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".