In My World...

Online Activity: Edward Burtynsky on manufactured landscapes
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html

Many things about this online video by "Ted"resonated with me. First I'd like to comment on the first few pictures of the open pit mines and other excavation areas. I have to agree with his comment that they are both horrifying yet eerily beautiful at the same time. This picture in particular reminds me of the artwork of Andy Goldsworthy which I blogged about last time. It's so symmetrical with a little splash of color in the bottom...But I feel sad for the real piece of natural art that had to die to make this mine possible. It's hard to believe there once was a mountain here. I was so appalled to see the California oil fields too. Rows and rows of oil wells on empty yellow dirt. I wonder what used to grow there and wish it grew there still.

Next he showed some pictures of materials being recycled. Scrap metal pressed into cubes stacked one on top of the other till it builds a huge wall. This reminded me of the movie Wall-e which is a great futuristic movie about what could happen to our planet if we don't take care of it. Wall-e the robot's job is to stack billions of metal cubes into huge pyramids, while the humans are in a spaceship because Earth is no longer fit to live on. I am honestly praying every day that that doesn't happen to our ancestors someday...but I'm not just praying. I feel happy to be taking personal responsibility and action as well.

I was very interested to hear about China's environmental struggles and living conditions because I am going there in May this year! I am going to be living with my cousin who is teaching English there, and not doing very many "touristy" things. I want to get a sense of what daily life is like in China. Judging from the movie, it doesn't seem very pleasant. However, my cousin loves it there, and tells me that there will be lots of opportunities to see where environmental action can be taken, which I'm very excited about. In any case, I was actually glad to see skyscrapers going up in China, instead of houses spreading out all over prime farmland as we do in Manitoba! What I found disturbing was the huge factories with the workers making widgets all day long, the "e-waste" and scrap metal being dumped there, and the Three Gorges Dam. It makes me unspeakably sad to see these people living this life...I am wondering, do they feel like their lives are meaningless? I think they probably don't, they probably feel that they are making a necessary sacrifice for their families; they are providing for them and are proud of that. I feel sad because there is no way those people are reaching their full creative potential, or were given an opportunity to ever do so.

I think that Ted is definitely full-filling his dream of reaching people through his photographs. I think he needs to continue his work, and hope that his wish comes true of making an IMAX movie. I also think that Andy Goldsworthy should make an IMAX movie! Wouldn't it be great to see a combined movie by them. Two very different viewpoints of our world, but perhaps ultimately trying to achieve the same goal...awareness of the world around us.

Managing Wapusk National Park

Blog Reflection:
1. Can parks meet their dual mandate of access for the public and protection?
2. How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

"Parks Canada is responsible for both protecting the ecosystems of these magnificent natural areas and managing them for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy in a way that doesn't compromise their integrity." (Parks Canada website)

The dual mandate of Parks Canada seems to conflict fundamentally. Protecting and preserving an ecosystem seems best done when humans have as little impact as possible. When humans come to an area they bring cars that pollute, maim and kill animals, throw garbage, light fires, and cause noise disturbances and more. At the same time, we want to encourage people to reconnect with nature, to come to appreciate and love the beauty of nature, and National Parks are a convenient place to do this, as wild spaces are getting fewer and fewer. We need to think of ways to balance the needs of wildlife and humans. The environment shouldn't be exploited solely for human enjoyment, but we should still get to participate, view, and enjoy it.

A great way bring more understanding to our generation is to start with the youngsters. I remember way back in Grade 6 my class did a whole unit on Riding Mountain National Park, learning about the animals and plants. We then took a field trip later in the year and got to see it for ourselves. More emphasis should be put on National Parks in the later years of education however. We didn't learn any more about our parks in the rest of my middle or high school education. Some schools are making this a priority though. I found a poster of Wapusk National Park created by a Grade 9 student from Ontario. I would like to see more education on National Parks put into the curriculum. I feel quite ashamed to say I had never heard of Wapusk until Prof. Hunter spoke about it in class.

