Kestrel Movie

I wonder if anyone else thought it was weird to see people walking down the street, working on a house, or just jogging down a country lane from an animals perpective. After watching that movie, I thought to myself how forgein human beings must be to the rest of the animal kingdom. the Kestrels went about their business because that was what was needed to survive. They had to hunt, protect their nest, and nuture their offspring just as we humans do but they never flew off into the sky for the fun of it. I think we need to realize how good we have it now. technology has helped us come a long way from the dark ages i think we'd all agree but technology also needs to be used responsibly. Just because we can drive doesn't always mean we should if you catch my drift. I just hope all these advances in technology dont make us lazy or take little things like drving for granted because if we do we will end up back in the dark ages. Responsible use of energy and resources will help us maintain this pretty much care free world we live in. If you're hungry, there's a grocery store with prepackaged food. If you're cold, there is a building with heat inside. if you want to go somewhere, there's a car or a bus that will take you. But once all of these things disappear you can be sure life wont be so easy. Who else that that bell was annoying...wonder how the kestrels felt about that??

Of Humans and (Other) Animals

When I first heard about the idea of giving animals the same rights as human beings, I found it difficult to compare the two. I believed that animals should not be treated cruelly; however, I never thought of them as "on par" with humans. As Kohak states, we live in a world of hypocrisy and denial - we suppress the abuse being done to animals to such a degree that we rarely acknowledge the damage being done. After reading Kohak's section "Of Humans and (Other) Animals," I found that I agreed with giving animals human rights more than I thought I would. Kohak states that "[animals] have their own world and life, their social order, their understanding and feelings, they know pain and joy and a whole range of feelings which were used to assigning only to humans" (17). When animals are decribed as living similarly to humans and having communities, emotions and worlds of their own, it is hard to imagine abusing them and depriving them of rights. Simply because they cannot communicate the same way that humans do and do not live exactly as humans live is not a valid reason to demean the value of animals. It is a hard-hitting reality that we humans are not the center of the world, but rather "one animal species among many" (17). Despite the fact that all animal species are so different (including different cultures of humans), it is important to have respect for the individual worlds and lives that each species engages in. If we continue to disregard animal rights, we are endangering ourselves as well as the whole world. If we do not make room for other species, we are killing valuable species whose natural purpose is important to the health of the world. Now that we have a more modern and, dare I say, "enlightened" understanding of the need for coexistence and mutual respect, it is very important to apply these lessons to our lives and end imperialistic attitudes as well as hypocritical attitudes. One of the major things that is needed is to educate people on respect and on how animals are being harmed so that we can spread understanding and compassion towards other species.

Kestrel Movie

The movie we viewed in class was very different than what I was expecting to see. In the beginning I was confused and not very interested, but as the film went on I found myself engaging into the story of the male and female birds. I was amazed at the point of view of the film in that it was from that of the bird. I almost felt as if there was another bird somewhere out of sight looking at the male and female bird as well as noticing the little action from the humans around the church. I liked the idea that the bird would see someone planting flowers or hear someone start the car without it being too disturbing. The neighborhood was relatively calm and had very little going on throughout the film which is very different than many other areas of the world. This film showed an ideal enviornment for both the humans and the birds. Differing from other movies about animals, the main focus was on the lives of the 2 birds and there was a story built upon this idea rather than making a story about humans involving animals. Every action made by the birds was noticed by this "all seeing bird" and the other 2 birds, but not the humans. However, and perhaps the point of the movie, every single action made by the humans was noticed by the birds. This reiterates the point that the human way of life without a doubt affects nature. We need to be more self conscious of what we do and we need to understand how it is decreasing the population of many animals.

kohak 1

While reading the book, I became very interested in what Kohak was saying about humans and their pets and the points he made in regards to our oblivion toward other animals living in our enviornment. Page 20 closes with an impacting statement: "...we gush love at our pets and prefer not to ask where our meat and make-up come from." As a pet owner, I immediately related to Kohak's comment, but also felt guilty due to it's truth. I deeply care for my dog and provide it with more than it's basic needs, but never consider the other animals that are less privileged - because of mine and the rest of humankind's actions. I actually realized that in feeding my dog pig ears and rawhides I am accepting the vicious cycle that leaves livestock less fortunate. Kohak points out that humans try to justify their actions in regards to destroying nature and killing these animals as a means of survival and economic stimulus. Yes, this is true, and yes, this is part of life, but there are different, more eco friendly ways we can go about doing so.

