bronx violate procedural, geographic, and social equity. Thus, the pollution and health conditions in the Bronx clearly violate procedural, geographic, and social equity as described by Bullard. While poor and minority communities bear greater health and environmental burdens, wealthier and white communities receive the benefits of industrialization: “The current environmental protection paradigm has institutionalized unequal enforcement, traded human health for profit, placed the burden of proof on the ‘victims’ rather than on the polluting industry, legitimated human exposure to harmful substances, promoted ‘risky’ technologies such as incinerators, exploited the vulnerability of economically and politically disenfranchised communities, subsidized ecological destruction, created an industry around risk assessment, delayed cleanup actions, and failed to develop pollution prevention as the overarching and dominant strategy” (3). During COVID-19 we see exactly this as human health is traded for the profit of large corporations. The application of Bullard’s framework to current policies, like those implemented during COVID-19, demonstrated the strength and longevity of Bullard’s framework published in 1994. The current relevance of his work also unfortunately speaks to the reality that US policies involving environmental regulation continue to exacerbate inequality. Despite the high correlation of emissions and particulate matter levels with asthma rates, during COVID-19, the Trump Administration put an indefinite end to emission standards. The rollback legitimated human exposure to harmful substances, placing the burden of proof on the vulnerable populations exposed to more pollutants and erased any accountability on polluting corporations. Policies like these exhibit the environmental racism in America that Bullard discusses. These policy rollbacks were implemented to benefit rich corporations at the expense of the poor, minority communities that these emissions primarily occur in. The Bronx experienced the highest levels of COVID-19 cases and fatalities in New York City because of the higher asthma rates in the Bronx. The pollution standard rollback was implemented to reduce the health threats of COVID-19, but instead increased fatalities in minority, low-income communities where many polluting sources are located. The adverse effects of the policy further demonstrate Bullard’s claim that attempts by federal agencies to reduce environmental and health threats in the United States amplify existing inequalities, If the Trump administration had used science or community input, they would not have pushed a rollback that would in fact exacerbate the effects and fatalities of COVID-19. However, the well-being of large polluting institutions is in the Trump administration’s greater interest than the health and equity of low-income communities. How can we design a more equitable decision making process when those deciding continue to make decisions to benefit their own re-election and prosperity of their select elite supporters? Word Count: 868 Despite Manhattan's higher population than the Bronx, far more people have gotten infected, been hospitalized, and died from COVID-19 in the Bronx than in Manhattan.
www.businessinsider.com/why-bronx-coronavirus-crisis-worse-than-manhattan-2020-5#in-2019-manhattans-population-was-about-13-higher-than-that-of-the-bronx-1 In “All Animals Are Equal,” Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer, believes the interests of animals should be given equal moral consideration to those of humans. Yet, in modern society the interests of humans are pursued at the expense of animals. Singer says we should think about the treatment of non-human animals in terms of equal consideration of interests, meaning identical interests should be given equal weight regardless of what type of being they occur in. Humans have plenty of interests that animals do not have. Humans and animals however have the shared interest of avoiding suffering. Singer believes we need to equally consider the interest of avoiding suffering. Humans and animals both have the capacity to suffer and the desire to not experience suffering and pain. Singer thus contends that we are not justified in prioritizing human interests over non-human interests. Singer popularized the term “speciesism,” which is a form of discrimination based on species membership. At a point in “All Animals are Equal,” Peter Singer compares humans consuming animals to humans owning other humans as slaves. Peter Singer predicts that there will be a future epoch where our decedents look back at our treatment of animals the same modern culture looks at