Part III of the text begins with introducing other ways to approach the ecological crisis. Ultimately, it states that the underlying concern is how it all fits together and how we can not only understand but also act to fix the problems. I feel like this will always be the million dollar question because there will always be some people who claim they understand it and know what to do while the other half of the population disagrees; therefore, it seems to be a vicious cycle we are apart of. Anyway, one form of belief is called to the reader's attention and that is the idea of "deep ecology" presented by Arne Naess. Essentially, Naess' beliefs stem from the idea of the interconnection of all life. Naess believed that a shift in attitude was needed rather than merely an act of technology. I would have to agree with this, however, this is where the problem lies - people's attitudes and ways of life have to change which seems rather impossible in today's world.
The 7 conditions Naess lists on page 111-12 basically states that human life should be compatible with the fact that humans should be able prolong their existence on Earth. Throughout the reading, when Naess compares deep and shallow ecology, he is stressing the importance of looking at things deeper than just what's on the surface. One must focus on his/her efforts and how they relate to the world rather than the faults of another person. He touches on the idea of self-realization and not simply acting out of short-term personal gain but rather what is good for all of humanity. As I thought more about it, I think that the concepts that Naess presents can relate to a sense of maturity in the individual and how people identify themselves in relation to the world. Sure, I eat meat and would rather not think about how/where my meat came from. However, my family has recently become accustomed to eating deer meat and utilizing the privilege of hunting and not wasting meat. (I know, hunting animals is a whole other issue). Furthermore, we try to buy from local farms that don't use artificial supplements and we try to buy as much organic food as possible. I know this does not mean much in comparison to the bigger picture but it's a start.
On page 114, Naess states how gradual identification is the basic tool for personal growth and natural product of maturity. This made me think that people are they way they are today because of how they grew up/how they were raised. People tend to be greedy and narrow-minded and only seek benefits for themselves. If they were raised this way, it is likely that they will raise their children with these beliefs. Thus, the cycle continues. I feel like all my posts can be kind of cynical, but I guess since I've seen ecological problems spring up in my lifetime, I can't see it getting any better anytime soon. Furthermore, I think it's true how Kohak poses the question as to how children can possibly understand the beauty of life if they do not learn about it...(115). Essentially, children will never know if they're never taught; and if they only see what's on t.v. then they well see/learn things from the skewed perception of society.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Blog 6 - Lifeboat Ethics
Garret Hardin provides an interesting, yet equally tragic, view on solving the problem of overburdening the earth with his lifeboat ethics. He believes that it is the overpopulation of the human race which is threatening nature. Hardin’s lifeboat ethics states that we can either help everyone survive, save the most people possible that the earth can sustain, or save no one and let only the fortunate survive. The first two are implausible, according to him, because if we save everyone we all die and what parameters will pick who gets to be saved. The sad truth is, if we were on a lifeboat, I believe most people would let others die rather than imperil their own lives. It is a basic instinct of all creatures to survive, although our ability to think and feel empathy may lead some people of remarkable character to risk their own lives for the sake of others. Hardin believes that we should not save the “drowning survivors”, therefore the earth will not be overburdened and sustainability is feasible.
Hardin believes that humanitarian aid is a road block to sustainability. Such organizations save the sick and feed the hungry of third world countries. This allows for high birth rates and an increase in impoverished people. Now there are more mouths to feed with each generation and a larger strain is placed on the environment. Hardin believes it is human’s shortsightedness that allows this to happen and that nature can save itself without this extra strain. If it was left to him, he would let millions die of starvation and essential let nature take its course. It certainly would solve the dilemma of overpopulation.
Hardin’s view is indeed tragic, and in a way it does solve a problem. What he is not considering is the overconsumption of the “modern world” and the extreme harm countries like the US do to it. The US alone contributes of 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases (p.73). Even with less people, international companies would come from all over to exploit the land from these countries that were left to die of starvation. The real problem is the greed of humanity, especially seen in first world countries and large companies. If Africa became almost uninhabited if left to starve to death, would entrepreneurs and businesses not look to all this available land and somehow try to extract some value from it? There is more to this world’s problems than what Hardin addresses, such as overconsumption from modern countries.
Blog 5 - Ethical Perspective
In the book there are three ideas that Koha'k talks about in the ethical perspective, these are theocentric, antropocentric, and biocentric. The idea of theocentric has to do with looking at nature as a creation of the divine, this almost makes it seem like there is a religious sense to it in that we wouldn't have anything if it wasn't for God who created all the things around us. Antropocentric has two main people that have helped with this way of thinking; Immanual Kant and Rene Descartes. With Kant he argues that it is ok to destroy nature without any reason behind it and that we have obligations because we aren't respecting our own humanity. Descartes says that nature has no mind or spirit, nature is mechanical and animals are machines. Biocentric moves away from the idea that things are valued by the way we see them.
The thoughts of these three ideas are somewhat wrong in the sense of how they view nature and how they think we should treat nature. Theocentric looks at things in a sense of religious in which that is good but there can be times when those ideas of viewing nature as a religious item canbe taking things too seriously. Antropocentric ways are wrong in that nature is mechanical and then animals are machines. Even though we cannot communicate with animals I think in some aspect you can tell if an animal is in pain or if they are sad in the sense that with dogs they whimper. To say that animals are machines is completely wrong because machines would not show these qualities they would just do nothing. With us being able to destroy without any reason is wrong because nature is important in helping our environment grow and for wildlife to have a home and a place to stay. It would be like somebody destroying our houses for no reason at all. I think that we should value nature and take some things for granted because a lot of our wildlife is diminishing and in a few years they could be gone forever.
The thoughts of these three ideas are somewhat wrong in the sense of how they view nature and how they think we should treat nature. Theocentric looks at things in a sense of religious in which that is good but there can be times when those ideas of viewing nature as a religious item canbe taking things too seriously. Antropocentric ways are wrong in that nature is mechanical and then animals are machines. Even though we cannot communicate with animals I think in some aspect you can tell if an animal is in pain or if they are sad in the sense that with dogs they whimper. To say that animals are machines is completely wrong because machines would not show these qualities they would just do nothing. With us being able to destroy without any reason is wrong because nature is important in helping our environment grow and for wildlife to have a home and a place to stay. It would be like somebody destroying our houses for no reason at all. I think that we should value nature and take some things for granted because a lot of our wildlife is diminishing and in a few years they could be gone forever.
Blog 4 - Hunter and Gatherer
The three main ideas about the hunter-gather, pastoral/farming, and the crafts person all convey something that we should be doing as people in the sense that these were once things that everybody used to do and we have now grown away from these ideas. The idea of hunter-gather idea is where the people treasure the land and treat it as something special and cherish what has been created. There is a sense of awe when looking at nature and seeing it through a religious sense in that the idea of God creating all of nature and that it should be treasured. The next idea of having a pastoral/farming idea is that there is not so much awe and preservation about what has been created by God and the aspect of nature around us but these people tend to be shepards to the land. These are the people that grow their own food and do not waist any resources and still take care of the land but not in the same sense as the hunter-gather. The crafts are those who are reshaping nature.
These three ideas are something that we as a society have drawn away from because we are concerned not about the environment but ourselves. We have grown into a consumer nation in which we make an abundance of things and waist our resources. His idea that we are going into this consumer way of thinking and going away from the ideas of being close to nature and viewing it as something important. I think that going back to the ways of not so much hunter-gather but more along the lines of being farmers/ploughmen would be a good thing because then we would still view nature as being important but we wouldn't treat it as bad as we do currently.
These three ideas are something that we as a society have drawn away from because we are concerned not about the environment but ourselves. We have grown into a consumer nation in which we make an abundance of things and waist our resources. His idea that we are going into this consumer way of thinking and going away from the ideas of being close to nature and viewing it as something important. I think that going back to the ways of not so much hunter-gather but more along the lines of being farmers/ploughmen would be a good thing because then we would still view nature as being important but we wouldn't treat it as bad as we do currently.
Blog 3
While reading for blog 3 i noticed that Kohak almost expects the human population to just up and change. I don't believe that he has a realistic view on how the world is and what goes on in the mainstream. We have to understand that we are a consuming society, but we always have been, just not always towards the earth. If you think back to biblical times all we tended to care about was religion, which then led to war. We did not directly destroy the Earth, but we did cause fires and destruction to the land. You cant help but notice that there is no way to have a "perfect society" that doesn't damage the Earth in any aspect.
I do agree with Kohak on the point that the conditions animals live in among slaughter houses are horrendous. The animals are constantly on top of each other, competing for little food, that is loaded with steroids. It reminds me of Nazi Germany where people didn't care for one another as another being, but only as a lower class. Animals in the great chain are lower than us, by perspective. The question I ask is why do animals have to be lower than us? Why can't we give them some type of rights, at least not to be locked in cages all day, only to be killed the next day.
Singer has a good point when he says "just say NO". People say all the time i can't make a difference in this population, but just by being here you can. You not eating this beef makes an impact on your neighbor, family and friends. YOU can show your neighborhood that a little change as to where you buy your meat from can change how a company treats their animals, due to their profits. I guess what i am trying to say is you are not going to be able to change the world, but you can surely change bits and pieces of it.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
God vs Man
The aspect of god in this new reading was very intuitive. As society changes over time from a god fearing culture to a man make, science based culture. The view on respecting nature as one of gods creation to man is the only thing that god made in his image and the animals where here for mans use. Then there is the biopecentric view, whice a kind of a middle grown between the two other view. This view is where I think Our culture is going torwards at the moment.
I know this is a little lait, but the discusion we had about how societies have grown through the ages goes into what I have been studing in sociology. To look at how people have respencted nature and animals have changed also. The western culture do see animals and nature as just another resource and how to make a profit from it, but is our culture always going to be this way or will it to change over time and socioties change? This is the real question that I got from reading this section of the book.
Blog #5
When I was doing the reading for Monday, there were a couple parts that really angered me. Kohak spent some time talking about the human population and how it continues to grow, exhausting more and more of our natural resources. While that can't be disputed, and it is a known fact that it is causing and will cause more problems, I would never consider controlling the population as a viable solution. I was shocked when, during his discussion of Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics, Kohak said that "sustainability demands...a global reduction in populations," (Kohak 101).
Before reaching that conclusion, Kohak had stated that to help the environment return to a place where it can restore itself, we need to reduce our demands and eliminate the misery in the third world. When I read that, I thought to myself, we can do that. It may take some sacrifices in our lifestyles, but who wouldn't want to live in a world where the poor suffer less and the environment has a better chance of lasting a long long time? But then Kohak added in the bit about reducing our populations, I felt as though I must have mistaken what I had read. How could anyone suggest reducing our population? The word reduction implies taking what we have and eliminating from it. How does Garrett Hardin suggest we do that? Begin another Holocaust? Stop treating people for their illnesses? Do nothing to protect the children and the elderly (the most vulnerable) against the cruelties of the world? No matter what anyone says to try to convince me, I will never support a solution where humans have to lose their lives before they reach a natural death (one that cannot be prevented by medication or technology). I think it's too cruel to even consider. Honestly, it disgusts me a little that anyone could even suggest it. I don't think it makes a difference that it's the only "logical" way out of the lifeboat dilemma, it
s still horrible and wrong. Which reminds me that I'm growing tired of Kohak suggesting that Americans are horrible drivers that don't care if they run over children in the street, because for 99.999999999% of the population, that is completely false.
