Intelligence Obligation

      We've discussed a lot this semester about how the environment gets treated, what we can do try to make things better, and learned a lot more about the environment as a whole, which makes sense, since this is an Environmental Ethics Course. A common theme that I noticed though is that a lot of our discussions come back to morality, and whether we are morally responsible for what we do the the environment.
       The most recent discussion we've had that has really stuck in my mind was the question about being morally responsible for actually giving up when people don't listen to what you have to say about protecting the environment, or changing the amount and preventing the damage we are causing. What I feel like we forgot to ask or to take into account is, do we have an obligation, due to our intelligence to try to save the world. A lot of our conversation talked about the tipping point where the world was going to end as we knew it regardless of what we do, but we didn't really talk about our obligations as intelligent sentient beings.
      We are causing all this damage to out planet, and although it's pretty obvious to me that it's not morally responsible to just throw our hands up and stop fighting for what needs to happen. Should there be more of an emphasis on our intelligent responsibility, or the thought process that, not only did we cause this mess, but we have the intelligence to at least try to alleviate the problem a little bit, so we should? What do you all think?

Prediction of the End of Society

   So, I remember in class, we talked a lot about the tipping point, and how society, and the world is eventually going to change as we know it, whether that means actually destruction of human life, or the end of modern civilization. I found this article online that predicts the end of our society ending in a few decades. The mathematician who predicted this, worked with NASA equipment, to estimate our collapse.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us

Tell me what you all think!

Should Gorillas, Orangoutangs, and Monkeys have rights?

  I have been thinking a lot since our last class on Wednesday about how a lot of animals, especially monkeys, gorillas, and orangoutangs have had medical surgeries and experiments used on them to see if these procedures should be used on humans. Besides the fact that this is horrifying, it also brings up the question as to why this is okay. Upon thinking about this, the answer that seems to be the worst, but the explanation that most people use is that monkeys are not humans, although they have very similar genetic codes to that of humans.
  When referring to the argument that the reading we read for class went over, I think that outlining the similarities between humans and apes is a good foundation for a great argument, but it isn't convincing enough to cause action. The biggest reason being that most people choose to be, are just are ignorant of the treatment to the animals being abused. Spreading knowledge, showing similarities, and coming up with alternative ways to conduct research without using animals are three parts of the equation for the change to actually happen.
  I personally did not know that animals were experimented on, and beyond that, to the degree they were experimented on. After learning about it, I believe that people should be fighting for animal rights, that animals should have similar rights to that of humans, where in order to experiment on a human you need informed consent. One of the reasons animals are easy to experiment on is because they are unable to give informed consent. Is that wrong? What would you suggest we do to get animals the right's that they deserve?

Technology Being Held Morally Responsible

Is it possible to hold technology to be morally responsible for the actions it does. How is it possible? These are two questions that were posed in class yesterday that I have thought about a lot. Is there an easy answer? Is there an easy solution? No, there is not. Technology is something based on advancement, patterns, algorithms, and many other factors. Being so, is it possible to hold technology, a non-human thing, but a tool, morally accountable for it's actions? Should the people who invented the technology be punished instead? Should harmful technology be destroyed? Should technology have morals if it is a non-human, non-sentient, non-being tool?

What Would it Mean for the "Inconvenient Truth" to be a Lie?

    After watching the movie, "The Inconvenient Truth," a questions came to my mind. What would it mean if Al Gore had some facts wrong, or facts were disproven. What would it mean if the graphs that Gore showed in the movie and his lecture series were not completely accurate?
     After coming up with this question, I googled, "The Inconvenient Truth" and read on article that disproves 35 "truths" in the movie.

(article found on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

     Knowing this brings up the question what does this mean for the state of our environment, and is it possible that we have more time to fix the issues happening within global climate change? Even though no one wants to think that something they've hold true is a lie, is it a good thing that we have more time for action? Or does it just mean we were given a little more rope to choke ourselves with?

Is it Possible to Add an Incentive to Going Green?