I would honestly be horribly sad if anything ever happened to my dog, as would many dog owners, but I now realize through my reading that I need to take a closer look at the problems other animals endure and do my part (which I hope to better understand through Kohak) to aid in the movement to provide better conditions for these animals.

I am very interested in this book, in large part for my love of animals. Kohak has already plunged into his topics within the first part of the book and has grabbed my attention. I am excited to see how his ideas play out.

Response to Kestrels

The movie Kestrels was not exactly what I thought it would be from what Dr. Langguth said. The movie did not have much action. I also got confused at first on what exactly was going on, but as the movie went on, the plot became somewhat clear. The distinction between the male and the female birds was not clear until they mated and the female laid the eggs. I thought it was interesting how much work the male put into the nest even though the female did not stay in the nest very long and was only in the nest when she needed to lay the eggs then left. The male also did all the hunting but didn’t get to eat what he caught because he gave everything to the female. Also, I noticed the female only laid an egg after she ate something. The view of the people and other life provided a different way of looking at things, but I don’t think that it provided much insight into the things that happen. I figured the movie would show more of how humans impacted the environment and other animals than it did. The movie did provide me with a small amount of further knowledge about how a bird views the world. I could see how some of the things that humans do would seem odd to birds who don’t understand the human world. This movie made me think about what the birds were actually thinking when they saw the things they did. For example, what do they think cars are or what do they think the people were doing in the cemetery or what does the sound of the car alarm mean? I think the movie would have been better if they gave a guess on what the animals were thinking about what they saw. Also, I think they could have showed more than just the mating of the kestrels. I did think the hunting was interesting because of how the kestrel could just float in the air without moving in any direction and how they can see the small animals like the mouse and the lizard. Overall, I thought the movie was just average and could use some improvements in order to provide a better response.

In class movie

The movie we watched in class was different from anything I have seen before. Although it was not the most exciting movie ever made it was interesting in other ways. For example I thought it was interesting how the bird’s lives differed from the humans in the film. The birds were concerned about survival and feeding each other. There also was an emphasis on the birds caring for their young. The bird’s whole life seems to revolve around survival and nothing else. But on the other hand the people you saw in the film were doing activities such as walking dogs or little tasks. I thought this was interesting because it seems our daily lives revolve around different things other that survival. For example our lives are so comfortable we don’t need many survival instincts. The birds on the other hand do not have this luxury. The way the birds perceived the people was also fascinating. It was almost as the people were just merely in the background instead of perceived as individuals. This is exactly the same way people perceive animals as merely a background and not as individuals. So although the movie was not to exciting it really puts things into perspective about human and animal lives.

Kestrel Movie

Like many others, I thought this movie was very interesting. I have never seen a movie where it was based on animals. It was interesting to see how the Kestrel survived. The part that struck me the most was how the Kestrel looked at humans. It never occured to me that animals saw us in such a way. It made it seem that the human activity was of no importance because the Kestrels were just worried about surviving. I don't think I would have watched this movie if it wasn't in class. Now that I have seen it, it gives me a whole new look on animals and how they live.

Kestrel Movie

Like everyone else has said, this is movie was very different than any other that I have seen. As a science major I am used to observing and studying how other species live. I have never really thought of animals observing us in the same way. I have always thought of animals being intertwined with our lives. We all know that they do not keep records of our activities like humans do them but I question if it evens register with them at how different they are from us. Do animals have the mental capacity and reasoning to understand our culture?

Movie

As many others have stated, the movie was unlike anything I had ever seen. To be perfectly honest, I would never have watched this in my free time. As we left class, I really had no idea what I could write about the on the video. It has literally taken me a couple days to reflect. I have came realize the movie was not purely about kestrels. Instead, it was a template for comparison between human activity and kestrel activity. Without the humans in the background, the video would take on a whole new meaning. I found it very thought provoking to compare the daily life of a kestrel against human daily activity. Humans were more geared toward emotional, visual, and aesthetic matters. The kestrels on the other hand were focused on survival and reproducing. Obviously, the kestrels had different nature-driven priorities than did the humans. The yard work around the cemetery is not done out of survival, but respect. As far as I know, birds do not show this same type of behavior. It is a possibility that humans have made survival so easy for themselves, that working towards these emotional, visual, and aesthetic pleasures has become possible without jeopardizing the survival of the species. Whether the differences put humans on a higher level philosophically, I have no idea.