Wapusk National Park by Nurin Merchant© Parks Canada

I have some ideas about how to minimize harm to our parks while still allowing people to enjoy them. One is to limit the amount of visitors/year that can come into the park. This would greatly reduce the amount of human disturbance. Similarly, the amount of power boats allowed onto a lake could also be limited to allow a balance between human enjoyment and disruption of the ecosystem. Of course the fines for littering, leaving unattended fires, feeding the animals etc. can always be increased to discourage this type of behaviour. Also we might consider completely isolating large areas of the park solely for wildlife, while leaving smaller areas on the fringes for humans.

As for Wapusk...it definitely needs more public awareness! I asked 5 of my friends if they had ever heard of it, and all said "no." They are all active citizens with university degrees too (a point just to show they aren't hermits who don't interact with the world!). I did see a commercial on TV recently that showed short clips from some National Parks, and Wapusk had a picture of a mama polar bear and her cubs. Although the name "Wapusk National Park" was in tiny font in the corner of the screen, so I don't think it did a very good job. I also searched Wapusk on youtube. I found a very cute video of polar bears again...but it only had 4,157 views! (See it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZKoTx5-bQ) This park is a hidden treasure and more people need to know about it! Not only will people want to visit, but they may also donate money to the Park for preservation etc. which I'm sure is always appreciated.

Wapusk is quite far north, and it is just would not be practical for a lot of people to be visiting. It would also have negative impacts on the environment from car/plane pollution. But there are other ways for us to enjoy the beauty of Wapusk. As I mentioned earlier, we could have more educational videos/documentaries available to us put together by scientists or other people who have been there. It definitely wouldn't be as amazing as visiting the area personally, but it's definitely better than nothing at all. I am just happy knowing that a place exists where the polar bears can have their cubs peacefully and undisturbed. I think many people would be content knowing that. We have many parks close by to enjoy, so I don't think any drastic measures need to be taken right now. In the future perhaps some tours could be arranged, so that everyone visiting travels together to minimize pollution, stay safe, and see all there is to see with a professional guide.


Works Cited:

Merchant, Nurin. Wapusk National Park. Available from: http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2007/06/page/4/ Jun.13/07. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.

Parks Canada. National Parks of Canada- Introduction. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/intro_e.asp Nov.10/08. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.

A Sand Country Almanac

Summary of Selection 4

Aldo Leopold first began to "think like a mountain" when he shot a wolf and watched it die. He began to understand the balance between wolf, deer, mountainside vegetation, and everything else in nature- a very holistic view. He realized that when all the wolves are gone the deer overgraze everything and ravage the mountain. This can also be applied to ranchers/farmers who allow their cows etc. to overgraze. We are all (animals, people, nature) striving for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and "dullness." But too much safety may lead to danger in the long run...

Our ethical criteria should be extended to the wilderness, including soils, waters, plants, and animals. As slaves were once considered only the property of humans, to be used or disposed of at will, the wilderness is now in a similar position. We need to correct this and give it ethical standing too. The Land Ethic is an extension of ethics to the land. It is an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. When there is a community mindset, our instincts lead us to competition, but our ethics prompt co-operation. Our community "boundry" needs to be enlarged to include the land!

Some obstaces to change are that our educational/economic system does not promote conciousness/connectedness to the land, we have no ecological training, and that our environmental issues are constantly being reduced to economics. Economics should not determine what all land is used for. What should determine it is our priorities, values, forethought, skills and time. The evolution of the land ethic is an intellectual and emotional process that must develop in our community. And like murder, abuse, theft, (etc.), poor treatment of the environment will recieve social disapproval, and good treatment social approval!

Aldo Leopold's classic Land Ethic quote:
"A thing is right when it tends to promote the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." (pg.12)

Principles of Conservation

Summary of Selection 3

Conservation principles first began with forestry practices. The conservation movement began in 1908 and still has it's roots in forestry. The first principle of conservation is development. Resources we have should be used for current generations. But we should use what we have in the least wasteful way. For example, we only have a limited supply of coal, which we should use (even use up if we have to) but we should do it in the least wasteful way; so we should perhaps use water travel instead of rail because it uses less coal. The second principle of conservation is prevention of waste. This involves realizing "what is in the control of men." For example, controlling forest fires which destroy "resources" (trees in this case). The third principle is that natural resources must be developed and preserved for the benefit of many (for the longest time), not for the profit of a few.

