Extra-Credit Blog_Chi-ming Yang “Trial thing: Dogs, Porcelain and Chinese Export Art”

Yang’s lecture was very interesting and definitely related to topics we have covered this semester. She analyzed the role of dogs throughout history, especially in art. Dogs where a status symbol and where breed to achieve specific traits. This is very similar to our first discussions about the apple in The Botany of Desire. The apple was grafted to create a sweet apple for eating.

The dogs were importing and breed for desirable shapes and sizes, particularly the toy dog. It is very interesting how humans have manipulated nature for their own preferred aesthetics. The animals were more like object rather than individual beings with their own teleology. Dogs were painted in painting and sculptures where created so people could immortalize this symbol. It seems they are trying to prolong the life of the dog through breeding and through art.

In class we mostly focused on plants rather than animals, but most of the same concepts of dominating and changing plants applies to animals, particularly dogs. Dogs were domesticated for human’s pleasure, similarly to the grand garden of Versailles as a status symbol. The garden was created in a certain way to be the best garden, just like the goal of breeding of dogs. We still continue this process today. Maybe we need to be more accepting of nature and quit changing everything that does not please us. Nature does have its own goal and I’m starting to realize how we really don’t let that happen. Something as simple as dog breeding doesn’t phase me because it’s so common, but if we stop and think, this could be very wrong. Nature should be left to its own means. After all, nature can be very beautiful and we should accept this beauty.

P.S.: Fish can Feel Pain

They said it here. Does this mean that "catch and release" fishing practices are just sadistic?

Lining room vs family room

Most people have a living room that they use a couple times a year, where the family room is used all the time.  Wouldn’t it be more cost effective and sustainable to combine these rooms and create one slightly larger nicer room?  The homeowner would get more use out of it and would be able to enjoy a greater space.  The downsides are that you would have to clean when someone comes over, where you could just close the door to the family room.  The other downside is that when you go to sell your home you will have one less.  However, the home would cost less and might have a higher bang for your buck.  This seems like a great thing, but then why have people not already done this.  It goes back to older times when you brought over friends and family, with the goal to impress them by taking them to your nice sitting room and having a conversation.  This has never happened at my home, does it happen elsewhere, so why still the two rooms?  We are holding on to old customs, where today we are a more relaxed culture that could probably give up a living room.  This change is starting to slowly happen through modern open concept design, where the living room, kitchen, and dinning room are combined in one larger open space.  This also allows the home to feel larger and potentially more luxurious then it would with all the separate smaller rooms.

Owning Nature

I watched a part of a documentary called "the future of food" on hulu.com the other day and was amazed at what i heard. The Mansanto Company genetically engineered canola seed that was resistant to round-up. This would allow the seeds to be planted, sprayed with round-up, and have only the canola seed survive. This seed found its way into thousands of farmers fields as a result of wind and animal dispersal. A lot of seed present in farmers fields is believed to have fallen off trucks hauling large quantity of the seed. The Mansanto Company then went around collecting samples from farmers fields and threatened to sue any farmer that had canola plants that came from their seeds growing. Thousands of farmers paid the company to avoid lawsuits and destroyed their stockpiles of seed. The reason they were able to do this was because the company had patented the seed. This result was even held up in the court of law, with the judges saying it was the farmers responsibility to make sure the seed wasn't growing in their field. Personally I find this amazing and wrong. I feel it should be the company's responsible to contain their seed. If it is on the farmer the company could easily spread their seed simply for the purpose of suing the farmer. I don't see how the Mansanto Company can own a plant, it seems unethical. The dispersal of the seed can't be controlled or stopped. If this type of trend would continue nothing would be allowed to grow without copyright payments being made to a company every time a tree or plant reproduced. This whole idea seems unethical to me and another problem farmers shouldn't have to deal with.

Visualizing Animals

The abstracts presented on the theme of "Engaging with Animal Subjects: Ethical and Ecological Concerns" during the Finding Animals conference yesterday were very interesting to listen to. Cary Wolfe with his "Animals Before the Law" excerpt from what I understood is a book he is planning to finish this summer, made some highly stimulating points. He compared the mass murder of people during the holocaust to the way humans treat animals who are slated for food production. The big difference that can be seen here is that people need animals for food in order to survive. The holocaust was extremely immoral in that the Nazis did not need to exterminate people in order to survive. If the country was to all of a sudden become vegetarian, there would simply not be enough food supply to provide everyone with enough vegetarian food. One of the main requirements of a human diet is protein. Protein is needed to regenerate and repair human nerves tissues and bones. Yes, protein can be obtained through vegetarian foods such as grains, but it is not nearly enough. Proteins from grains are incomplete proteins. To receive a necessary amount of protein from vegetarian foods, several different vegetarian food sources need to be combined. So, eating animals for the obtainment of protein is the most efficient way of helping us survive. Finding the most efficient way to survive seems to be in the basic instinct of every creature. Valuing human life above all others is engraved in our DNA in order to help us remain alive as a species. Killing our own species on the other hand does not help humanity survive as a whole, but rather hinders survival while creating no benefit to anyone.

  The second talk by Gregg Mitman was also very significant. He explained how nature has recently come to be portrayed based on human feelings and emotions. He used the film "March of the Penguins" as an example, saying that Morgan Freeman's narration constantly attributes human characteristics to the penguins. He also explained how companies and corporations are changing the way nature films are made by solely focusing on what would be entertaining to the human mind so that they could make the most profit. He used the most popular video on YouTube from 2007 as an example. The video currently has 40,000,000 views. Battle at Kruger  portrays a very intense battle between different animal species. Click the link to watch for yourself. Greg reasoned that the video was so popular not because it was a nature video, but because it had all the necessary elements that entertain humans. With nature films becoming more and more about entertainment value, the real and important educational values of nature are lost in the process.

The third and last talk by Donna Haraway did not appeal to me as much. She seemed to convey a number of different points instead of focusing on a single subject. One of the main things she seemed to be advocating was the relationships between humans and animals that allow them to coexist together. She talked about the Churro sheep that were almost wiped out at one point. The commitment and dedication of different people in order to revive the species created a better way of life for both the people and the sheep. She also explains how Asian Water Buffalos are used for trophy shootings, as safari trophy animals. The buffalo becomes a sort of an icon and is constantly needed for both humans and for itself, since humans reproduce the animal, helping it to survive as a species. 

For those of you who didn't attend the finding animals conference, especially the segment "engaging with animal subjects: ethical and ecological considerations", you really missed out on some great stuff, although I'd have to agree with Hillary that portions of it went way over my head (especially the academic humor). And our exit wasn't the most graceful. What I found really interesting about this segment was that it affirmed something I've been thinking all semester-that our political philosophy has a pretty big influence on our environmental philosophy. The first speaker, Cary Wolfe, made a terrific comparison of our current factory farming practices to Nazi Germany and the holocaust. He reasoned that in the same way that totalitarian state promoted genocide was the ultimate conclusion of authoritarian and nationalistic trends of the 1800s, current factory farming practices are the ultimate conclusion of our attitudes of domination and exploitation of nature forwarded by the industrial revolution. He concluded that just as the ideology and logic of fascism was challenged and defeated, the logic and ideology behind our cruel treatment of animals will eventually be defeated as well. He also referenced peter singer's utilitarian views when talking about the Spanish parliaments passage of ape rights laws.

The second speaker, Gregg Mittman, discussed how animals are portrayed in the mass media. He talked about how conservatives attached their values of traditional marriage and child bearing to the documentary march of the penguins, and how animal sex was more heavily represented in the 90s on tv than the so called ' blue chip documentaries' This seems to suggest that the majority of us have an anthropomorphic view of animals and our relationship to them, and that we will continue to impart our political and social vaules onto the environment and nature. While it may be hard not to do so, this presentation, like our class, showed me that there are actually many different takes on environmental philosophy that don't invovle a purely human centered view. Mittman also discussed a project he was working on invovling a tribe in africa that lives among elephants and is in constant battle with them for survival on a changing terrain. I believe that this scenario functions as a sort of microcausum of the battle between human society and all of nature. The solution that the scientists seemed to be trying to implement was a combination of techinques like advanced tracking and studying the elphants combined with things like bees nests on wire to protect crops from elephant. Instead of trying to separate the people and the elephants, or the people killing all of the elephants, the scientists wanted to find ways for them to live together in the same place in relative harmony, where both people's and elephants interests are considered. I think that the mentality this solution adopts will be necessary to solve our current environmental crises.