Kestrel Movie

I thought that the movie was very different from anything I've ever seen. I've never sat down and watched a movie without an words or commentary, and only sounds from an animal. Normally, it wouldn't be something I would choose to watch on my own free time, which is why it's good it was shown to our class because many other people probably wouldn't either. It gave the class the chance to just sit back and listen to nature without the sounds of the city or people. It was very peaceful to watch. It was interesting how the bird just watched and observed the people walking or running by. The Kestrel had no worries or obligations, just finding food and laying it's eggs. It was interesting watching the bird laying it's eggs each individually. I figured a bird layed it's eggs all at one time, not one at a time. The movie gave us a chance to just stop and think about things other than our hectic and crazy lives.

movie

The movie we watched today in class was very interesting and unique. I have not seen a movie like this before. The movie did not have any lines in it, only sounds. Not very often do people just sit outside and just listen. People are so caught up in things they never stop and listen to things. This movie did that for people. It followed the life of two birds at the beginning, but ended with babies being hatched. This movie showed the life of the birds and what they do to survive.
This movie was great in showing the daily lives of birds. It showed the one bird going out and catching food to bring back to the other bird who was looking over the nest. People never have the chance to see the daily lives of animals except pets. People never really see the daily lives of wild animals. This movie gave the opportunity to do that. It tried to give a better understanding of what birds see, hear and do.

Movie 1-22-09

The movie we watched today was very different from the normal movie that I would watch. It was very interesting how the Kestrel lived. The bird lived in the same area for many season and didn't go far for its needs. It would go to the field for food and it lived in the building for shelter. It shows that an animal can be happy if it has the basic needs unlike us humans. We travel all over to acquire our needs and some how we are still unhappy. Maybe we should look at the Kestrel way of life and apply it to ours.

I also thought it was interesting how the Kestrel observed the humans around the church. The area seemed calm, not really busy, and somewhat undisturbed . It seemed that the human were did not cause much disruption for the most part unlike my neighborhood.The bird observed rituals that are normal to us, but it must seem odd to them. And that is how I actually felt when I was watching the Kestrel. It's daily rituals may seem normal to it, but it seem odd to me. I am wondering what is next in the movie. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Kestrel

The movie today was interesting on many levels, not the least of which being the pure novelty of the idea. The part that struck me the most, however, was how the movie portrayed humans. Humans were seen throughout the movie performing tasks which must have seemed absurd to the kestrels. The kestrels went about their daily business all the while the human world went on around them. They did not seem oblivious to the human world, but aloof from it. Even though the kestrels lived inside a human structure, their contact with humans was minimal.
The world of the kestrels was not separate from the humans; on the contrary the kestrel’s world was shaped by humans almost entirely. The food they ate was gathered from cultivated fields, they lived in human structures and they were subject to human annoyances such as sirens. Also humans always seemed to be doing frivolous things like sweeping or kicking soccer balls, where as the kestrels were trying to survive and have a family.
Another interesting aspect of the movie was the novel concept of making speechless birds the stars. The birds managed to display complex personalities and create drama without the use of speech, or for that matter any real music. Unlike most nature movies or shows there is no forced drama in this movie from things like a wolf chase or other natural dangers. So far this movie seems to be pretty much about the normal day to day of a kestrel what ever that might be.

In Class Movie

Today the movie we watched in class was very interesting. While watching people and other things from a bird's eye view was very unique and something that I have never experienced, the end of the movie with the baby birds was the most interesting. After the bird fed the baby birds that were already hatched, it broke another egg open and carried it out by its foot. While I know the bird was trying to protect its baby, it just seemed as though it was being very rough with it. This is one way in which people are very unlike animals and a way in which people do not understand animals. Most animals are rough with their young and this is just the way in which they survive. People on the other hand are very careful with their children. I personally think this is one reason why people don't particularly think of animals as equal or even a bit important. Even though animals are rough with their young, they are trying to protect them and let them grow well, people have a hard time understanding how they can do this.