Conservation advocates the use of foresight, prudence, thrift and intelligence. The 3 principles- development, preservation, and the common good are applicable to many things such as mineral use, water, roads, and good citizenship. This is a common sense approach, when applied, will lead to national efficiency.

The Alberta Tar Sands

Blog Reflection: What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sands project? Continue current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?

Land degredation at the Alberta Tar Sands.

The Alberta Tar Sands, and oil drilling in any form in general, can not be the way of the future. The negative effects on the environment are huge. They impact air quality, strip and destroy the land, pollute the water systems, destroy wildlife habitat, disrupt and threaten the animals, and the input of energy (natural gas) to keep the refineries running is huge. There are also many social issues concerning humans- the lifestyle is far from ideal with the constant moving, drugs and alcohol abuse, high cost of living, poor housing, and isolation from friends and families. But regardless of all these horrible consequences that come from drilling/refining oil, there is one that should be convincing for everyone... whether they care about the environment or not. The reason we need to stop development is that the oil simply will not last. It is just not sustainable; it WILL eventually run out. To me it makes absolutely no sense to continue to put money, time, and resources into something you know will not last. All those resources should be put into developing sustainable forms of energy, changing our development style (for cities etc.), and our lifestyles.


I discussed this issue with a few of my cousins and Aunts and Uncles at our family supper we have every Sunday. Everyone seems to agree that the environmental and social issues are serious. They also all agreed that developing new kinds of renewable energy sources is a good idea. But my Uncle John and Uncle Mike mentioned that shutting down the tar sands would be bad economically and many jobs would be lost, so it really wouldn't be an easy thing to do. These seem like some major reasons why people would object to stopping development of the tar sands. But again, I think we have to get our heads around the fact that it really doesn't matter...those jobs WILL be lost someday whether we like it or not...either we close it voluntarily, or are forced to close because we've run out of oil. Shouldn't we do the smart thing and start our transition right now? There will be more jobs and money generated by the development and research!

Our world without oil (or at least greatly reduced consumption of it) means a lifestyle that is not dependant on cars. I now have experience with this as I gave up my car in October 2009 for 3 reasons: to save money, to stay healthy and get more exercise, and to help the environment. It has definitely been a success, and I see no reason why close to 100% of people living in the city couldn't adapt to this kind of lifestyle change given the proper development of the city and attitude! The goal should be to have all necessities within walking or short busing distance: grocery store, drug store, some restaurants, entertainment, gym, workplace, etc. But our cities have not been set up this way. Linden Woods and other developments like it have horrible bus systems and no ammenities around for long distances. Changing and redesigning this kind of neighborhood should be a priority for all cities. Our attitudes need to change as well. It feels so good now that I remember what my legs are really for. Nope, they're not for pressing down on the gas pedal...they're for running, walking, jumping, skating, dancing, swimming, cartwheeling, and everything in between! A life without dependance on oil (and cars) feels free and wonderful and healthy, and I'm optimistic that once people give it a chance and get used to it, they will love it!

The future of the Tar Sands is non-existant if you look far enough. Our future won't end with it, so we need to start preparing for that now! The transition doesn't have to be painful if we embrace a new "normal" and start to enjoy all the benefits it brings.

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Summary of Selection 26

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide gases have increased in our atmosphere as a result of human activities. CO2 is the most significant anthropocentric source, and has increased greatly since pre-industrial times; from 280ppm to 379ppm (2005). This is primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, but also from land use change. Methane has increased from 715ppb (pre-indust.) to 1774ppb (2005), due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Nitrous oxide is also way up from 270ppb to 319ppb, also mostly due to agriculture. All the pre-industrial levels were found using ice cores. The net effect of anthropogenic cooling and warming influences on the climate have a net warming effect. The warming influences include: radiative forcing due to CO2, CH4, NO2, tropospheric ozone, halocarbons, surface albedo and solar irradiance. Some cooling influences are aerosols and cloud albedo forcing.

