Chimps or Bonobos.... What are we?

In class we discussed the social interactions of chimps and bonobos. It was noted that chimps are more fierce and aggressive while bonobos just settle all disputes through sexual activity. I found this very interesting when we were talking about which group of primate we came from. And yes, in science humans are listed right next to chimps on the evolutionary tree of primates. The reality of the relationship is that all three species (humans, chimps, bonobos), evolved from one common primate ancestor. An extinct ancestor at that. This would explain the crazy cocktails of behavior seen in human society.

Sociobiology

I agree with what Jessie had to say. It is amazing how so many other disciplines are shown to be incorporated into ecological ethics. Although we share a very large portion of our genetics with chimps (something like 97.5%), it does not mean our behavior is solely depended upon our genetic past. Behavior is not only genetic, but also learned. Yes, it is true that being genetically predisposed to something greatly increases the likelihood of that happening. However, our conscious actions and responses make us able to control the urges brought along by our "chimp genes." If our every action was controlled by these genes, wouldn't we be living as chimps?

Yin and Ecofeminism

As I was reading Kohak's chapter on ecofeminism, I couldn't help but reminded of the Chinese concept of yin and yang. Just as Kohak explains that we all have a more masculine and more feminine side,ancient Chinese philosophy claims that we all have a degree yin and a degree of yang within us. Yin is often described as feminine, dark, emotional, cold, soft, and tranquil, and is associated with night. Yang, on the other hand, is hard, fast, solid, dry, focused, hot, and aggressive, and is associated with the daytime. Applying these descriptions to Kohak's description of ecofeminism, one sees that yin is obviously the feminine and yang is the masculine, with reason being attributed to the masculine tendencies, as ecofeminism suggests. An imbalance in the masculine and feminine is what leads to the arbitrary destruction of the earth and suppression of nature (according to proponents of ecofeminism, that is) and it could be argued that those who believe in the powers of yin and yang would agree. Too much yang and the world gets out of whack. We cut down too many tress, build too many shopping malls, and we all suffer. Too much yin and we live in a wilderness, completely at the mercy of the whims of nature. We can't favor one side over the other, we can't do away with one side without doing away with both. Yin-yang is a dynamic equilibrium.
Perhaps we can apply this understanding of yin and yang to the imbalance of the masculine and feminine. Chinese philosophy concedes that, because they arise together, yin and yang are always equal: if one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness. This phenomenon is rarely immediately apparent, though, because yang elements are clear and obvious while yin elements are hidden and subtle. Maybe this is humanity's problem with our imbalance of masculine and feminine. We don't recognize that we need both because masculine things like reason are so clear, while the feminine things like emotion are more abstract and difficult to understand.
Anyway, just an observation. Maybe the world needs a good dose of feng shui, or something. :)

Sociobiology

When it comes to the theory of sociobiology I agree with Kohak, especially when it comes to things like divorce and unfaithfulness. I almost see it as a cheap excuse to do whatever you want and take no responsibility for it. The major difference between humans and chimps is our ability to have higher thinking and reasoning. This means that we can logically think out our actions with moral reasoning. That means when you have the urge to cheat, you don't do it because of your ability to think through it. Genetics does not determine what you do. Just because your genetically predisposed for alcoholism does not mean you will be an alcoholic, you have to choose to drink.

Dersu Uzala

The movie today made me realize how powerful nature can be. Living in a city environment we don't witness how powerful nature can be as if we were living in a desert. Nature could destroy everything we have in a few minutes. In my opinion we should respect and treat nature, so it will be good to us. We use every resource that nature can give us and until there is no more. We take and take and sooner or later it going to hurt us as much as it is hurting nature.

In class we talked about the fear of the forest. I think people are scared of the concept of the forest. A forest can be miles and miles long and it is filled with scary creatures. Even a little spider can kill a person. People walk into the forest and their is a unknown feeling. In my opinion people are scared of the unknown. Many people in America walk around with unkown feelings. What is going to happen to us when we run out of resources? We should respect nature and the gifts it gives us.