Life's Intrinsic Value

Kohak presents a touchy subject for debate when he addresses animal rights and the responsibility (or lack thereof) that humans have toward animals. I have to concede that, though the analogy is rather disturbing, Kohak's comparison of human attitudes toward animals and the Nazi attitudes toward Jews is eerily accurate. So often, animals are given the status of, well, "only an animal" rather than being on par with human life. Why is it that humans devalue animal life, rather than seeing its value as life in itself? If life has intrinsic value, then animals shouldn't be designated to "only."It's arguable that Kohak is right on target when he claims that humans are simply specieist and this is perhaps understandable, given the little contact with many animal species we have today. The extent of our contact is largely limited to dogs, cats, and the occasional hamster or bird (oh, and we can't forget fish). This could account for our repulsion to the idea of eating dog, but the unflinching acceptance at consuming pork chops (and, by the way, pigs have been found to be more intelligent than dogs. They have the cognitive understanding of two year olds in most cases).
Even when pets are considered, there are still many who designate animal life as less than that of humans. I suppose that even this can be understood, for humans lack the ability to relate to so many other species. We tend to feel compassion for those who are most like us, hence the aversion many have to killing cute, fuzzy mammals and the lack of inhibition at killing something like bugs or fish. They're just so far removed from us "evolutionally". An may give the argument that animal life isn't as valuable, for animals are obviously "less intelligent." They don't speak, they don't build, they don't and can't do so many of the things that humans can do. But one must also consider that not all humans have the capacity to do those things either. Few would doubt that a mentally disabled child has just the same right to life as a normally functioning child. Whether it be asberger's or down syndrome, to even degenerative diseases like tay-sachs, few would argue that those lives are valuable. Now consider that the orangutan could possibly be more communicative, more innovative, more productive than the human vegetable. There are many opposed to euthanasia, but far fewer opposed to animal testing. Is one truly more utilitarian than another?
Even if humans were truly superior (which, I highly doubt, given our almost universal handicap when dumped out in the wilderness. Honestly, if it came down to survival in the wild, humans would fall more than a few rungs on the totem pole) it shouldn't give us the right to indistcriminantly mistreat nonhuman life. Kohak says it best when he claims that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Assuming that we were superior beings, we are obligated to use the judgement that other beings lack to be above such things as cruelty. We know better and should act accordingly.

Weighing the Importance: Ecology or Astroid?

In class, we discussed the occurrence of a possible asteroid impact and its consequences in comparison to the consequences of Global Warming. Obviously, an asteroid impact would lead to more immediate consequences, as Global Warming would cause more indirect and less immediate consequences. Scientist today, say that the data shows our planet is undergoing a warming cycle. It is believed that this warming cycle is a result of human carelessness. Because of the nature of the consequences of the two events in question, our society is more likely to work to prevent an asteroid impact. There are several things we all must consider when jumping to conclusions on how unethical our society is when it comes to dealing with Global Warming. First of all, if an asteroid of decent size were to impact Earth, the entire realm of life as we know it would be over. Our technology can do nothing to protect us from the initial shock wave, the initial heat wave, nor the following cooling cycle. An asteroid impact would equate to the possibility of a total extinction of our species. Global Warming on the other hand would certainly lead to a loss of biodiversity, which would be a catastrophe. In terms of human consequences, the warming of our planet would most definitely lead to a change in lifestyle, however not necessarily an extinction of our species. Another factor to consider is the age of this science. The specifics of global warming have not been fully understood. In addition, we know that our planet has undergone multiple, major climate changes throughout its 4.5 billion year history. Instead of harshly condemning our society as ecologically unethical, we need to consider all the factors. In my opinion we should not have to stop our consumption of goods (including oil), but limit it to a reasonable amount until more is learned about the real causes of Global Warming. Also, I don't think we should have to choose between saving the planet from a chronic warming cycle or from an asteroid impact. Our resources are plentiful enough to tackle both issues effectively.

The Green Halo

I really liked the metaphor the author used with the painter and the green halo. Just as the painter ran out of green paint so he had to use yellow, we are running out of our environmental resources. I think that many people think that the resources will always be there and that is not the case at all. They are quickly running out because our world is becoming very greedy, especially in the United States. Many people are guilty of not doing their part in taking care of the environment. In our country, we are very materialistic and judge ourseleves and others on what we have not who we are. Someone sees what their neighbor has and they want to have it bigger and better. We are a wasteful people and are using up 80% of all the resources with our small number of people. If we are going to continue using the world's resources at such a fast pace, we need to find ways to renew them or resources to replace them. Some people in the world are starving, even in our own country, and we do nothing to help them. We are a selfish people and care about our small lives and world, such as our families, our friends, our jobs, our possessions. I'm very guilty of this. I get so wrapped up in what is going on in my life and the people in my life, that I don't stop to think about what is going on with the people in the rest of the world or even sitting next to me. We should be sharing what we have with others. Also, we should become less wasteful and selfish so that these resources do not run out so quickly. We should be concerned with the fact that the future members of our family and the world may not have resources available to them because we are using them up at our leisure and not finding ways to be more efficient and using resources more sparingly.