Animals Before the Law

I also attended the Finding Animals panel yesterday afternoon. I felt so sophisticated hanging out with all of the cool trendy people who attended, even though I didn't get some of the inside jokes everybody else laughed at.

I'd like to unpack a little bit of the first paper by speaker Cary Wolfe. The paper is Animals Before the Law, about which the Chair of the program, Sushmita Chatterjee called "absolutely timeless." I think she referred to it with those words because of the connection Cary made to an issue of old to today.

Cary used the term "biopolitics" often in his paper. I understood that term to mean the political influence and regulation of certain biotechnologies. He compared modern-day slaughterhouses to the function of Nazi concentration camps. He talked about the genocide of the holocaust, and how we can't compare slaughterhouses to genocide because they are different by definition. Genocide is the attempt to remove an entire group/species completely, which was attempted by the Nazis during the holocaust. However, Cary thinks the slaughterhouses today are worse than the holocaust, because entire populations of a certain animal are not attempted to be eradicated; it's only some at a time, and there is no end in sight for this problem.

Another interesting fact Cary mentioned is that Henry Ford got the idea for the assembly line from a Chicago slaughterhouse. Here is an example of biopolitics, as factory farming becomes political when essentially the birth of modern cars occurs as influence of such farming practices, if you can even call it that. This proposed the question, are we going in full circle here? First, the holocaust is a mass-murder of millions of people. Next, slaughterhouses become efficient and are able to mass-murder millions of animals. Then, the assembly line technique is adopted from the previously stated slaughterhouses, and produces the birth of the American automobile. Genocide still occurs in the world, like in Rwanda, Darfur and the Bosnian Genocide in the mid-90's. So when I say full circle, I mean unfortunately mass-killing is still taking place, and is being influenced in different ways by the new technologies made available. Cary feels so strongly against mass-murder of animals in slaughterhouses that he compares them to the holocaust and genocide. Painting such a vivid picture was definitely effective, and caused me to think of factory farming in a different and more serious way.

Finding Animals

Again first off, I have to agree with Hilary that I did not have any idea that the program was going to end when it did. If only we had waited even 2 more minutes.

I really enjoyed attending this and I feel I got a lot out of it much of what all three speakers discussed. The first speaker, Cary Wolfe, was really interesting when he talked about animal rights. Should we treat animals as property or as persons. I never realized before what a huge debate this was and how critical it can be in many aspects of life. Comparing race and the Holocaust to the treatment of animals was a really intriguing way of describing the whole thing. I thought it was really neat when he talked about viruses and whether or not they should be treated as living creatures even if it goes against human life, just as we had discussed in class on Thursday. It is definitely a topic that I want to discuss more with people and think about. Especially with the Swine Flu (H1N1?) happening now right all around us.
The second speaker, Gregg Mitman, I found to be speak of the topics that interest me the most. When he was discussing the crazy animal sex that floods our televisions, I never thought about how that it is kind of weird that our society loves it. I think we will continue to see more and more films on wildlife and nature. He talked about how not much is given back to the areas and animals filmed in the process. There is no mention of animals on the credits and these movies are making millions of dollars. The third speaker, Donna Haraway, also had some really good points in her speech. I liked how she told of living things taking care of country. She also brought the animals belongingness into question. Do we allow animals to be a part of our lives. Finally, I never knew that bees could be used to keep elephants away from crops. I really like the idea of finding alliances with nature to help better ourselves. I feel this method goes against nature and the animals the least. Overall, I am really glad I went to this tonight, it opened my eyes to a lot of ideas I never thought about before.

Animal Subjects: Ethical and Ecological Concerns

First, I must admit that although this panel was a bit longer than I expected; Kayla, John, and I only had to wait five minutes more without looking like jerks for leaving. Ah - how unfortunate.

Second, I must admit that while parts of "Engaging with Animal Subjects: Ethical and Ecological Concerns" was over my head, I found the majority of this subject quite interesting. It began with Cary Wolfe discussing Animals about the Law. A point I thought was particularly interesting of his was the idea of holocaust and Nazism getting their ideas from animal slaughter houses. I found it extremely interesting to think of genocide this way, though it is extremely true. The genocides are simply another tangent of racism, in which races of humans animalize other humans, treating them to efficient mass extinctions, much like in the meat production industries. Humans generally find genocide to be quite wrong and so therefore I wondered why more humans do not find the mass extinction of animals wrong. Then Wolfe discussed Esposito's viewpoint in which genocide is one species killing their own, so therefore the killing of animals by humans can't very well be considered genocide. I found this interesting and I had to agree with his later points that we miss the individuality of all life. I think there is great ambiguity in laws because if we were had to create all life equally and ethically- then we would have to treat ecoli the same that we treat the great ape. I thought this point in particular especially pertained to what we had been discussing in class, not only recently, but also with the lobster debate. At what point does some forms of life become valuable or invaluable?

There was a point in Donna Haraway's presentation which I thought might bring a general closure to our class. She discussed the differences between "Wild Country" and "Quiet Country". Wild being that which doesn't bear the mark of the care of generations and Quiet Country being that which does bear the mark of the care of generations. She seems to believe that all humans should try to leave behind us "Quiet Country" and that the main concern is the extinctions or exterminations of animals which challenges us as humans to stay with the trouble and to get better at leaving behind this "Quiet Country". I think we can relate this idea to our ethical concerns about today's environmental crisis, and that the goal of each individual should be to try and leave behind us "Quiet Country"

Finding Animals Conference

Earlier today, I attended the third annual Finding Animals Conference in Foster Auditorium. The purpose of this conference was to explore comparative and historical perspectives on the field of Animals studies. Although the conference over the course of two days, I was only able to attend one session. This session was called Redrawing Borders: New Models of Animal Consciousness and Behavior. During this part, three guest speakers gave very informative presentations on the developing theories, research, and work in this area.

Dr. Richard Doyle, who is currently a Penn State Professor, was one of these guest speakers. His talk, Finding Animals with Plants: Sustainable Attention Attractors and Noöspheric Intelligence, centered on the influence of Plants globally and their importance in sustaining life. One concept that he touched upon was the perception of Plants where intelligence is concerned. He discussed how Plants are not viewed as intelligent, and are also described in the things they lack.

I agreed with Dr. Doyle here. Since we generally tend to evaluate one’s intelligence based upon its vivid capabilities, it is not hard to understand why a plant would be viewed this way. There is no way for a plant to show its skill at mastering new material, or performing tricks that people would assume they are incapable of doing. Plants are simply not equipped with brains, multiple functioning parts, and similar capabilities to do this. Because it appears that anything is possible, I am not eager to conclude that plants lack intelligence. I just think that determining the factors that would make one plant more intelligent than the next may be harder to discern.

Dogs

So I could only make it to the presentation for a little bit, but I heard an interesting speech on dogs. I missed the introduction, but from what I understand he was speaking dogs and how they have been changed and affected by humans. Interestingly, he opens with an anecdote about Kujo. His major point was on how Jamaicans and the British were warring with each other. He then explains how they trained bloodhounds from birth to actively seek black people. The process began when they were born, they were kept in a kennel for most of their life. They were then fed small amounts of blood and meat from various animals. The owners then built a black man out of wicker, and filled the inside with meat and blood. They then brought it slowly closer to the kennel were the starving dogs could only stare at it. Finally they were let loose. Once this happened, they just swarmed the wicker figure and tore it to pieces to get to the meat. This whole process was designed to make the dogs want to eat and kill the black people living on this island. It has been said that this was the key to winning the war. It was hard to understand what the speaker was saying, he was rambling a lot. But I think his point was on how people can alter nature for its benefit. I was more curious with if by training these animals to want to eat black people, are there any long lasting effects. There’s a stereotypical joke, that dogs hate black people and other dark people. Perhaps there’s a hint a truth to these jokes.