Lifeboat Ethics

The discussion about life boat ethics caught my attention in class. While it is the idea that we are forced to think that not everyone is going to be saved and we must make a decision on who it will be, I feel like the decision is already made. Or at least it was in the Titanic. Although it was just a movie, it was a true story and those who were better off or in the upper class were the ones who were saved. And why? Because of their social class. As sad as it is, that is how America is still today. I feel like people are judged based on what class they are in. With the idea of life boat ethics, as much as we all would like for everyone to be saved, in reality everyone can't be. But if it actually came down to being saved, people would try to take their material things with them taking up room causing less people to be saved. Its sad but thats just how it is.

Blog #5

Lifeboat Ethics is a very interesting theory. I feel that their would be enough seats for everyone if we did not carry so many possession, however; it is hard for people especially Americans to change their lifestyle. Each person has so many possession that it takes up space for other people. I feel that Americans need to simplify their life and stop being so possessive. We want to help others and the environment but we do not want to sacrifice what we have. Sooner or later that need for more is going to come back and bite us in the face. I am not saying to stop consuming all together but people should think before they act. And I feel most Americans don't think before they consume.

Ethics

Lifeboat Ethics is certainly interesting, however, as an ethical theory it fails to hold water. The ethical theory demands that people sacrifice their standard of living. The theory also entails that population must decrease. So it is not really the ethical conundrum that Kohak makes it out to be when survivors are involved, Lifeboat ethics would gladly have them gone. The ethical theory brings in to question the true source of value. This theory would appear to be anthropocentric, but gives humans no basic rights. Its goal is the long term sustainability of humanity, nevertheless, it contradicts it self when it causes the death of humans either indirectly or directly. This ethical theory is more like a lifeboat that has sprung a leak.
Kohak does not suggest this theory; he merely uses it to make a point. The point is that the planet won’t hold us forever. The massive amount of consumption per person means that humanity can’t sustain its growth rate. Nevertheless, if people do voluntarily simplify their lives and survival became the focus of economics and not pleasure, humanity would certainly be able to continue its growth rate. No species, even humans, grow when there is no food or shelter; the growth rates during famines tell us this.

E=mc2

Today I witnessed cowboy ethic in practice -and to tell you the truth, it was pretty depressing. I was standing in the parking lot of the grocery store and saw a man throw a paper cup full of ice out the window of his car as he sped through the intersection. He just rolled down his widow, chucked the cup out onto the street, and then rolled his window back up, apparently without any remorse, whatsoever. I stood there initially wanting to yell out and call the man names, but I realized that he was simply behaving like a cowboy, the same as millions of other Americans do. He was just passing through, felt no sense of ownership for the area, and so felt no obligation to keep it clean. I'm fairly certain he would have felt differently had the cup been thrown into his own backyard, but as the saying goes "out of sight, out of mind." And that's just the problem. Too many people don't realize that their garbage, their exhaust fumes, and their CFCs don't just disappear. It's the law of conservation of matter/energy: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form to another. When you throw away an aluminum can, a paper towel, a cigarette butt, a broken light bulb, ect. you aren't just magically rid of it. It doesn't just go away. It gets buried in a landfill, where it sits for hundreds, if not thousands of years (and that's not an exaggeration). An oak leaf takes about a year to totally decompose on the forest floor, and it's supposed to be there. By contrast, a paper bag takes about ten years to completely break down -and that's assuming ideal conditions-, while a plastic bottle can take 700 years, and a glass bottle is estimated to take a million years or longer to break down. Couple those inconvenient details with the reality that Americans use about four million plastic bottles in an hour, and that three out of every four bottles Americans use is thrown in the trash. This is definitely indicative of a consumer culture that is just "passing through."
No matter how tightly you pack it, how far away you carry it, how deep you bury it, and regardless of whether if you burn it, pulverize it, dump it in the ocean or blast it into outer space, our garbage doesn't go anywhere. People at large don't realize that we aren't just passing through, but that we're pretty much stranded on this "spaceship" called planet Earth and that we have to carry with us any waste we produce. What's more, is that our space ship is a shared home, and when that big rig drives down the street puffing black fumes into the air, he's puffing them into my air. When that guy throws his paper cup out the window into the street, he's throwing his trash in my street. This conflict of shared space and shared resources is clearly illustrated in the current global squabble concerning overfishing, and it's also reminiscent of Kohak's example of the sheep on the communal pasture. The problem: fish are being fished to extinction, so, obviously you just have to catch less. The issue is that the fish move around in a communal ocean, and if you don't catch them, then someone else is going to, so fishermen continue to catch gross amounts of fish in the same way that the villagers want to graze more and more sheep on the communal pasture. The mentality being, if I don't graze my sheep there, then my neighbor will, and then there won't be any grass left, so I might as well. We're using the world's resources and producing waste at an alarming rate, ruining the world for ourselves and others.
Kohak concedes that most of us don't consider that we're making a choice that affects people and organisms all over the world when we start up our cars. We don't take second to consider that the decision to do so or to not do so concerns more than ourselves. The space ship ethic forces the individual to view the world as that communal pasture, and we can either all agree to sustainably graze our sheep, or kill the land with our selfish competition. Regardless, we don;t live in a vacume, as our decisions concern everyone else on the ship, and our trash doesn't magically disappear.