Greed

The aspect of greed really interested me.There has always been greedy people, but these days everyone is greedy. I totally agree that greed seem natural to people. Americans I feel are really greedy because we want everything and we expect to have everything at our finger tips. We consume and consume and think nothing about it.How does our greed affect the people in the world and the environment. Many Americans feel that it is natural and we have a right to be greedy. We want to protect nature, but we also don't want to sacrifice our desires and wants. Do we have a right to happiness? Or should happiness be a gift from nature?

Another topic that interested me was the idea that people assumed nature would set things right and things would work out. If things did not work out as we hoped, we would just cover it with yellow tape. We tried to keep covering up the problem until it was looking at us in the face. I am optimistic and I do believe that we can help the problem. I feel that we should not give up on our ecological crisis and there must be something that we can do to help the problem. We need start thinking about the consequences before we act.

Ecological Ethics

In The Green Halo introduction Kohak discusses ecological ethics and what it means. Kohak says, "It is about life, about all life on Earth. It is not just about humans, it is aout all animals, plants, and everything else in the environment. Kohak states that he uses the word ethics as an ordinary sense as a set of rules which we ought to follow. Humans do not always follow these rules. Unlike animals, humans in their freedom can do whatever they please. People obviously do not always follow the rules given to them. Humans are responsible for the killing of many animals each day.
In class we discussed the extinction of amphibians. In an article on nationalgeographic.com Brian Handwerk discussed the problems amphibians are facing. In the article I read, it states that diseases were killing off many frogs in Central and South America. The disease scientist say, came from changing water and air temperatures. Costa Rica's Cloud Forest Preserve stated, "Global warming is wreaking Havoc on amphibians."

A Yellow-less World

After reading the introduction to Kohak's The Green Halo, I revisited his explanation of the title. I considered the story and wondered, "Is the loss of yellow really such a tragedy?" If the painter in the story ran out of yellow and began to use green paint for the halos of his apostles, would that make the painting any less beautiful? Initially, I thought not. I thought of the adage about making lemonade from the lemons you are given--doing the best with what you have. The painting would undoubtedly be different, but I could not conclude that different is equivalent to bad or wrong. Would it be a change? Yes. Would there be less variation in color? Yes. Less beautiful or creative? I can't say that....However, I as I considered this new painting and all the paintings to come, I wondered, "What would the world be like without yellow?" What would be the continued impact of the lack of one color? In my mind, I pictured a gallery of paintings completely devoid of yellow. That image was quite a bit more startling than that of one green halo. Then, I realized, without yellow and using green in it's place, green would quickly be used up as well, especially without the yellow to create more. I imagine that orange would eventually follow as well. Leaving a world of only blue, purple, and red. This seemed even more dire, though I still think that painters would continue to paint and create works of art. Would they be different? Drastically! Would we appreciate them any less? I couldn't say, but I could certainly argue that a loss of half of the color wheel would significantly limit the variation and expression of the works produced. If these artists continued using only those three colors and compensating for the loss of the others, which color would they run out of next? How would that impact all art in the future? Would paintings eventually cease to exist?
This may seem like a ridiculous train of thought, but it demonstrates the point that everything in this world is unique and has a unique place and purpose. The loss of one can begin a chain of events that has dramatic effects in the future. The analogy above simply discussed the loss of a color. An inanimate thing that does not think or feel. How much more important does that one thing become when it is a living being? How much value should we place on each aspect of life and its unique impact on our global painting?