Selling vs. Donating Blood

I was talking to a few people the other day and the topic of selling blood and plasma came up (don’t ask me how). Immediately I commented how it would be pretty sweet to sell blood; it’s an easy 30 dollars that’s for sure. The one person then added how he sold his plasma a few weeks ago to help pay for his rent or something. As we continued discussing this fairly easy process for making some quick cash on the side, I found myself debating whether I would be able to do this or not. Sure it’s great to get some money, especially for someone as lazy as me, but then again I could be donating the blood for free instead. All of us were questioning the morality of this act of selling blood. When given the option of donating blood and doing something truly good for society, selling blood seems cheap, almost as if I would be selling a part of me. I then thought about how there has been an increase in women donating eggs. The increase in egg donors many believe is due to the poor economy and need of some extra money. They say it’s donating, but women earn often times up to $7,000 or more for one donation. Some women donate several times to help support themselves and their families. Many people view it as a win-win situation; they are helping out infertile women and benefiting from it as well. Others believe it’s immoral, almost as if these donors are baby factories.
Is this just an example of how no act is selfless, no matter how good it is? Or is it this a combination of achieving a goal for the greater good as well as for the individual?

Is it just the environment and nature?

Are Americans well educated in everything except for nature and our environment? Do we know everything we should know about nature and our environment? I honestly dont think we know nearly as much as we should. I feel like as the more time goes by the less educated Americans are as a whole. How can we not be educated on nature when we co exist with it? When we basically are living it? I think its more than that. Americans just are not educated in many things we should be these days. There are just so many things in our every day life that we really dont know much of anything about and we really should. Another example of something Americans dont know enough about is slavery. Most people would say that slavery no longer exists and if it does it doesnt exist in our country. Well I have news for those people....IT DOES. There is still slavery today and in many cases it is a lot worse then it used to be. Many of the clothes and even the food we buy is made by or has been touched by slaves. So we are basically supporting the slave holders to keep maintaining their slaves and keep treating them they way they are and have been, with out paying them or anything. But those are just two examples of things Americans really just dont know too much about. Are we becoming dumber as the years go on? Are we becoming less aware of our surroundings and our actions? What will our great grand children be like? Its a scary thought...

Go Green?

What is Go Green really all about? I know that there have been many new organizations created and organized to help conserve and save our environment but what are people actually doing about it? Are people actually doing things to help the environment or is it just a temporary thing? I feel like at some point or another most people want to do at lease one thing or another to help the environment or make it seem like they are more concerned for natures well being. However, I dont feel like there are too many people that actually stick with what they started doing or attempted doing. People go through phases, for example if they start to recycle even though they never have before but it doesnt last for very long because it becomes too much of a hassel but it doesnt matter cause they feel like they have already done their part by the little plastic or paper they did recycle. What if everyone just started to do one thing to help the Go Green organization. If everyone takes little baby steps and consistently sticks with what theyre doing would it make more of a difference in our environment? Would we actually be helping? A few examples of things people could start doing is walking or binking places more as to save gas and not use the car so much. Or you can get low flow shower heads to conserve the amount of water you use. You can install compact fluorescent light bulbs so youre not using as much electricity. There are so many things that if everyone did at least one and stuck with it maybe it would make a difference and these organizations wouldnt have such a lost cause.

Resistant to Change

Today toward the end of class the topic of change was discussed. America (in general) seems unwilling to change in order to become a more "green" country. I agree with this point, so much emphasis is put on maintaining the way of life that American's currently know instead of instituting change to create a better future. One major example of this that comes to mind is the automotive industry. A large deal of effort seems to be put on saving the auto industry instead of letting it fail and allowing new technologies to fill the void. I feel that all the resources that are given to the failing automotive companies should instead be given to advance new technologies in the field and America would be much better off for it. It can be easily seen that gas engines are slowly becoming too inefficient and obsolete. Electric and hydrogen are two types of new technologies but these are not the only ones. While watching the discovery channel the other day I saw a air powered car. The vehicles run on compressed air and could vastly reduce the amount of green house gases omitted by cars if funding was put behind companies like this one in order to increase the amount of these vehicles on the road. It really just seems to me that many companies need to be left to fail in America in order for new "greener" companies to fill the void and receive the funding the old out of date technology is receiving. air powered car - http://www.mdi.lu/english/

Zombies?

What would you do if there was a zombie outbreak?  Seriously.  What if an alien virus or possibly one produced her on earth (Swine Flu?) had the ability to infect the human race and turn us into blirdthirsty cannabalistic zombies?  How would you react and attempt to survive?  How do you think our government would react?  Zombies have become more and more prevelenet in the entertainment industry lately and it would be ironic if there actually were zombies at some point.  While the thought of such a dawning of the dead is both horrible and scary I feel it would be interesting and exhilarating to see how everyone reacted.  I think I would most likely venture to Walmart to buy a shotgun and a ton of ammo.  This always seems to work in the movies.  I would then proceed to drive away as far as possible and use the shotgun if the zombies got too close.  Gasoline and bombs might work well too or maybe a better idea would be to simply hide ina bunker and attempt to wait it out.  I can't say for sure but I know it would be completely insane.  Would society simply fall apart? Would there be looting and crime?  I feel that a zombie outbreak is more plausible than some horrible occurences and that at some point the evolution of some microscopic organism could possible reult in zombies everywhere...

What is something that almost every American participates in?  We often times never question whether it is right or not?  We never inquire as to if alternatives exist?  No, instead the majority of us simply go along with it.  What?  Everyone else does it.  I'm talking of course about consuming drugs produced by huge pharmaceutical companies.  These companies make both over-the-counter and prescription drugs that we encounter every day.  A lot of the time we simply assume that the drug industry obviously has our best interests in mind.  Is this truly the case?  These companies make the public aware that they are constantly spending vast sums of money in order to research and develop new drugs.  This is true, but when compared to the exponentially larger sums of money they profit each year it is almost nothing.  Not only this, these companies spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D.  In addition, pharmaceutical companies commonly remarket drugs whose patents have run out as completely new drugs when the changes made may be as small as a single molecule.  In the U.S. we are charged extremely high amounts for these drugs, and if you don't have health insurance it is even more.  This is why the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable of any sector of our economy.  These practices are kept in place by controling medical schools with grants and endowments and by controling the government through huge amounts of lobbyists.  Do you believe these claims?

Evolution of the Mind

When most people talk about evolution they mention examples such as mammals turning into amphibians and amphibians turning into mammals. A simple google image search for evolution yields the following picture on the evolution of a whale.

Source: http://mattcbr.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/whaleancestors3.gif

The one thing in common when talking about evolution appears to be the actual physical changing of body parts. Humans do not appear to simply fit the equation. Our bodies are not specifically well adapted to any environment. We walk on two feet rendering us slow and not very balanced. Although we consume meat as part of our diet we lack the necessary physical accessories such as claws and massive jaws for example, to capture animals for food. But we also don't necessarily need fast legs or big claws to get around quickly and capture animals much larger then ourselves. We use the environment to give ourselves those fast legs and those big claws. The physical evolution of our bodies seems to have shifted to the evolution of the environment around us. We constantly change everything but ourselves in order to make us more adaptable to a certain environment. Does this explain the awkward shapes of our bodies compared to other animals? Have we become the showcase of a body turned absolutely useless for physical tasks as we have manipulated the environment to achieve those tasks? This gives the impression that humans have become more powerful than the environment. As previously animals had to change themselves to adapt to the environment, humans simply force the environment to adapt to humans. So if humans have become the environment and the environment simply something trying to adapt to us, what happens if the environment is unable to do so and becomes extinct as have many species? The environment survived without us but will we be able to survive without it? 

Other States of Consciousness

Many non-western cultures have a member of their society who is considered to be a healer.  Often times this medicine man may be considered a shaman, meaning that he has the ability to enter into an altered state of consciousness and become part of an alternate reality where he can gain power, and knowledge.  The shaman may enter into  this state of consciousness in order to help others or to further his understanding of the sub-reality.  This state is sometimes referred to as "ecstasy".  Some shamans believe there are distinct levels of consciousness and the shamanic state of consciousness is somewhere near the bottom while our ordinary every-day reality is at the top.  the states in between consist of various stages in which sensory perceptions change.  Sometimes Shamans use different herbal substances are used to induce these experiences.  Some of these drugs are extremely potent.  One, known as ayahuasca, is a  powerful hallucinegen which quite possibly would cause many of us to go insane upon its consumption.  Under its influnce the shaman is able to communicate with spirits of another reality.  It is believed that these spirits are linked to people, animals, and even plants that exist in our ordinary reality.  My question then is this: Do you agree with any of these non-westeren beliefs concerning alternate realities and the use of certain drugs to enter into them or do you  think that many of these ideas are quite rediculous and absurd?  Do you have mixed feelings?