Lifeboat Ethics

In class and in Kohak's book we discussed how the movie Titanic can be applied to the idea that all people are equal. I have seen this movie many times and have always felt sadness for the people who did not make it in the lifeboats. This is a clear example of how people with money or people that are considered upper class are considered more important than others. I think this is a very sad thing. Just because one person has more money than another does not make them better. They may have worked hard for their money, but that does not mean that they are more important, just that they could use some acknowledgement for their hard work. The movie Titanic was a good example of how people should not act towards one another. Everyone should have got a fair chance to get into a boat. Even if a rich person bribed the workers, they should have said no and moved along and let a deserving person in the boat. This brings up another point about who would be deserving to get in the lifeboat. It is a very hard thing to think about especially since there were not enough boats to accomodate everyone. My personal opinion is that everyone is equal and they should have made more room in the boats for more people. Everyone should have gotten a fair chance to be saved.

Lifeboat Ethics

In class and in Kohak's book we discussed how the movie Titanic can be applied to the idea that all people are equal. I have seen this movie many times and have always felt sadness for the people who did not make it in the lifeboats. This is a clear example of how people with money or people that are considered upper class are considered more important than others. I think this is a very sad thing. Just because one person has more money than another does not make them better. They may have worked hard for their money, but that does not mean that they are more important, just that they could use some acknowledgement for their hard work. The movie Titanic was a good example of how people should not act towards one another. Everyone should have got a fair chance to get into a boat. Even if a rich person bribed the workers, they should have said no and moved along and let a deserving person in the boat. This brings up another point about who would be deserving to get in the lifeboat. It is a very hard thing to think about especially since there were not enough boats to accomodate everyone. My personal opinion is that everyone is equal and they should have made more room in the boats for more people. Everyone should have gotten a fair chance to be saved.

Lifeboat Ethics

In class we discussed how "Lifeboat Ethics" can be compared to the Titanic. I personally think that this is something that is very interesting because I have seen the movie many times and have had the feeling of sadness for the people who did not make it on the lifeboats. I think applying this idea to the concept that people should all be equal is great. This movie (and obviously in real life because it is based on a true story) showed that if you have money and are "upper class," then you have a better likelihood of being more important than other people. Even though this event happened a while ago, it still happens today. People with money are sometimes looked at as more important or better than others. I think this is rediculous. Sometimes these people work hard for their money and should be acknowledge for their work, but are not to be looked at as better than anyone else. This concept of equality can also be applied to humans and animals, or other nonhuman objects. Lifeboat Ethics is about equality among everything, not just humans and classes, with animals and plants too. It is said that nonhuman objects are just as good as humans, even if people don't see it as that.

