Hovering Kestrel

Cruise Liner Blues

2012-01-18T17:28:00.001-08:00

Oils rigs are usually getting the blame for wreaking environmental havoc on the high seas, but in light of recent evens involving a certain cruise ship, I thought I would comment on the nautical polluters not frequently in the news... until someone tips it over.

There are "normal" emissions and discharges from cruise ships all time that are glossed over and
according to the EPA, cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in the years from 1993 to 1998. Most of these involved the accidental discharge of oil or related substances but a few cases involved large numbers of illegal discharge incidents.

What sort of "normal waste discharges" are there?

1. Black Water (sewage): A typical cruise ship generates as much as 210,000 gallons during a one-week voyage. Um, yuck.

2. Gray Water (shower, sink, and galley water): A typical cruise ship is estimated to generate up to one million gallons a week.

3. Hazardous Waste (waste from dry cleaning, photo labs, paint, and maintenance chemicals, etc.): Who's printing photos and having their clothes dry cleaned on their cruise, is what I want to know.

4. Solid Waste (food waste, plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, cans, glass, etc.): That is, all the garbage produced by the tons of people on the boat.

5. Oily Bilge Water: Cruise ships are estimated to generate up to 25,000 gallons on a one week voyage.

And then there are the air emissions. Cruise ships incinerate between 75% and 85% of garbage according to the EPA in its 2008 study, contributing to smog in coastal communities and on the ocean. Yeah, smog on the beach.They also release incinerator ash and sewage sludge -- blobs of concentrated toxins from the bottom of waste treatment facilities -- into the ocean. Who said this was okay? You can't dump it in the street but you can dump it in the water? Right. Well, according to tests in Washington and Alaska, interviews with state officials, the EPA's study, and information provided by the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary this is really the case. It's actually legal to discharge untreated sewage in most areas of the United States farther than three miles from shore, so 4 miles out is fine. So says somebody. It's not fine to me.

It was only luck that the Concordia's oil is not already spewing into the sea—the hole in the hull of the liner missed the fuel tanks by a few feet, as it ran aground off the coast of Italy. But maybe it's time to pay more attention to the rest of the cruise ships out there. They don't need to be capsizing or spewing oil to attract scrutiny.

Treat Your Lab Rats Right

2012-01-16T05:56:00.000-08:00

The National Institutes of Health recently revised their official Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals for the first time in 16 years. This is the guide used by all laboratories who receive funding from the government to conduct their research and all labs receiving this funding must comply with the procedures described in the guide. The revised edition, however, is causing an uproar among facilities, however, because of a little change made on page 57.

The change involves the amount of space that must be allotted to a female lab mouse or rat and her babies. The revised guidelines suggest that a female be allotted for herself and her babies, a cage the size of a shoebox. Nothing extraordinary sounding, until one considers that previous guidelines allowed for two females, their litters and a male mouse or rat to occupy the same amount of space. Animal rights advocates applaud the change, feeling that this increase in allotted space not only allows for more humane conditions and natural development of the lab rat and her offspring, but also is a boon to scientific study, as increased space could mean a less stressful environment, translating to more accurate research results.

Some laboratories, however, are up in arms about the change. Consider Johns Hopkins research institute. They do a lot of research, they have a lot of rats. They have so many rats that research facilities consisting of huge warehouses containing 10,000 cages of rats are not uncommon. That's a lot of rats... and a lot of cages... and a lot of space. The concern for laboratories and research facilities like Johns Hopkins is a logistical one. More space for mama rats means room for fewer cages. In short, it'll cost the labs more money to house the same number of rats that they house now. They aren't happy about that.

In response to the apparent outrage at the changes, the writers of the guide have insisted that the new guidelines are not mandatory and that facilities needn't follow the new suggestions to maintain their government funding. What they aimed to do with the change, one writer has said, is to set a benchmark, a standard from which to work from. This placated some of those concerned about the change, but essentially rained upon the parade of those animal rights advocates who had applauded the measure. They claim that making the guidelines optional allows for abuse.

Sometimes you just can't make anyone happy.

Bringing Down the Stereotypes

2012-01-14T15:22:00.000-08:00

Dog = loyal, friendly, playful, cuddly

Cat = independent, anti-social, agile

Llama = funny, stupid

Pig = dirty, greedy

Gazelle = graceful

Mule = stubborn

Does any of this sound familiar? It seems often our experience with animals is limited to our domestic pets and dinner plates and that we largely rely upon these stereotypes to characterize them. I suppose these function like any other stereotype, really. They're a default we depend on because we don't have an accumulation of encounters to prove otherwise. I recent class discussion had me thinking about this and, though I didn't share, these stereotypes bother me to no end.