There are many direct observations scientists have made about climate change. Some more significant ones are:
-a linear warming trend
-increased water vapour in air
-increased average ocean temperature
-decreased glaciers and snow cover
-decrease in the ice sheets of the Antarctic and Greenland
-increased global sea level
There have also been many changes observed in the Arctic. These include changes in temperature and ice levels, permafrost, precipitation, ocean salinity, wind patterns, extreme weather, heat waves and cyclones. These global and Arctic trends will all increase as global warming increases. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will slow and temperature will increase in this area. It is very likely that all these are due to human activity and would not have happened on its own.

A 0.2C increase in temperature/decade is estimated from models, depending on whether current levels are kept constant, increase, or decerase (best-worst scenario estimate). All the effects (in above paragraph) will continue for centuries because of the long timescales of chemical climate processes/feedbacks, even if we stabilized greenhouse gas concentrations now. Removal of CO2 etc. from the atmosphere takes a long time so we will continue to have negative effects. There are some limitations on models due to lack of information and due to the nature of climate change, it is very unpredictable, but this is the best understanding we have currently.

Reinventing the Energy System

Summary of Selection 16

In the 19th century it was impossible for the people to imagine how fossil fuels and other advances might change their futures and the environment. Now, our futurists have a hard time seeing a more convenient, reliable, and affordable source of energy than fossil fuels. Since they provide 90% of the energy in industrialized countries and 75% worldwide, they seem irreplaceable. But we are in an energy transition period, and our future will be much different. It will be high efficient, and decentralized, using renewable resources such as the sun and wind, with hydrogen as a possible fuel source.

We have built our economy on trends that cannot possibly be sustained for another century. Oil reserves will not last to the end of the 21st century. The extraction of non-renewable resources such as oil follow a bell curve and we are reaching the peak (now to 10 years from now). China and India need more oil for their developments - except it won't be available.

Environmental (air, water, and land degredation) and health burdens of using fossil fuels may force us to develop a cleaner energy system. They also cause CO2 levels to rise leading to global warming/climate change. We need to cut emissions by 60-80%. Our growing economy's demands may not be met by the energy system that helped launch it! This also happened in the 18th century in Great Britian. We need systemic change in many areas. Some areas of development are silicon semi-conductor chips, sturdy light weight materials through chemical and materials science, lighting (LED lights) and many more. Advanced wind power systems are being designed by Dutch engineers which are very economically competative. Other developing technologies are the solar-photovoltaic cell, which converts the sunds radiation into an electric current; and the thermophotovoltaic cell, which makes electricity from industrial waste heat. The Fuel Cell is also very promising. It uses an electrochemical process that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce water and electricity. It is twice as efficient as conventional engines, has no moving parts, requires little maintenance, is silent, and emits only water vapour! It needs work though, currently it uses natural gas...but eventually hopefully it will run on pure hydrogen through electrolysis.

Solar-hydrogen-wind resources are more abundant and evenly distributed among countries throughout the world. Nations do not need to be large and powerful to find a strategic niche in the system. (ex. the Dutch and their wind power) Developing nations may just "leapfrog" over the 20th century systems and start using the new renewable technologies. Our previous system has lead to a great imbalance in social well-being. A new system that is a decentralized, renewable-resource based energy system has a better chance of being fair.

Our "high-energy" society is not sustainable. We need to reduce our energy consumption and change our lifestyles. We need to exercise our democratic rights and demand change! The sooner the hydrocarbon era ends the better...for people (here and in developing countries), the environment, and future generations!

More Profit With Less Carbon

Summary of Selection 15

Using energy more efficiently will reduce costs for everyone. Many businesses have already proven this fact. There does not necessarily have to be a trade off between the environment and the economy. Decarbonization can mean an increase in efficiency.