Human Imposition

We have brought up the effects of human imposition on nature numerous times in class. Kohak defines humans as exotic animals - animals that have no natural habitat, but are able to survive in nearly any location. He also discusses how humans are destructive to the world because they exploit nature and other beings around them, overpopulate, and waste resources. One of the major themes within in the text is to discuss ways for society to change in order to be less harmful to nature and other animals. While it is true that humans have a responsibility to nature and do cause ecological problems, I think that it is unfair to label everything that is produced or destroyed by mankind as negative or harmful. Why is it that something that is manmade is less aesthetically pleasing than a natural landscape? Furthermore, there is this overarching concept that seems to label humans as unnatural or as alienated from nature; however, humans are a product of nature. Like all other animals, a primal nature is intrinsic - in humans it manifests itself differently, but the struggle to survive and the necessity to destroy other species is similar to any other type of animal. If a natural predator, like a shark or a bear, kills another animal, we chalk it up to a natural cycle and necessity. That predator needs to kill to survive and if the prey goes uneaten, it will multiply and eventually destroy the ecosystem. In terms of humans, humans are often considered cruel for killing even plantlife. I am not saying that humans have the right to destroy nature as we please. I do think, though, that it is unfair to give everything that humans do a negative connotation.

Koyaanisqatsi

The film struck me as very strange and foreign because I had never seen anything like that before. The opening scenes were very destructive but progressed to more aesthetic pictures of nature toward the end. I thought it was very interesting that the actual title for the movie took a very involved thought process. Actually meaning "a crazy way of life that needs change," Koyaanisqatsi comes from the Hopi culture which voids the movie title of cultural baggage. The director pointed out that we as Americans are no longer noticing the change from "old nature" to technology AS nature and that nature was the host, but now technology is. WE LIVE TECHNOLOGY. That statement stuck with me and made me really think of how true it is. We don't even realize its presence because literally every aspect of our lives involves some technological device which pulls us away from viewing nature as a gift from God that provides us with what we need.

response to koyaanisqatsi

The movie stated that Koyannisqatsi meant “crazy way of like”. The name was chosen in this language because the director did not want to have a name that had any “cultural baggage”. I thought this was an interesting concept. It made me think about what “cultural baggage” some other words have. I was amazed at how some words that could be very “innocent” have become weighed down and given a somewhat different idea just because of the culture. The power of our culture is unbelievable. I think the culture can be blamed for a lot of problems in this world as well as a lot of the bad changes that have occurred over time.
The movie starts with short video clips of just nature. The director started with images of the desert and sand dunes. I think the images showed about how destructive and desolate nature can be by itself even without the influence of people. It also showed how beautiful and vast it can be at the same time. The images seemed almost surreal because it seems that people have pretty much had an influence in all of nature. The images then went to rolling clouds. The first thing that came to my mind was heaven. It seemed so magical and mysterious. It also seemed very pure and uninfluenced by anything. The next sets of images were of the mountains and bodies of water. These both gave off a destructive and a magical vibe. It seemed like they were the intermediate between the desert and the rolling clouds.
The next part of the video showed the influence of humans on nature. The images showed the same objects as in nature but as they are after being tampered with by man. The film showed how the earth has been tampered with my dynamite explosions in order for man’s use. It represented the clouds as smoke coming out of a power plant. Then, it showed water held back by a dam and in separated sections in a water treatment plant. This was a very visual comparison that really made me think about how nature is still around, but man has modified it so it no longer looks as it first appeared.
The last part of the film talked about humans and technology. I thought this was the most interesting part of the movie. I really liked the comparisons and images they made to help show their point. The quote, “Humans don’t use technology; they live technology,” really tells the whole story of this section. The image of the man with the television as his head really stuck with me, but I am not exactly sure why. I think it is because it shows that we rely so much on technology that technology has become a part of us. Another image that impacted me while I watched this video is how a city organization was compared to a computer chip. The comparison can go either way on this one because it can be said that the city was organized like a chip or the chip was organized like a city. I think the comparison works better saying the city was organized like the chip because it has a greater impact on showing how we live technology and not just use it.
Overall, this movie has a lot of good images and ideas that could be discussed. I think it left a lot of people thinking about the issues addressed. Even though the movie did not say much, I think it clearly got its point across. I believe this is a good movie that helps people realize some of the things they take advantage of like nature and technology and the impact of humanity.

America IS Consumerism and Technology.

