And speaking of birds...

The US government always seems to make its business the status of various species in the nation. A quick glance at the Endangered Species List, limits placed upon the harvest of certain species of fish -we're always being told not to go overboard in our exploitation of species... until one ventures into the agricultural sector. Since livestock aren't "naturally-occurring" like wild salmon, but are instead "produced," the concerns over exploitation fizzle away. This does not, however, mean that our government takes a hands-off approach.

As demand for chicken meat remains far below the number of birds who are actually being raised and killed, rather than allowing the market to adjust to basic supply and demand principles, the federal government Monday announced it will buy $40 million of unwanted chicken products that will be distributed to our nation's school kids and others in federal food programs.

In short, chicken-meat companies have continued increasing the number of birds they raise for food while demand has remained flat. Normally, in a free market, an industry that produces beyond what consumers want will contract. The poultry industry (much like those farmers who grow nothing but GM corn and soybeans) instead relies on regular government support. Might I mention that these government-subsidezed chickens will be fed upon the aforementioned government subsidized corn and soybeans. The broiler chicken industry alone saved $1.25 billion in feed costs from 1997 to 2005 just from taxpayer-funded subsidies.

In such trying economic times... one must wonder...

The End of Communism Favors Smarter Songbirds

Scientists have discovered that recent regional differences observed in population trends among songbird species accross Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic are linked to increased brain size. Large brain size was correlated to strong population increases of respective songbird species in the Czech Republic since 1989 / 1990 and weaker increases in Eastern Germany. Almost no effect has been observed in North-Western Germany.

This difference between the former 'West' and 'East' suggests that this trend was driven by socieconomic changes that took place in the former communist regions. Relative brain size reflects species' cognitive abilities. The increase of such big-brained songbirds suggests that species with good cognitive abilities might have been better able to adapt to rapid changes. Sceintists speculate that the socioeconomic change and the novel opportunities that would have subsequently arisen after the end of communism provided the change in environment to which these birds adapted. In short, the environmental changes that followed the end of communism favored smarter birds.

Authors of this study suggest that future research should expand to consider more regions. This would enable comparison of relationships between socioeconomic change and its impact on bird populations across nations and give a greater insight on the effects of communism and its downfall on bird populations.

I thought it was pretty cool.

Drug Recycling

Pharmaceutical waste is a really, really big problem, contaminating waterways and potable water and making people and animals sick... or hermaphroditic. It is also a really, really expensive problem. Americans dispose of an estimated $1 billion worth of unused medications every single year. So, not only are we polluting our environment with drugs, we're wasting a lot of money (and with the all controvery over Medicare, Medicaid recently... well...).

A 2008 study found the presence of pharmaceuticals in the water supply of 24 major municipalities nationwide. As legislators push for stronger regulation including extended product responsibility for the drug makers themselves, the truth is that pharmacuticals are big business that depends on throughput for profits. That is to say, the more people watse, the more they have to buy and the more money companies make. And if you don’t believe me, just count the number of drug commercials you see in a 15-minute daytime television viewing.

Global pharmaceutical sales were forecasted at $825 billion last year. Pharmaceutical waste is viewed as an unfortunate bi-product of a profitable, innovative, and admittedly necessary industry. But while some see pharmecutical waste as an unfortunate bi-product of the industry, others see it as an untapped resource.

With each leak into the water system, money is being wasted -and that means there are unmet profits out there. And so, some companies, such as Blue Zone, creators of anaesthetics, decided to create certain "proprietary technologies" to reclaim their waste adn even distill it into its origional componets. They've created a nearly closed-loop delivery system. Yes, this, my friends, is pharmecutical super-recycling.

This technology represents one of the first financially viable solutions to the growing problem of pharmaceutical waste in the environment. As the company is now registered as a generic anesthesia manufacturer in both Canada and the United States, Blue Zone promises a solution that generates pharmaceutical industry profits. The company is poised to literally collect millions of dollars from the operating room waste bin.

Supercool if you ask me.

Cross-Dresser

From personal experience, I've found that people who are really into fashion are really intense about it. Scarily so at times. I've known some to place it above all else, as if they would "die for fashion!" First, I don't think that this is normal, acceptable or healthy. Secondly, new research suggests that it's not healthy for everyone else either.

A Greenpeace investigation has discovered a chemical called nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) in clothing made by 14 major brands, including Adidas, H&M, Converse and Abercrombie and Fitch. Oh, and NPE just happens to be highly toxic. NPE breaks down to form nonylphenol in water, which disrupts hormone levels and has been known to cause fish and amphibians to change gender.

Due to its persistence in the environment, nonylphenol builds up in each level in the food chain, much like the bioaccumulation experienced with DDT. And in case you are rather apathetic toward fish and frogs,this bioaccumulation means that humans receive the highest dosage of toxins and can suffer from hormone imbalances as a result of eating contaminated fish and drinking contaminated water.

NPE is banned from use in textile production in the EU but in China and other Asian countries such as Vietnam (where many global clothing brands source their products from -big surprise) lax restrictions mean that NPE is widely used in the dyeing process.

Some of the clothing labels named in Greenpeace's study have retaliated, with many disputing the significance of the findings. H&M have claimed that the because the methods used for testing NPE levels are "uncertain", studies such as Greenpeace's that rely on a low threshold of contamination are not viable. 'Since the level of the findings stated [by Greenpeace] are very low, you cannot show that our products contain nonylphenol ethoxylate,' the company said in a statement to the journal Ecologist.