Most Important

Looking back on this class, we covered quite a bit of material.  We learned a lot of different philosophies about nature, from Pollan to Aristotle to the enlightenment philosophies.  We also had many different discussions and debates in class, over a various number of topics.  We discussed beauty in nature and attempted to define it, we argued over the positive and negative effects of plants containing mood altering chemicals, we discussed the problems of deforestation and global warming, and discussed animal rights as well as the use of technology.

My question then is, over all of the different things that we did in the class, what do you think is most important?  I have been looking back over the class, wondering what I found to be the most interesting, and most engaging part of the class.  I am still not entirely sure, but i would say that the most important thing we did was attempt to define exactly what nature is, and why.   It is, I believe, the most fundamental question to the course.  I don't think it necessarily has a right or wrong answer.  We read and learned different views on it, but in the end, we must formulate our own stance on the natural world and our place in it.  I think that this class has definitely helped me to know what I believe.  Would you all agree that this is the most important thing we learned in class?  If not, what do you think was the most important.

Tackling Climate Change

Climate change is a serious problem, along with habitat loss, pollution, etc.  All of these are sort of tied together.  The more we pollute the oceans and cut down the forests, the less carbon dioxide absorbers there will be, while at the same time we are submitting more carbon dioxide then ever.  This makes the problem twice as bad.  For those who say, there are plenty of trees left in the rest of the world, think about how many trees there used to be, before we became the dominant species on the planet.  The entire east cost of the US was covered in forest.  The way it used to be was the balanced state, and without all the extra emissions we are giving off.

I think the United States should lead the way in this effort, partly because we are one of the major contributors of the problem.  Also because our change can show the rest of the world that this is possible and that we are taking the initiative to fix it.  I truly believe that the rest of the world will follow if we are able to do this.  When sputnik was launched, did the US give up and drop out of the space race, because we were behind, or because the odds were against us.  No, we rallied together as one Nation to take on the challenge and win.  Due to this we started creating the world we live in.  If we had not done this, we may not have had, cell phones, Internet, etc.  Imagine everything hardwired, it would be quite a different life.

Currently the US is getting beat by most of the world in this challenge, and why not see at climate change as a challenge, between the US and the rest of the world.  The company that leads this effort will be profitable.  Solar electric sales have been double for the past decade, the growth has been exponential, and guess who has been the leader, not us, we used to be, Germany has taken the lead in this by a great amount.  Where do you see the most energy efficient buildings, Germany?  We are getting beat, do we not think of ourselves as the greatest country in the world, well this is no longer the case, when other countries are doing things better then we are.  What car companies are not suffering, the Japanese, I wonder how much of this has to do with their commitment to fuel efficiency.  Lets embrace this challenge and I believe this can change our current problems with the rest of the world and our economy.

Mankind vs. Technology

The only thing that technology has done to us, in a negative way, is sped up our lives.  We all move a mile a minute, trying to get things done as fast as possible.  Our communication has drastically changed, with the Internet, cell phones, and TV.  Due to many of these items and our lifestyle now, we are creating more greenhouse gases, but without technology, we wouldn’t even know what greenhouse gasses were.

So yes we are destroying the environment, but at least we know we are doing it.  And it is not because of technology, it is our us.   It is the process of what we are doing, not the fact that technology exists.  We are capable of creating technology that does not have much of an impact on the environment; we just don’t want to change.  Well we are starting to, but the change may take to long to have the right affect.  The change is also only by some, and some of those are doing more then others.

To start we need to make electronics, cars, manufacturing processes, etc. more efficient, redesign them if need be.  This will allow us to use less power and produce less greenhouse gasses.  We should also realize, how much crap we have as Americans, it really sickens me, especially how much we do not use it.  We feel the need to collect junk and fill our basements, closets, and attics with it; sometimes we even need to get storage facilities for them.

Becoming independent of fossil fuels should also be a major step in the right direction.  Electricity does not have to be a bad thing, as long as we are conscious of it and to use it wisely.  Currently, we use it without any penalty except a little money.  Most people have no idea where their power is coming from or being used by.  Many companies are trying to change this, by installing a dashboard in a home, that tells you your performance.  This would allow us to understand how we are using our homes and allow us to use them better.  At the very least it may make people feel guilty about how much power they are using.  Google is starting to make their own dashboard and will have all homes that use one connected through the Internet, so that people can compare their energy use to others.

Revisiting Pollan

As I have been re-reading Pollan's chapter on control for my term paper, I am revisiting thoughts about desire, control, and convenience. I am writing my paper on convenience and how it affects consumerism and ethics. I now see evidence of this in Pollan's book. Pollan even talks about going through McDonald's drive through. As I was reading carefully, I began to think of convenience and control synonymously. Having control over things makes them more convenient to handle, work with, and use. Genetic engineering allows humans to have complete control over food production, thus making that food production more convenient. Creating the exact species we want, such as the New Leaf potato, makes for less handling of pesticides and other inconvenient practices. I see that if agriculture is made more convenient, production may increase. But where does convenience end and do values take place? I feel that in today's society convenience is consistently chosen over ethics. People are more inclined to eat fast food rather than dine in or make a home cooked meal. Choosing fast food places such as McDonald’s is convenient, but can be unhealthy and supportive of factory farming produced meat. But the way society has taken shape, we are very fast paced and often feel that there is no time to waste on sitting down to eat four courses. Pollan explains how monoculture has become the “single most powerful simplification of modern agriculture…” Monoculture, the act of producing a single crop over a wide area, may be convenient for farming but reduces biodiversity. Basically, I feel that people choose convenience without knowing the consequences and also gain control by doing so. I also think that this is a never ending cycle, quite a circular situation that will not be solved.

From Beginning to End

I would like to go back to the first day of class when we talked about our current “environmental crisis”. Throughout the course we have narrowed down the meaning of this phrase into deciding what it pertains to, what human’s role is, what motivates humans to be involved, and why we should take action. I must say that most compelling evidence for me as to why we should act has been our discussions on nature, the botany of desire, and environmental ethics. We first discussed what nature is and I found to believe that humans are part of nature. Then, through the botany of desire, we learned that nature often evolves to human likes so that their species may grow and in environmental ethics we discussed how humans are the only species with ethics so it is our moral responsibility to protect it. But all of these points work together. Since humans can be considered part of nature, isn’t it common sense that we should help ourselves? Since nature can evolve to human preferences to preserve their species, shouldn’t we applaud those species by helping them flourish? And lastly, since we are the only species with ethics, regardless of why we want to help nature, shouldn’t we help to fulfill one of our basic obligations on this planet? I think the answer to all these questions are yes.
But now, we are discussing this concept of Deep Ecology and the fight against human’s natural tendency of an anthropocentric environmentalism. All species have a selfish demeanor – even humans. We are not above the rest of nature in that sense. We put ourselves before all others, even our own species. My favorite example of this is when you are on an airplane and the flight attendant describes the safety precausions. When they get to talking about the oxygen masks, you should always put one on yourself before you put one on the child next to you. Would it not make sense for the continuance of human species, to put it on the younger child first to save their life over an older person’s life? I disagree with this part of deep ecology because I do not think that motivations are the root cause for the environmental crisis. We need to help nature with the understanding that it is our moral responsibility as humans but also understanding that humans are part of nature, and helping nature will help us also.
In another sense, I think this is probably the only part of Deep Ecology I disagree with. The rest, including most of the principles probably should be publicized more because I think most other people, or environmentalists would agree with them on the whole and begin to put some of them in their daily lives.
I guess my questions are do you agree with me on my point about Deep Ecology? Is there any part of the class as a whole which particularly heightened your opinions on your personal environmental ethics?

What's Next?

I figured for my last post, I’d discuss the future of our planet and species, given that we’ve been talking about evolution, natural selection, dominant species, etc. I’ve often wondered why, aside from evolving from Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and finally Homo sapiens, we have stopped where we are. I believe that the changing world within the next few thousand years (in terms of climate change; rising sea levels; continent shifts; etc) will bring about a new kind of human. By the word ‘new’ I do not mean we will be flying around with wings or swimming in oceans with fish gills, but rather subtle changes could occur, such as extreme height changes (people on average used to be very small). Maybe in the future our tailbones will fully develop and act as a fifth limb. Whatever the scenario, I have to believe that our species will somehow adapt.