Human Relations

The third ecological threat that Kohak discusses comes from humans. He believes that human relations have become distorted thus making humans a threat to their environment and each other. This implies that at one point humans were not distorted in their mutual relationships and, in particular, with the Earth. He implies that the worst affect of this distortion is the inability to cooperate with other humans especially in dealing with threats like global warming. He also says that this distortion has caused people to have a twisted form of logic that allows them to callously destroy the environment by driving down the highway wantonly killing animals and corrupting the environment along the way.
Presumably this distortion is not new to mankind. By way of example, Kohak described how medieval monks killed off most of the Bohemian beavers. If human relations have become distorted, then apparently there was a time when they were in harmony. When were human relationships not disturbed? Perhaps primeval man was in tune with nature as he walked through a forest that provided for his every want like the enlightenment idea of ‘children of nature’. Somehow I find this hard to believe, however, he is right in observing that modern man’s view of relationships is seriously skewed in several key regards. For most of the modern era, especially during Gilded Age America, people have viewed the Earth as a tool. People have adopted a new theory of human rights altering the traditional expectations of life, and suddenly we find ourselves in a world where it is a right to own two cars and use electricity in mass amounts. Kohak believes that this modern world has made it a right to have and consume ever more. I would agree with him in this, consumerism has lead to a mass distortion of what our rights truly are.
Kohak also makes a reference to the Kyoto protocol and the reasons why America has not signed it in his example of lack of cooperation. It is true that many Americans do not want to give up their standard of living even if it means harming of the environment, but many Americans sincerely believe that global warming is not directly linked to carbon emissions. Also many Americans are not yet convinced of its existence. Nevertheless, as a superpower that maintains troops in many parts of the world, cutting our carbon emissions may cause concerns for national security.
The question of human relations is certainly intriguing. Man has always believed, across almost all cultures, that man was not in harmony with the world of nature. Man is unique as an animal in that we enjoy the faculty of reason and we can look around us and see how blissfully ignorant the animals are of things like electricity and automobiles. Man has always wondered whether or not he had ever had the type of harmony with nature that the animals seem to enjoy. The Stoics believed that Nature was almost a god machine and all things in it were supposed to adhere to its master plan. Humans were expected to use their reason and follow the natural law to achieve this goal of harmony with all relationships. This is very similar to what Kohak is proposing in his definition of ecological ethics. He defines it as a “system of principles which indicate to humans how they ought to comport themselves in their interaction with the nonhuman world”. The goal of harmony with nature is truly admirable, but man has never seen himself as part of the greater nature. Man has always placed himself either below nature, as in nature worship, or above nature. Nevertheless the goal of harmony with nature seems to be as elusive as the philosopher’s stone.

Is ignorance greed?

In today's class, we discussed the application of the word greed to our culture. It was argued that the term was not suitable, it was an oversimplification, and that it is a perfect descriptor for Western consumer culture. I think that greed has become an inherent and ingrained feature of global consumer culture. Our cultural system encourages us to define status based on the size of our homes and salaries, the number of cars we have in the garage, and the number of material items we possess. In "The Green Halo," Kohak refers to the ignorance of the affluent and their desire to possess so many things is highly damaging to the Earth. I agree that a desire for a high-end lifestyle is damaging, especially when millions of people are attempting to live this way.
However, can ignorance be titled greed especially when people are taught to live this way from a very young age?

Right now, most people view nature as a resource that serves to provide humans with the materials they need to continue to live an affluent lifestyle. People fail to realize that Earth is a living, complex system and humans are only one component of this system. If we continue to abuse the Earth and use up the resources that all living beings are dependent on, we will hurt both other species and ourselves. In order to combat this, the major lifestyle change we need is education. Because ecological ethics and environmentalism has become a purely political issue, most people only see divided arguments and feel that they can only be conservative or a tree hugger. People need to understand how damaging their lifestyle is, the pertinence of the problem and be educated on how to change their lifestyles in order to achieve positive effects.

In trying to take in the reality of our Earths future I have been thinking about many aspects of human life. Kohak asks an important and interesting question, "How can humans live on this Earth so that they do not destroy the preconditions for their own existence." We have survived before without taking such a damaging toll on our Earth. The scientific aspect of ecological philosopy comes into play here because we must know exactly what we are doing now that we did not do then to cause such drastic and devestating changes to the Earth. A classmate in a biology class this week said to me, "without animal research and consquently euthanized animals, we would not have made great medical advances or progress in human living." I am not sure how I feel about animal research but her comment made me think about the fact that non-humans have allowed us to cure, and treat many illnesses and now we are inevitibaly bringing them to an end. This made me think about the goal of this class, ecological ethics. How should we behave ourselves and interact with the non-human world? I also had flashbacks of our "Cheeta" discussions from class. It seems absurd to me that a primate so advanced not have some kind of "rights." I thought what if there was something humans had that chimpanzees could use to ensure their survival. Would it be okay for them to test us and then get rid of us as needed? Obviously the answer is no, but I think we at least have an obligation to ensure that our actions do not harmfully affect their survival.