slavery. Although I agree that future generations may be appalled by how their ancestors treated animals. I think slavery and humans modern relationship with animal are not equivocal, as humans of different races has identical interests, where humans and non-humans animals interests drastically differ. I believe that Signer does not provide a convincing argument for humans to be unjustified in prioritizing their own self-interest, as all other species act and are obliged to act in their own self-interest. The problem of evaluating the interests of non-human animals concerns how humans utilize and treat animals for their own interest. Two areas that are debated are rearing animals for food and animal experimentation for medical research. In terms of rearing animals for food, if the benefits that humans receive from consuming animals for food outweighs or equals the suffering then the practice of rearing animals for food is not inherently objectionable. Additionally, some believe that animals raised for farming may experience better lives than they would if not cared for by humans. Those against the rearing of animals for food do not believe humans interest in eating meat outweigh animals interest in getting killed. However, the point of animals living a better life when reared for food, as aforementioned, is wildly inaccurate in industrial agriculture. Industrial agriculture, or factory farming, has developed over the past century, and it involves the gross mistreatment and suffering of animals. Factory farming exploits animals, cramping them together and abusing them. Animals are mutilated by clipping teeth, docking tails, and trimming beaks. Additionally, animals are genetically modified to grow as fast as possible, so they can be killed and consumed quicker. These genetic mutations cause great harm to the animals and treat them merely as a means to an end. Humans bring animals into the world for them to lead a short life of suffering for the sole purpose of human consumption. Animals experience egregious suffering and mistreatment in industrial agriculture. If animals live a short life of immense pain for the exclusive reason of human consumption, then the benefits humans receive from eating animals do not outweigh the suffering of animals. Industrial agricultural practices treat animals as merely means to an end, devaluing their lives for pure means of human consumption. Egregious and unnecessary animal suffering in modern factory farming. Singer argues that humans ought to not eat animals because they do not need to. Many humans justify their uses of non-human animals with the argument of need. Most humans believe actions that are necessary for survival are therefore justified. For example, the killing of another human being for the purpose of self-defense. This argument is used to defend animal testing and consumption. Singer argues that we ought not to rear animals for food, as he believes the suffering of animals matters no less than the suffering of humans. However in “All Animals are Equal,” Singer simply states that all humans have the option to not eat meat without elaboration. In this claim, Singer fails to consider the systemic concerns that prevent people from being able to go vegetarian or vegan. He ignores huge systemic problems about the price of healthy food and the lack of food accessibility to already precarious communities.Thus a vegetarian and vegan diet is often unaffordable or inaccessible to many communities - also not all humans are able to healthily cut meat out of their diet. If other animals were able to not be carnivores would they then be obliged to be omnivores instead?
From an evolutionary and philosophical standpoint, I argue that humans are just in pursuing their interests over those of non-human animals; however, humans should not treat animals as merely a means to an end and cause unnecessary harm. Therefore, I believe that humans should consider the suffering of animals and end factory farming and unnecessary cosmetic testing. But I do not believe Singer makes a strong enough argument against humans being unjustified in the consumption of animals, as other species prioritize their own species and consume others. How can humans be speciesist if they are likely the only other species that considers the suffering of other animals? Word Count: 880 Arne Naess, the founder of Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology is a holistic and nonanthropocentric environmental ethic. Arne Naess first coined the term deep ecology in 1973. Despite its recent origin in Western environmental ethics, deep ecology also has numerous parallels with Eastern philosophies such as Daoism and Confucianism.