In the same manner that one might become indignant when confronting any other unfair categorical preconception, I'm saddened that the impressions that we and our children have of animals are based upon these stereotypes, rather than upon personal experience. As convenient as these characterizations may be, given that the average American Midwesterner is unlikely to encounter a gazelle first hand in their entire lifetime, I continue to be struck by a sort of exasperation when people I meet believe these assigned characteristics to be true descriptions of an animal.

As such, I spent all three months of my summer internship at Gorman Heritage Farm trying to break down the barriers erected by these fabricated preconceptions. As a certified "sustainable agriculture intern/farm camp councilor," part of my duties involved giving tours of the farmyard, teaching visitors about the animals and supervising small children around livestock. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but my reaction was of awe when I first realized that many of the children that came to visit the farm actually bought wholeheartedly those animal stereotypes perpetuated by cartoons, children's books and well-meaning parents. Why aren't the pigs pink? Why doesn't the cow make a "moo" sound? Why does the rooster keep crowing, even though it's the afternoon? Sigh.

Though I only spent a short amount of time with these kids on the farm, I did my very best to communicate the fact that every animal is an individual, just as every little girl or little boy is different and unique from every other little girl and little boy. And so... frequent reminders included:

-Pigs aren't dirty, they're really, really smart. And they come in lots of colors, not just pink. Well, sometimes they are dirty.

-Bunnies can bite and scratch, not matter how fluffy and cute. And here they eat alfalfa, not carrots

-Roosters crow all day every day. They stop at nighttime to sleep.

-You can pet Ringo but Don't pet George. Why? George bites and Ringo doesn't, silly!

- No. No one gets to ride Huckleberry. He doesn't like when people ride him.

-Stay away from the cat. She doesn't like people. No, you can't pet her.

- Go ahead, you can pet the chicken. She won't peck at you. And they come in all sorts of colors and eat bugs, isn't that cool!?

-Chicken eggs can be white, blue, green, brown or even pink. You can eat the duck eggs, too!

As is the way with small children, some didn't listen and were bitten by the ferocious bunnies, but most of them did and I can only hope they went home and taught their parents a thing or two...

And speaking of birds...

2011-09-16T13:46:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

The End of Communism Favors Smarter Songbirds

2011-09-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

I thought it was pretty cool.

Drug Recycling

2011-09-03T09:37:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Supercool if you ask me.

Cross-Dresser

2011-08-26T05:07:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Wasteland

2011-08-24T13:36:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Impact Man

2011-05-09T03:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Global Warming Trends Take a Bite Out of Important Crops

2011-05-09T03:04:00.000-07:00

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

# 17

2011-05-03T10:41:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 17-This is the end

2011-05-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

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

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

The End

2011-05-03T08:31:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Thanks everyone and Dr. Langguth for a great semester!

Blog 17 - Final Thoughts

2011-05-01T16:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Blog 17

2011-05-01T15:20:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 17--last one!

2011-04-30T08:50:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

last panel discussions

2011-04-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Blog 17: Last Blog

2011-04-29T21:13:00.000-07:00

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

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

Blog #17

2011-04-29T19:16:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Blog 17

2011-04-29T16:31:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

Blog #17

2011-04-29T12:56:00.000-07:00

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

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

17-Last Blog!

2011-04-28T17:32:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 17

2011-04-28T16:59:00.001-07:00

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

Blog #17

2011-04-28T16:59:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 17

2011-04-27T15:47:00.000-07:00

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

Blog16

2011-04-27T15:41:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 16

2011-04-26T07:38:00.000-07:00

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

blog 7 - kestrel's eye

2011-04-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

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

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

BLOG 16

2011-04-25T16:13:00.000-07:00

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

Blog #16

2011-04-25T11:47:00.000-07:00

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

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

Panel discussions

2011-04-25T08:41:00.000-07:00

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

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

Blog #16 Panel Discussion

2011-04-25T08:15:00.000-07:00

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

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

Blog 16- Panel Discussion #1

2011-04-24T08:52:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

panel discussions

2011-04-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

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

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

16 - Panel Response and Comment on Factory Farming

2011-04-23T16:27:00.000-07:00

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

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

Panel discussions

2011-04-20T18:16:00.000-07:00

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

Blog 16

2011-04-20T16:14:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Blog #16

2011-04-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

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

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

Panel Discussions

2011-04-20T11:45:00.000-07:00

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

Blog #16

2011-04-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Blog 16-Student Panel

2011-04-20T07:07:00.000-07:00

So far, the student panel has presented good discussions on various topics throughout the semester, primarily lifeboat ethics. However, many are presenting different ideas such as David Abram and factory farming. Also, I think these discussions are helpful as well because it reminds us of certain topics that were covered that we might have forgotten about or didn't understand as well.

I think lifeboat ethics is really popular with this class because it was the easiest to understand and its not as philosophical as the other views presented throughout the class. However, its a great discussion topic because it makes us think about what are options as humans and how would we make the right choice regarding humans and animals.