Adidas has also pointed out that the NPE levels found by Greenpeace in their own products were all below 100mg/kg. In comparison, one Converse t-shirt in Greenpeace’s study was found to have 27,000mg/kg. 'The concentration was well below our own threshold,' Katja Schreiber, an Adidas spokeswoman, told the Ecologist. Schreiber did, however, add that the findings were, 'a clear sign that we need to continue to work in decreasing the amount of chemical substances in our products.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "cross-dresser" if you ask me.

American Wasteland

It's been a while since I've posted anything, and all I've got to show for it is another book. While spending my summer as a "sustainable agriculture intern" at Gorman Heritage Farm, I found some time to read this book, which delves into just how Americans manage to send so much (eatable) food to the landfill every single day.

Jonathan Bloom's chronicle of waste from farm to fork shows just how lengthy and extended out food production and distribution process is, and how waste occurs with every step. From waste in the fields (some crops are actually not harvested due to low market prices or "suspect quality") to mishaps in transportation to distributers and then retailers, a gros amount of veggies don't even make it to your grocery store. And then, in order to maintain an image of bounty and peak freshness, retailers cull what they've bought, with the belief that the consumer won't buy unless it's perfect. And to be honest, this is partly true. Society has conditioned consumers to think of fresh fruits and veggies as only meeting a certain standard to be edible. This means that cucumbers that are too long or to short, and peppers that are "misshaped" and pears that have harmless spots are thrown out while perfectly edible, simply because they will be passed over by the consumer in search of "pretty food."

Then Bloom examines waste at the level of the individual. At restaurants (which waste large amounts of food in the form of day-old bread, leftover specials and mistaken orders, themselves) diners are served enormous portions of food that they often leave on their plates to be thrown in the trash. And survey research shows that many of those who do take a doggie bag of leftovers, often just throw them away at home later. And speaking of leftovers, apparently the distaste for reheated meals extends beyond the restaurant, with the rest of that cassarole being thrown out the night of, or its moldy and long forgotten guise being thrown out the week later.

He also points out that our shopping and cooking habits aren't exactly conducive to using up all of our food before it becomes inedible. Our large refridgerators accomodate our overfilled shopping carts, laden with food that will not be eaten before it goes bad, or will be lost and forgotten in the fridge while you go out an buy some more. Given that fewer and fewer households cook the way they did in slimmer times (think 1930s Depression era) we often don't know how to use what we have creatively and will buy special ingredients for a recipe we make once and don't know what to do with the rest. And then there's our confusion with "sell by" and "best by" dates on the label.

Throughout his work, Bloom hits on the many ways americans waste almost half of the food we produce/buy (a Rose Bowl full of food every day) and the consequences such waste has. In addition, he also explains just why not all this edible food is not going to those who need it. Health code laws, underfunded agencies and the sheer bulk and perishability of the food that is discarded make it impossible for it to get to the hungry.

Ending his book not with lament, but with a positive, procative approach to what we can do to reduce potable food waste, Bloom's work is enlightening as well as empowering. Too many downers in books covering environmental issues nowadays, if you ask me.

No Impact Man

I thought I might mention here a light, fun book that readers of this blog may find interesting. Outlining the exploits of journalist Collin Beavan who, after some time lamenting the state of the environment without actually doing anything about it, sets out on a grand experiment -- to see if he, his wife, Michelle Collin, their young daughter, and their dog could live for a year in New York City without leaving any sort of carbon footprint. The family's exploits included such steps as not making garbage, using only man-power to get around, and eating locally, which translated into spending the year without electricity, restaurant takeout, toilet paper, or motorized transportation. Ascetic as it might sound, Collin's book is filled with insights on the American lifestyle and what comes with giving it up. The complaints are many, but he recognizes the many benefits too, and has pledged to hold onto some of his newfound habits, even after the family's year-long experiment ended.

I mention this book because I saw it in the college bookstore at the beginning of this spring semester. Inquiry led to the discovery that Dr. Julie Daoud was using the work in her class on literature and conscience, and though I was not taking the class, I contacted Dr. Doaud because I had an exciting piece of info to offer. My friend, Amy, had just come back from New York on a trip to receive training from Mr. Beavan's No Impact Project, an initiative which works to bring environmental awareness and "No Impact Weeks" to college campuses and neighborhoods nationwide. Though Thomas More was not lucky enough to host a No Impact Week this semester, Amy did arrange to visit Dr. Daoud's class and talk with her students about the Project and about "lighter living."

I hope that, perhaps sometime in the not too distant future, the ideas and awareness brought about by No Impact Man can be brought to Thomas More by the No Impact Project. In the meantime, readers and contributors to this blog might pick up the book (or watch the new documentary by the same title) for a light summer read. It's worth it... and the book's printed on recycled materials, if you were wondering.