   So, I've been thinking about a lot since my last post, Are We Bleeding Out our Environment, and I feel that one way we could reduce the damage, and start to end the bleeding out is a way add an incentive into going green. But in order to sway people to do something, and to give them a reward for doing that, one must first decide what they are actually going to do. Would it make sense to make a new trend featuring green technology for my generation? Should the government create a monetary reward to people who start using more environment friendly appliances, and travel? I don't think that a large group of people will go green simply because they want to, and it's the right thing to do. I think people will go green, when and if, it is trending, and there can be a more groupthink around it as to individual thinking about it. Facts are great, but incentives are better. What are some possible ideas as to what can be done to incentivize going green?

Are We Bleeding out our Environment?

     In class this week, we discussed a lot of big things. One thing we discussed made me think about whether or not are we bleeding out our environment. George Washington was an amazing battle leader, and didn't want a lavish life. He wanted to live a basic life. One of the methods of treatments back in Washington's time when someone was sick was to remove the "bad blood," by bleeding them out. The cause of George Washington's death was being bled out, due to a fever he had. Is the Doctor who bled Washington out at fault, or was the cause of his death really the fever?

       This lead me to ask myself the question, Are we bleeding the environment out. Are we over using resources to the point that the environment will no longer have enough of an immune system to prevent sicknesses form destroying it? If a sickness managed to destroy the environment, whose fault is it, ours or the sickness?

Is Government Structure Preventing True Protection of the Environment?

   During class, we had a discuss where the quote the was brought up when talking about the government is that, "you can't have a judge without a sheriff," and it was later talked about how the government, especially the American government is flimsy and weak, and based off of the whims and wants of the people, as opposed to what may necessarily be best for the state all together. This brought up the question, does the way our government is structured not allow real change take place? Furthermore, if the government doesn't have a way to enforce it's laws if the people are against it, does it mean that the government is then not able to do it's job.

   Thinking this then causes the question of the environments true protection coming up. The government can create laws to protect the environment, but unless there is some type of authority who can back up the law, even if the general mass of people are against it, then it cannot be upheld. I think this is a problem of sorts in most places. I love and support democracy, but I think that a lot of people in power forgot that they are not in power to please the people, but to do what's best for the people and the surrounding lands. Is there any way we can remind people of this? Is there any way that the democratic system could be changed someway where the judge wouldn't lose the support of the sheriff the instant the masses questioned a judge's ruling?

Land Ethics and Animals

    Upon reading the assigned readings, I came across something that didn't necessarily fit for me. in "Egocentric Ethics: The Land Ethic," Aldo Leopold said, "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (223). Upon saying this Leopold was talking about a third, unrecognized ethic, which would be that of land ethics. In that statement, he was defining all that land ethics would include, which is basically an "enlargement of the community ethic. My issue with that statement is that although there isn't necessarily a type of ethical viewpoint which lists was is ethically right or wrong in relation to the land, animals should not have been included in that statement. Animals are intrinsically a part of nature, but there is already a set of ethics which dictate what people can or cannot do in relations to animals. I think that Leopold should take the animal aspect out of what should be defined in land nature. If he doesn't want to do that, I think that he should specify animals, like are humans a part of that definition. What would be a good definition for what land ethics should entail? What should it include?

During the assigned readings, in essay 20, A sentence that really caught my attention and made me think was a statement found on page 189, "We don't know how many species we are eliminating, because we don't know how many species there are." This really stuck out to me because it's crazy to think that we don't know how many species there are, and that through all our destruction of the world and different environments, we can be killing off numerous species and not even realizing it. That's horrible. I would rather reduce the things we destroy in the environment than have a surplus of things that I don't really need.  Is that possible though? Can we really control our numbers in a way that causes less destruction of the environment?