Ecological Ethics and Global Warming

The Green Halo contained pages that included the fact that people created global warming and are not taking responsibility for their actions. It also says that Americans are not willing to decrease their level of consumption, even though it is at its highest ever. I agree with this statement. People today are too comfortable with their lifestyles and technologies that make life so easy. I myself can be charged of this. Recycling is such an easy task, but for some reason it is not done in ever household in America. Although in some states it is not free, but in Ohio (where I am from), it is. For this reason, it should be done. Plastic does not disintegrate so millions of plastic bottles and other objects will sit in land fills forever and trash will keep piling up until people decided to change their ways.
This action is easier said then done however. It will take a lot of effort to have all of America to recycle. I myself am guilty of not always recycling and I should take the effort of doing it. If everyone would take a small effort in doing something to help the Earth, our world would be a lot cleaner and global warming my start to slow down again.

Penguins Matter

I was intrigued by the discussion of William Baxter's argument in his essay "People or Penguins." Having not read the essay (I could only find outlines online) I cannot argue against it clearly, but from what was said in class I believe Baxter is not considering the importance of ecological dependence of all species.  I believe that Baxter represents Erazim Kohak's theory that greed has become a virtue.  By this i mean that Baxter is placing more importance over the individual and that individual's species than the ecological world.  This is greed because when the individual cares only for her own desires and welfare then she does not understand that limits are necessary.  Limits are necessary because it allows for the coexistence of all living organisms.  This coexistence allows humans to live the way they do.  For example consider the in class example of honeybees, honeybees allow the pollination of trees, flowers, and other plants that are needed to help convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.  This very process is what allows humans to live on earth.   This is further exemplified in the movie, Bee Movie. When the bees are forced to go industrial to produce more honey for big business they no longer are able to pollinate the plants.  This leads to the destruction of all plant life.  The movie helps give a visual example of the dangers of not coexisting with all living organisms.  The movie illustrates that all organisms are interconnected and the importance even a small insect has on the world. The movie also illustrates that Baxter's argument, where he believes humans should not care about penguin, is incorrect.  While the penguins do not help pollinate plants, their existence allows humans to see that the envierment is in good form.  The destruction of one ecosystem will destroy other world ecosystems because their existence allows balance on earth.  Thus, when the penguins go extinct, who is to say that humans will not quickly follow because all of the world's ecosystems are inter-connected.    

Jainism and the "being hierarchy"

The discussion of the Aristotelian hierarchy of being reminded me of a similar hierarchy of beings within the religion of Jainism. Unlike the Aristotelian view, Jains believe that all souls are essential the same, but that they occupy physical forms that reside in various levels (this is due to Jainism's roots in Hinduism and its grounding in the concept of reincarnation). The attitude that Jains take toward the beings in each level is also decidedly different from the Aristotelian view. Keeping in mind the belief that all souls are equal and the idea of karma, Jains live endeavoring to do the least amount of harm possible, practicing a the concept of "ahimsa" or a reverence for all life. In order to contribute the least amount of suffering possible, the ranking of beings on the hierarchy come in handy. The different levels of physical being are determined by the number of senses that being has. Humans, deities, mammals, birds, fish reptiles, ect. all posses five senses. Thus, it is a sin (resulting in negative karma) if one harms one of these beings in any way. Other beings, such as insects and worms, posses fewer senses ( and consequently suffer less) but are to be respected because they do have souls and are alive. Plants only posses one sense (the sense of touch, to be precise) and are the only being that Jains allow themselves to "harm." In practical application, Jains only consume foods of plant origin, do not wear clothes of material derived from animals, and cannot work at any occupation in which people, animals, or other beings are harmed (Early Jain monks reportedly starved themselves because they refused to harm even plants, but if all Jains did that, there wouldn't be any left...). Their approach to life is what they call "dynamic harmlessness."

Welcome to Hovering Kestrel

In this class we will examine a wide variety of moral issues that arise in our interactions with other human beings in the social realm, and especially with non-human animals and inanimate features of the environment in the realm of ‘nature.’ We will read and discuss the work of philosophers, novelists, essayists, and artists who have attempted to address some of the most pressing ethical problems facing human beings at the beginning of the 21st Century. Topics we will consider include deep ecology, the case for animal rights, feminism and ecofeminism, obligations to the environment, and the impact of technology on our conceptions of what it means to be human.