Think about it- organisms have been adapting to extreme environments for millions of years, and given all of the predicted crises our planet is supposed to endure in our lifetime alone (‘global warming’; super-tornados/hurricanes/tsunamis; the expected demise of Earth in the year 2012, etc.), I feel it is only rational to think that the human race will eventually shift significantly. Someone brought up in class (sorry- I forget who) that there are miniscule organisms below Earth’s crust that are able to transform carbon into methane. I think this is a perfect example of the fact that no matter what, life finds a way to survive; or rather Earth finds a way to sustain itself.

Sharing our spot as the dominant species

I often wonder whether eventually, another dominant species will evolve. If you believe in the theory of evolution, then you know that originally, humans evolved from primates. We were once just as primitive as all our animal friends. Does this mean that thousands of years from now, there could be another species that will evolve to become intelligent, and live along side humans? I think it is definitely possible, considering where many species are already at. Take for instance the dolphin. They are one of the smartest creatures on the planet. In their environment, they have found ways to utilize natural objects as tools. Also, dolphins are very social animals, and already have their own sophisticated language, although we have only been able to decipher bits and pieces. This makes it very understandable why dolphins are easy to train, and can respond to complicated commands. If the theory of evolution holds true, along with Darwinism, allowing a species to become more and more advanced, I think it is one day possible that they will be just as intelligent as humans are currently. I guess if the theory is correct, humans will also advance, and will likely remain as the dominant species on earth. It is definitely plausible though that dolphins will be in control of the water, and humans the land. It might be a long shot, but who knows what can happen if enough time passes. As long as there is still life on earth, I think it is a possibility.

Evolution

In class on Wednesday we touched upon the idea of evolution and natural selection.  I had brought up the point that natural selection does not necessarily mean survival of the fittest.  It all depends on the situation.  Whichever organism survives the specific condition of the time is that which lives on and it is that creature's genes that are passed on.  The most important thing for the survival of a species in an ever changing climate is variation.

For variation to exist, the larger variations of an animal (such as a lion) should not get rid of the smaller or "inferior" versions of the species.  If all of the smaller lions were killed by the superior lions, and the bigger ones lived on, what would happen in a large famine?  Would the big lions be able to get enough food to survive?  The species would probably die out in that area, whereas they would have a better chance of surviving if the smaller lions were still around.

The reason I mention this is because I have heard people say that the way we live today does not allow for natural selection to take place, and that we are actually devolving.  I do not believe this is true, based on the logic above.  Our system of civilization allows for tons of variations.  There are smart people, athletic people, tall short, light skinned, dark skinned, the list goes on and on.  Because we have so much variation, I think that our species has a likelihood to survive almost any change in our environment.

Basic Principle One of the Deep Ecology Movement

The basic principles of the deep ecology movement (as told by Sessions &Naess) may help solve the problems that our planet and our society are having today. The first part of the first basic principle, seems so basic, yet it is seldom found in the world. "The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefullness of the non-human world for human purposes." It seems so easy to just respect and want to protect other life forms, and other forms that may not be biologically "alive" but still are in some ways, for example watersheds &ecosystems. These are the things that coexist with us, and as moral human beings, we should feel the need to use our power, not to conquer and destroy, but to watch over and protect.
The second part of this first principle is a concept most people have trouble grasping. Most find it so hard to care for and want to help something that is of no use to them. I feel as though helping something that is of no use to you, will eventually help out the world, and we're all a part of that. Usually, though, it takes time to see the progress made in the overall well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Most people don't seem to have the time to focus on the planet. This basically just all comes back to immediate gratification.
If we could push ourselves past our need to see automatic results, if we could help the planet selflessly, if we could respect everything [living/nonliving] for what it's inherent value is... the world could be closer to a solution.

Self Correcting

Day by day the size of the human population is growing and exceeding what the Earths capabilities for sustaining us all.  Seeing as the human population continues to grow at rates that are way too fast for the natural life-death cycle could we consider the notation that disease are like the natural breaks to the human population machine?  Also with the newest outbreak of the swine flu which can be mixed with both human and avian flu, maybe with the idea that we can pass diseases to each other than all in all we each come together to form nature.  

If you look back in history you see instances of plagues, famines, and weather conditions that each have altered the human population allowing for the 'fittest' gene pools to continue on.   However, I think that instead of relying on the natural brakes we should take the matters of population into our own hands so that we can try to fix it before it turns into a bigger.  We see families such as the Duggars which are pretty much baby machines, who say that they will have as many children as God will best them with.  When the bible was written long ago they had the ability to have larger families but, in today’s world we physical don’t have the space to be set forth and multiple as the bible stated.  I’m not saying throw the bible by the waste sides I just think that we need to evaluate our population growth with regards to the time rather than what a books says that was written for another time to follow with regards for population.

Mixed Feelings about Timothy Treadwell (sorry this is pretty old)

I just wanted to discuss a little further the movie about Timothy Treadwell and his quest to save the grizzlies in Alaska. I was recently reminded of him and his movie yesterday when we were discussing one of the leading causes for the decrease in grizzly populations in the North West in my biogeography course. One of the major causes as you can assume was not tourists or poachers like Treadwell was under the impression of, but an epidemic of Mountain Pine Beetles. This beetle has the ability to kill much of the pine forests in the grizzly’s habitat which is an issue since the grizzly’s main source of food before hibernation are the nutrient abundant pine seeds. Without these pine seeds, the forest cannot sustain the grizzly population. So although Treadwell had good intentions they were probably not that effective. Though I do admire his boldness, setting out to do what he wanted despite social stigmas opposing him, I can’t help but question his sincerity in helping the bears. It seemed as if he had alterative motives for “saving the bears”, channeling his search for stardom through these documentaries. What supported this speculation was when the documentary showed him failing to rescue the bears when they were being pelted by rocks from photographers. However despite all the doubts and controversy of his work, it cannot be denied that he did bring attention to the bears that maybe wasn’t there before which I guess was one of his main goals. Also, the in depth studies Treadwell did and the hours of footage of the bears I’m sure can help advance our understanding of them and their behavior.

Natural Control

Humans seem to be the only beings on the planet that are concerned with environmental damage. When an animal's environment becomes damaged or affects the chances of survival for that animal, the animal simply relocates to a better one. No animal tries to fix the environment that was either hurt by itself or by some other force. Beavers don't start using less wood to build their homes after they have brought down a number of trees. But all of these animals appear to be held in check. The beaver has many predators such as wolves, coyotes and hawks. Thus the beaver population cannot simply expand and so is not allowed to bring down an infinite number of trees. The predators on the other hand are kept in a circular check with the beaver population. There cannot be more predators than an amount that can survive on the available amount of food. Humans on the other hand seem to have completely bypassed the system. As the human population increases, people simply increase the production of food since food production itself is dependent on people. People have taken most of food production out of the natural cycle and put it into human hands with farms and plantations. Food is now available outside the natural cycle on an almost limitless basis. The refrigerators at Wal-Mart are constantly stocked with all the basic food items. Humans also don't have any predators to keep the population in check. As the human population increases people are going to need more and more materials and resources from the natural world. If there is no one to keep humans from doing so, the natural world with its own cycles seems to be in imminent danger. 

But humans also posses a quality no other animal seems to have. Humans worry about the environment. If a certain environment is damaged, as in the Hurricane Katrina example, people do not simply relocate but rebuild and fix everything until it is suitable for living. Humans worry about CO2 emissions. People are concerned about things that do not affect them on a personal level. Could this be the method of keeping humans from destroying the environment? Is this a natural control of people to keep us in check? Will this power of moral reasoning be strong enough to prevent us from using up every single resource on this planet?

The Nature of Extremism

We’ve learned a lot this semester about the negative effects of a patriarchal culture. There’s an individualistic competition for power and an aggressive control of nature. This extremism oppresses many animals and causes the destruction of ecosystems. Our society is so patriarchal that it becomes natural for opposing matriarchal elements to rise out of a necessity for balance. These elements include a cooperative distribution of power and a passive acceptance of nature. It’s obvious that incorporating such elements into our culture is vital if we hope to reach a stable equilibrium between society and nature, but should these elements replace the patriarchal ones completely? It seems that deep ecology seeks to do just that.