On a brighter note, I did enjoy reading the sections about the different theories of some philosophers. Kohak did a good job of presenting them in a way that helped me understand them clearly. I had never thought about how many different theories could exist concerning nature and the environment, but Kohak's discussion of different philosophers and their ideas helped me to realize what a complex issue this really is. Personally, I think I identified most with the biocentric ideas - where all living things should be respected. I really do believe that, but I can't deny that it does make me somewhat of a hypocrite. I do eat meat, and I look the other way and pretend like I don't know what happens to animals to get them there. It's something I'm not exactly proud of, but at this point, I'm not sure I can handle the alternative of swearing off meat. One thing I would love to do though would be to buy meat from small family farms where I know the animals were not mistreated. My mother grew up on a farm, and my grandmother and uncle still live there raising cattle. I've seen how these cows live, and they have a MUCH better life than any cow in a factory farm would ever have. About once a year, my uncle kills one, and this provides them with enough meat to last a long time. I like this idea more than factory farms because not only are the cows living a better life, but only what is necessary is killed for meat. Buying meat from small family farms is something I would be willing to do to get me one step closer to being more humane, and more aware of the environment around me.
Before reaching that conclusion, Kohak had stated that to help the environment return to a place where it can restore itself, we need to reduce our demands and eliminate the misery in the third world. When I read that, I thought to myself, we can do that. It may take some sacrifices in our lifestyles, but who wouldn't want to live in a world where the poor suffer less and the environment has a better chance of lasting a long long time? But then Kohak added in the bit about reducing our populations, I felt as though I must have mistaken what I had read. How could anyone suggest reducing our population? The word reduction implies taking what we have and eliminating from it. How does Garrett Hardin suggest we do that? Begin another Holocaust? Stop treating people for their illnesses? Do nothing to protect the children and the elderly (the most vulnerable) against the cruelties of the world? No matter what anyone says to try to convince me, I will never support a solution where humans have to lose their lives before they reach a natural death (one that cannot be prevented by medication or technology). I think it's too cruel to even consider. Honestly, it disgusts me a little that anyone could even suggest it. I don't think it makes a difference that it's the only "logical" way out of the lifeboat dilemma, it
s still horrible and wrong. Which reminds me that I'm growing tired of Kohak suggesting that Americans are horrible drivers that don't care if they run over children in the street, because for 99.999999999% of the population, that is completely false.
On a brighter note, I did enjoy reading the sections about the different theories of some philosophers. Kohak did a good job of presenting them in a way that helped me understand them clearly. I had never thought about how many different theories could exist concerning nature and the environment, but Kohak's discussion of different philosophers and their ideas helped me to realize what a complex issue this really is. Personally, I think I identified most with the biocentric ideas - where all living things should be respected. I really do believe that, but I can't deny that it does make me somewhat of a hypocrite. I do eat meat, and I look the other way and pretend like I don't know what happens to animals to get them there. It's something I'm not exactly proud of, but at this point, I'm not sure I can handle the alternative of swearing off meat. One thing I would love to do though would be to buy meat from small family farms where I know the animals were not mistreated. My mother grew up on a farm, and my grandmother and uncle still live there raising cattle. I've seen how these cows live, and they have a MUCH better life than any cow in a factory farm would ever have. About once a year, my uncle kills one, and this provides them with enough meat to last a long time. I like this idea more than factory farms because not only are the cows living a better life, but only what is necessary is killed for meat. Buying meat from small family farms is something I would be willing to do to get me one step closer to being more humane, and more aware of the environment around me.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Blog 5-Biocentric and Ecocentric Ethics
In this last reading section of The Green Halo, Kohak has introduced to us to many other scholars and their arguments regarding nature and environmental ethics. It can be said that the arguments of biocentric and ecocentric ethics go hand in hand. Biocentric is "Reverence for Life" while Ecocentric is looking at the ecological systems as a whole instead of focusing on individual plants and animals. It is difficult to distinguish between the two because they coincide with each other so much. However, they are different.
Biocentric ethics focuses only on life itself and the preservation of it. That all means of destruction of life, animal experimentation, factory farming, and forest destruction, should be eliminated. That humans themselves should learn to respect and honor each others life instead of taking life from others. Everything on earth has the "right" to live regardless of whether they are beneficial to humans or not. And that all beings should live a full, meaningful life. Scholars mentioned such as Schweitzer and Taylor hold these views.
Ecocentric ethics deals with the ecological systems as a whole. That the preservation of nature itself is more important than individual lives themselves. That morals should be formed in order to preserve ecological systems and all that dwells in them rather than destroying them. It is difficult to preserve all life just because death is a part of nature, but to preserve ecological systems would preserve the world as a whole.
I agree with both ethics in that life is important and that all beings have a "right" to live. However, death is a part of nature as well, who is to prevent one animal from killing another. Therefore, what should be done is to develop morals where humans help preserve ecosystems and to respect other animals place in the world instead of subjecting them to senseless killing. Some may still be killed as food, but should be treated with respect.
Blog 4
This chapter talks to us about the moral sense of nature. Did God create nature for humans to consume? I believe that He did. Centuries ago, people had to survive off animals such as the indians. They used every part of the animal they consumed, and very little of it was wasted if any. Today, our consumption has gone out of control. Therefore, we have lost the respect for nature. We have slaughter houses that inject cows with steroids so that the meat tastes better. This is not what God intended for nature.
Evernden says that humans stand out of nature by their very nature. Human beings can live anywhere, therefore do not belong in any particular case. Today, humans are protected from nature by technology. We live in a world that is bound by walls and roads. We have no contact with nature anymore. There are very few people who care about what we do to animals and how much of them we consume.
"The task of humans is to live in harmony with the order and rhythm of nature." This is what theocentrism is based upon. Obviously, today we are not living in harmony with nature. We are destroying it.
Blog 5
This so far was probably one of my favorite sections of this book, because there were so many different alternatives to how you relate with nature and views that people can take sides with. Since there are all these options, it was hard to pick one that I could most closely relate to, but there were many aspects of separate ones that I would agree with.
For example, out of the theocentric, anthropocentric, and biocentric views, I would have to say that although I may not completely follow this view, I would pick Schweitzer and the biocentric view. "Schweitzer's concern was not to 'save nature.' ... His concern was to do good, not evil, and it was this deeply felt task that he formulated as the ethics of reverence for life." This really makes sense to me because I agree that, as humans, we may not be able to save every animal and every tree, but if we are doing our part to help it, then we are doing good. However, I don't believe that we have to do good because they are God's creatures (theocentric), I think that we should be doing good, because everything natural has a "right" to be treated with respect.
Paul Taylor, so far, has been my favorite person in this book because of his 4 theses of biocentrism. I completely agree with his first statement, that "people, animate beings of the subspecies H. sapiens sap., are equal members of the community of all beings." Since he says "of ALL beings," this made me think, that everything needs to be treated equally. However there is a different equality in humans than in nature. Obviously there is no need to worry about which plants get the best sunlight because of their color (relate to racism), but they all should be equal in that they shouldn't be chopped down since they are only plants.
His second point, "the Earth is a web of mutual dependence," is also very true. Everything depends on everything else. If there isn't trees in the forest, animals don't have homes, things to eat, and we are not getting all the nutrients either. If you were to take away one thing from an ecosystem, there are many different things that would be affected because that ONE thing was destroyed.
"Every member of the biotic community is valuable simply because it is." This is one of the strongest statements in this book so far. Just because it is. Everything doesn't have to have a reason for being the way it is. Like Taylor said, as long as something is exceeding the limits of what they need, then they should be able to live just because they are. I don't remember what section was talking about the beavers making the dams, but to us we may think what is the need for beavers. But to the beavers, they know they have a purpose, even if it just to be.
The last thesis about human racism is important because most people wouldn't think of it that way. If we continue to think we are the all-being and the most important part of the earth, that is being racist/speciest towards ourselves. What proof do we have that we are actually the most important thing? Or what do we know that tells us every other being could possibly not be as important to us? Think about it.
Blog 5 - Four Theses
When people hear the word biocentric, I imagine some of them believe the term means an “excessive love for animals” (Kohak p.85). Such thoughts paint out people who have biocentric views to be radical “tree huggers”. By viewing biocentrism as radical, many people are turned away from that train of thought. If more people were aware of Paul Taylor’s four theses, such views on biocentrism would change. Taylor’s theses effectively outline an attitude of biocentrism. If more people developed biocentric views such as the ones outlined by Taylor, nature would start getting the respect and concern it has long been deprived of by many people.
Taylor’s first point is the humans are an equal member of the community (p.85). We all must lose the self image that says we are superior to all of nature, because of our ability to reason. This image of superiority has led to the exploitation and cruel treatment of animals and nature. If anything, our ability to reason should make it apparent that such exploitation for the purpose of maximum gain is wrong and that we should take care of the world surrounding us and not abuse it. The second point Taylor outlines is that “the Earth is a web of mutual dependence” (p.86). The actions of one organism will influence other organisms; everything is interrelated. Humans who dispose of oil improperly poison the soil, which will eventually leak into streams and other water systems. Such an uncaring act can cause the death of many other organisms’ lives. The third biocentric view Taylor outlines is that every organisms in the biosphere has intrinsic value. As Kohak says, no being should have to justify its value to another being as long as it stays within its limits of long term sustainability (p.86). A cow isn’t important because of the meat or milk it provides, it is important because it is a part of this world. These three points lead to Taylor’s final conclusion that the idea of human superiority is in essence discrimination.
When looking at the biocentric view in this perspective, it is not radical at all but quite reasonable. It just states that humans are not superior, humans should be considerate with their actions because they affect other organisms, and everything has intrinsic value. If more people would give this viewpoint consideration, they would find it legitimate. I believe there would then be an increase in the movement for preserving nature and animal rights. Paul Taylor’s four theses allows for a grasp on basic biocentric ideas to be made.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Blog #5
Immanuel Kant believes that there is a moral problem to destroy something for no reason, but if having a reason then it would be okay. For example, if we cut down trees to build houses or buildings, then it would be okay, but if we destroyed the forest for no particular reason then that is when he thinks it is wrong. Rene Descartes thinks differently, he believes that humans are far more important than animals or nature. He thinks that animals are like machines and nature is mechanical. Both Kant and Descartes master nature, but I lean more towards Kant's belief. I think we should have reason to kill an animal or to tear down trees. We should have respect for nature.
Kohak states how most real ecologists are biocentric, and that they are no longer enchanted with the world. Biocentrism is the idea that life itself, life as such, any life, is a source of meaning and value. Schweitzer had said "I am a life which wants to live, and I live amid a community of life that wants to live." More people should think Schweitzer does. If we did then people would not be so disrespectful to nature, and people would not only think about themselves.
Paul Taylor had said "governing human treatment of the natural world is a rationally grounded set if and only if you can universalize it all to human beings. If we respect ourselves we should respect others, same goes with nature, if we respect ourselves then we should respect nature. Taylor proves a point here, if we care about ourselves then we should care about our surroundings.
Kohak states how most real ecologists are biocentric, and that they are no longer enchanted with the world. Biocentrism is the idea that life itself, life as such, any life, is a source of meaning and value. Schweitzer had said "I am a life which wants to live, and I live amid a community of life that wants to live." More people should think Schweitzer does. If we did then people would not be so disrespectful to nature, and people would not only think about themselves.