Direct Duties & Indirect Obligations

I think that most people would agree in societies day and time, we all have certain duties that we are expected to uphold, a direct duty. For instance, if we see a man hit a woman, although some would ignore the situation, one's direct duty is to defend the woman from the man and report the man to higher authorities. That is because it is each person's independent duty to defend another sentient being. But why then, should I report someone who kicks my dog, who is not a sentient being. I love my dog, but he doesn't have the same complex emotions or thought processes as a human, yet I am bound by an indirect obligation to my dog to defend him. That is because, although my dog is not a sentient being, it would reflect on me, and show others that if I don't defend a non-sentient being, that I have the capacity to allow the same injustice to happen to a sentient being. Well, that's the argument according to Kant. Is he right though? Do I need to fulfill indirect obligations to prove whether or not I have the capacity to fulfill my direct duties, should I need too?

Shallow Ecology Movement

  After reading through the readings, I spent a lot of time trying to decide what kind of Ecologist movement I would fit into if it was like a war between the two sides and I had to decide. After looking at the evidence presented in the book, and looking within myself, I've decided that I'd be a part of the Shallow Ecology Movement. That's because I care about going green for artificial reasons as opposed to the deeper more important reasons. I want everything to be pretty, and I want people to be happy and healthy enough to enjoy it which is largely affected by the health of the surrounding environment. Is it bad that I don't necessarily really care about the environment because it independent deserves to be cared about? Is it wrong that I view the environment in terms of how it benefits humans?

Sacrifice

Today in class, Professor Silliman brought up an interesting point that even now a few hours after class, I am thinking about it. That point is that he said that although he'd like to live a long life, if the time came when he would sacrifice his life to better the planet then he would. This got me thinking about if I was actually willing to give up my life to make the world a better place. Would I be able to give up all the things I value to help ensure the survival of something that allows the rest of the world to hold their values? At this point, I don't know. I would like to say that I would be able to, and know that I am being one hundred precent truthful, but that isn't that case. Maybe this is because I am still young, but I feel like I haven't come close to experiencing enough in my life to be able to give up my life, even if it's got a good cause, or a cause bigger then myself as an individual. Does that make me stubborn or unreasonable? Am I to self-absorbed? Should I expect someone else to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the planet if I am not able to do it myself? Is that fair?

Morality and Law

I find the discussion between law and morality a very interesting thing, which is probably because I plan to be a lawyer at some point in life. I had never really put much thought into what laws really entailed and the thinking behind it. I found the point in which laws do not prevent all immoral action. Although the textbook's Environmental Ethics; Readings in Theory and Application, uses a somewhat old example and exaggerated example to demonstrate this point, I really liked the example of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death while her neighbors could hear what happened but refused to do anything. I like this point because I can relate it to the way things work, whereas, although there are Good Samaritan laws, a person does not have the legal responsibility to help another person if they are choking, although morally, you should do whatever you can to help. Furthermore, the point of the Good Samaritan law is not make someone help someone else in need, but to instead protect someone who offers medical help to a person in danger. I find this very interesting. Before really thinking this topic over, I had thought, although I would be nervous to help someone in such a bind, that I would rush to help a person. Upon further thought, it's weird to me, who has always held the law in a high standpoint that there isn't something that really makes it so one must help in anyway they can, but instead must make a decision based off of how they feel, no matter whether there decision is morally good or bad. I also really liked the example of how there is no law preventing adultery, which is also morally bad. The logic behind this is that it doesn't effect a large group of people. If you cheat on a spouse, it's really between the two of you and the one(s) who participated in the affair. I guess this lesson caught my attention so much because of the future I see myself in having with law, and it definitely helped me think about law as more of a career that affects people in a wide array of ways, as to looking at it as a concept of what I'll do, "when I grow up."

Introduction Post

This is my first post for our blog for Environment Ethics. After today's class, I think I am actually going to be very interested in the subject matter that the class is going to go over this semester. I have never really thought about how concerned one should be for nature before today. I mean, I recycled when I was near a recycling bin. I should and can do so much more to lessen my environmental footprint. I don't think I could be a Jainist monk though. Going through the trash so I can eat people's left-overs freaks me out. I am very excited to what this course has to offer and everything that I can learn.