In furthering the concept of deep ecology, Are Naess seeks to expand the notion of the “self.” The predominant notion of self in the West is incomplete and a narrow conception of the ego. Naess argues that an environmental ethic should not require self-sacrifice or altruism. Rather, environmentalism should be in enlightened self-interest. The fundamental principles that ground and facilitate the philosophy of deep ecology are rooted in basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Deep ecology thus seeks to target problematic ontology, grounded in anthropocentrism, that results in ecological destruction. Naess argues that shifting ontology, our underlying perception of the world, will result in a trickling shift of our ethical thinking and moral character as well. This shift of moral character will result in ecological consciousness, cultivating the insight that everything is interconnected. This ecological consciousness and self-realization leads to humans further identifying with nature and moving towards a plural conception of the self as opposed to a narrow conception of one’s selfhood. The key to this shift lies in the ability for humans to identify with other beings in the environment. This identification will translate into further connection with ecosystems. Naess contends that environmental actions will flow naturally from the shift in perception catalyzed by the recognition of true selfhood and its inherent connection with nature. Environmental actions are not performed because of Kantaian duty, but rather caring for the environment will arise naturally as a form of self love. Arne Naess’ deep ecology provides for a convincing case for environmentalism rooted in self-love and not sacrifice: “we need an environmental ethics, but when people feel they unselfishly give up, even sacrifice, their interest in order to show love for Nature, this is probably in the long run a treacherous basis for interest served by conservation, through genuine self-love, love of a widened and deepened self.” (The Deep Ecology Movement, 17). This extension of the self and the view of environmentalism as self-love has similar frameworks and applications to environmental virtue ethics. Both ethical treatises argue that actions that benefit nature and the environment also benefit the self. In environmental virtue ethics, environmental virtues are seen as essential to human flourishing. Both ethical frameworks show that environmental actions arise naturally from self-love and in acting within one’s best interest. Despite the notion that environmentalism is an important part of self-love and human flourishing, most environmentalism is not rooted in moral character, but rather in selfishness and human’s superiority complex. Because deep ecology is nonanthropocentric, we often see the opposite from of deep ecology, shallow ecology. Environmentalism focused on human preservation is shallow ecology. Environmentalists operate under maximum sustainable yield, how much you can deplete an ecosystem without collapsing it, while not accounting for ecological consumption. Examples of shallow ecology include increasing technology to solve environmental problems, resource management, and valuing nature in terms of ecosystem services. In Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, Paul Kingsnorth describes the superficial and descriptive nature of shallow environmentalism. Modern environmentalists advocate for colossal solar farms in the desserts, clearing forests for biofuel plantations and placing offshore turbines in the ocean: “this is business as usual: the expansive, colonizing, progressive human narrative, shorn only of the carbon. It is the latest phase of our careless, self-absorbed, ambition-addled destruction of the wild, the unpolluted and the non-human. It is the mass destruction of the world’s remaining wild places in order to feed the human economy. And without any sense of irony, people are calling this ‘environmentalism.’” (Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, 71). Anthropocentric, shallow environmentalism is self-absorption not self-love. Shallow ecology prioritizes the interests of humans over the interests of the environment. It views human of superior and outside nature, and only ascribes value to nature base on its practicality to human consumption or instrumental use. However, deep ecology does not separate humans, or anything else for the matter, from the environment. Deep ecology sees the natural environment as an extension of human’s own selfhood and essential to humans flouring and self-love, much like environmental virtue ethics. Deep ecology does not see the natural environment as a collection of resources for human consumption but rather a fundamentally interconnected and interdependent network and extension of the self. Are Naess’ philosophy recognizes the intrinsic value of all human beings and nature and their interconnected self-love. How might we condemn shallow ecology when modern environmentalism is human-centered, and shift the movement towards one that prioritizes nature’s own interest as interconnected with our own? Word Count: 819 In the Land Ethic, Aldo Leopold argues that an action is right, or ethical, when it works to preserve and strengthen the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. The Land Ethic is popular among professional conservationists, and thus understanding the full implications of the Land Ethic are important to environmental ethics. However, the Land Ethic is unpopular among philosophers for the potential consequences of its holistic approach, particularly its potential for ecofascism. In Beyond the Land Ethic, J. Baird Callicott explores and dejects the claim that Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic insinuates and justifies ecofascism in his chapter “Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism.” Ecofascism places the blame of ecological destruction and climate change on overpopulation and immigration. Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which an authoritarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the whole of nature. Contemporarily, ecofascism is an ideology which blames the demise of the environment on overpopulation, immigration, and over-industrialization, problems that followers think could be partly remedied through the exclusion or extermination of refugees in Western countries. Additionally, modern ecofascism in the developed world (e.g., US, Europe, and Australia) has taken on overtly racist tones, blaming ecological destruction on immigrants, the overpopulation in less developed countries, and the over- industrialization needed to handle such large populations. Proponents of ecofascism thus believe that ecological degradation and overpopulation could be remedied ing immigrants from entering their space and more drastically, through mass murder. Given that the land ethic justifies any action as morally right if it strengthens the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community, the eradication of species that threaten the biotic community are justified. For example, the killing of goats on the Galapagos Island to preserve the ecosystem as well as the threatened tortoises is justified under the land ethic. The issue that arises is how the land ethic could extend to humanity. The concern of this ethical justification is presented in Callicott’s piece as a potential justification for eradicating large swaths of human beings. The potential for exterminating or dehumanizing large groups of people on the basis of strengthening the holistic biotic community. Callicott most effectively rejects this claim of ecofascism by explaining the land ethic as an accretion to environmental ethics rather than a reigning moral compass that supersedes previous ethical treatises. Callicott revises the utilization of the land ethic. Obligations generated by membership in more vulnerable and intimate communities take precedence over those generated in more recently emerged and impersonal communities. However, stronger interests generate duties and take over duties generated by weaker interests within ones on community. Thus membership to a certain community does not outweigh other concerns. Under the framework that Callicott describes a family, for example, does not prioritzie feeding all children before caring for their own. However if membership of one group conflicted with another group, the strength of interests must be evaluated. Callicott provides the examples of loggers and an old growth forest. The loggers have an obligation to support their immediate community, their family, but they also have an obligation towards the strength and integrity of the biotic community. The loggers would like to clear the old growth forest in the interest of their livelihood. However, the old growth forest has a stronger interest in preserving its own life. If the need is stronger than the one inside your own community than you support the stronger need outside your community. Life takes precedence over livelihood reversing that previous precedence. Leopold’s land ethic is therefore an accretion and does not replace other ethical frameworks. Naomi Klein’s discusses the weaponization of ecofascism in her book, On Fire - The Burning Case for a Green New Deal. In relating the Land Ethic to modern moral concerns, I believe Callicott provides a convincing argument that the Land Ethic does not justify ecofascism. Callicott shows that the Land Ethic does not motivate or justify ecofascism. The origins and weaponization can instead be found in Naomi Klein’s book, On Fire - The Burning Case for a Green New Deal.
Naomi Klein eloquently problematizes ecofascism and illustrates how ideas of ecofascism can be justified and weaponized. Klein describes ecofascism as climate barbarism where ecofascism encourages countries and institutions to fortress their borders, creating a war on those competing with resources, and othering those outside of their immediate community. Countries and individuals with ecofascist ideas here do not act in the interest of the entire biotic community but rather in the economic interest of their own community. Ethno-nationalists and eco-fascists operate under their own economic interest of white supremacy, resource allocation, and immigration. The land ethic does not justify the contemporary weaponization of ecofascism. Klein better captures the nature of ecofascism, where we can see that it's not a kind of environmental thinking at all, and therefore could not arise from the Land Ethic. Under Callicott’s accretion framework of the land ethic, the groups that eco fascists have “othered” interest of life and the preservation of the holistic wellbeing of the Earth and future generation certainly do not justify the actions or ideologies of modern eco fascists. Does it not seem that modern philosophers should be more concerned with dismantling origins of racism, white supremacy, and xenophobia as opposed to the origins of the land ethic? Word Count: 850 In Emplotting Virtue - A Narrative Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics, Brian Treanor expands upon Aristotle’s