Paul Taylor had said "governing human treatment of the natural world is a rationally grounded set if and only if you can universalize it all to human beings. If we respect ourselves we should respect others, same goes with nature, if we respect ourselves then we should respect nature. Taylor proves a point here, if we care about ourselves then we should care about our surroundings.
Blog #5
Kohak brings up the idea that Biocentrism is the idea that life itself, life as such, any life, is a source of meaning and value. Some philosophers that Kohak mentions in the reading have different ideas of what Biocentrism consists of. I was intrigued by many of the philosophers that Kohak talked about, but the one that I side with is Albert Schweitzer. I think Schweitzer makes his point very clear, and his run in with the hippopotamuses really got to me and make me think outside the box.
Albert Schweitzer has the idea of reverence for life. He would agree with St. Francis about God and nature. Schweitzer was not concerned about saving nature; he was concerned about doing good, not evil. He has a quote that he states in Kohaks book and it says "It is good to protect and love life, it is wrong to destroy and wound life. I agree with Schweitzer that we should do good in this world and we should not destroy nature just for the heck of it. We should not be evil to things that are not evil to us. However, if it is a life necessity then it is okay to take from nature.
I thought all together the reading was interesting because it gave many different view poins on the same topic. Although I did not agree with some of the philosophers, it was still neat to see what they thought in their minds.
Albert Schweitzer has the idea of reverence for life. He would agree with St. Francis about God and nature. Schweitzer was not concerned about saving nature; he was concerned about doing good, not evil. He has a quote that he states in Kohaks book and it says "It is good to protect and love life, it is wrong to destroy and wound life. I agree with Schweitzer that we should do good in this world and we should not destroy nature just for the heck of it. We should not be evil to things that are not evil to us. However, if it is a life necessity then it is okay to take from nature.
I thought all together the reading was interesting because it gave many different view poins on the same topic. Although I did not agree with some of the philosophers, it was still neat to see what they thought in their minds.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
# 5
I thought this last reading assignment was very insightful and interesting. In The Ethics of Reverence for Life, I agreed with a lot of what Schweitzer states. I believe that the world around us is a sacred gift and something that should be taken care of. I agree with Kohak as he discusses the view point of it being wrong to consider the world something that exists only for human pleasure. He carries this point further by explaining that God's intention of creating the earth, and everything in it, is for its own intrinsic good. I agree with this that everything in itself is good, and deserves respect for its life. The view that we currently have today about nature being ours to use, is the cause for the earth's diminishing resources and extinction of certain animal species. He discusses that difference between good and evil within nature, and how ther is a primordial desire to preserve life, not end it as many intend to do. When Kohak presents the parable about the boy and the starfish, it made me realize once again how much of a difference just one effort makes. All it takes is one to start to protect life, and after that many follow. The idea that our responsibility as humans on this earth is to do what we can to preserve life, without destroying it, is something that we all need to think about.
Kohak describes another view point of anthropocentrism versus biocentism. I was able to agree with this idea and what values it upholds. It is about being life-centered instead of human-centered. Our own selfishness and desire gets in the way of this, and I think people will often kill or harm needlessly just to fufill their own wants than to think about what another being may want. However, he states how we need to take it in perspective about what is the good for that being, not just what we think is the good. Many people today may believe what they are doing is helping nature or an animal, when in reality it is harming it. The second value he talks about is the intrinsic value, where every living this has value in itself. If only we would realize this concept, there would never be desire to harm.
When the truths of boicentrism are discussed, I agreed with all but the first. I understand that animals or plants equally have a right to live on this earth as humans, but I still believe that humans posses a superiority by their very nature. I agree that every consequence we make affects everything and everyone around us, whether we conscoiusly know or accept that fact. The denial of this, in my opinion, causes many of our problems today.
In The Land Ethic, I was able to relate to what Kohak discussed in this section as well. I think it is correct when Leopold states that we need to strive for the harmony of all life. He states that only through this harmony can all life survive together. If harmony was something that we could all strive for, it may lead to better care for the world we live in.
Kohak describes another view point of anthropocentrism versus biocentism. I was able to agree with this idea and what values it upholds. It is about being life-centered instead of human-centered. Our own selfishness and desire gets in the way of this, and I think people will often kill or harm needlessly just to fufill their own wants than to think about what another being may want. However, he states how we need to take it in perspective about what is the good for that being, not just what we think is the good. Many people today may believe what they are doing is helping nature or an animal, when in reality it is harming it. The second value he talks about is the intrinsic value, where every living this has value in itself. If only we would realize this concept, there would never be desire to harm.
When the truths of boicentrism are discussed, I agreed with all but the first. I understand that animals or plants equally have a right to live on this earth as humans, but I still believe that humans posses a superiority by their very nature. I agree that every consequence we make affects everything and everyone around us, whether we conscoiusly know or accept that fact. The denial of this, in my opinion, causes many of our problems today.
In The Land Ethic, I was able to relate to what Kohak discussed in this section as well. I think it is correct when Leopold states that we need to strive for the harmony of all life. He states that only through this harmony can all life survive together. If harmony was something that we could all strive for, it may lead to better care for the world we live in.
Blog 4- the ethics and reverence for life & lifeboat ethics
Kohak says, “At the core of all meaning and all value are not individual lives, but rather life as such, a harmony of lives.” In this first section, the Ethics and Reverence for Life, Berman states that religion is at the root of desacralizing nature. I think that that maybe would have been valid in the time of Isaac Newton, but I don’t think that it is relevant today. I think this because the Catholic Church holds nature in high esteem and is valued as a beautiful part of God’s creation. The creation story is one of the most well-known stories in the Bible. After every day God said that what he created was “good”. In addition, many religions honor St. Francis and value what he did in regaurds to his relationship with nature.
Muir believes that God “did not create the world to serve humans but for the intrinsic goodness of the creation itself.” Coming from a religious stand point, I believe that to a point animals were created for humans. But, as I said in a previous blog, I believe that animals are to be treated with respect and love. We shouldn’t use animals needlessly or excessively. Also, I think it is a great thing that Muir is the person responsible for natural parks which serve as a place of preservation for nature.
Schweitzer ends this section with a strong emphasis on respect for all living things. I fully support this. One of my favorite quotes is from Dr. Suess,” A life is a life no matter how small.” I think this quote illustrates perfectly what Schweitzer was trying to portray. Just because humans are larger creatures, we still have the responsibility to care for all life. “Good” humans have a duty to care for all nature. He gives an example of saving a worm from asphalt by placing it in the grass. I believe that if we all took great care in doing the little things with great love, the world would change. In closing, I think that a balance between anthropocentrism and biocentrism is what is really needed. If we balance the importance of humans and nature, and hold each on an even scale concerning respect, I think that we would not be in the crisis that we are in now.
Blog #5
Kohak starts off with the definition of biocentrism as being "the idea that life itself, life as such, any life, is a source of meaning and value." This sense of biocentrism relates to the way that Albert Schweitzer and Paul Taylor presents his ideas on ecological ethics. According to Sweitzer, ethics consists of showing to all life the same reverence of as to our own. He states, "It is good to protect and love life, it is wrong to destroy or wound life." Kohak says Schweitzer is convinced that the day will come when humanity will find it unbelievable that it could have even been so cruel. I disagree with Schweitzer's assumption. I do not believe that humanity will ever be considerate of what animals go through on a daily basis to satisfy our daily needs.
Earlier in the book, Kohak talks about the idea of antropocentrism. Now, the idea of biocentrism comes about. As stated above, Paul Taylor is one who believes in this phenomenon. Biocentrism is different from anthropocentrism as it is not based towards humans and derived from humans; it is the obiligation to other beings as well, to the good of other beings because of their own intirinsic value. Biocentrism should be the way that the world views nature, not just as the good for humans.
The section on The Land Ethic all concentrates on Leopold's viewpoint. Leopold views the land ethic as revloving around the integrity, stabilty, and beauty of the biotic community. His view on land ethics focuses on the balance of life. He wrote that environmental ecologist must think like a mountain because the mountain cares about the balance of life, caring for the harmony of all life. I believe this is a good way to view nature.
Earlier in the book, Kohak talks about the idea of antropocentrism. Now, the idea of biocentrism comes about. As stated above, Paul Taylor is one who believes in this phenomenon. Biocentrism is different from anthropocentrism as it is not based towards humans and derived from humans; it is the obiligation to other beings as well, to the good of other beings because of their own intirinsic value. Biocentrism should be the way that the world views nature, not just as the good for humans.
The section on The Land Ethic all concentrates on Leopold's viewpoint. Leopold views the land ethic as revloving around the integrity, stabilty, and beauty of the biotic community. His view on land ethics focuses on the balance of life. He wrote that environmental ecologist must think like a mountain because the mountain cares about the balance of life, caring for the harmony of all life. I believe this is a good way to view nature.
Reverence for Life and the Land Ethic
In the Reverence for Life section, I liked how Kohak presented us with Schweitzer, because for once I actually wholeheartedly agree with the statements he makes. Essentially Schweitzer goes into detail about biocentrism and how "any life is a source of meaning and value". One quote that stood out to me was "I am a life which wants to live, and I live amid a community of life that wants to live". This quote interested me because every being on earth is facing this mentality of wanting to live a life of integrity. Schweitzer pushes for every person to do their own will and try to live their life to the fullest and not perform destructive actions, for example destroying nature. If one person lives up to their own standards they set and devote themselves to the good not evil of life, this could be a step towards a biocentric society. Every being deserves respect, so if the society understands that, we could potentially become a society where all lives are a sense of meaning and value.
Kohak presents us with another philosopher, Paul Taylor who describes the biocentric attitude of the world. The first way is how he thinks human beings are equal members of the community of all beings. With this in mind it is saying that humans have just as much right as other beings that have a life. The second conviction that Taylor presents is that earth is a web of mutual dependence. This idea expresses that earth is considered a group and a collection of objects and it treats life by many different parts but as a whole. The third conviction is that every member of the community is valuable. Every being has the right to life as long as their demands are not overwhelming to the biotic community surrounding them. Over Kohak in this section is conveying that every being's life is not individually looked at but rather as a whole and in harmony of all lives.
The second section, the Land Ethic, Kohak presents us with yet another philosopher who coins the term land ethic. Leopold presents the idea of land ethic and how it needs to have a balance between the whole community within. Leopold suggests that a community will survive only if the beings in the community can live within the limits of the community and have a balance between the limits. I like how Leopold explains how an individual may have a hard time accepting death but they have to understand death is a part of life. Leopold relates to Schweitzer because Schweitzer says how an individual is a life that wants to live which causes an increase in the conflict of people accepting the idea of death which is the challenge of life today according to Leopold.
Kohak presents us with another philosopher, Paul Taylor who describes the biocentric attitude of the world. The first way is how he thinks human beings are equal members of the community of all beings. With this in mind it is saying that humans have just as much right as other beings that have a life. The second conviction that Taylor presents is that earth is a web of mutual dependence. This idea expresses that earth is considered a group and a collection of objects and it treats life by many different parts but as a whole. The third conviction is that every member of the community is valuable. Every being has the right to life as long as their demands are not overwhelming to the biotic community surrounding them. Over Kohak in this section is conveying that every being's life is not individually looked at but rather as a whole and in harmony of all lives.