Global Warming Trends Take a Bite Out of Important Crops

Without exception, our abuses to the planet always seem to come back to bite us, and this time, they've taken a bite out of our food supply.Scientists have long predicted that — eventually — temperatures and altered rainfall caused by global climate change would take a toll on four of the world's most important staple crops: rice, wheat soy and corn. Most inconveniently,as world grain prices soar near record highs, a new study reveals that these effects are starting to be felt.
According to Wolfram Schlenker, a teacher environmental economics and coauthor of the study, for two crops, corn and wheat, there has actually been a steady decline in yields over the past 30 years. The scientists looked specifically at places in the world where warming trends are most pronounced and, sure enough, they found these staple crops weren't doing quite as well. For rice and soy, declines in some places were offset by productivity boosts elsewhere in the world, so there was no overall change. But they did see a change for wheat and corn. The losses caused by warming thus far are still smaller than the gains made though improved agriculture, but rather than seeing gains in yield, as would be expected form the improvements, yields are only managing to remain stable.
The study, published online by Science magazine, shows that these crops have declined about 5 percent over what they would have been in the absence of warming. That sounds small, until you consider that globally, these crops are worth about a trillion dollars a year. And according to Gerald Nelson at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C., as the planet heats up in the coming decades, the 5 percent loss seen today could easily grow to 20 percent. No small change, if you ask me.
To add insult to injury, most of these yield problems hit people who can afford it the least. Those Who hurt most are people who spend the greatest portion of their income on food, and in developing countries, this can be as high as 40% annually. Here in the United States, a doubling of wheat prices might only add, say, a dime to the cost of a $2 loaf of bread, but double the price of rice and people who fill their food bowl with that grain every day will really feel it.
Americans are also insulated from this effect for another reason. The new study found that the effects of warming have not been felt evenly around the world, since the temperature trends themselves are not evenly distributed.And since America's breadbasket has not warmed significantly, American grain farmers have been fortunate. Professor Gene Takle at Iowa State University says farmers in the Midwest have actually dealt with a long-term trend of additional rainfall in that area.
Midwestern farmers have adapted to the added wetness by spraying more pesticides to control fungus, by planting more per acre, and by buying bigger machines to cope with the wetter fields. But there are limits, and many other farmers around the world are already starting to find out where those limits lie as they confront higher temperatures.

# 17

I thought that the last discussion went really well. There was a variety of topics presented that brought up new dicussions in class. The topics were interesting as well as how they were presented. I think that they gave insight to a different way of thinking and explored different aspects of ecological ethics that as a class we had not talked about. This entire class gave me a different perspective on life and and nature. I have become more aware of my actions and how they affect all other life. My thoughts have become more biocentric rather than strictly anthropocentric. It has taught me to show respect to living creature and to better understand how my actions can contribute to better life on earth. I have really enjoyed this class and how it has opened my eyes. The earth is not just about human existance but the maintenence of all life, and from now on I will always remember to "tread lightly".

Blog 17-This is the end

After taking this class, I now have a different perspective of nature and how we as humans affect it. This class has presented the ethics of various philosophers such as Garrett Hardin and his lifeboat ethics, James Lovelock and his GAIA hypothesis, Arne Naeis and his Deep vs Shallow Ecology and Mary Midgley with her ethics towards animals. They all have presented very good arguments that call for a major change in humans.

This class has taught me to be more simple and respectful towards nature and to try and teach others about the problems we face today regarding nature. Though not much was said in discussions throughout the semester, however in these last few weeks, it is evident that this class has taught us something about ourselves and that we are definitely thinking about what this class presents to us. The panel discussions went very well and I glad we were able to discuss other topics instead of just one. Overall this was a great class and I definitely recommend it. Thanks Dr. Langguth and I hope everyone has a great summer.

The End

The last discussion week was very well done. There was a huge array of topics but we were able to tie them altogether. The heated debate on Friday was very interesting as well and I think that was the most discussion the whole class has ever had. I liked that people were more presenting their opinions rather than just describing the topic they had because that is what would start the debate up.

Overall, this class went very well and I have gained a greater respect for the nature around us and how everything is actually connected. Now, it makes me think when I'm copying 50 pieces of paper, how it is affecting everything and not just the trees. This class was very well done and has definitely opened my eyes. I actually ended up giving up meat for lent to see what being a vegetarian was like. It was eye-opening again because now I am thinking more about where everything came from, rather than just if this will taste good or not.

I have definitely had to rethink where I stood on some aspects of life, because being an animal lover, I didn't realize that I was more partaking in the shallow ecology whereas I should be involved with the deep ecology. Now making decisions I will have more to think about, and hopefully be able to better treat the environment.

Thanks everyone and Dr. Langguth for a great semester!

Blog 17 - Final Thoughts

The last discussion was very interesting; Thanks Joel! All the topics were very interesting and thought provoking. One thing I have thought of in discussions about deep and shallow ecology is that we may be underplaying the importance of shallow ecology. The deep ecologists continually say that shallow ecology is useless and that everyone needs a completely new mind set that is environmentally friendly. When looking at this it seems bizarre. I don’t think anyone will wake up one morning and decide, “Hey I’m not going to create an impact on the earth, I’m not driving a car, etc”. That is completely unrealistic. I believe that shallow ecology, especially flannel ecology, creates a stepping stone that could eventually lead to a deep ecology mind set. By going out and planting trees, spending time in wilderness, or cleaning parks, a person may develop a love for the land. From this love may come the deep ecology mindset that is needed for sustainability on earth. I believe that shallow ecology is the only thing that makes deep ecology possible. I doubt any deep ecologist just became one over night, I imagine they had many experiences in nature that were “shallow” that developed their current view point.

