Blog #17

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