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.