The only problem with Tori’s statement about reintroducing predators into the wilds to control populations, thereby reducing the need to hunt is that its not plausible in today’s world. The populations of predators are decimated and the amount of wilderness left is shrinking fast. Predators require huge tracts of undisturbed land to sustain them, and there just isn’t enough of this left to maintain a healthy population. I know about the natural cycle that involves peaks and lows of prey and predator. The fact is that human interference is going to prevent the reemergence of predators. Also, lots of overpopulation of deer, rabbits, etc. occur in places such as Fort Thomas. Obviously a large population of predators cannot be maintained in such an environment.

I think many people took Joel’s presentation the wrong way. Its a philosophical discussion and some people took it personally. The fact that everyone fails to see is that the points he brings up actually would help control population. Its just that nobody wants to be controlled by regulations or make sacrifices. That is the reason that this world is in trouble. We aren’t going to change as a society, because as a whole we are selfish. I find it funny that people say deep ecology is what needs to happen, but when it is disguised without a name people freak out. If a person was actually a deep ecologist they would take steps to lessen their impact on the world. This exemplifies that sadly, deep ecology is not feasible, because no one is willing to sacrifice their “rights”.

Blog 17

The idea of deep ecology is infact a scary one, but it would be impossible to argue that would it fix the environmetal issues we face today. If you take a step back and take in the environmetal destruction the world faces today, you can almost feel yourself on Hardin's lifeboat. The desicions that mankind will be soon face with will be a difficult one and wether we choose to accept it or not it likely requires a massive reduction in not greenhouse gases but the reduction of the human population. I strongly feel like we are industrious enough to save ourself, but we need to stop avoiding the real problem and address it. It is understandable that mankind be afraid to truly stop and try to resolve these environmental problems because first of all they contradict the American culture. As one of the leading countries in the world, it is our responsibility to be a trend setter in environmetal policies and right now that isn't the case. People also need to understand that shallow ecology (greencars, recycling, energy efficient lights, whatever) are slowing down the problem, but can never fix it, because they still contribute. If the problems are going to be resolved, it involve a massive movement to ELIMINATE greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce, and an increased awareness for the rights of other organism on the planet and an understanding that our desicions affect them too. We can't be selfish.

Blog 17--last one!

The final presentations of our class have broadened from the single topic of lifeboat ethics. Deep versus shallow ecology, Paul Taylor, Biocentrism, and the meat or mercy debate were just a few of the diverse topics chosen.

Even though Michelle discussed lifeboat ethics, she went in-depth on its history, including in it the discussion of the 3 main choices that we can make and Midgley’s opinion. Bethany and Emily contrasted deep versus shallow ecology, highlighting Arne Naess’ view. They both discussed the need for change and how the decisions that we make affect all of nature. They also emphasized the need for greater respect towards all living things. Alice went on to deliberate on Paul Taylor and biocentrism. She discussed his 3 main theories and included Kant’s view in her paper as well. Ashley discussed the differing views of on animals, specifically the meat or mercy debate. She included the similarities of slavery and the issue of factory farming in her paper. She also discussed the differences and benefits of family versus factory farming.

One of the presentations that I felt very strongly about was Joel’s life boat/overpopulation topic. As a solution to the problem of overpopulation, he says that we need to limit the amount of children people have and refrain from treating people with medications that will only prolong their life.  I think his topic brought up some very interesting points. I also think that he chose a paper topic that is very controversial and deserves a lot of thought and an analysis of our own individual beliefs.

Overall, I have found these presentations to be interesting and informative. I have found that hearing the information again has helped me to retain much of what we have learned this semester.

last panel discussions

Fridays panel discussions were by the most interesting out of all the discussions. The two that were my favorite topics were the ones about antibiotic resistance bacteria, and the presentation about controlling the population. However as Lacey said I was not aware that antibiotic resistance also is prevalent in animals as well as humans. I found this topic to be very interesting and more scientific based than the other ones.

I also really enjoyed listening to the discussion about controlling the population. I however do not agree with everything that he said, such as the idea of limiting family sizes and not treating the sick. However he supported this reason by very supportive background. I believe his topic caused the most discussion over the past classes for discussion.

I am really glad we did the panel discussions related to our papers. I feel like as if by listening to everyone’s opinions it helped me to understand some of the topics presented by the philosophers. I feel like I have learned a lot from this class and I am glad I took it. It has made me have a better sense for the environment and how all of the living beings in the environment are treated and viewed.

Blog 17: Last Blog

Since we didnt have much time to discuss on Wednesday, I fely like today helped because we tied in deep and shallow ecology along witht eh lifeboat ethics. Today's presentaions were really thought out and the presenters knew what they were talking about and were very interested in their topic. Of course on the last day, a nice panel discussion arises about the population of earth and what it will be like in years to come. I honestly wish the argument lasted longer just so I could hear what else would have been said. I like how he put deep ecology into a certain example and then explained how we think deep ecology is the best route but when it is put into situation it is wrong and an uproar starts. Friday was the first day no one did a topic of the Lifeboat ethics which was nice to see a change in topics and veyr different topics.

Overall these presentations allowed me to think and see what other people think about ecological ethics and see what topic intereseted them after reading Kohak and Midgley. The presentations gave a different feel to the class becuase we could actually here what the classmates think about a certain issue in the environment today. Even though I took the class becase it fit with my schedule, I am kind of glad I took the class to get a a better feel for the environment and how humans today treat the enviornment and the things that live in the environment.