The video last week really made me think about how far we as a civilization are willing to go. And for what? Just to make our lives easier we spend endless amounts of money on unnecessary items and technological advancements. The world itself, as the video showed, gives us the essential things for life. Food, shelter, and even entertainment. People as well as animals live and die. That is how it has been and how it always will or at least should be. We are so used to living with technology around us that most of us would not be able to survive without it. But, this technology is slowly killing the environment in which we thrive so it seems as though it's a no win situation. Why destroy the one thing that gives us everything we need to survive. I think that it is important to be able to live without the luxury of technology. To be able to be happy and live without these things is truly living. Everyone gets so caught up in the Internet, television, driving and cellphones. I think that because of the clear environmental crisis it is important to stand back for a moment and realize what we need and do not need. We obviously need the earth so we need to do something to save it if we want to keep living.

In class we discussed how many people of today are somewhat naturaly greedy. I feel this is very true. Many people, not all, buy things that they can not afford and dont need. I see this all the time with people i know. Why is it that people do this? Is it because it makes them look good having fancy things? I think people just need to step back and look at what is most important in life.

Greed and Voluntary Simplicity

As we have discussed in class, Greed is something that many people are infected by. With this said, I believe it is a "disease" that is all too often over-diagnosed. As previous posts have stated, money is something we all have to have to survive. It is no longer possible to depend solely off the Earth. There are many people who have a strong desire to gain wealth exponentially without any regard to the negative consequences it might impose on the environment or other humans. I believe we have a predisposition as humans to always push our boundaries and expand. It is an innate quality we share with no other species on this planet. Exploring "new lands" has come to and end because we have been everywhere. If we cant expand outward, what do we do? Expand upward with the construction of skyscrapers and other mega structures that would have never even entered the dreams of our ancestors. As far as voluntary simplicity goes, outside of a few environmentalist and naturalists, I strongly believe it is not something we desire. One example of this is the economy. It is well known that the economy has totally derailed. Today, every news station, media outlet, and government official talk of nothing other than "fixing the economy". Sure it has to be fixed, but why are we so desperately trying new repair schemes? Why is it such a big deal that so many people are now jobless? If we lived in a more self-sustaining world, one with more voluntary simplicity, this would not be such a big deal. But we do not live in such a world. We are not meant to live in such a world. As I said before, we as humans are hardwired to always be moving forward. Stepping back in time would go against our natural drives and instincts. We are fixing the economy, making new jobs, all to be able to buy more stuff. In our world with the frontiers already explored, purchasing stuff to move up in the world is equivalent to exploring new territories. Humans have a drive to always improve and move forward, whether it is land or lifestyles.

Voluntary Simplictiy

During class we discussed the idea of voluntary simplicity. I think this is a very difficult idea for most of us to grasp or to try to take on ourselves. The definition includes "the more desirable is whatever is less expensive.." I think that this is an idea is too hard for Americans to think about. Today we are almost "programed" to think that bigger is better and the more expensive things in life are better then the cheaper things. Clothes for example: you can find a shirt at a "high class" store for $90 at one store, but then you can go to a "lower class" store that has the same exact shirt (or one that looks very similar to it) for $10. I think that I personally would rather have the less expensive shirt. Voluntary simplicity is an idea that should be considered in most people's lives, but also is something that would be very hard to do. Most people love shopping and even consider it a hobby, so to take that from them would be a very hard thing to do. Even trying to make these people shop for less expensive items would also be hard to do, because it goes back to the idea that "bigger and more expensive is better." This whole idea would need to be changed for voluntary simplicity to come into picture. With the economy as bad as it is, this idea might not be that hard to put into perspective.

Greed

The thought that greed is a trait of the human species is interesting to me. I do not believe that every single human being is greedy and are driven by getting more stuff. I think that some people, especially those CEOs and higher ups in companies are driven purely by money and give the rest of us a bad rap. This is VERY evident in our economy right now. Most people that I know, while they work hard for their money and like to spend their money on nice things, are not purely driven by it. They enjoy time with their friends, family and do not believe that the only time that they can have fun is when they are living above their means. We have to have some income and some money to survive in this world, we can't live purely off the land anymore.

Animal Magnetism

Before you think I’m a spammer who stumbled onto this site whilst searching for Bruce Campbell trivia, I should mention that I am a TMC alumna and a current philosophy PhD student at UC (aka Iris Spoor). I was kindly invited by Dr. Langguth to join in this interesting topic, so I want to thank him before I begin. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t googling Bruce Campbell trivia, of course, but I wasn’t only doing that.