The second section, the Land Ethic, Kohak presents us with yet another philosopher who coins the term land ethic. Leopold presents the idea of land ethic and how it needs to have a balance between the whole community within. Leopold suggests that a community will survive only if the beings in the community can live within the limits of the community and have a balance between the limits. I like how Leopold explains how an individual may have a hard time accepting death but they have to understand death is a part of life. Leopold relates to Schweitzer because Schweitzer says how an individual is a life that wants to live which causes an increase in the conflict of people accepting the idea of death which is the challenge of life today according to Leopold.
5
The sections about biocentrism are meant to present two contrasting ideas, however, I think that I agree with both viewpoints in that there are parts of each that I agree with. First of all, biocentrism is defined as the idea that all life has meaning and value (79). This is a pretty simple statement that I can agree with. Albert Schweitzer is introduced to us as someone who was not concerned with saving nature as much as he was with merely doing good not evil. Thus, he wrote Reverence for Life in which he states that showing reverence toward all life is key. In essence, it is wrong to destroy nature because that is not a sacred act. I agree with Schweitzer because he also goes on to say how evil is a mystery and how his task is not to solve all problems. I feel that he is stressing the importance of each person doing their own small part which will, in turn, help solve the problem as a whole. It is all about not avoiding our responsibility and living up to our role in society.
Aldo Leopold's viewpoint is expressed which also relates to biocentrism. He believes that respect for life is no longer enough. Taking into account the whole community of nature--we must care for the harmony of all life. Therefore, we must balance the whole system of nature and view ourselves as living in accordance with nature. I can agree with Leopold, however, the idea of coexisting does not seem to be working in today's world. As discussed before in the text, humans tend to have feelings of superiority over animals which leads them to do whatever they want in order to gain personal happiness. I guess you could say that goes along with "thinking like a mountain" in that humans think they are these huge mountains towering over the rest of the world and all else is inferior....but I don't think that's exactly what Leopold meant.
In closing, although I can agree with parts of each argument, I can't agree with Kohak's statement about suppressing the human population because it is the source of ecological problems. Life is a precious gift - all life for that matter, humans and animals. I do not think we can think that killing (animals or humans) will be a good way to stop the ecological problems.
Aldo Leopold's viewpoint is expressed which also relates to biocentrism. He believes that respect for life is no longer enough. Taking into account the whole community of nature--we must care for the harmony of all life. Therefore, we must balance the whole system of nature and view ourselves as living in accordance with nature. I can agree with Leopold, however, the idea of coexisting does not seem to be working in today's world. As discussed before in the text, humans tend to have feelings of superiority over animals which leads them to do whatever they want in order to gain personal happiness. I guess you could say that goes along with "thinking like a mountain" in that humans think they are these huge mountains towering over the rest of the world and all else is inferior....but I don't think that's exactly what Leopold meant.
In closing, although I can agree with parts of each argument, I can't agree with Kohak's statement about suppressing the human population because it is the source of ecological problems. Life is a precious gift - all life for that matter, humans and animals. I do not think we can think that killing (animals or humans) will be a good way to stop the ecological problems.
The Ethics of Reverence for Life and The Land Ethic
In the section The Ethics Of Reverence For Life, I thought many of the views that Albert Schweitzer made were very interesting. Schweitzer reverence for life was presented as a system about a clearly seen lived experience, which is rooted in religion. He perceives the world as being sacred, and believes that the world should not be taken for granted. I agree with Schweitzer and the belief that the world shouldn't be taken for granted, however I believe many people do take the world for granted. One quote that I found interesting was when Schweitzer says “ Infinite compassion is not enough, we need active sharing, and active help”. He then goes on to give an example of what “good people” do.
One example Schweitzer gives is rescuing worms from dry asphalt and placing them in the grass. I find this example to be a little extreme of what he believes 'good people” do. I believe that “good people” however can be defined as people who think twice about how their meat was processed and where it came from. Also I believe that “good people” can be defined as not killing animals cruelly or needlessly. Lastly I believe individuals can be considered good if they help encourage other individuals to not support factory farming.
Lastly in the reading The Land Ethics it is said that the earth is a complex of life. Leopold says that death is a part of life and that individuals have a hard time accepting this fact. I agree completely with Leopold on the fact that many people are reluctant to admit it. I however know that death is apart of life and that after life you will "float on" into a better place. I found both views from Schweitzer and Leopold to be interesting and could relate to key concepts in both.
Blog 3- ethical perspectives
This section discusses our moral sense, or lack thereof, of nature. The way we define nature has a lot to do with how we perceive it. Kohak describes the 3 main ways that our ancestors viewed nature. The first is the hunter-gatherers (based on accepting nature the way it is and putting religious emphasis on it), followed by pastoral/ farming (humans should be caretakers of the earth), and lastly, crafts (which is based more on urban life).
Kohak then continues on to describe the producer-consumerism outlook which is very prevalent in today’s society. He describes several differences between this moral outlook versus the three previous. He says that the “driving motor of society ceases to be need, but is replaced by greed.” For the first time, this perception of nature is completely one-dimensional. It obviously does not recognize the integrity and intrinsic value of nonhuman beings.
This can easily be seen in the ruthless clearcutting, surface mining, polluted rivers, and poisoned atmosphere. I believe that if we continue with this self-centered perception of nature, we are headed down a road that will lead to irreversible disaster. I believe that we are taking advantage of nature and are using our resources frivolously. The earth is not a reservoir of raw materials for us to use endlessly. Eventually they will run out and we will be in a huge crisis.
Blog 4
Although humans have made large strides in science and technology, leading to a large increases in the life expectancy, the improvement could be ultimately contributing to a lot of the environmental problems we have today. It is natural for organisms to fear death and to have a strong will to survive; however, we can not ignore the fact that death is a part of life. Creating a human population that reproduces at a quicker rate than the death rate itself is leading to over crowding and the destruction of animal habitats. Due to the expanding of human populations, other populations are suffering without the resources or space needed to reproduce and because of this populations are going extinct before new ones can emerge. I do not honestly understand how I can say we need to stop saving human lives at the expense of other organisms, but my opinion is one of human who cares more about my grandpa or grandma than a population of polar bears. It is justifiable to me to say my life is more valuable than that of an ant or a fly, but "we" all have the right to life. The earth is a "web of mutual dependence" and every population that dies will ultimately lead to trouble down the road for the rest of the planet. Can we justify saving al the human lives at the extent of animal populations and the earth down the road? Probably not, but I don't believe we understand the possible reprocussions of our actions.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
5.
In the section The Ethics Of Reverence For Life, I thought many of the views the Albert Schweitzer made were interesting. I enjoyed his view of how he looked at life at each individual and how he believes in the basic commandment, "It is good to protect and love life, it's wrong to destroy or wound life." (p.81). I strongly agree with the commandment because I think that each individual should cherish life and live life to the fullest, to end life to short is such a waste in my eyes. God put everyone on this Earth and when it is our time to go he will take us. Although Schweitzer believes that one day humans will realize how cruel we have been to nature, I think some will come to that conclusion while others may never reach that idea in their lifetime.
Reading the second section of The Land Ethic, it was different to see Leopold's view because he saw life within the whole community not just an individual. The main thing that stood out to me was how Leopold recognized that "the Earth is a complex of life--and that death is a part of life, though we are deeply loath to admit it." (p.92). I agree that many find it difficult to accept death and we don't want to admit that it will eventually happen to all of us. I liked how he described that we are born, and will eventually "flow"away. I can agree with this, and I'll be the first to admit I think I have a hard time right now at least accepting that death is a part of life. I don't like to think about it, I'm still in the "live life to the fullest" stage. Although they had two different points of views I found each view interesting and could relate to both Schweitzer and Leopold.
Reading the second section of The Land Ethic, it was different to see Leopold's view because he saw life within the whole community not just an individual. The main thing that stood out to me was how Leopold recognized that "the Earth is a complex of life--and that death is a part of life, though we are deeply loath to admit it." (p.92). I agree that many find it difficult to accept death and we don't want to admit that it will eventually happen to all of us. I liked how he described that we are born, and will eventually "flow"away. I can agree with this, and I'll be the first to admit I think I have a hard time right now at least accepting that death is a part of life. I don't like to think about it, I'm still in the "live life to the fullest" stage. Although they had two different points of views I found each view interesting and could relate to both Schweitzer and Leopold.
Blog #5
The first section was called the ethics of reverance for life. This section opens up with the explaination of biocentrism;the idea that life itself is a source of meanig and value. I think that the philosper Scweitzer sums up his ideas fully in the statement that "It is good to protect and love life, it is wrong to destroy or wound life". While I agree with this, I don't quite agree with the explaination he give. Sweitzer says that good people destroy nothing needlessly, and are protectors of all life. When I read this, I kept thinking of that Kleenex commercial in which the Buddist monk saves all the bugs, birds and animals in his path but then kills the germs when he blows his nose. Yes i know this seems silly but this is what popped into my mind. So I agree with the idea, but I dont think its very plausible.
One of Sweitzers last main ideas is that he feels that we need to become aware of the horrors done to animals in our world. We need to let ourselves be guided by an active will to help and to overcome the conflict of instances of the will to life. I really like thsi statement because I fully agree with Sweitzer on this. Many times I feel like humans are so out of tune with nature or just have no clue as what their food goes through to get to the dinner table. I feel like we as a species need to wake up to the reality of out world.
The next section was called the land ethic. This ethic is not about joy or suffering, but instead the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It states that suffering and death of individuals are part of the stability. I really like this ethic because it alows every species to have a right to live, but its also got a survial of the fittest feel to it. The author brings up an example of how a mountain was removed of all wolves. Once this happend, the population of deer and other rodents exploded. To top that off, shepards were now able to safely graze their sheep there. Because of both these changes, the land became overgrazed and the top soil washed away, leaving only barren land. I like this example because it provides a clear reason as to why everything has meaning. If you remove one aspect of the ecosystem, it can cause unexpectedly large changes that aren't always for the better. Leopold sums this up by saying that "individual lives are not unrelated in their living".
One of Sweitzers last main ideas is that he feels that we need to become aware of the horrors done to animals in our world. We need to let ourselves be guided by an active will to help and to overcome the conflict of instances of the will to life. I really like thsi statement because I fully agree with Sweitzer on this. Many times I feel like humans are so out of tune with nature or just have no clue as what their food goes through to get to the dinner table. I feel like we as a species need to wake up to the reality of out world.
The next section was called the land ethic. This ethic is not about joy or suffering, but instead the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It states that suffering and death of individuals are part of the stability. I really like this ethic because it alows every species to have a right to live, but its also got a survial of the fittest feel to it. The author brings up an example of how a mountain was removed of all wolves. Once this happend, the population of deer and other rodents exploded. To top that off, shepards were now able to safely graze their sheep there. Because of both these changes, the land became overgrazed and the top soil washed away, leaving only barren land. I like this example because it provides a clear reason as to why everything has meaning. If you remove one aspect of the ecosystem, it can cause unexpectedly large changes that aren't always for the better. Leopold sums this up by saying that "individual lives are not unrelated in their living".