treatise of virtue ethics presented in the Nicomachean Ethics to include environmental virtues. His contention is that the way virtue ethics has traditionally been conceived is much too narrow. Treanor revises traditional virtue ethics to include environmental virtues.In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims the key to eudaimonia, human happiness and welfare, is living a virtuous life. Here virtues are deeply ingrained moral dispositions, such as honesty and temperance, that must be practiced and enjoyed. Ultimately living a virtuous life leads to human flourishing. While Treanor agrees with Aristotle that virtues are necessary to live the good life, he believes this view is incomplete, with no account of environmental concerns. Treanor presents virtue ethics as three interconnected parts: individual, social, and environmental. The third term, environmental virtues, can now be used when discussing issues regarding the environment. The term environmental virtues is rhetorical as they have always existed and been interconnected to individual and social virtues. In Treanor’s extension of virtue ethics, he thus holds that environmental virtue ethics is essential to the good life. Treanor argues that virtues rely on both nature and culture and relying on only one component will give an incomplete account of virtue and flourishing. The environment cannot be separated from human flourishing. For example, humans could not flourish without clean air and water. Many virtues such as simplicity, foresight, and temperance are virtues that contribute to the human flourishing in each of the three realms of virtue ethics. Although these virtues are interconnected and collectively contribute to human flourishing, Treanor acknowledges that there are times when these three realms of virtue ethics can come in conflict with one another. For example, driving a car is not environmentally virtuous when there are more sustainable forms of transportation, but if an individual needs to get to work or another important matter and public transportation is not an option, then it would be the individuals best interest to drive. However, it is more likely that all three virtues will intersect. A logger may want to engage in deforestation, but ultimately abstaining or restraining will be individually virtuous for him and his community as he will extend his livelihood. Virtue ethicists believe that focusing on character is a better approach to ethics, and Treanor provides a convincing case for why environmental virtue ethics better addresses humans obligations to the environment. Traditional environmental ethics focuses on duty-based appels for sacrifice in the preservation of the environment. Treanor also extends the concept of human flourishing to just survival and continuance of the human species. Treanor argues that living virtuously in the interest of the environment directly contributes to human happiness, providing a more convincing case to live sustainability than buty-based appeals. Humans are more likely to do something because it benefits them rather than what they “ought to do.” An article from the Sierra Club conveying the necessity and importance of individual environmental action: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis A potential concern with virtue ethics, is the emphasis on the individual. Focusing on individual actions can minimize and detract away from the environmental harm committed by corporations and institutions. However, I believe that Treanor’s argument does not contribute to an egregious emphasis on the individual, but rather points to how these environmental virtues are present and necessary within the individual, society, and the environment. The practice of environmental virtue ethics in all three of these realms results in human flourishing. If all humans sought to live an environmentally virtuous life then these effects would thus extend from the individual level to the societal and environmental sphere. Treanor points to the fact that what actions are necessary to combat climate change and protect the environment are often the same actions that will benefit our own communities and individual lives. I believe, as do many others, that living sustainably is a form of self-care. Minimalism, conscious consumerism, and waste reduction can help individuals engage in meaningful daily activities and feel good about it. Individual environmental action also adds up. Although it is important to recognize that the majority of GHG emissions and ecological degradation is from large corporations and governments, individual actions still result in collective change. Individual actions are necessary in the fight to combat climate change. Treanor’s case is convincing to encourage humans to shift their mindset and lifestyle to be more sustainable for the benefit of themselves, their communities, and the greater good of the plant and their future. An article from Bustle advocating for individual actions in the fight against climate change: https://www.bustle.com/p/can-one-person-make-a-difference-with-climate-change-experts-insist-your-voice-matters-18687241 Thus, Emplotting Virtue - A Narrative Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics presents a powerful ethical treatise of how humans can strengthen their own characters to live a happier, more sustainable and virtuous life. Given the collective power of environmental virtue ethics, how can we advocate for virtue ethics in large corporations and governments that would ultimately flourish when operating environmentally virtuously?