There is much inefficiency at all levels of energy production, distribution and consumption that can be changed! There are many more energy efficient products that are now inexpensive and commonplace. For example, there are amazing technologies that can allow you to do without a conventional heating system at all (in -40C weather!). Smart construction design can allow for huge energy savings- they can structure a whole building to cool or heat which will only use a fraction of the energy. Energy efficiency does not mean curtailment, discomfort or privation!

Transportation consumes 70% of US oil and makes 1/3 total carbon emissions. They are very inefficient, but lightweight materials, propulsion and aerodynamics can help to make huge improvements. Rocky Mountain Institute's (RMI) analysis shows that full adoption of efficient vehicles, buildings, and industries could cut US oil use to half by 2025! (to pre 1970 levels) That is $70 billion saved every year! There are alternate fuel supplies available/being developed, such as ethanol and carbon natural gas. There are many other benefits too; reduced military conflict, reduced price volatility, reduced fiscal and diplomatic distortions and reduced pollution. We would also need to change our development patterns to reduce urban sprawl. If all ammenities were within a 5 minute walk we would not need our cars much at all.

Global warming is cheaper to fix than ignore. The competitive global economy actually promotes sensible energy investment; the market will naturally favor the right choices!

Reflection on the Artwork of Andy Goldsworthy

(Online Activity)

First I have to say, his art gives me the shivers! I think the child in me finds it very thrilling because I used to play in the forest a lot when I was a kid, and I can just imagine how I would feel to come upon something like that in the woods. I would immediately think, "magic!!!" I want to call him a real, live fairy!

I think he can make such beautiful art is because he truly feels connected to nature, and a part in it. He puts so much time and effort into building each piece, carefully and slowly...and yet he knows full well how fragile it is, and that it might only last a few hours, or even moments, when a gust of wind blows it all away. After this happened to one of his pieces, he said, "I am so amazed at times that I am actually alive." I think what he is really saying is that he recognizes that he is just as fragile as his artwork. All life is just this way, isn't it? Beautiful and fragile and very temporary. Realizing this, I don't feel afraid. I feel more free than ever; free to pursue what I consider the most important things in life, and not get so caught up in the other things.

It seems to me that the way he does art is a good example for how we should treat the land. He only uses supplies that he finds locally. He doesn't do any damage to the environment, and any changes he does make are returned relatively shortly. He treats the land reverently.

Have you heard of post-Avatar depression? Here is a link to an article about it: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Basically the depression comes after watching Avatar and comparing our "gray" world to the colorful, vibrant world of Pandorum (the planet Avatar takes place on.) Apparently there are a lot of people feeling this way. "When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning….I live in a dying world." I think that this depression is doubly sad because...newsflash!! We DO live in a vibrantly, beautiful world and it's all there for you to experience if you just reach out for it! And I just think that Andy Goldsworthy's art shows that off perfectly. Everyone here is so lucky to be free to go and live where-ever they choose...So if you are finding the city life too "gray" then move to the country! You wouldn't have to use an outhouse or anything, either! (haha) In any case, there is a lot of beauty to be found in the city if you really take a good look; I've been taking some time out of my day to admire the frost on the trees as I walk to the bus stop, for example. If you aren't looking for it, you might miss some fairy artwork hidden amongst the branches.


References:
Mashable. Post-Avatar Depression Hits Fans. Found at: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Retrieved on: Feb.5/10.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being

Summary of Selection 12

Ecosystems provide everything for us; food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual and aesthetic fulfillment. 60 % of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. There is established evidence that the changes we have made to the ecosystem are accelerating, abrupt, and/or irreversible. The harmful effects of this degredation are borne disproportionately by the poor of the world. The problem is growing worse and worse in every area. HUGE changes are required but are not currently underway. There is a long list of responses needed to manage and save ecosystems. For example, substantial changes in institutions and governance, economic policies and so on.