Blog #5
In these sections, The Ethics of Reverence of Life and The Land Ethic, two different, yet similar, views are contrasted and compared to understand the true meaning of biocentrism - the idea that life itself has meaning and valuable. Albert Schweitzer developed ethics of reverence for life. According to his ethic, each individual life has meaning and it is the task of our life to show other lives the reverence that we would wish to be shown to ourselves. Schweitzer abhorred killing of any kind and believed that it was up to every person to recognize the bad he or she had caused and work to stop it from happening again.
Aldo Leopold formed a different view on life and gave a different shade to biocentrism. Leopold developed The Land Ethic, which states that humans must look at the world as a mountain would. This viewpoint leads one to see the mutuality and interconnectedness of life - each of us need the other to live cohesively and successfully on this earth. While Schweitzer calls for each life to be cherished, Leopold sees the necessity for death to keep the balance of life in order. Leopold did not see any reason why his theory could be in conflict with Schweitzer's - they operated on two different levels: Schweitzer's looks at the beauty of each individual life, while Leopold looks to preserve the balance of life as a whole.
I find both viewpoints or explanations of biocentrism to be interesting and fascinating in their own right. While I agree with the idea that each life is sacred, I also see that death is necessary to keep overall life in balance. Where I disagree with this statement is in the fact that Kohak points to ending/limiting human life to preserve balance on earth. Human life I believe is most sacred and anything that would try to limit or end a human life is fundamentally wrong.
Aldo Leopold formed a different view on life and gave a different shade to biocentrism. Leopold developed The Land Ethic, which states that humans must look at the world as a mountain would. This viewpoint leads one to see the mutuality and interconnectedness of life - each of us need the other to live cohesively and successfully on this earth. While Schweitzer calls for each life to be cherished, Leopold sees the necessity for death to keep the balance of life in order. Leopold did not see any reason why his theory could be in conflict with Schweitzer's - they operated on two different levels: Schweitzer's looks at the beauty of each individual life, while Leopold looks to preserve the balance of life as a whole.
I find both viewpoints or explanations of biocentrism to be interesting and fascinating in their own right. While I agree with the idea that each life is sacred, I also see that death is necessary to keep overall life in balance. Where I disagree with this statement is in the fact that Kohak points to ending/limiting human life to preserve balance on earth. Human life I believe is most sacred and anything that would try to limit or end a human life is fundamentally wrong.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Blog #4 Nature and Ethics
Now the conflict with humans shifts from a conflict with humans and the way we treat animals to the conflict of humans and the way we treat nature and how we perceive nature. I honestly think Kohak is trying to make humans look like the bad guys in certain situations. Yes I do agree that factory farming is wrong but our society will never change and we don't think of factory farming as animal cruelty. The second section of The Green Halo deals with nature and how humans respond to nature and what it gives us.
Kohak explains in detail three possibilities of how humans relate to nature. The idea of the hunter gatherers accepts nature for what it is, and they live with in nature. In this view nature had all the qualities that God has. Even though he would want that to be the way it is now, it will never be the same. The second possibility is through the ploughmen and shepherds. This possibilty may still be around because there are still farms around which farmers take care of the earth by farming and learn to respect nature and give nature what it really needs. I really liked the idea of Kohak stating that now nature is shown through the work of God's hand. The third possibilty is through the craftsmen and how they perceive nature as a gift, and will respect and reshape nature.
Then Kohak goes into deatil how the society now has shifted dramatically to a consumerist view of nature. I do agree Kohak saying how we consumer more than we ever need, but it is the way our society was brought up in that caused the way we act. It would be nice to not be so greedy and only get what we need, but that will never change because it would be so hard to implement the changes for society. People will never come to an agreement on how nature should be perceived because everyone has different opinions on the matter.
In the Fear of the Lord section, I don't agree with Skolimowski and how he says that if one puts God as the center of all nature and the respect for nature that over-consumption and egocentrism will be rid of. I don't agree with this because not everyone in a society has the same beliefs and may not wish to have God as the center of nature even though God did in fact create nature.
Kohak explains in detail three possibilities of how humans relate to nature. The idea of the hunter gatherers accepts nature for what it is, and they live with in nature. In this view nature had all the qualities that God has. Even though he would want that to be the way it is now, it will never be the same. The second possibility is through the ploughmen and shepherds. This possibilty may still be around because there are still farms around which farmers take care of the earth by farming and learn to respect nature and give nature what it really needs. I really liked the idea of Kohak stating that now nature is shown through the work of God's hand. The third possibilty is through the craftsmen and how they perceive nature as a gift, and will respect and reshape nature.
Then Kohak goes into deatil how the society now has shifted dramatically to a consumerist view of nature. I do agree Kohak saying how we consumer more than we ever need, but it is the way our society was brought up in that caused the way we act. It would be nice to not be so greedy and only get what we need, but that will never change because it would be so hard to implement the changes for society. People will never come to an agreement on how nature should be perceived because everyone has different opinions on the matter.
In the Fear of the Lord section, I don't agree with Skolimowski and how he says that if one puts God as the center of all nature and the respect for nature that over-consumption and egocentrism will be rid of. I don't agree with this because not everyone in a society has the same beliefs and may not wish to have God as the center of nature even though God did in fact create nature.
Blog Number Four
In this section, Kohak talks about how humans can relate to nature in many different ways. He isn't necessarily saying that there is one right way, but he does tell us that some of the relationships are what the majority of humans are accustomed to.
The first relationship is the hunter-gatherer. This is where the people only use what nature gives them as a gift, and they accept the challenge given to them in having to actually capture the animals and kill them on their own. This could be considered one of the most humane ways to "kill" animals because the animal has just as much of a chance of not getting killed or even coming after the human and injuring him. From what I see it as, it is more the fight for survival and life of both the animal and human. Although animals are being killed more often than humans are, the humans still have grief and realize that they have just killed one of God's creatures.
The second relationship is the farmer-herder. In this relationship, farmers have to use nature in order to make their living, however if nature doesn't produce for the farmers they are out of luck. Also, the farmer gives back to nature - "They learn to respect it, to give to it, what it needs. But nature repays them in turn. Cows repay respect in milk. The soil repays manure with crops."
The last relationship mentioned is the craftsman-trader. This relationship is more a business and they use what they need because they need to make money. I don't think that this relationship has any respect for nature, and they use it just for their own gain. I don't understand how people can take for granted things they need, and like Kohak said, they will just keep using it and using it. Well what are they supposed to do when it all runs out? That is a major question that is addressed, and there really is no answer. Maybe it will never run out and nature will somehow always be able to provide, but maybe it will run out. Then do we all become vegetarians, or will humans still be able to exist. Our generation may never know, but we are to blame if our kids or grandkids can't put food on the table, because it's not available anymore.
Blog 4- Nature and Humans
Yet again does Kohak make arguments that are hard to debate. After reading the required text, Kohak presents many problems regarding nature and humans, and proposes solutions to these problems. He discusses humans history with nature and how it has changed from the primitive, hunter-gatherer norm, to a consumeristic, profit oriented norm. That before we used to regard nature as sacred and were glad to accept anything it gave to us, such as fruit that has fallen from its branches. Today, all we seek to do is to find ways to profit from the destruction of nature. It can be said that our norms have changed radically.
Kohak and many others still call for a radical change in our views towards nature and that we should revert back to a more primitive state of coexistence. Due to the overpopulation of humans, some believe that the only way nature can return to its original state is for the mass extinction of humans. That a compromise with nature is already too late and that we can do nothing to change it back. Though this is a pretty harsh statement, it drives home the point that humans are a major problem right now.
I agree with Kohak in that we need to make a drastic shift from a consumerist society to a preservative one that allows us to coexist with nature instead of dominating over it. If not, nature can have a powerful effect on human populations and thus cause serious natural disasters. Though today, we are starting to see these changes, they are not happening fast enough or globally to have an impact on what has already been damaged. It is up to our generation to do something or else it will be our children's children who will have to pay the consequences.
Blog 3
Throughout the reading it has become evident Kohak has found ways to present a number of ways in which the human population can respond to certain evironmental issues. As always compromise seems to be the best solution. With todays culture and massive population, it would be impossible to revert back to the "hunter gatherer" way of life without a massive extermination of the human race and Kohak himself says the problem is not so much the population, but the exponential growth. The obvious choice to address the issues is to maintain the farming we do now, but to realize the idea that "there is no more enough, there is only more" is not how we need to live. I agree with Kohak, as a population human-kind has become largely concerned with the survival and the prosperity of me rather that the prosperity of the world as a whole and this has largely thrown us out of harmony with nature. As humans, "we are not intruders by our presence", because if we were not meant to be here than obviously we would not be, but the way we have been treating our environment and our actions has made us intruders on a planet we were intended to co-exist on. While continuing our wasteful ways continues the decline of the planet, we need to learn to "treasure every piece of bread" rather than toss out leftovers or even throw a bottle in the trash instead of recycling it. It is about treating the planet as if God had created it to equal rather than dominated by man.
Blog #4
In class today we discussed how there were three basic possibilites of humans relating to nature. The first one is the hunter gatherer relationship. This type of relationship reminded me of the native americans felt towards nature. Many tribes identified themselves with an animal and it was a big tradition for young men to go on a spiritual journey and discover their spirit animal. Not only that the Native americans named themselves after ascepts of animals. For example, Cheif sitting bull. The hunter gatherer relatinship also beleives that God is everywhere and in everything. With the Native Americans, one thing that has always struck me is that after they kill an animal, they pray over the animal and thank the animals spirit for giving them their life. They show it honor and respect and they used all the animal parts for something. In a way this makes them killing the animal ok in my mind because it wasnt needless or wasteful and they were respectful.
The second relationship is that of the farmer and the herder. While the farmer is not totally dependent on the land, he still is very much in debt to it. One bad year of drought, or famine could ruin him. This is the type of relatinship that I can identify the most with because I come from a rural area. Many farmers tend to be more down to earth and can identify with nature. I definatly agree with the author when he says that dependance and partnership overlap in this area. If you feed and take care of the animals they will give you milk, and eggs. If you work hard in the field, the land will reward you with grain or fruit.
The third relationship that the author brings about it that of the craftsman and trader. To me, this is the relationship that seems to be the least in touch with nature. While humans aren't entirely dependant on nature, there are still some aspects that we need to survive (like freshwater). However, some take this to be a given and truely lose sense of how nature provides for us.
The second relationship is that of the farmer and the herder. While the farmer is not totally dependent on the land, he still is very much in debt to it. One bad year of drought, or famine could ruin him. This is the type of relatinship that I can identify the most with because I come from a rural area. Many farmers tend to be more down to earth and can identify with nature. I definatly agree with the author when he says that dependance and partnership overlap in this area. If you feed and take care of the animals they will give you milk, and eggs. If you work hard in the field, the land will reward you with grain or fruit.
The third relationship that the author brings about it that of the craftsman and trader. To me, this is the relationship that seems to be the least in touch with nature. While humans aren't entirely dependant on nature, there are still some aspects that we need to survive (like freshwater). However, some take this to be a given and truely lose sense of how nature provides for us.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Blog 4 - Experience of Nature
In class today we discussed humanity’s experience of nature as a whole, throughout our existence. The change in human’s perception of nature from the past to modern day lies in the shift from nature having intrinsic value to extrinsic value. Kohak sums it up by saying we used to see nature as sacred, then a partner to be respected, and eventually as a gift to be treasured. In all these views, nature was considered important for its own value (intrinsic). In today’s world we see nature as a collection of raw materials for our consumption. The perception of nature has turned to that of having extrinsic values. In other words, the value we give to nature is based on what we can get from it.