Blog #17

Today's panel discussions were byfar the most interesting thus far.  There were a couple controversial topics that I am not sure I agree with, but I did understand where my classmates were coming from.  The major one that I was really shocked about was from Joel.  I understand that he was taking a deep ecological stand point that focuses on the overall stability of the Earth, but I think it was misunderstood.  I think everyone thought that he was stating his opinion on the matter, but he was just making it known of the problem that exists.  I was not aware that the Earth could only contain a certain amount of people.  And when he stated that it was ridiculous to treat people who only had a few more years to live, I thought that was rather harsh, but it was only to make a point.  I found that presentation very interesting. 

Another presentation that caught my attention was the one on the anitibiotic resistance bacteria.  I was not aware than this was also prevalent in animals as well.  As a nursing major, I am aware of the common problem of resistant bacteria from my microbiology class, but did not really see the connection that animals and humans had with this phenomnenon. 

Overall, I believe the panel discussions were very beneficial to me.  I feel like they helped me understand some of the topics presented by the philosophers.  The way the information was presented and the way the questions were asked enabled my understanding of the topics discussed in environmental ethics to expand.  I feel like I will take the information gained from this semester's class and hopefully apply it to the world around me.

Blog 17

Today's discussions were very interesting. I enjoyed getting to hear about some topics that had not been overly discussed yet. My was very interested in the paper on an anthropocentric view of factory farming. The points that were made were very pertinent and I really liked being given alternate reasons for wanting an end to factory farming besides the animal-rights issue. I think that, unfortunately, these types of human-centered arguments are the ones that have the most chance of reaching people on a large scale.

I also enjoyed hearing the panelists talk about the GAIA hypothesis and the Land Ethic. Those were two topics in the book that I thought were interesting, and I thought the panelists did a good job of presenting their ideas.

Lastly: the topics that were focused on deep ecology. The paper about controlling the population and letting nature behave the way it was meant to really stirred up some heated discussions. I thought this topic was very interesting because it is not a topic I'm used to hearing about - and I'm certainly not used to hearing the point of view that was presented. Although I have to disagree with the idea of limiting family sizes and not treating the sick, I think the panelist did a good job of helping me to understand why someone would adopt this point of view. Rationally, it makes sense to say we should let survival of the fittest play out, but ethically I believe it would be wrong. Now that we have the ability to help people through medications and other forms of aid, I think that refusing anyone that help would be amoral. However, I can see why someone would say otherwise, and I think the argument was presented in a way that made it more clear to me, no matter what my own opinions are.

Overall, I think everyone did a great job with their panel presentations and with responding to some tough questions.

Blog #17

I think that the presentations are going extremely well. Everyone did a great job. Today was very interesting with the debate that went on. I actually thought it was really good that it happened, becuase it answered some questions that I was confused about. For example, one of them talked about over population and even gave an example that if somebody had cancer and was going to die in two years then they are thinking all about themselves when they are trying to live for those next two years, becuase they are using up things that others could be using who are not dying. Then the girl had asked him if those two years did not mean anything to a persons life, it made me wonder the same thing. I believe that even though you are dying and do not have much time to live, each day is a blessing to still be alive, and I do not think they are being ungrateful. I believe everybody would care about themselves before they would somebody else. I was also suprised to hear that he wants to be a doctor. This topic was by far the most interesting one, plus, it was different.

Still a lot of people did the lifeboat ethics so there is not much more to talk about the presentations other than it went really well. This class made me open my eyes to the different things that we had learned. I do not think I would have every thought of any of this if it was not for this class. Listening to other poeples thougths during the presentations also was an eye opener, it was cool to hear their views and beleifs. I have a completely different respect for animals and nature.

17-Last Blog!

I'm going to be very honest. I really do not have much to say on this blog. Everyone has done a great job on presenting. I have found it very interesting to hear everyones different opinions on each of the topics. Somedays our class ends up having a very good discussion. Although we did not get to finsih presentations on Wednesday due to the tornado warning, I think all of the presenters were wonderful! Overall, I can say I have really enjoyed this class and have a different out look on nature and how we treat animals.

Blog 17

Since we haven't really discussed much from the last time we had to blog I don't really have much to say. I think we had some interesting topics on Wednesday but then we had to leave early. I feel like more of the topics last week were about lifeboat ethics so that topic has been discussed already. I kind of agree with the previous post about the treatment of animals vs. humans and how people think it's wrong to kill/harm humans but ok to kill/harm animals. I feel that it is more of just a cultural belief and the way in which we were raised in this society. We're so used to seeing on the news or t.v. shows that if you kill a human you will go to jail. However, if you kill an animal it's not a big deal. I wouldn't go as far as saying animals don't have souls and they are machines or we can treat them however we want, I believe that animals and humans should both be treated with dignity and respect.