The debates on this blog and in environmental ethics in general, are interesting and increasingly germane. The climate change issue has been a significant one for some time now and as science rapidly reveals more about nature and ourselves we are forced to confront difficult ethical questions. I hope to be able to contribute in a number of relevant debates (particularly concerning the ethical treatment of animals from a consequentialist and a Kantian perspective), but, I wanted to briefly post concerning aesthetics.

Aesthetics often enters into debates about environmental ethics, or any debate about nature in general, because our appreciation of it certainly has an aesthetic component. In this post, I wanted to briefly discuss Edmund Burke’s discussion of the ‘beautiful’ and particularly the beauty of animals.

For Burke, beauty is associated with the passions belonging to society (I.viii). Burke subdivides this into the society of the sexes and general society (I.viii). The passions belonging to generation, unlike those belonging to preservation, are based on pleasure (I.viii). The base passion associated with generation is lust (I.x). Human beings, however, attach a social quality to the passions associated with generation, thus, choosing a mate is more complicated for mankind than other animals (I.x). The passion generated by this is love (I.x) and the object of this passion is “the beauty of the sex” (I.x). Generative love, then, is mixed with lust (I.xviii), but the love associated with society in general “is called likewise love” (I.xviii). It arises from beauty as well, but has no admixture of lust. Therefore, beauty is a social quality.

Love is further defined as “that satisfaction which arises to the mind upon contemplating anything beautiful, of whatsoever nature it may be” (III.i). Burke distinguishes between love and lust, or desire because a man (in his example) can lust after an un-beautiful woman, for instance, and feel no such desire for a beautiful animal or man (III.i). So, the the likewise, or social love applies to all of society, not just the sexual society of men and women. The object of social love, then, is the “great society with man and all other animals” (I.xviii). So, animals, from cows to koalas can inspire this social love by virtue of their beauty which can give us a “sense of joy and pleasure in beholding them” (I.x). Burke is puzzled as to why man should be affected by animals in this way, so he just attributes it to Providence (I.x).

Burke’s account of love and beauty, obviously, is only one narrow (and quite strange at times) view of the issue, but I think he hits on a strong point with the above. Many of the animal rights crusades center around what are sometimes known as ‘charismatic mega-fauna’. ‘Save the Whales’ immediately comes to mind (though Burke might think a whale should inspire feelings of terror). A whale, dolphin or wolf is generally thought (and is in my opnion) to be a quite beautiful creature. If earth worms or slime mold were endangered, I think, one would be far less likely to see a bumper sticker sporting their images.


There are many movements to save non-charismatic creatures, of course, but I wonder if the beauty of certain animals and the ‘love’ this inspires has a lot to do with which animals are preserved and supported. Perhaps we have found part of the answer to Burke’s question as to why human beings seem to be able to develop a social attachment to certain creatures. Or, perhaps, it is just an example of human bias and emotion affecting what should really be scientific debates. One should recall the fairly recent contorversy in which dolphins (beuatiful, intelligent creatures) were being ensared in tuna nets. I'm simplifying here, but a great international protest was launched and tuna sales plummeted. But--we must ask--who speaks for the tuna? Or, why do the dolphins merit more tenacious support? Any thoughts?






PS—In case you were wondering why Bruce Campbell trivia would direct a spammer here, I have no answer. In fact, I’m fairly sure it wouldn’t have, until now, of course, given how many times I’ve mentioned him in this posting. In any case, I don't think it will hurt the blog to have a shot of Campbell with some charismatic mega-fauna. ;)


Iris Spoor

Voluntary Simplicity

I think that voluntary simplicity is an interesting idea, especially in our culture today. Desiring things that are better for the human community, but nature in particular. When people go in to a store and buy things, they are thinking abou how their purchase may effect nature and the envionment. Our society is more worried about what our purchase says about us or what we want. When peope gon shopping they don't think about all the other shirts or purses or items that they have. They are focused on what they want at the time. I think it would be a good idea for our society to live more simply. It would be hard, but if we our society would just cut back on buying and having more and more, the natural and human communities would be a little better off. You can't make people completely change their whole lifestyle, but it is about baby steps with cutting back so that we can get to an endpoint that will make more people happy and make the community better off. Our society needs to make compromises. We need to cut back so that we can stop using up all of the resources and having way too many things. I think that voluntary simplicity is an idea that many Americans should consider trying to veer away from our wasteful ways to better the communities around us.