Kohak sums up how most people live their lives when he said “the sole meaning of life...is to accumulate and consume ever more...”. This is seen everywhere we look. People’s status derives from the expensive car they drive or extravagant house they live in. I’m sure we all have more clothes, shoes, DVD’s and other items than we actually need. This brings up another point, I imagine most of our clothes are made in sweat shops where humans are being taken advantage of for profit. It makes you wonder how we can ever solve this ecological crisis, because if we cannot treat other humans correctly due to our greed for profit, how can we expect to ever give nature the respect and care it deserves?
It makes me consider what would happen if we went through another Great Depression. My grandpa used to tell me about growing up in that world. Even after all those years, you could still see the lessons he learned growing up during that time. He never wasted anything, he would drive his truck or use his tractor until it died. His truck was very rusty. In today’s world most would consider that embarrassing and probably buy a new vehicle. He saw it that he was lucky his truck was still running after 20 years. If we threw away any food while we were at his house we would get an ear full that made sure we would finish our meal the next time. The frugalness he lived with would be very hard for most of us, but I think if more people were like him, the world we lived in would be much less consumer based.
Blog #4
In part II of nature, value, and ethics Kohak talks about the three basic possibilities of human relating to nature. First possibility is the hunter-gatherer, which they do not manipulate life but accepts what nature has to offer. The second possibility is the pastoral/farming, they learn to respect nature and will give it what it needs, and nature will repay them. Last is the crafts, they are respectfully reshaping nature. These people live in the city, but they still depend on nature for the clear water. With all three of these possibilities, nature is important to everyone, but they view it differently.
I love when Kohak had said "Nature is no longer God but the visible, and intelligible work of God's hand." Nature will never be nor should be in comparison to God, He is the creator of it. When Kohak talks about the shepherds with the flocks, and how God cares for them and expects good return from them and will also protect them makes me think about how we humans should do the same for nature. I agree with the pastoral/farming, we should respect nature, give it what it needs, and in return nature will repay us.
We humans consume a lot more than what we need, but as long as we take care of ourselves then we do not care how it effects anything else. It is easy to overconsume these days, but we need to stop and start thinking about our surroundings rather than just our needs. Henryk Skolimowski believes that humans need to change their attitudes about God and His creation, and this will help us to overcome greed and self-centeredness. I completely agree with Skolimowski, if we change the way we think and stop always thinking about ourselves then we would have a much greater respect for nature and animals. We need to remember God created not only humans but nature as well so we should cherish and respect our surroundings, because without nature we would not have much.
I love when Kohak had said "Nature is no longer God but the visible, and intelligible work of God's hand." Nature will never be nor should be in comparison to God, He is the creator of it. When Kohak talks about the shepherds with the flocks, and how God cares for them and expects good return from them and will also protect them makes me think about how we humans should do the same for nature. I agree with the pastoral/farming, we should respect nature, give it what it needs, and in return nature will repay us.
We humans consume a lot more than what we need, but as long as we take care of ourselves then we do not care how it effects anything else. It is easy to overconsume these days, but we need to stop and start thinking about our surroundings rather than just our needs. Henryk Skolimowski believes that humans need to change their attitudes about God and His creation, and this will help us to overcome greed and self-centeredness. I completely agree with Skolimowski, if we change the way we think and stop always thinking about ourselves then we would have a much greater respect for nature and animals. We need to remember God created not only humans but nature as well so we should cherish and respect our surroundings, because without nature we would not have much.
bog #4
The conflict that Kohak brings up deals with the way humans interact with nature. There are many different interpretations with the way humans should act or relate with nature, and Kohak does not like the way humans are acting now. There are three possibilities of experienceing nature. Kohak says - as a sacred presence to be worshipped and placated, as a partner to be respected or as a precious gift to be greatfully treasured. Basically what Kohak is saying is that nature is the valuable to everyone.
Kohak also talks about human relationships with God and nature as well. He raises the question as to why God put humans on earth. Were we put on earth to be shepherds of the animals and the land and to care for the beloved creation that God entrusted us. There are some people like that, but most of us are far beyond that and do not only take what we need. We are consumers and we over consume and overproduce. Therefore, we are not respecting the land that God has created. This leads to the question of whether or not there is a place for humans in nature. Some philosophers think that humans have no place in nature; humans are in the way.
My opinion on this is that as a culture we do over consume and overproduce and I do not think it is right. However, to change that type of lifestyle that we have all become acustom to would mean everyone agreeing that it is wrong. I try not to buy and consume more than what I need, but with the deals at stores and the advertisment sometimes its hard to pass up buying more than what we need. I think we do have a place in nature, but I also think we abuse what our place in nature really is. We are becoming to powerful.
Kohak also talks about human relationships with God and nature as well. He raises the question as to why God put humans on earth. Were we put on earth to be shepherds of the animals and the land and to care for the beloved creation that God entrusted us. There are some people like that, but most of us are far beyond that and do not only take what we need. We are consumers and we over consume and overproduce. Therefore, we are not respecting the land that God has created. This leads to the question of whether or not there is a place for humans in nature. Some philosophers think that humans have no place in nature; humans are in the way.
My opinion on this is that as a culture we do over consume and overproduce and I do not think it is right. However, to change that type of lifestyle that we have all become acustom to would mean everyone agreeing that it is wrong. I try not to buy and consume more than what I need, but with the deals at stores and the advertisment sometimes its hard to pass up buying more than what we need. I think we do have a place in nature, but I also think we abuse what our place in nature really is. We are becoming to powerful.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
blog 2
I think that the dilemma of what the ideal relationship between animals and humans should be has been around for centuries. I think that people’s opinions are based on their experiences with animals and their personal beliefs and morals. Kohak gives us three different options in which most people approach this dilemma- 1) refuse all limitations; 2) equality; 3) seek compromise.
I would definitely fall into the third category. I think that my opinion is largely based on the fact that I never had any pets when I was growing up and that I have very strong moral beliefs. The Catholic Church believes that animals don’t have souls. I agree with this. I also agree with the Catholic Church on the fact that even though animals don’t have souls, they are still God’s creatures. As a result, animals should be treated with dignity, respect, and love. I believe that we should only use animals to the extent of need. I think that animal cruelty is very wrong and a sin. Many people probably think that the Catholic Church doesn’t take a strong enough stance on animal rights, but one of the greatest, most revered saints of all time, St. Francis of Assisi, devoted his whole life to spreading the news that nature, especially animals, are a part of God’s creation and their purpose is a very important one. I fully agree.
When reading this, I thought it was very interesting that they made a parallel with animal rights and the struggle for African Americans to gain their rights. I thought that was very clever and really brought the issue to a whole new level for me. I could better relate to what Singer was saying and I think that similarities that he pulled out were very insightful.
After reading this I am not a vegetarian by any means but it did strengthen my opinion on the fact that animals should be respected. It also made me more conscious of my use of animals and it will make me more aware of what their purpose is.
blog 2
In the first part of the book Kohak says that we are more like animals than meets the eye. I feel that animals are able to feel just as we feel and have the same emotions just cant express their emotions as we do. As a pet owner i can tell when my animals are sick, happy, sad, and tired. Animals also are content with living as pets, as long as they are cared for.
Kohak also says that we can only cover up so much with "yellow paint". We (humans) over time have caused so much damage to the earth that the damage is irreversible. Also he says we are just consumers and that if we do not change we will run out of our natural resources. My stand is that we are a consumer society but we can live without certain resources. We do not need to consume as much oil as we do but to live at a functional society we have to consume some. We cant just stop drilling due to the oil crisis, our society would crumble underneath us.
The solution would be a steady decline in our natural resource consumption while trying to find an alternative to the resource so we may consume as much as we need and we will be able to not use the resources that will not always be there. The only problem with finding an alternative to natural resources is the money it will cost. The government sees this as a problem but would rather spend more money on other "important-pressed issues". We can not make this change without the support of the government and the world as one.
blog #3
I found Kohak's views on the different perceptions of nature to be very interesting. The hunter-gatherer, shepherd and ploughman, and the craftsman and trader all have something in common which I believe is there reliance on the nature that surrounds them. Without nature, individuals would have nothing. When looking at all four, the producer and consumer seem to be the most unhappy. Kohak's description of the four perceptions, shows just how artificial the fourth one is. I believe that their are many individuals however who fall into the producers-consumers. A lot of people today are focused in on buying more and more items, even if they do not need them. I do agree with Kohak when he says that consumerism is "the epidemic of superfluity".
When reading about Ethics and The fear of The Lord I liked how Kohak tied it to religion and fear of the Lord in his discussion about the revere of nature. His comparison between people's dependence on nature and the way people of different faiths view God was quite interesting. It's hard for individuals to talk about religion. Every ones beliefs are not the same and not everyone is a follower of God. Everyone of us has our own opinion about religion, consumerism and our feelings on nature. If everyone did believe in God, and everyone didn't see nature as just a "gift" things would be different.
Lastly I agree strongly with Kohak when he says that we need to set limits on our consumptions. I believe that our consumption has lead us into conflict with nature itself. An example of this I believe is pollution in the air caused by so many people driving diesel trucks and any and all cars which release fumes into the environment. A way that we could save ourselves money, and help the environment would be car pooling from one place to another or using a system of public transportation. If individuals weren't so egocentric the environment would be a better place and individuals would most likely be happier.
When reading about Ethics and The fear of The Lord I liked how Kohak tied it to religion and fear of the Lord in his discussion about the revere of nature. His comparison between people's dependence on nature and the way people of different faiths view God was quite interesting. It's hard for individuals to talk about religion. Every ones beliefs are not the same and not everyone is a follower of God. Everyone of us has our own opinion about religion, consumerism and our feelings on nature. If everyone did believe in God, and everyone didn't see nature as just a "gift" things would be different.
Lastly I agree strongly with Kohak when he says that we need to set limits on our consumptions. I believe that our consumption has lead us into conflict with nature itself. An example of this I believe is pollution in the air caused by so many people driving diesel trucks and any and all cars which release fumes into the environment. A way that we could save ourselves money, and help the environment would be car pooling from one place to another or using a system of public transportation. If individuals weren't so egocentric the environment would be a better place and individuals would most likely be happier.
Blog #4
In part two, of nature, value, and ethics, Kohak starts by explaining ways in which our perceiving of nature affects our conceiving of it. He starts off by stating three possible ideas of how humans relate to nature. The hunter-gatherer perspective, just simply states that they accept what nature has to offer them without manipulating it any way. The shepherds and ploughmen perspective deals with giving nature what it needs with respect, and then nature in turn gives them return. Lastly, the craftsman and the trader perspective is where nature is seen as a gift, not a partner. Everyone all over the would has their own perceptions on the way they view nature. This shows that our way of perceiving nature affects our way of conceiving it based upon these ways humans relate to nature.
Then there was a shift to consumerism- where the only thing that matter is profit. This shift leads to a new human perception on the way of life. I somewhat agree with what Kohak is stating here. What he is basically saying is that nobody recognizes the value of the non-human being anymore. The only thing that matters is the individual. A quote that stood out to me was "I, I alone matter." The world today is full of individuals who only care about themselves and themselves alone. We forget to realize the beauty of nature and all that is had to offer us.