Blog #17

Over the last few periods, the class has continued to discuss student presentations. While there have been various topics covered in class (from Deep vs. Shallow Ecology to Paul Taylor and Biocentricism), Lifeboat Ethics seems to be the paper topic of choice. I think this is due to the simplicity of the topic and the controversy surrounding it. Some new points brought up in Wednesday's class regarding Lifeboat Ethics included a look into its influencing factors and a discussion of its traditionalist stance when referring to the prevention of the "tragedy of the commons."
As was discovered in class, the Lifeboat Ethic, put forth by Garret Hardin, was developed in light of an interpretation of Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic by J. Baird Callitcott. As stated in my paper: while Leopold stressed a very biocentric view of nature and a dramatic confession of reverence for life within his works, Callicott seemed to read only the parts of Leopold’s works that stressed the importance of death and his interpreted indifference to it. Callicott then took this idea and developed it further, “In Callicott’s interpretations emphasis seems to shift until it seems that not life, but the struggle for life, polemos, is the true meaning of all being and source of all value” (Kohak 94). From this idea of all encompassing human struggle, Garrett Hardin developed his philosophical approach. “ The idea that the fundamental summum bonum from which all value derives is the struggle which is humankind’s tragic lot yet in which real men are born gives rise to a radically different stance which Garrett Hardin calls lifeboat ethics” (Kohak 94).
The class also discussed the difference between Hardin's traditionalism and the traditionalism that is attached to the contemporary Republican political party. While current Republicans are termed neo-conservatives, Hardin encompasses the strictly conservative views of old conservatism - calling on strict tradition to shape all of humanity's actions. Also stated in my paper: Hardin shows, through the use of many examples that selfishness has helped to save many aspects of the earth and human culture for future generations – “The…gingko tree…survived, as the only one of its kind, only because Chinese monks…would not prevent its felling…even though children were dying of cold. Not so long ago children were dying in the besieged Leningrad because privileged bureaucrats….refused to open the Soviet grain archives to the crowd. Only thanks to that could Soviet agriculture be renewed after the war” (Kohak 99). Hardin relies on tradition, not need, to guide human actions and protect humanity from the catastrophes of its own shortsightedness. When tradition cannot protect everything, Hardin calls on the strength of the government to put into effect his life boat ethic and save what remains. Hardin calls on this government to “…stop saving lives and start saving ecosystems…Nature can still save itself if we stop burdening it with our humanitarian aid” (Kohak 100). With his strict traditionalism and conservatism, Hardin calls on humanity to save what is valuable by limiting its supply - by not felling the trees or feeding the children, both countries saved resources that benefited the country as a whole and allowed the dying of some. This dying allowed the natural population cycle to renew itself and humanity to save some aspects of their culture so that they could pass it on to their children.

Blog 17

Ok so again this is a response to the presentations in class. And again there are so many people doing there paper on life boat ethics!! I have to wonder if you all conspired on this (haha). One topic that was recenlty talked about was what is the difference of testing on human bodies as apposed to animals. Why do people get so carried away with how wrong it is to do stuff in the name of science on a dead cadaver and it is perfectly ok to do anything to an animal. One part of me thinks that this has its roots in theology. Some religious beleifs (like christianity) say that we are made in the image of God and that we have souls. Animals, however, were not and some beleive that they dont have souls. So is that what makes it wrong to not experiment on humans but ok to do to animals? I just thought this was an interesting paper and I wish we could have discussed it more.

Blog16

Ok so this blog is in response to the presentations. So far I am impressed with the amount of people looking into the lifeboat ethics. I say this only because in my opinion, the life boat ethic seemd boring and just not that intriguing. However with all the discussion we are having on it in class perhaps i underestimated it entirely. I found it interesting when somebody attached it to the problems in Africa and then we moved onto the global problems in the environment. I did not realize that the lifeboat ethics could encompass such a wide range of topics. Another paper that somebody did that I thought was kinda neat was the one on how she was close to nature when she was young, moved away from it and is now trying to restructure he relationship with it. At one point she commented on how a small girl she watches is unafraid to get down and dirty with the animals and play in the dirt. I can relate to this because as a kid I was the same way. I didnt care about getting dirty because to me that how you had fun. It was like a fact of life. Now I would probably be less inclined to go play in the sandbox because its dirty, gritty, and gets everywhere. Plus i know what could possibly be living in it. Yuck...

Blog 16

Overall I think the panel discussion have been going well. Everyone's topics seem interesting. There are a lot of people doing lifeboat ethics though. This has not been as interesting. There is only so much you can say about a topic and everyone seems to have taken the same view. This is fine though. I am glad to see that someone is talking about the Kantian view. He has a very interesting view on animals. I also enjoyed the factory farming topic. I can relate to this topic because I grew up on a farm and currently live on a cattle and chicken farm. I don't agree with the current way factory farming is done but I do think that there are better ways to do it. They could give the animals more freedom and they could also do it in a more humane way. This being said though, local farms are always going to be more humane and better, in my opinion.

blog 7 - kestrel's eye

Overall I thought that this movie was very different. It was very interesting to see a movie without any dialect between people. This opens your mind and challenges you to think in a different way. Watching this movie, it has occurred to me that birds (animals) are the same as humans. They find a mate, create a family, and provide for that family. We just do those things in different ways than birds or animals.

It's also very neat to see the world from a birds prospective. They see the things that we do if its polluting or cutting the grass. It also makes you realize how innocent animals are. Sure some of them hurt us, but they don't realize what they are doing. They are just eating or were scarred of us. This movie definently makes you think a lot about things like that. When we pollute this world with our car emissions or our oil leaks, we effect the lives of these innocent beings. We are the guilty ones and need to change the ways that we are doing things in this world.