The structure and functioning of the world's ecosystems is changing more rapidly than any time in human history. The loss of biodiversity (irreversible changes), genetic diversity lost, number of species lost- has all been to meet the demands of the human race (for food, water, timber, fiber, fuel, ect.) Scenarios of "plausible futures" have been developed. They are Global Orchestration, Order from Strength, Adapting Mosaic and Techno Garden. Although it is very hard to accurately predict the future. (And there is no scenario for "doing practically nothing" which is what we are currently doing...) The United Nations has Millenium Development Goals to improve human well-being (such as reducing poverty). But this can't be done without improved management of ecosystems. For example, to solve world hunger issues of climate, soil degredation and water availability must be addressed.

Our past actions to help ecosystems have been effective but have not kept pace with the speed of degredation/demand. The degredation cannot be lowered unless these "drivers of change" change:
-population growth
-economic activity
-sociopolitical factors
-cultural factors
-technological change
There are many barriers to this problem...the outcome looks bleak...

Will Hurricane Katrina Impact Shoreline Management?

Summary of Selection 11

Hurricane Camille in 1969 was very similar to recent Hurricane Katrina. The coastal science community recognizes that hurricanes like this have happened before and will happen again. Dauphin Island, which is devastated by every hurricane that comes through is continually rebuilt. This seems very irrational- a waste of money and resources. Yet development of beachfront property is actually increasing despite the devastation. There are 2 views about this issue:
1) The US should systematically retreat from the oceanfront.
2) Government spending should be increased for beach nourishment/replenishment.
There are several problems with the 2nd view. The reconstructed beach decieves people into thinking it is safe. Beach replenishment is NOT property damage control (it will not protect against 10m storm surges.) Environmentally, pumping sand onto the beach destroys all the native organisms. And lastly, the cost for this is paid by taxpayers who do not benefit from it at all - the people who benefit are the "destroyers" of the beach (oceanfront developers and property owners) who make it more vulnerable to natural disasters.

The situation is and will be getting worse with increased amounts and intensity of storms due to global warming. Therefore it's time to cut our losses and run from the especially vulnerable areas at least.
There are several obstacles preventing this:
1) Suggesting that some people not be allowed to rebuild seems callous or uncompassionate. (Although it is not suggested that all aid be removed!)
2) Abandoning a community is viewed as defeatist/anti-development/unAmerican. (Or is this just proud insanity?)
3) Coastal development is good for the economy. (If it's so profitable then they shouldn't need federal funding!)
4) Property rights have been used as leverage. (In this case, they should take personal responsibility for their decision to live in an area that is known to have natural disasters on a regular basis!!)

We need a commission to objectively determine which coasts to retreat from (pull federal support), possibly called the Shoreline Retreat Advisory Commission. We also need to address what to do about the Louisiana wetlands and Barrier Island coastal degredation that is largely human induced. It should be clear that restoration would not help reduce the impact of hurricanes. Also the root cause of wetland loss must be addressed to truly help the wetlands. Scientific knowledge brings societal responsibility! Scientists with the knowledge need to make the facts known and speak out and participate in the debate to help rethink our national coastal policy.


This article made me think about our own flooding situation here in Winnipeg. Every year there is some minor flooding and we know that there will be major floods coming again as they have many times in the past. A lot of money, time, and resources are spent by the city every time this happens to protect those homes. Should we try to implement something similar and retreat a bit from the rivers? I think it actually makes a lot of sense!!

Environmental Ethics

Blog Reflection:
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Biocentric? Ecocentric?

I have taken many philosophy classes and one that I enjoyed a lot was the Ethics of the Environment. That class was a huge mental journey for me and my initial feelings (which were anthropocentric) are now quite different...and I'd like to share a bit of that journey with you.

Anthropocentrism as defined in class was "seeing human beings as central (essential and most significant) on Earth." In my ethics class this was taken even further, meaning only humans have moral standing. When something has moral status it means they deserve the protection of "moral norms," has rights, can be morally wronged, and has intrinsic value (has value in and of itself, and it not to be valued simply for its uses). It was hard for me to break this belief within myself because, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, I was raised a Catholic...and one of the key teachings if that humans are above all the other animals because they alone have a soul, which grants only humans moral status and intrinsic value. But when I really started to think about it...I really and truly believe that animals and plants have intrinsic value too, not just instrumental value (the value of an object lies not in the object itself, but in the uses to which that object can be put). Right now I am not so sure about the "soul" part. But I am definitely not anthropocentric.