The part on ethics of the fear of the Lord, was also very appealing. A line that really caught my attention was "Only a fundamental change in attitude which places respect for God and for God's creation at the centre of human interest will enable us to overcome the problems stemming from human greed and self-centeredness." This quote sums up everything that is stated above. Humans are not the only living beings in the world and we are all God's creations. There is a point where humans should not act natually, but humanly.
Then there was a shift to consumerism- where the only thing that matter is profit. This shift leads to a new human perception on the way of life. I somewhat agree with what Kohak is stating here. What he is basically saying is that nobody recognizes the value of the non-human being anymore. The only thing that matters is the individual. A quote that stood out to me was "I, I alone matter." The world today is full of individuals who only care about themselves and themselves alone. We forget to realize the beauty of nature and all that is had to offer us.
The part on ethics of the fear of the Lord, was also very appealing. A line that really caught my attention was "Only a fundamental change in attitude which places respect for God and for God's creation at the centre of human interest will enable us to overcome the problems stemming from human greed and self-centeredness." This quote sums up everything that is stated above. Humans are not the only living beings in the world and we are all God's creations. There is a point where humans should not act natually, but humanly.
Blog #4
Part 2 ("Of Nature, Value, and Ethics") in The Green Halo veers a little off the topic of animals and focuses more on humans' treatment of nature as a whole. I found the first section, "The Moral Sense of Nature," to be interesting. I could really picture what Kohak meant when he talked about the basic ways humans relate to nature. He painted a great picture of humans in the past respecting and revering nature to different extents, and it left me wishing we were still like that today. I especially loved the image of the shepherds and ploughman because it made me think of a simpler time that was still relatable (I had a tougher time imaging hunting and gathering what I need to survive) where humans were deeply respectful and grateful to nature while still playing a role in their own lives. The idea of the hunters/gatherers being completely dependent on nature was a little much for me, I would want to live with a little control. I wish we could achieve such reverence now instead of having this culture of "over consumption." It makes me sad that we consistently abuse everything nature and God provides for us.
The second section, "Ethics of the Fear of the Lord," was a little less clear to me. I had trouble discerning what Kohak was really trying to say about Christianity because the ideas went back and forth a couple of times. I disagreed with Kohak's statement that "the point is that...the idea of mastery over nature really is one of the motifs which humans can derive from the Christian contribution to our cultural heritage" (63). I don't think it's appropriate to say that Christianity is a major cause of humans' desire to "conquer" nature because not only does the bible contain many statements contrary to this (Isaiah 66:3 says "he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man"), but also the fact that humans' had the desire to master nature long before Christianity was born. Even the earliest known civilizations such as in Egypt or Mesopotamia tried to "control" the water around them for irrigation purposes. Granted, that is different than today's culture in which many see nature as expendable, but still that idea of "besting" nature was there. I don't believe Kohak intended to place all the blame on Christianity for the state of the world today, but I think he used a poor choice of words in voicing his opinion on it. His quote (as typed above) can be very easily misinterpreted. As far as the rest of the section goes, I did like how Kohak concluded that humans' disruption and destruction of nature is not compulsive, that somewhere along the lines we chose this path. I believe that humans have the ability to live harmoniously with all of nature - or else why would God have created us at all? I don't really like Kohak's suggestion of going back to the hunter/gatherer ways, but I do think we as a human race ought to be able to reach a compromise about our way of life that can be far less obstructive.
The second section, "Ethics of the Fear of the Lord," was a little less clear to me. I had trouble discerning what Kohak was really trying to say about Christianity because the ideas went back and forth a couple of times. I disagreed with Kohak's statement that "the point is that...the idea of mastery over nature really is one of the motifs which humans can derive from the Christian contribution to our cultural heritage" (63). I don't think it's appropriate to say that Christianity is a major cause of humans' desire to "conquer" nature because not only does the bible contain many statements contrary to this (Isaiah 66:3 says "he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man"), but also the fact that humans' had the desire to master nature long before Christianity was born. Even the earliest known civilizations such as in Egypt or Mesopotamia tried to "control" the water around them for irrigation purposes. Granted, that is different than today's culture in which many see nature as expendable, but still that idea of "besting" nature was there. I don't believe Kohak intended to place all the blame on Christianity for the state of the world today, but I think he used a poor choice of words in voicing his opinion on it. His quote (as typed above) can be very easily misinterpreted. As far as the rest of the section goes, I did like how Kohak concluded that humans' disruption and destruction of nature is not compulsive, that somewhere along the lines we chose this path. I believe that humans have the ability to live harmoniously with all of nature - or else why would God have created us at all? I don't really like Kohak's suggestion of going back to the hunter/gatherer ways, but I do think we as a human race ought to be able to reach a compromise about our way of life that can be far less obstructive.
Blog #3
While reading the part of The Lure of Perfection, I really would like to believe that what Kohak suggests is something that are society could really pull off. Kohak does seem to be a little unrealistic at times because in his world everyone is perfect and humans and animals are one. There are also many people that do not feel the same way about animals and it would be hard to change their minds on the situation. I also have to disagree with him in the case that he thinks that all meat eaters are cruel. We are apart of a food chain and we eat meat and as do other animals so would they be cruel also. I am not for treating animals badly but I do not beleieve just becuase you consume meat that automatically entitles you to be ethically wrong and cruel.
Kohak makes some very good points and it does make me stop and question myself on if I am doing the right thing. I feel people like to live in a world that if what they dont know wont hurt them and act oblivious to what is really going on.
Kohak makes some very good points and it does make me stop and question myself on if I am doing the right thing. I feel people like to live in a world that if what they dont know wont hurt them and act oblivious to what is really going on.
Blog #2
In class when we discussed if animals matter ethically and if they have moral rights in this world made me think more about the issue on how we treat some animals and how it can be morally and ethically wrong. Although we may not think of treating animals with such cruelty we aren't really considering on where the meat we consume, makeup we use, and medicine we take really came from and what had to happen to get it. In class we discussed the issue if animals have a moral right to things and if they should. I believe animals should have rights and not be treated with such harm like chickens being contained in cages and not be able to move because there are so many stuffed in one cage. Also rats being made to drink poisons so we can where make up to make us look younger. None of these things seem right to do and I personally do not like it.
I believe in the approach of seeking compromise in identifying real human needs and look for human alternatives. Animals have social order and they can feel from joy and pain so why treat them in ways we do not necessarily have to. Instead of raising chickens in factory cages why not consume only farmed raised chickens who have been raised well. There are alternatives for every mistake we make but it seems we always choose the easiest and fastest way which can be morally and ethically wrong.
I believe in the approach of seeking compromise in identifying real human needs and look for human alternatives. Animals have social order and they can feel from joy and pain so why treat them in ways we do not necessarily have to. Instead of raising chickens in factory cages why not consume only farmed raised chickens who have been raised well. There are alternatives for every mistake we make but it seems we always choose the easiest and fastest way which can be morally and ethically wrong.
Blog 4
In the beginning of Kohak's second part, Of Nature, Value, and Ethics, I found his writings on the different perceptions of nature to be very insightful. While I found each to be valid and very different, I also could see the similarities between three of the four. What the hunter-gatherer, shepherd and ploughman, and the craftsman and trader all seem to have in common is there deep dependence on and respect for the nature that surrounds them - without it, they would be and have nothing. The sense of frugality possessed by the craftsman and trader, the loving respect toward nature shown by the shepherd and ploughman, and the sense of awe and dependence captured within the hunter-gather, stand as strong pillars of light compared to the experiences and actions of the producer and consumer. When looking at all four, the producer and consumer seem to the be the most unhappy, searching for meaning along his self-centered, empty quest for fulfillment, leaving all things but himself destroyed in his wake. Kohak's presentation of the four perceptions, shows just how unnatural the fourth one is - to continuously want more is not only unnatural but unhealthy.
Next, I liked Kohak's tie to religion and fear of the Lord in his discussion about the reverence of nature. His comparison between people's deep dependence on nature and the way people of different faiths view God was quite insightful - "For humans whose fundamental reality is God...who not only consider but truly experience themselves as unworthy servants of God, for whom the meaning of life is to gratefully care for the beloved creation (of God)...the purest ecological attitude of humility, simplicity, and service are an obvious expression of all life. That is what it is all about" (Kohak, 61). As one truly praises God through the actions of their life, they are forced to fall into line with many ecological teachings because to love God means to love all the things that possess God - all of His creation.
Lastly, Kohak dealt with the idea of humans as natural destroyers or as destroyers by choice. While I agree that humans are not destroyers by choice, I did not agree with all of the "rules" that Kohak thought that humans should impose on themselves to spare their effect on nature. While I do agree that one must almost reconstruct society to remove the idea of over consumerism, I did not like the train analogy that he used. When using the train example to describe human's overpopulation of the earth, I was mortified that Kohak would suggest lowering/controlling the human population. With all his talk about the sacredness of life, I would think this sacredness would extend to the human population as well. Changing attitudes is one thing, limiting life in sake of conservation is quite another.
Next, I liked Kohak's tie to religion and fear of the Lord in his discussion about the reverence of nature. His comparison between people's deep dependence on nature and the way people of different faiths view God was quite insightful - "For humans whose fundamental reality is God...who not only consider but truly experience themselves as unworthy servants of God, for whom the meaning of life is to gratefully care for the beloved creation (of God)...the purest ecological attitude of humility, simplicity, and service are an obvious expression of all life. That is what it is all about" (Kohak, 61). As one truly praises God through the actions of their life, they are forced to fall into line with many ecological teachings because to love God means to love all the things that possess God - all of His creation.
Lastly, Kohak dealt with the idea of humans as natural destroyers or as destroyers by choice. While I agree that humans are not destroyers by choice, I did not agree with all of the "rules" that Kohak thought that humans should impose on themselves to spare their effect on nature. While I do agree that one must almost reconstruct society to remove the idea of over consumerism, I did not like the train analogy that he used. When using the train example to describe human's overpopulation of the earth, I was mortified that Kohak would suggest lowering/controlling the human population. With all his talk about the sacredness of life, I would think this sacredness would extend to the human population as well. Changing attitudes is one thing, limiting life in sake of conservation is quite another.
#4
Reading part two, and the section of The Moral Sense of Nature was very interesting to me. I thought how Kohak described the three different possibilities of how humans view nature was very appealing. When talking about the hunter-gatherers, this was very shocking to me because I never think of how our past ancestors lived, it is is difficult to believe that they really did live in such a difficult environment. I feel bad for the shepherds and ploughmen, because it is very easy for all their hard work to go to waste, such as when crop failure occurs. And lastly the craftsman and the trader who does see nature as a partner but only as a gift. I think many people fall into this category, and we forget about how important animals, plants, and everything else in nature really matters. We take many things for granted today and tend to forget our surroundings. When Kohak stated "I, I alone, matter" (p. 57.) I feel like many think that way which is depressing but we forget to see everything that is around us, and then we forget the importance of nature and all it has to offer.
Next, when reading the section of Ethics of the Fear of the Lord, it seemed that Kohak really emphasized the attitude of becoming "theocentric". This will never work because everyone has different beliefs. Even though God gave his life for us does not mean everyone views themselves "as unworthy servants of God, for whom the meaning of life is gratefully to care for the beloved creation that God entrusted them" (pg.61). It's difficult to talk about religion and everyone's belief because not everyone is a follower of God, and each and everyone of us has our own opinion about everything. If everyone did believe in God, and everyone didn't see nature as just a gift things may be a lot different. Maybe animals wouldn't be killed and everyone one would become a vegetarian, and maybe the air wouldn't be as polluted. There are many ways things could be better in nature, but because each of us have different views the world will never be perfect.