Blog #4

In the last class the discussion of consumerism really interested me. Americans in the past had comsumed and comsumed to their limit. We allways want the next big thing and if we can afford it, we buy it. I feel that additicon to buying is the reason we are in our finical problem. Americans wanted to have that bigger house but they couldn't afford it but they still went ahead with it. People want things to go back to the way they were but maybe we shouldn't. I feel we we shouldn't live to our limits. We need to be happy with the things we have. After this finical problem is fixed Americans will think before they spend or will they? I feel that people at first will hort thier money but then we will go back into the same cycle. What does anyone else think?

responding to BLOG # 3 (feb. 8th)

(i did not know how to comment on blog #3, so i did it this way ha)
I agree as well. I feel like compromises have to be maked all the time, everyday by everyone. Compromises are not bad as long as the out come is beneficial and out ways what is compromised. For example, the benefit of knowing how a human body will react to a drug through experimentation of an animal definitely out ways the suffering. It is not selfish to want to make sure a drug works before giving it to millions of people. Although, in any situation of compromising there will be people whom oppose, but life is not fair. I feel like if the majority feel the same way then the compromise is going in the right direction

Voluntary Simplicity (by necessity)

Kohak makes a very valid point when he's busy condemning our consumer culture. He stresses that we are obsessed with buying the next great thing because we're hopelessly addicted to it like a drug. He uses the term "consumerism" to term the idea that consumption is the meaning of human life, and for so many, it seems to be. Instead of facing our problems, we go out and buy something, as if the act of consumption gives us purpose. Kind of sad, really. But how can one deny that our advertising culture is only exacerbating a problem we already have? We're so focused on having instead of being, and I think it's largely because we simply don't know how to be. People yearn for purpose, to feel useful and meaningful. When they feel purpose-driven in no other way, they can still consume, and advertisers think this is great,m and encourage us to go back to this obviously detrimental habit. How can we not term consumerism an addiction, when so many believe -perhaps unconsciously- that "increasing consumption will resolve all problems of personal life and of social existence alike?" And it's not even constrained to a personal level. Entire countries have this mentality and commonly term it as "progress." Why do we always need to be growing more, producing more, spending more? We know it can't go on forever. There is some maximum isn't there? A few hundred years ago, they termed this obsession manifest destiny. Now that we've run out of places to expand (because land and uninhabited space wasn't infinite) we've turned to something else to obsess over. Why is it that we must always be growing and never content with maintaining?
The idea of voluntary simplicity is something many Americans have a hard time grasping, but can be seen in glimpses of many European societies. The European approach to life seems to be decidedly slower-paced, more deliberate, and contented. I mean, children in French elementary schools are given at least an hour, if not two, for lunch. Nothing fancy or extravagant, but deliberate (compare that to the 20 minutes the average third grader is given to scarf down a lunchable). And the French government has a budget designated solely for flowers, not with the intention of being frivolous or anything, but because the people take pleasure in simple, beautiful things... like flowers. Now, I'm not saying the French have it all figured out by any stretch, but I think because their country is so much older than ours, that they've learned to be content with what they have, and not focused on expansion, consumption, growth, "progress", for its own sake. In reality, they have to be. Geographically, they have less room and, thus, a higher concentration of people. We have unplanned suburban development, urban sprawl, and room for annual crop rotation that The French, the English, the Italians just can't afford. Not everyone has a car (or two) simply because there isn't the room or resources. Heck, their refrigerators are even smaller (as are their waistlines, by the way). They have had to learn to be contented with less, and have obviously felt no deprivation because of it. Hopefully, our country will learn this at some point as well.

