Stewardship

Looking over my notes from class, one statement that I have jotted down is "Adopting the assumption that if all living things were treated as we treat humans, the world would be a better place". That really stuck out to me. I am a firm believer in the beliefs of preservation and the ethical treatment of animals, but I am also a believer in the food chain. I don't think that animals should be treated in the same manner that humans are. Now that doesn't mean that I am not a fan of the Endangered Species Act or that I don't think that we should do all we can to preserve a species's habitat, but I do think that the human species is on the top of the food chain. We are the dominant predators and should thus act in a sustainable manner toward that goal. For thousands of years man lived off the land, hunting - that is only human nature. I think that we should follow suit in a sustainable way. Humans are the dominant species on the Earth and we need to take care of it in such a manner. Stewardship is a concept that we should be focusing on as a species, and if we could parallel that thought with sustainability I think that the species as a whole would be in a much better place. Humans are also animals and we should work within our food chain acting in that manner - respecting animals, but also not losing the fact that we are not better than other animals- just different.

Russow

One major takeaway, for me, from this week's readings was the fact that I really didn't like Russow's claim. I understood her general hypothesis, but for me it wasn't enough to agree with her. It's agreeable that duty can't be assigned to a class and really only to persons - but then I don't think that duty was the correct term to be using in her essay. One of my major complaints about her argument is her failure to include a value system to appropriate which duties are given to each species. If she is going to make that a part of her argument in deciding duty, she should briefly explain why she thinks some animals would get a "weaker or stronger" duty. I think by doing that she would be better able to attract people to her warrants. Another issue I have with her argument is that if you have two individuals of the same species, how can you decide to which one do you owe more duty? Because you really can't do that it would only be logical to have the same duty to each member of that community - which in turn is allowing community duties, undermining her entire argument; as does the value of habitat. How can you give duty to an animal without giving duty to its immediate habitat as well? I can appreciate Russow's argument for what it is, but I just don't think that I will be jumping on the aesthetic value of animals any time in the near present.

Ethics and the Great Muir/ Pinchot Debate

As an environmental studies major, you learn - in almost every class- about the debate between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Muir was a preservationist who was the founder of the Sierra Club and Pinchot was the first director of the Forest Service. In Ramachandra Guha's piece, both Muir and Pinchot were brought up which caused me to think about them in a more philosophical way than I normally do, as I think about this great men often. I think it is funny to mention that though Muir and Pinchot had a rivalry in how to deal with the lands of the United States, they were actually really good friends until they got into a huge public argument in the lobby in a Seattle hotel about the grazing of sheep on mountains and the destruction,or lack thereof depending on whose view you are taking, and never spoke again. But looking at there views on the environment as preservation (Muir) v. conservation (Pinchot), isn't that in all essence just a ethically debate about an anthropocentric view on the environment versus an non anthropocentric one? Muir wanted to preserve the land, just to preserve the land, just to have it. Pinchot wanted to protect the environment in order to use it for human gain through the means of logging, grazing, ect. Isn't this in all reality just a debate about how we should look at the environment? I never have thought about it in those terms before, and I am really glad I did- it has given me a new outlook on two men I thought I knew almost everything about.

BioPrefernces

One topic that really intrigued me this week was the thought of bio-preferences. Personally, I think that it is a great way to think when regarding consideration. I have been thinking a lot about the thought that preference is more important that consciousness; and I believe that if there could be a strong division between what is alive and what is not, this could be a really strong belief system. It is true that the whole point of life is trying to stay alive, so wouldn't make sense that moral consideration should be given to all that strive to keep on living? I understand the ramifications that come with thought when you get into objects that are not living, but in a sense maybe these non-living things shouldn't get moral consideration, but respect. I really like the thought of bio-preferences, despite the compilations that come with it. I have been giving it a lot of though lately and personally it makes a lot of sense.

Deep Ecology

Through our reading I came across a really interesting idea. It was that "bioregions should replace nation-states as the fundamental geographical unit in terms of which humans think and live." I gave this idea a lot of thought and to me it seems to make sense. This would of course would never be realistic in today's society with set in place nations, but the idea as a whole would be comprehensible. People living in the same bioregion are obviously more likely to have similar traditions, views, and religious beliefs. Look for instance at the United States. The climate of New England is dissimilar from that of the more southern states, as are a lot of the traditions, views, and religious beliefs. Would this make sense for larger countries to be divided into bioregions or for smaller countries to expand and combine to form these bioregion nations? Bioregion nations would also have the same concerns when it comes to the environment as it is the same climate with the same kinds of vegetation throughout. I feel like these bioregions would make it easier to govern, especially when it came to environmental policy.