Next, when reading the section of Ethics of the Fear of the Lord, it seemed that Kohak really emphasized the attitude of becoming "theocentric". This will never work because everyone has different beliefs. Even though God gave his life for us does not mean everyone views themselves "as unworthy servants of God, for whom the meaning of life is gratefully to care for the beloved creation that God entrusted them" (pg.61). It's difficult to talk about religion and everyone's belief because not everyone is a follower of God, and each and everyone of us has our own opinion about everything. If everyone did believe in God, and everyone didn't see nature as just a gift things may be a lot different. Maybe animals wouldn't be killed and everyone one would become a vegetarian, and maybe the air wouldn't be as polluted. There are many ways things could be better in nature, but because each of us have different views the world will never be perfect.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
# 4
It was interesting how Kohak portrayed the various perceptions of nature overtime. As I began to read about the view of the hunter-gathers who were intimidated by nature and seemed to be at its mercy, I thought it was interesting how Kohak paralleled it to their perception and respect for God. I thought Kohak did a good job of explaining why our early ancestors made many sacrifices to what I always thought of as "false gods"; they made these sacrifices because they viewed God's all-powerful prescence and might through nature. Their respect for nature reflected their dependence and respect to God. I feel, to a certain extent,it is still like this today; nature is indefferent to human suffering in a sense that we are still at its mercy. It is not always something we can control or predict, which may be a reason why we feel the need to continue to destroy it and attepmt to conquer it. I think this reflects how people often tend to ignore God, hoping that through their lack of acknowledgement He will exist less and less. The fear of the unknown, whether it is the unpredictability of nature or the prescence of God, leads to our attempt to conquer or ignore.
The second mode of experiencing nature that Kohak presents us with is the mode of a shepherd. Humans work hard to bing frutility from nature; we work with nature to provide what we need while respecting nature and taking care of it. The result stems from how generous we are to what surrounds us. There is no longer a total dependence, but a partnership. I think this is easier for humans because there is a sense of control, more than the hunter-gatherers possessed. To me, I could relate to this view more. Nature becomes the work of God, rather than God itself; a gift for us to use and to show respect to the world God gave us.
The third view Kohak presents is that of a craftsman. Daily contact with nature is reduced as consuming becomes the driving force. Humans are still dependent on the nature that surrounds them, however, they are less aware of their dependence. Nature to them is still a gift, but one to use. I think this view is more prevelant today, but it is distorted as people are forgetting how precious this gift is.
I agree with Kohak as he explains that our current meaning of life seems to stem from material goods, and obtaining as much as possible. Our view of happiness is distorted as we believe the more we have, the better our life will be; we are no longer happy with just having what we need. Humans have began to distance themselves from God, thus, distancing themselves from his gifts and placing "the human being" at the center. This is where our greed takes place and our mistreatment of our environment begins. When Kohak states, "humans are not intruders in virtue of their nature but in virtue of certain acts", I believe he is correct (64). Nature is for us to share, but it is our disregard that alienates us from this precious gift.
The second mode of experiencing nature that Kohak presents us with is the mode of a shepherd. Humans work hard to bing frutility from nature; we work with nature to provide what we need while respecting nature and taking care of it. The result stems from how generous we are to what surrounds us. There is no longer a total dependence, but a partnership. I think this is easier for humans because there is a sense of control, more than the hunter-gatherers possessed. To me, I could relate to this view more. Nature becomes the work of God, rather than God itself; a gift for us to use and to show respect to the world God gave us.
The third view Kohak presents is that of a craftsman. Daily contact with nature is reduced as consuming becomes the driving force. Humans are still dependent on the nature that surrounds them, however, they are less aware of their dependence. Nature to them is still a gift, but one to use. I think this view is more prevelant today, but it is distorted as people are forgetting how precious this gift is.
I agree with Kohak as he explains that our current meaning of life seems to stem from material goods, and obtaining as much as possible. Our view of happiness is distorted as we believe the more we have, the better our life will be; we are no longer happy with just having what we need. Humans have began to distance themselves from God, thus, distancing themselves from his gifts and placing "the human being" at the center. This is where our greed takes place and our mistreatment of our environment begins. When Kohak states, "humans are not intruders in virtue of their nature but in virtue of certain acts", I believe he is correct (64). Nature is for us to share, but it is our disregard that alienates us from this precious gift.
4.
Part II brings up the topic of morality and how it relates to nature. Kohak states that the way we perceive nature influences the way we conceive it. I would agree with this statement in that if I see nature as a waste and nothing important, I'm probably not going to show any care or concern for it. Therefore, in relation to morality, I think it's as simple as recognizing the beauty of nature (whether it is plants or animals) and treating it in a humane way. I believe that as inhabitants of the earth, we have moral duties to uphold to keep it an environment that plants, animals, and humans can live in. It's not like pollution and other environmental issues are only affecting animals.
On page 53, Kohak states that nature as a whole is not something we see. I feel like he is giving nature God-like qualities. Maybe some people perceive God in the nature surrounding them, however, God created nature. While we can see nature, we can't exactly see God. The three ways that historians reveal humans relating to nature is thought provoking. After reading through them, I was wondering why a combination of the three fails to exist? I feel like throughout this book, it always has to be one way or the other. Black or white. Why can't humans be aware of nature, depend on it, yet show a caring attitude towards it all at once? Maybe my ideas are too much to ask in a world that is only seeking personal short-term gains. To a certain extent, I feel like if people lived the way we were taught back in kindergarten (don't waste electricity/water, only use what you need, don't litter, plant trees etc.) the world wouldn't be such a mess.
Maybe I am cynical but Kohak's part about theocentrism portrays that the challenge is for humans to live in peace with nature - something that seems impossible for society to do. With so many opinions, theological beliefs, and issues in faith matters, I don't see how people can come to an agreement. The fact of over consumption and irresponsible lifestyles are made apparent in this section which I can agree with. It's just a matter of how to compensate for the unnecessary destruction we have already caused.
On page 53, Kohak states that nature as a whole is not something we see. I feel like he is giving nature God-like qualities. Maybe some people perceive God in the nature surrounding them, however, God created nature. While we can see nature, we can't exactly see God. The three ways that historians reveal humans relating to nature is thought provoking. After reading through them, I was wondering why a combination of the three fails to exist? I feel like throughout this book, it always has to be one way or the other. Black or white. Why can't humans be aware of nature, depend on it, yet show a caring attitude towards it all at once? Maybe my ideas are too much to ask in a world that is only seeking personal short-term gains. To a certain extent, I feel like if people lived the way we were taught back in kindergarten (don't waste electricity/water, only use what you need, don't litter, plant trees etc.) the world wouldn't be such a mess.
Maybe I am cynical but Kohak's part about theocentrism portrays that the challenge is for humans to live in peace with nature - something that seems impossible for society to do. With so many opinions, theological beliefs, and issues in faith matters, I don't see how people can come to an agreement. The fact of over consumption and irresponsible lifestyles are made apparent in this section which I can agree with. It's just a matter of how to compensate for the unnecessary destruction we have already caused.
blog 2
The liked to hear what other people thought about animal cruelty and what stand they take on this some times sensitive subject. I my self take a compermise view on animal cruelty and equality for animals. I think in serten and very specific cases where animals can be used to help animal and people.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Selfish Compassion?
So, in light of all this talk on compassion for other species -or not- I would like to ask a question.
Why should we, living in the American midwest, care about the fate of the Amazon rainforest? The polar ice caps? The bleaching of coral reefs? Why should we care whether pandas, polar bears, penguins, tigers, or gorrillas go extinct or not?
To put it another way, if we care about these things, why? Is it self interest? Altruistic reasons? Compassion for other species, or because we like knowing that these threatened species exist (i.e. "Because penguins are my favorite animal! They're so cute!")
Aaaand... here's a link to a post on zombies as life forms and how they should -or should not-be treated due to their zombie status. Enjoy.
http://tmcphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2010/10/zombies-ethical-conundrum.html
3 - The Lure of Perfection & All Too Human
Finally, I agree with Kohak...somewhat. In section IV, I feel like his way of relating everything to human reflection is more applicable to society. The vegetarianism issue requires one to reflect on his or her beliefs and why they believe what they do. The three principles he portrays reveal the attitudes of humans. These all make perfect sense because I feel like all three sum up how people view vegetarianism. I would have to say that I fall into the third attitude being that we can certainly strive for the best, however, we need to realize that we will run into "roadblocks" so to speak. Failure is inevitable in life. I think every human learns this at a young age, specifically when we learn to walk. Falling down is bound to happen. Maybe I'm stretching this concept but if we grow up with valid proof that failure is inevitable, why do some people get in a rigid mindset that we are/have to be perfect and we can do no harm in the world? I realize the text is talking about much more profound problems than simply falling down as a baby but nonetheless, it's the same idea.
On page 44, I find it interesting that Kohak says perfection is all or nothing. Also, there is no difference between the person who only eats one egg/day and the person who eats veal with ivory chopsticks. I don't agree with him here because to me, I think there is a huge difference between the two. Kohak later states that "It is about treading lightly, harming as little as possible" (45). I can agree with this statement in that it sums everything up in such a simple way. With all freedom comes responsibility and it is up to us to find the happy median where we can balance our freedom and the act of making right choices which will not harm animals or the environment. When he takes it a step further, however, and says "to live considerately is to spare our kin" is when I have to disagree. I don't consider vegetarianism the only way to be considerate.
In section V, I like how Kohak carries over the idea of with freedom comes responsibility. I also agree with Rollin when he brings up the topic of animal torture only if it can be proven necessary. I understand this could be a difficult subject because where do we as humans draw the line for what is necessary? In addition, I feel that I can relate more to Rollin's points of view in that he states that an imperfect world will still have animal experiments etc. (49). It is up to us to make the difference as to what kind of experiments will be allowed. Just like it says on page 49, we have the ability to determine what kind of a footprint we leave in nature. What will we do with our freedom?
On page 44, I find it interesting that Kohak says perfection is all or nothing. Also, there is no difference between the person who only eats one egg/day and the person who eats veal with ivory chopsticks. I don't agree with him here because to me, I think there is a huge difference between the two. Kohak later states that "It is about treading lightly, harming as little as possible" (45). I can agree with this statement in that it sums everything up in such a simple way. With all freedom comes responsibility and it is up to us to find the happy median where we can balance our freedom and the act of making right choices which will not harm animals or the environment. When he takes it a step further, however, and says "to live considerately is to spare our kin" is when I have to disagree. I don't consider vegetarianism the only way to be considerate.
In section V, I like how Kohak carries over the idea of with freedom comes responsibility. I also agree with Rollin when he brings up the topic of animal torture only if it can be proven necessary. I understand this could be a difficult subject because where do we as humans draw the line for what is necessary? In addition, I feel that I can relate more to Rollin's points of view in that he states that an imperfect world will still have animal experiments etc. (49). It is up to us to make the difference as to what kind of experiments will be allowed. Just like it says on page 49, we have the ability to determine what kind of a footprint we leave in nature. What will we do with our freedom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)