Affluenza

I thought it was interesting what Kohak said about Americans having the affluenza epidemic. Our society tends to overconsume with everything we do. As Kohak said, we think we have a moral duty to accumulate and consume ever more material goods. Many Americans think they need to keep with their neighbors by having more and bigger and flashier than they have. We judge each other by what we have, not by who we are, which is a major problem. Our needs are being replaced by our greed. We are not just satisfying our needs as the previous human perceptions did. We are going above and beyond that by shifting to consumerism. I am guilty of this, as well. I fulfill my basic needs, but I like to have other things that are not of necessity, such as nicer clothes, more "things", bigger car, etc. We see the world and nature as a means as raw materials to satisfy everything that we want, not need. We would rather have more than enough. In our soceity today, we have a problem realizing what is enough. We always think we never have enough, which leads to the society of overconsumption. People need to start looking at the consequences of our actions and how we are hurting the environment around us. We are using up many of our resources that we can never get back. Eventually, there may not be many resources left. Instead of consuming everything, we should think of ways to get these resources back. We need to take into consideration nature and how we are destroying it. Most Americans have more than enough, and we need to stop being so wasteful and overconsuming resources.

Blog #3

One part of the class that had an impact on me was the discussion of making compromises. As humans we make compromises every day. I feel that most people are pressured to take one side or the other. Either they refuse to participate in animal abuse or they are on the side that animals have no rights. I think we need to be realistic and make compromises. We need to satisfy our human needs, while thinking and protecting the animals needs and environment. People should think before they act. What are the consequences of my actions and how is it going to impact the environment? Americans are not going to give up their meat but maybe we can think of a more humane way of killing and raising the animals. In an ideal world animals would be treated with respect and there would be no cruelty to animals. We do not live in a ideal world. Animals are involved in experiments to help benefit us. For some reason I feel it is OK to experiment on a rat rather than a Gorilla. I do not like to think of animal experimentation but I think it necessary to test the product. I have a lot of gray areas in this subject. I do think it is unfair to the animals that they have to be tested on but I would not want to a drug if it has never been tested before. This problem makes me feel selfish but is there a solution??

Exotic Humans

Kohak made a very interesting point when he described humans as being animals that “stand out of nature”. Kohak, when quoting Everden, also described humans as ‘naturally exotic’. The implications of this idea are multilayered. Does this mean that humans can’t fit into nature? Can humans have no natural habitat? Do humans necessarily destroy habitats by our existence? Or have humans truly lost the ability to act naturally?
As Kohak likes to point, out humans are indeed animals. Therefore it only stands to reason that humans will prosper in certain climates more than others, however, humans live from pole to pole. Is there a one place for humans? Humans manage to live in Siberia and the Arctic primarily through the use of technology and artificial housing. The real question then is whether or not it is ‘unnatural’ to make these dwellings. Certainly we draw a distinction between what is artificial and what is natural. Nevertheless, many animals also make their own shelters, such as the beaver, bird nests, etc. Are these dwellings also artificial because they were not provided for by nature? We need to broaden our definition of artificial. Humans build structures perhaps through reason, but the drive and the need is instinctual and obvious. The same could be said of nesting birds, who build their nest out of the need of shelter.Wherever humans go the apex predator of the area is the first to suffer, such as wolves (North America), bears (Europe) etc. It is impossible for humans to live along side other animals in their own habitat, just as it is impossible for a bear to live with deer. Humans naturally scare animals, just as a bear would scare a deer. Certainly habitats suffer when humans do not control their consumption or the land itself, but since humans are such a versatile creature that can live anywhere it does not seem necessary to destroy these habitats. Humans may never frolic with the woodland creatures, but the forests do not need to be paved.

The Epiphany in Nature

I was interested in Kohak's idea that some cultures, for instance hunter-gatherer tribes, believe that nature is divine. His idea of the "Epiphany" when viewing nature reminded me a lot of Mircea Eliade, a Romanian religious historian and philospher. Eliade also believed that God could be expierenced in a nature. An example, would be when a hiker climbs to the top of mountian and sees the valleys and clouds below. This awe that would be expierenced by the hiker is similiar to that of Kohak's "epiphany" theory. I believe that if more people expierenced nature for its spiritual elements then they would be more connected and less likely to destory it. In modern western societies a lot of "leisure" activies consists of playing video games or being on the computer. If more individuals would turn away from technology for a little bit each day, I believe they would have a deeper connection with nature. This could be as simple as taking a walk through your nighborhood. The simple enjoyment of the sound of a song bird could be seen as a spiritual connection with nature that would help the indiviudal live a more ecofriendly life.