A scenario can be imagined in which a culture has become as extremely matriarchal as ancient and contemporary cultures have been patriarchal. Such a society would uphold the deep ecology principles or something similar to them. All life forms would be considered children of mother earth and they would all be worthy of an equal opportunity to live and flourish. Humans would have just as much value as fleas and natural processes would occur with minimal human interference. We would only kill what we needed to eat or we would all be vegans. Such a vision may seem utopian to a deep ecologist. My concern is simply this: what would be the cost of implementing such principles?

For example, the fourth principle of deep ecology states, “The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.” How would a society bring about such a substantial decrease in human population? It doesn’t seem likely that people would agree to cease reproduction or voluntarily sacrifice their lives for the greater good. It is imaginable, though, that an eco-centric society could justify genocide in order to maximize biodiversity. The only other alternative would be something similar to China’s infanticide policies. Are deep ecologists really willing to go this far to realize their utopian society?

I think we need to strike a balance between traditional masculine and feminine elements in order to make human society more compatible with the interests of other animals and natural processes. It must be kept in mind, though, that we should do this because it’s beneficial to our long-term survival and well-being. It’s a mistake to believe we are in any self-righteous position to “save the planet”. I agree with eco-feminists that our problem is primarily androcentrism, oppressive patriarchal point-of-view, rather than anthropocentrism. We can’t escape our human perspective, but we need not delude ourselves into thinking that nature has preferences for how things should be run.

What are your opinions on this? Could deep ecology lead to such extremism? Is a radical matriarchal culture really preferable to a patriarchal one? Why or why not?

Why Do We Die?

This question has always been a great mystery to me. When you think about it, it makes sense that as our body’s age, the cells in our body’s age and eventually something in our body breaks down and goes wrong, for example; heart disease, immune system breaks down, cancer etc.

However, I never looked at the actual cause of death but more the concept. If there is one certainty in life among all animals, it is death, regardless of whom or what you are; you’re going to die, but why? Why do we live in a world where everything is finite, where everything has an end? Suppose it didn’t, suppose that humans and animals just kept on living, what would happen? One thing I am certain of is that the planet would be extremely over populated, but is that why we have to die?I often think that there is a deeper meaning to death or maybe to life, which gives us the chance to experience some pretty magical things during our time here. Although there are many people who are afraid of dying and maybe don’t want to die, I think the curse of death is maybe one of our greatest gifts as it is the only thing which allows us to really live.

Human Benefit from Species Extinction

I think that sometimes as humans, causing the extinction of other species is necessary to our survival. A lot of people are concerned with the morality of this, and argue that it is not our right to deprive another species of their ability to achieve their own desires, and pursue their own ends. However, I think that it is important to consider the situation from a utilitarian perspective. We should be focused on the greatest good for the greatest number. Since humans have one of the largest populations on earth, being concerned mostly with satisfying our needs is not enitrely unethical. If eliminating a species provides a significant benefit to our survival and way of life, then we should do it. One example is the eradication of the smallpox virus. For all other species, this has no known negative consequences, but for our species, the positive consequences are astronomical. Discovering the cure for the virus was one of the biggest advancements in modern medicine. By eliminating the virus, I think we have definitely achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. So is it our moral duty to respect the interests of smallpox, and let it do its thing? My opinion is no. I'm not saying that we should disregard all other species out there, and continue destroying their habitats, etc, for our own benefit. But, I think this example demonstrates that sometimes it is definitely justified to eliminate a species, and we need not be ethically concerned with preserving all of them individually.

Egocentric Mindset

When one is to examine where the world came from and where the world is going, a major aspect that one must consider is the state of mind of the inhabitants. Now that there is a proposed range of the state of minds in the people of this earth is it easy to identify what state of mind that seems to be present the most with the way humanity has treated nature. If one was to look at the most prominent force of influence on the environment it would be the people of power. These people yield the ability to have the most direct effect and invoke the biggest changes on the environment over the shortest amount of time. The people of power include people in political power, people at the head of the energy industries, as well as many industrial company heads. These people who control the major aspects of society really do have the greatest say because of the vast influence in major decisions with the way humanity is run. I talked about in class that there are plenty of patents out there that have sprung up only to be bought out and suppressed because the heads of power did not approve of them? Well then why? Why would there be a patent for a cure for AIDs, for example, that has not reached the public attention? (patent # 5676977). Why hasn’t there been extensive trial with this and public awareness? Well, it all comes down to the mindset of those people in power. Having an egocentric mindset is dangerous, just look at the results (ie. People in control are not looking out for the greater good). But really, are the people in power to blame? Its it because they choose an egocentrical mindset, they choose to live for self-improvement, they live for money, is it them we can blame? The answer is no. The people in power are able to do this because the masses turn a blind eye. People say that it would be wrong to question what your Government does and question what the ones in power are doing, no, it in not only the right thing to do, but it is a necessary as a citizen of the planet to ensure that what goes on is for the benefit of the whole. The whole not only include the entire human population (which they don’t even cover that) and the world. There are many forms of technology out there that remain untouched because of the people, the masses of the world being completely unaware of it. The masses are in there own little world, people are so easily distracted now-a-days with the various forms of media, life in general and the numerous crisis at hand. The time in which humanity lives is a critical one. Many of the decisions of people today will affect the future of our species as well as the countless others inhabiting our planet. The question is will people wake-up from there own world? Will people themselves become less egocentric in order to save ourselves from a nasty future? Time will tell…….

Give Me Sunshine

Sitting outside yesterday in the warm sunshine gave me some thoughts on the end of the semester and this class coming to a close. I thought about what made me take this class in the first place (besides needing a humanities gen ed). I love nature, being outside, and taking care of the environment. When we went around and shared on the first day of class, it was clear that everyone signed up for Phil 013 for basically the same reason. So why do we love nature so much?

Nature has quite a hold on us. When I think about my own life, my mood is so easily changed by the weather or season! If the sun is shining, it won't matter if I'm having a rotten day, I'll still smile and enjoy the sunshine and be happy. However, on the cold and rainy days so frequent to State College, I am not quick to be in a good mood. Walking around with soggy sneakers and wet jeans is no fun. Also, think of the first snow of the winter. Everyone is so excited and wants to talk about the snow. Speaking of conversation (pun), what do you talk about when you are in an awkward conversation and can't think of something to say? The weather! Not to mention the weather makes the front page of the newspaper every day. 

(Just as a side note, we are biologically designed to respond positively to sunlight... it is a great source of Vitamin D which makes your body healthy and strong. In the winter, some people who don't get enough sunlight can be diagnosed with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) which is a type of depression. So sunlight really does put you in a good mood!)

I'm glad to have taken a class in which everyone shares an appreciation for the outdoors. It was very eye-opening to hear the different opinions represented in class, among peers and by some great philosophers and environmentalists. It was a pleasure this semester. Best of luck and enjoy the sunshine and warm weather!

Ecofeminism

I was reading over the paper I posted on ecofeminism (under 'suggestions for further reading') to see what I could use in my term paper, and the simplicity of its ideas really hit me. Some of the feminist material I've read can get really out of hand until you can't comprehend anything, but this article spelled everything out. Women, especially in 3rd world countries, work with and depend on nature directly every hour of every day of their lives. They count on natural resources for fuel, food, clothing, and shelter; so what happens when nature is degraded to the point of disappearing? These women have nothing left to sustain their families. Women living in poverty across the world are cut off from any sort of power, ecologically or otherwise. They don't have the money, the resources, or the time, and are given gravely substandard employment and income.
Anyone in this class has a much better future ahead of them than these women, especially if nothing is done in the near future to give the environment, and thereby impoverished women, another chance. No matter what your standard of living is, because you live in the U.S. and are gaining a quality education at Penn State, you are better off than any 3rd world country citizen ever has the hopes of being. So why is it that we would rather ignore their presence, 'fight for our own'? I know that there is poverty in the U.S., but we should be working to change that here and everywhere, and not place class and culture restrictions on giving someone a better life.
As stated in the paper, "women, like the land, are abused, violated, scarred...women and the natural environment are overcome by forces with superior strength, power and technology. " These points hark back to some of the discussions we've been having in class lately. When does power become too much for humans to handle? I believe when it becomes detrimental to another human, we need to rethink our priorities. Why should some creatures be important to us while others are considered useless pests (like the flea). We should have the humanity and empathy to respect and cherish every living being, to understand its place in the world. And certainly humans such as women in 3rd world countries, and even closer to home, as in Canada and the U.S., should be given the fighting opportunity to an equal life as the rest of us.