Word Count: 801 Karen Warren discusses ecofeminism in her chapter, the Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. In her chapter, the Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism, Karen Warren discusses the origins, importance, and applications of ecological feminism. Feminism is a move to end sexist oppression. Feminists seek to eliminate sources of systematic subordination and domination of women. Ecological feminism, also known as ecofeminism, is the position that there are important historical, experiential, symbolical, and theoretical connections between the domination of women and the domination of nature. Often the same worldview and frameworks that are used to justify the domination and exploration of nature are also used to justify the domination of women. Additionally, the interconnection of feminism and environmentalism can also be seen in how ecological destruction disproportionately affects women. A feminist issue is any issue that contributes to the understanding of the oppression of women. Warren thus contends that ecological destruction and exploitation is a feminist issue. The domination of women and nature are justified by the same patriarchal conceptual frameworks. Warren defines an oppressive conceptual framework as one that explains and justifies relationships of domination and subordination. Oppressive conceptual frameworks value hierarchical thinking, dualisms, and the logic of domination. Warren points out that the first two features of these frameworks are not necessarily harmful, but the logic of domination, a structure of argumentation which leads to a justification of subordination. Often this logic plays out as one group justifying domination of another group in terms of differences of characteristics between the two groups. In Western Societies, the oppressive conceptual framework that dominates nature and women is patriarchal and follows all the aforementioned features of an oppressive conceptual framework. Men justify the domination of women by characterizing them as closely tied with nature and the realm of the physical. While men saw themselves as the human in the mental realm. This physical and mental separation contributed to the logic of domination, as whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to the human and the mental. Men identifying themselves as the mental and casting women to the physical led to their perceived superiority. The logic of domination follows that men are thus just is subordinating women. Consequently, Warren concludes that women and nature are exploited under the same oppressive, patriarchal conceptual framework, where men value the dualism of the physical versus the mental and assume a hierarchical superiority to the physical and through the logic of domination are justified to subordinate women and nature. Feminism opposes patriarchy, and thus opposes the patriarchal oppressive structures that subordinate women and nature. Ecofeminism objects to the oppression of both women and nature, but also inherently opposes patriarchy. Because patriarchy has also led to ecological destruction, ecofeminism belongs within feminism proper. Ecofeminism holds that rejection of naturism, the unjust domination of nonhuman nature, is necessary to the feminist vision. Warren contends that because the feminist vision seeks to create notions of difference that do not breed domination, it then follows that ecofeminism also calls for the eradication of all systems of oppression. Warren believes that all of these systems are embedded in the same oppressive framework. She believes that the same logic of domination that oppresses women also oppresses other marginalized groups, and that there is a conceptual interconnection between all forms of oppression. But what does it do for us to think of all oppressions as connected? Warren argues that the association of women with nature and the physical led to their oppression. Men felt justified in dominating women because they associated them with the physical and nature. Other marginalized groups, such as BIPOC, oppression cannot be boiled down to a greater association with nature and the physical. Warren’s notion that all marginalized groups oppression is rooted in the same conceptual frameworks is invalidating and erases the experience of these groups. Because of this I believe extending the scope of ecofeminism to be a tool too eradicate all systems of oppression is too broad. Advocating for the interconnection of feminism and environmentalism at the 2019 Women's March in NYC. Warren tries to extend the application of feminism too broadly. Moving outside a reasonable scope, discredits the idea of ecofeminism. I do not believe that ecofeminism has applications for eradicating all systems of oppression. Ecofeminism is also not for ecologists. Ecological destruction does disproportionately affect women, but it more significantly oppresses other marginalized groups than women. I believe the most effective application of ecofeminism is within feminism. The ideas of ecofeminism can be best applied to feminists to aid in their understanding that climate change, naturism, and ecological destruction are feminists issues. The primary goal of ecofeminism should be to make all feminists environmentalists. Because ecological destruction and climate change disproportionately affect women, feminists should engage in climate and environmental activism to protect and advocate for women. How else might we mobilize other groups to recognize the interconnection of climate justice within justice for their own identity?
Word Count: 812 |
AuthorI am a senior at Fordham University, studying Economics, Environmental Studies, and Sustainable Business. My research interests include dune and plant ecology, coastal management, conservation, and climate change. CategoriesArchives |