BLOG 16

Overall, I think that everyone has presented their information well. The only problem is that everyone has chosen lifeboat ethics. There is only so much information that can be presented on lifeboat ethics. This problem also creates no discussion in class because we have already discussed all the information on it. I myself don't know why everyone is picking lifeboat ethics. We have read two books that present many unique and different topics. Next time for this assignment, you should only allow a certain amount of people to pick the same topic. This would erase the no discussion in class and would help to people present more information. For the people that have chosen different topics, they have presented interesting information. You learn something new from them and it makes class less boring. I also like hearing how their topic is related into there own life. That is very interesting. Someone said that they moved into the city from out in the country, and they talked about the differences that they encountered. So, overall it is interesting but everyone has chosen the same topic

Blog #16

So far, I have enjoyed the panel discussions.  There have been a wide variety of topics, although there have been numerous people that have chosen lifeboat ethics.  Even though each person provided their own interpretation on the topic, there is only so much that can be said about lifeboat ethics.  I think in the next semester to come, there should be a limitation on the amount of people that can choose the same topic in order to facilitate a more flowing class discussion.

There were a few topics that really interested me that were not based directly on the different philosophers in class.  The one on factory farming and the one on cadavers really caught my attention. I actually have a dead persons tendon that is used as my ACL in my left knee, so that is the main reason why I would like to learn more on the cadavers subject. And my dad raises cattle and sells them, so that is why the factory farming topic interests me. I am really looking forward to the last two class periods and learning more about the interests of my fellow classmates.

Panel discussions

The panel discussions have been very good so far especially to see what ecological problem each individual has chosen to talk about. Overall life boat ethics is a reocurring topic that a lot of people are picking. I think people picked that because I feel that it is the easiest topic to grasp throughout Kohak and Midgley. Other interesting topics have been chosen , which has allowed to me to get a different feel for the environmental problems. One topic I thought was interesting was the one where she chose to talk about her experience with nature moving from a farm to the city and back to the farm. I thought this was interesting because it allowed the audience to become more interested because it was totally different than the other topics chosen.

With the reoccurring topic of lifeboat ethics, it causes the presentations to become a little dull because there is only so much you can talk about life boat ethics without repeating yourself. When it comes to the class participating it is a little hard to participate when the presentations are dull and hearing the same information over and over again. I find the presentations interesting, I just don't care to ask any questions about the topics which is why I never put my input in the class. Overall the presentations have been really well thought out and I am looking forward to see what the rest of the class has to talk about.

Blog #16 Panel Discussion

The presentations are going very well. It is interesting how a lot of people chose the topic lifeboat ethics. This topic is the most interesting to me though and that is why I chose it. Listening to others speak about their interpretation on the lifeboat ethics made me have even a more clearer understanding about it, plus, it gave me some ideas. Although, after awhile it is hard to keep talking about the same topic over and over again, we just keep repeating ourselves. There is only so much you can say about something, and I believe we covered every part on that certain topic.

Factory farming was a different topic that someone is writing about, and it was nice to learn a little more about that, because we did not really talk too much about that in class. The other topics that I have heard people discuss are pretty much the same, so it gets kind of lengthy especially, when people are not asking questions. Sometimes it is hard to think of questions about something you really do not know anything about. Even though we do not discuss too much during class I believe that our papers will be much better, and we will have a lot more to say in them versus saying them in the class. Over all everybody is doing a great job.

Blog 16- Panel Discussion #1

The presentations have been very good so far. I think that each individual’s paper will be well put together and informative.  A lot of people have chosen topics about lifeboat ethics, which is very controversial and thought-provoking.  I think that the lifeboat topic focuses on all options that we have as moral individuals. It is ironic, however, that in lifeboat ethics, the most moral choice results in the least number of survivors and the immoral choice results in the most survivors. This leaves us in a very interesting situation. We have to balance our morality with the will to survive.

Also, the issue of population and overuse of resources are directly related to lifeboat ethics. This brings up the concern about the scarcity of oil and if we should place prolonging human life at the top of our list. I personally believe that human life should be allowed to run its natural course. We need to offer treatments for diseases, but at the same time should not keep people alive by unnatural means. I think that the euthanasia idea will become a major topic of interest in the following years. I am completely against allowing people to purposefully end life by unnatural means. I do not think that that is the right way to approach the issue of population and keeping natural life and population control in balance is critical.

When thinking about those who presented the topics of life ethics, Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking like a Mountain”, and the Gaia hypothesis, the matter of deep versus shallow ecology is a reoccurring one. I think that most people prefer shallow ecology over deep ecology. We would rather “brush off” our ecological problems rather than really focus on our short-comings and what we can do to be pro-active in fixing them. I believe that this is our society’s main problems and if we cannot critique ourselves then things will never change.

I am looking forward to the rest of the panel discussions.

panel discussions

The panel discussions in class so far have been very interesting. Each explanation of the different views has given a unique intetrpretation that I have not thought about. It has been interesting to see what each person has decided to write about, and what they chose to explain about each topic. Although it gets difficult to discuss the same topic multiple times each class, such as life boat ethics, there have been some new interpretaions added each time. I found the unique topics and personal topics to be more interesting. Although it is difficult to discuss some of the topics in class, the discussion that has taken place has given new meaning to each topic.

I think that they have gone well so far and have helped me understand the topics presented through different points of view. It has caused me to think about each topic more than what we had discussed througout the classes we had over them. I enjoy hearing what each class mate thinks, and how they have interpreted the multiple views. I am looking forward to hearing more presentations as well as presenting my own.

16 - Panel Response and Comment on Factory Farming

For the most part the student presentations have been interesting, although I am already getting bored of people presenting about Lifeboat Ethics. It seems that over half the class has chosen this topic and that dampens any chance of having a discussion with those people. There are only so many times you can continually discuss the same topic. It was thoroughly discussed during the first student presentation day and now continually going over it is parallel to beating a dead horse. Outside the repetitive nature of these topics I found factory farming and testing on animals to be extremely interesting. These are events that happen on a wide scale in everyday life so they are more relevant to us than some theory.