Selfish parenthood

I found our class discussion yesterday very interesting. While talking about fulfillment and achieving goals, it was briefly mentioned that no act is selfless because even the act of doing good is rewarding. I began to think about how people feel that they are selfless when volunteering. I believe that this is still a selfish act because the volunteer gains a good feeling. Don’t get me wrong, I strongly agree with helping everyone and giving back to the community, but I wish that people would see that this is also a selfish act. There is no way to remove oneself from gaining feelings of reward and pride. And going along with our example of a mother fulfilling her purpose by assisting her son to be successful, I feel that the mother is being selfish by fulfilling her purpose not solely her sons. This made me think of how once my dad said that having children was the most rewarding thing he has ever done. I feel that even though parents give up so much for their children to grow and prosper, the intention is somewhat selfish because it ultimately results in a feeling of pride. Parents of successful children are proud of their kid’s accomplishments and feel rewarded for raising those children. I guess the act of raising children entails both selfish and selfless acts because parents have to make many sacrifices in order to raise good people. But still the mother feels a sense of completion and both parents are rewarded by having children.

A fulfillment for All

I find the concept of achieving one’s goals by helping others to achieve their own to be very interesting. This idea can be easily applied to many areas, and is seen in a lot of situations. In class, this was illustrated by the example of a mother assisting her son with achieving his academic goals. By doing this, the mother is fulfilling her goal to assist her son with reaching his full potential. Because of this, two goals will be achieved once the son completes his schooling. If the human race applied this concept into their everyday doings, our world would probably have least problems today. This is simply because it could greatly benefit our environment.

If more people tailored their goals to suit the desires of other organisms, our planet would reap many benefits. If we expect to solve our global problems swifter, then such steps are necessary. Even though many people have employed this concept throughout their work (e.g., environmental activists), these actions are much more profound when everyone does them. For example, if three adolescents decided to help out our society by cleaning a local park, they would leave a greater impact by gaining the support of their community. By doing so, they could possibly recruit more people to assist them with their efforts, complete their task quicker, and possibly prevent such conditions from reoccurring by raising awareness on the issue. Finally, their actions would greatly benefit the park’s ecosystem since it would revitalize it. This example illustrates that how many pressing issues can be tackled simply by working together. As any advocate will tell you, we can achieve personal satisfaction without focusing solely on our own needs.

Who cares about fleas?

Today we discussed the implications of an ecocentric worldview as opposed to an egocentric one. I definitely think that there are many positive aspects to considering the interests of other animals and the dynamic processes of nature, but who cares about fleas? I see how it may be beneficial to our long term survival and self-realization to help other animals achieve their interests and to help stabilize different ecosystems that support our existence and well-being, but what good comes about from helping fleas, seriously? Furthermore, if deep ecology maintains that all life forms are equally valid and worthy of natural rights, then does this mean we should care about the well-being of the AIDS virus or parasitic organisms?

I think that death and destruction are just as much aspects of nature than life and creation. We cannot support all life forms and ecosystems because to do so necessitates the destruction of some life. I think we should try to destroy viruses, parasites, and any animal that would harm us if given a chance and protect those animals that are compatible with our existence. Also, we should be more concerned with curbing our greenhouse gas emissions because otherwise ocean levels will rise and landmasses will be reduced to deserts. It would really suck for human beings to live in a hot and crowded ecosystem.

This may seem to be an anthropocentric worldview, but don't we always think from a human point of view because we are, in fact, human beings? I think deep ecology is confused on some levels about its own philosophy or perhaps I just don't fully get it. It seems to hold that "all life has value" and "nature knows best" at the same time, but what about volcanoes and other natural disasters that wipe out life? It doesn't seem like nature gives a shit about innate value. At any rate, I hate fleas and I think we should kill them all at any chance we get.

So any flea lovers out there? Should we care about the well-being of all living things, or just those animals that are compatible with our own well-being? Does self-realization really necessitate an identifying with all of nature, or just the processes that support our existence?

To Help Others.

In class today we talked about how it is often times better to help others with their goals rather than go after our own. I feel this has both negative and positive consequences. The negative being that humans would not have evolved as rapidly as we have or exceeded such limits if there was not some sort of self motivated goal. The positive aspect being that in a perfect world we will all help one another and never experience such selfish emotions. There has to be some general happy medium between these two ideas. Humans need to find away where we all help each other achieve goals but we also take some of our selfishness into it too. If anyone has noticed, it always seems to be the motivated and ambitious people are the ones that score the best colleges, best jobs, and are the most successful. Now, I know that isn’t the case every time, but in my experiences I feel that it happens a lot. I’m just trying to figure out how we can create a world where we can have both. Where humans can be a little bit ambitious and a little bit mindful of other’s goals as well. What does everyone else say? Which world is better and how can we merge the two together to get something in the middle?

Why do we own Pets?

Thinking about the relationship between humans and animals I started to wonder why pets have always been present in societies throughout history. Of course there are certain animals which serve a purpose to us be it; transport, guidance, entertainment etc. However, I am referring to pets that we take care of in our house or back yard. Why do so many people bring pets into their home as though they are another member of the family? Well for many people they are.

Take dogs for example, there are 74 million owned dogs in the United States, about 70% of these dog owners refer to themselves as “mommy” or “daddy” as though they are the dog’s parent. Well in many ways they are, a dog owner has feed it, bath it, walk it and give it almost as much attention as their own son or daughter. Taking into account the costs we must pay to own a healthy dog, one may ask; is it really worth it? Well apparently the answer is yes!
There have been studies which show that pets in families with a young child tend positively increases the child’s communication skills causing them to become more social younger in life. As for adults, pets such as dogs and cats tend to provide a certain companionship especially if the adult is single. They also provide young adults with practice for parenting and often fill a void which is present in a childless home.
Personally I have always found that those who own pets have always had a more positive attitude in day to day life. I definitely feel that we (humans) often grow tiresome of human interaction and in result turn to animals.

Stopping the Loop

In class today we discussed the aspects of what would be better how a mother reaches her potential by helping her only son reach his potential. I think we can apply this to the entire human race and the environment as a whole. Humans should be sacrificing our wants for the environment, to reach our total goal of keeping the human race alive. Instead, we individually focus on our own goals and sacrifice the potential of nature. We rely on material possessions and consumerism to satisfy our need and wants in life, but that comes at a detriment to the natural world. If we wanted to sustain nature, we would need to live simply and try to consume less so that we would be using less natural resources. I think humans have forgotten that nature is there for us, but we need to help nature as well so that it can continue to sustain life, and human life in particularly. We live in a positive feedback loop, in that the more we use, the more we hurt nature, and the more we hurt ourselves. That loop needs to be stopped. Human society has become egotistical and anthropomorphic in the sense that we tend to see nature as a means to our end. Does anyone agree with me that humans and nature can be seen in this relationship? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to stop this loop?

Why We Separate Ourselves from Nature

From reading the Naess article on self-awareness I have formulated a hypothesis as to why we separate ourselves from nature. That reason is fear. When we really look at nature and wild animals we see death and destruction of life forms for food for others. I believe our ancestors saw this and for the sake of safety felt it best to separate ourselves as much as possible. Thus when modern religion developed the founders tried to eliminate nature, because they wanted to beat death. That is what religion is all about: beating death, beating nature. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a religion that preached about a deity (i.e. excluding atheism) that taught that when a person dies, they just die? NO, in almost every religion and/or mythology their followers are taught that there is an afterlife for them. They are taught that to not worry about death, because when you die you’re just gonna go somewhere else. We are taught that because of our advanced thought processes we are superior to death and thus nature. That is also why animals do not go to “heaven.” The animals and their lifestyles are exactly what we are trying to separate ourselves from through religion. So why would we include the very thing we are trying to escape in our utopia?

So I want to know from the class: What do you think about this? Does this sound logical? Am I completely off base? Or was the already completely obvious to everyone else?

Time Travel?