Biocentrism ascribes all life with ethical standing. I feel that there is a problem with it. This theory seems to give each individual life form moral status. But how could we survive if we were to give every tree and animal the same moral status as us? Are we not allowed to chop down a tree to build a house, or eat a cow or plant because it would be considered murder? This doesn't seem practical at all, or even similar to how nature works. In nature every organism within it takes and gives, in a balanced way.

Ecocentrism gives moral standing to the whole ecological system. Basically this means that individual members can be treated as resources as long as the community itself is respected. This holistic viewpoint makes much more sense to me. With ecocentrism I view humans as just another animal in the food web. We can take what we need, just as all the other animals and plants and organisms do. But the well-being of the entire system must be respected and taken care of.

I really feel that ecocentrism/deep ecology is becoming my new religion! I love philosophy because you get to take a critical look at why you believe what you believe...and often times there isn't a good basis for it, or that there is a better thing to believe in that you didn't know about, or you find out that what you believed in was having negative impacts you didn't realize. The hardest and bravest thing to do when you discover what you thought you knew was "wrong" is to embrace change; embrace a better way even if some people think you are crazy and your parents think you're going to Hell. The more people start to think the way you do, the less crazy you will be...and I'm proud to be some of the first.



Reference:
Desjardins, Joseph. Environmental Ethics (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,
2006)

The Tragedy of the Commons

Summary of Selection 7

There is no technical solution to our environmental and population problems. Adam Smith's belief, "...the individual who intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote...the public interest" is very very wrong! The thought experiment of "the tragedy of the commons" shows that man is trapped in a system that compels us to increase our possessions, money, resources, etc. without limit - in a world that is limited. Our commonly owned resources are thereby doomed to destruction. Grasslands (overgrazed), oceans, lakes (overfished), and our National Parks (which are being degraded by constand visitors) are the "Commons." Pollution of the air, water, and land is like a reverse tragedy- instead of overusing something, we put pollution into the commonly shared areas.

These issues are linked in a major way to overpopulation. We should not allow unlimited breeding because this puts a strain on the commons and thee is no "natural" process to curb human population growth. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has declared "...any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself..." but this is only harmful to the human race. It should be rethought. We can't depend on people's conscience's to do the right thing, because people vary greatly- some inevitably will do it, but a lot won't.

It is necessary to set up a form of "mutual coersion" to control use of the commons. This could be a system similar to our tax system...which none of us love, but accept as necessary for the benefit of everyone. It doesn't need to be a perfect system, just better than the one we have right now! We have improved our situation slightly by limiting the commons in some areas (private property, restricting hunting and fishing etc.) but we must take this further. We must also deal with overpopulation immediately by recognizing the necessity of the restriction and enjoy the freedom of a healthy planet, rather than freedom to breed.

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

Summary of Selection 6

All forms of life change and affect their environment. Humans have been affecting it very far back into history; but ever since the 1800s when the Industrial Revolution happened, we have been affecting it in an exponentially drastic way. We would like to examine society's way of thinking by looking historically at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science.

Most technology currently used across the globe is Western. These technological and scientific movements got their "start, character, and foothold" in the Middle Ages. At that time new "plow technology" allowed the peasants to till much more soil than the previous scratch plows. The teachings of Christianity influenced man to believe that man rightfully dominates nature- a very anthropocentric view. Early scientists explained their motivations to be theological-showing our science and technology stems from Christianity as well. Based on this we can see our ecological problems won't be solved by science and technology since it's basis is largely anthropocentric.

St. Fransis of Assisi was a spiritual revolutionary in the Christian faith. He attempted to change the idea of man being superior- to all creatures being equal. Sadly, he failed. But we should carry on his work and spirit as ecologists.