In particular factory farming caught my attention due to a lengthy review paper I had to write in one of my biology classes. My topic was about antibiotic resistant bacteria, and one aspect of this is the transfer of immune microbes from animals to humans. Resistant microbes arise in animals from the use of growth promoters, which are sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics given to animals in their feed to increase their weight gains. These growth promoters are also needed to keep infections low due to the overcrowded, dirty environments that compose factory farms. These low doses and frequent uses of antibiotics has given rise to resistant bacteria in animals. This would not be a problem except it has been shown that these microbes are cross resistant to human antibiotics as well, because the growth promoters are structurally similar to humans medicine. This has led to an increase in resistant infections that were not seen until certain growth promoters were used. An anthropocentric argument could be made that factory farming is wrong, because the effects on humans is negative. This fact, along with the obvious one that the animals are kept in horrid conditions, makes the case even stronger about why factory farms should be abolished.

Panel discussions

All of the panelists so far have done a good job being prepared for discussing their topic. There are many interesting ideas that people are using for their papers. Lifeboat ethics has been the most discussed topic in class. And to be honest I am getting tired of hearing the same topic over and over again. I understand why so many people have chosen this topic because to me it’s the easiest topic to understand. I have enjoyed getting to listen to other students talk about their paper topics and listening to their opinions on different environmental ethics. This morning we heard about papers on factory farming. By having a discussion about factory farming, it helped me to figure out how I can include a concept about factory into my paper that I am writing on Meat vs. Mercy. I believe that the discussion would be more interesting if more people would participate and ask questions. But I am not one to talk because I am quiet in the morning as well.

Blog 16

In class we have been discussing the topics of our research paper. There has been a variety of topics, but the most popular seems to be Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics. I think this is probably because Lifeboat Ethics is something that many of us had heard a variation of before the class, so it made it easier to understand in this context and more applicable to our lives. I myself chose to write my paper on Lifeboat Ethics, and this was one of the reasons for my decision.

I have enjoyed getting to listen to other students talk about their paper topics and hearing their opinions on thing. This morning we heard about papers on factory farming, David Abram's language ideas, Lifeboat Ethics, and Immanuel Kant. All of these topics are interesting, and I think the panelists did a good job of talking about their repsective topics. I was especially interested in hearing about the factory farming paper because we only touched on it in class, and we never really got into the details of it.

I feel bad because when it comes time for the class to ask questions to the panelists about their essays, I can never seem to come up with an interesting question that would prompt an interesting answer. I have never been incredibly comfortable talking in front of the class (unless it is something I have thought a lot about and prepared), so I'm assuming that is the reason it has been difficult for me to jump into these panel discussions.

Overall, I think it seems like everyone is on the right track and that there will be many interesting papers turned on at the end of the semester!

Blog #16

All of the panelist so far have done an excellent job. There are many interesting ideas that people are using for their papers. Lifeboat ethics really seems to be topic of interest to many people. Others have mentioned Kant, Abram, and Factory farming. Factory farming seemed like it would be a very interesting topic to write about as well. The panelist did a great job explaining, and I think her argumentative paper will be very well written.

I feel like some of the discussions are dragged on sometimes, because no one in our class talks during these discussions. I will be honest that I am guilty of this myself, but I would rather right what I thinkk on here rather than speak in class. I believe everyone will do a great job on their papers, and we all will have a lot more to say when we finish our paper as well. Although I enjoy these panel discussions, I wish that we could talk and discuss about the questions on the exam instead.

Panel Discussions

These discussions have been a little dull at times, it seems like a lot of people did lifeboat ethics at the beginning of the discussions. While this is an interesting topic and easy to understand, it's becoming more difficult to discuss since we already have many times. It's difficult to think of questions to ask on the spot, however, I feel that some good discussions have come from some of the topics presented. I think it will get more interesting as more people present their topics and there is more to draw from. I think some of the different topics have been interesting such as how moving from the city into the country has influenced a person, or factory farming, or tying multiple topics together - as discussed today. It's neat to see the differing opinions on such topics, especially on controversial issues in today's society. I look forward to hearing more of the topics and hopefully discussing some in more detail. So far, all the presentations have been done well and it seems that there will be some good papers.

Blog #16

So far I have really enjoyed the pannel discussions. I think it is really interesting to hear everyone voice thier topic and talk about what interests them. I also find it very interesting at how many people chose to do their paper on life boat ethics. That is one topic that never really caught my interest, but its good that it sparked other peoples interest because now I get the opportunity to learn more about it. The layed back atmosphere that we have in the classroom during the pannel discussion helps for it not to be too tense and I really like that.


One of the topics that really caught my interest was the person who talked about how her relationship with animals and nature have changed from when she was a child becuase she had to move to the city. I thought it was really neat how she tied her personal life story into her paper. It made it more real and helped to understand more about the topic. She even told a story about her niece that is fearless when it comes to nature and how it is helping bring her closer to nature again. I just think that is so cool and is something I am very interested in.


I think that everyone has done a good job so far when presenting their topics. Some of the topics are ones that I would have never chosen to write about, but like I mentioned above it is good that we all have interest in different things because it is helping me learn about a bigger variety of topics by hearing each person speak.