Today I was talking with one of my friends, and she informed me of this theory that she learned in her astronomy class. It was actually more of a fact, I think she said, but I, myself, am not too sure about it.
Each star that we see in the sky is emitting light that was actually emitted millions of years ago. So the light that we see is from the past. The "theory" states that if we could find a way to travel faster than the speed of light, we would be traveling into the past. If the light from the star is traveling slower than we would be traveling to the star, would being right next to the star mean we were in the past? Or would it just be traveling extremely quickly, with no time travel?
I think it would only seem to be time travel if you were at the star and people on earth were looking at the star (and you) and it would be millions of years before they'd get to see you.
This is a really confusing concept, and it really doesn't have much to with our class discussion. Unless it's viewed from our ability to create technology advanced enough to travel faster than the speed of light and ultimately time travel. The friend i discussed this with said that the speed of light is currently our "speed limit", but what if we can travel so fast and so far that we could go backwards in time...?

Where do Emotions Come From?

One thing which has always fascinated me is basic emotions; I’ve always wondered what emotions we humans feel compared to other animals. Why do we feel emotions at all? Why do we show them? Where did they come from?

I’ve found that Darwin also researched this idea when he proposed his theory of survival of the fittest. It became apparent that pretty much all mammals show their emotions be it; anger, fear, happiness etc. humans tend to primarily show their emotions through their facial expressions, however, an animal such as a dog may show their emotions through growling or wagging their tail etc. What I think makes this topic so interesting is that this planet has been around for about 4.5 billion years but we have no clue of when emotions first existed and how they came about. If everything (including emotions) came from the planet earth….does the planet have emotions of its own? Could we classify the planet as a living being? Does the planet react in any way to show its emotions? It may seem like a weird concept to get your head around but eastern culture it may not seem so farfetched. In eastern and African philosophy there tends to be belief that the planet we live on is alive and has emotions of its own. A movie I saw (The Happening) fairly recently also supported this belief, it showed a deadly disease which is transported through air and causes humans to commit suicide, the idea for the origin of the disease was that the world was mad at our wasteful lifestyle and in result gave us a warning. I know this sounds a little extreme but what if it holds some truth? What if the world really did have emotions of its own?

The Climate Change Dilemma

Nowadays, you cannot have a discussion about the environment without bringing up climate change. Ever since researchers first noticed alarming changes in the Earth’s temperatures in the 1990s, dialogue on global warming has spread like wildfire. People everywhere have grown particularly interested in the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment. Researchers have observed gradual effects to the environment that they believe were caused by this (e.g., the rising sea level), environmentalists have worked hard to bring this matter to our attention, and policy-makers worldwide have pushed for controls on entities responsible for these gas emissions. Experts believe we will encounter massive problems as the earth’s temperature come closer to increasing by 2 degrees. Some predict that we will encounter many problems such as frequent heat waves, massive erosion, and the extinction of many animal and plant species that were unable to adjust.

In Brendan Borrell’s blog, Blood for No Oil, Borrell suggests that our environmental problems are best explained by habitat destruction. Borrell believes that our obsession with global warming has caused us to ignore this equally important problem, and has inhibited us from taking the necessary steps to address it. When Borrell alluded to the global warming phenomenon as a fad, I could not agree with him more. It appears that our tendency to acknowledge certain trends and forget about others has carried over in all aspects of our lives. While I am sure everyone does not do this, it is done enough to the point where it could be detrimental to mankind, the species who inhabit the earth, and the earth itself. We must acknowledge that many things, besides global warming, have contributed to the earth’s demise.

Understanding opinions

The discussion on technology has been very beneficial to me and will be in the future. Our class does a great job playing devil’s advocate to bring up all sides of a discussion. The majority of the students in the class possesses an appreciation for nature and understands that we need to take care of the Earth to ensure its longevity. However, there are people in the world that could care less and use our power as humans to dominate the world. This class has helped myself find a greater appreciation for nature with readings such as The Botany of Desire, and other readings like The Question Concerning Technology understand other people’s perspective and why they desire to control nature.

Knowing the motives of other’s in the world will help me in professional career. Being in a professional dealing with environmental issues everyday, I can better understand and try to change opinions of those who do not understand the need to care for nature.

It especially bothered me in the article we read in class by Borrell when he stated how we aren’t trying to solve previous problems like clear cutting in the forests and are only concerned about global warning. Personally, I think that is completely incorrect. As a landscape architect or architect, we have the power to build new places. For one example, we strive to use wood materials that are NOT clear cut from forests AND do not promote further global warming with building products or energy use. Many professionals out there are taking the time to solve problems that are current and problems of the future. I hope that this knowledge will soon spread and will catch on and become a typical practice method.

The good, the bad and the Technology

Throughout history, as we made technological advancements, we at the same time hurt the environment.  Such things as factories and cars have been emitting greenhouse gases for years before we noticed that this was a problem.  We created the atomic bomb, and used it before knowing all of the consequences.  It is hard to know what kind of negative effects new technology will have on the environment until it has already begun to do damage on a worldwide scale.

As we make new advances in science, we learn that we know less than we previously thought.  While often times technology can be dangerous to the environment, it is also helping to save the planet.  If we look at history, we know that we really don't know if the new advancements in clean energy will cause other problems or not.  Maybe solar will cause for some creature to go extinct for some bizarre reason...  We won't know until it happens.  It would be great if wind energy and solar energy have no negative effects on the environment, but they might.

Technology is dangerous, but it can do good as well as bad.  If it wasn't for technological advancements, we would not have realized the problems that greenhouse gases are causing.  We are able to figure out problems, and fix them using technology.  If we hadn't had devices to monitor our environment, we wouldn't know that there was a problem until it was too late.  While we might not always use technology to make the best solutions to our problems, the fact that we can find the problems makes technology worth trusting.

I don't know if I am making sense here, or if you can understand what I am getting at, but let me know, and tell me what you think

Managing management

   We didn't get to talk about McWhorter's essay too much in class on Thursday, but there were some interesting points in it that I wanted to comment on. First, she brings up management. I remember learning about time management on the first day of 6th grade. My teacher explained there would be a lot more homework and a many more distractions in 6th grade, and that time management was a skill we needed to hone the sooner the better. If we didn't manage our time wisely, we would receive poor grades. In the beginning of high school, I learned about stress management. My health teacher talked about the dangers of not taking care of ourselves in times of high stress; the consequences being bad habits like smoking and drinking, even overeating. In adulthood, anger management is a term used often. If a person can't deal with their own anger and negative feelings, that person can become explosive, so watch out! And of course, in the nutrition world, the buzzword is "weight management." With all the management we feel obligated to practice, McWhorter wants to point out the need we feel to manage the earth. This also reminds me of the Land Ethics essay... all of this involves us acting upon the earth and changing it; managing it to fit our needs and wants. The interesting thing about management is that it completely relies on the person trying to manage. Outside influences are always present, but if that own self-will isn't there, management fails.

McWhorter also talks about revealing and concealing... not everything can be out in the open at once. Because we can only focus on one thing at a time, some things are forced to be concealed as others are revealed to us. In order to manage one thing, we need to ignore or put away another. I think this is the cool thing about studying nature and the environment in philosophy. We are challenged to put aside what we believe and take in the ideas of our instructor, fellow classmates, and historical philosophers. What do you guys think? What management do you see in your own life?

The Technology Craze

Advancements in technology are generally met with great praise and support. Over the years, our society has gradually morphed from one that seeks such changes out of necessity, to one that desire them for personal gains. For example, such personal fulfillments are viewed when people purchased newer modeled cell phones to replace the older models that they believe are “outdated.” Since the creation of the cell phone was inspired by the lack of efficient communication tools for those on the go, unnecessary updates to it does our society more harm than good. The same goes for all manufactured goods that are constantly upgraded or improved to place newer models of products on the market.

I know too many people who have replaced certain products just because they wanted to upgrade to newer or different model. One of my good friends actually did this with digital cameras. She was unable to hold onto one for more than 6 months because she always discovered a “cooler and more efficient” camera to use instead. Such a discovery would cause her to toss her relatively new, error-free camera away as if it was a bad habit. It would not end up in the hands of someone who could use one, or at an organization that would either recycle it or give it away to such a person. It would simply be disposed of and delivered to a landfill that is packed with good products that met similar fates.

If we expect to get the most usage out of our natural resources, we must reevaluate our needs and necessities. The outcome of their power struggle has a bigger impact on our environment than one may think. Sure, advances in technology are necessary to improve our standard of living, but if they are supplied or purchased for the personal gain of the individual rather than the collective group, they may pose potential problems over time. As we have already seen, nature can only tolerate our fascination with technological advancements for so long before it begins to crumble.