Blog 16 - Student Panel

2011-04-20T05:43:00.000-07:00

We have listened to the student panel for about a week now and for the most part, people talked about lifeboat ethics. That was good to refresh our memories about what exactly it is and the controversy on what to pick, however, no one can still answer what they would do. We also heard about things like factory farming, David Abram, moving from the country to the city to the country, and more. The variations in these topics has been good enough to keep me interested and every time I have learned something new about a new topic.

I also like how not only are people just talking about one specific topic, but they are enter-twining a couple different topics and looking at one person's point of view (Say Midgley's species barrier) by way of someone elses (say how Kohak looks at Midgley's point of view). This way to do it is good because we get more of a round knowledge of the topics and makes it easier to understand.

Blog 15-David Abram

2011-04-20T05:38:00.000-07:00

In David Abram's book, Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology, he makes the argument that if we as humans realize that we are animals as well and are therefore, directly linked to the Earth, we wouldn't misuse it and abuse it as much. I think that this is a great point he makes regarding our treatment of the Earth and animals today.

As a biology student, I know that there is scientific evidence that humans and animals have evolved from the same common ancestor. That we all share a common linkage with each other and animals, however, many people don't want to accept this fact. They want to believe that humans are in their own separate category and are above animals and plants. This idea contributes to the species barrier present today. We should work to change this view and use our intelligence instead of benefitting us, to benefit the Earth and all the living things in it.

If all humans were to realize this, there wouldn't be as much pollution and lack of resources as there is today as well as mistreatment of animals. We would contribute to the overall good of the Earth instead of being the sort of selfish species that we are today.

Blog 15 - David Abram

2011-04-20T05:37:00.000-07:00

In the sections of David Abram's book that we read, he strongly focuses on the thought that we, as humans, have to realize and believe that we are animals. He believes that if people start realizing they are animals, there will be less animal abuse, and people will be able to relate to animals better, and treat them kinder. This point that Abram makes, does make sense. Through evolution, we have seen humans having similar characteristics, making them animal-like, so why do we think that we are such a superior race?

Some people may understand that we are animals, however they think nothing of it, or they think that they are such a superior species of animals that they should be treated differently. This poses a problem because although they have a realization of where they come from, they have no understanding of what it means - therefore not solving a problem.

Upon finishing the reading sections of his book, we watching Winged Migrations which was a movie following birds on the migratory path. Although we were observing their behaviors and not interacting, like we did in The Kestrel's Eye, I enjoyed this book much more because there was migration and I was being told what to notice, which helped me.

Blog 16

2011-04-18T19:30:00.001-07:00

So far in the discussion panel most people have been writing their papers on lifeboat ethics. The interesting things we have talked aboutis a hands off approach when it comes to dealing with other countries. While I do not necessarily disagree with the idea of focussing mainly within the country, I think we need to reconsider the people we choose not to help. From and economic perspective, not helping countries in need of financial assistance would save us money; however, letting people die who cannot afford food is not the best way to go about checking the population. If we want to put the out of control population growth back into check then we need to stop prolonging the lives of the sick and treating diseases intended to check the population. Cancer has become the largest contributer to population control in modern days, because almost all other factors have been eliminated. If we cure cancer there will nothing controlling the population besides old age and when that happens the earth will fall into chaos. There are not enough resources to support a population much larger than one currently on the planet. We are coming to a point where we need to choose whether we stop helping other people and letting them die or eventually we will not have the choice and people are going to die. I think it is also inportant to point out the animals are equally impacted, if the population continues like it is humans and animals alike will suffer from lack of resources.

Blog #16

2011-04-18T14:37:00.000-07:00

So far, the student panel discussions have been very interesting. The majority of the students in class seem to be writing papers on Lifeboat Ethics, a testament to the controversial aspects of the theory and its stark, but challenging simplicity. As brought up in class, the Lifeboat Ethic is an incomplete model because it is not a good representation of one's choices in life. As Midgely and many members of the class pointed out, life choices are never as stark as the ones presented in Hardin's theory and the human race is far too connected to cut off portions of its populations. Hardin's belief in population control, also pointed out in class, is often overlooked by those focusing strictly on his infamous "three choices." This population control is basic to the theory's tie to ecological ethics - by limiting the population, one is restoring the balance of the human race on the earth - limiting human numbers so that limited resources can be shared evenly. While many class members are writing papers on Lifeboat Ethics, there are also papers being written on Kant's theory towards animals, Flannel Ecology, Deep Ecology, GAIA Hypothesis, and Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain." Deep Ecology, and America's tendency to stray toward Shallow Ecology, was discussed by the class. It was acknowledged that Shallow Ecology is much easier to believe in and back up - it only searches for technological solutions to the ecological crisis, not the fundamental changes in attitude, proposed by Deep Ecology, that would shift human actions toward the earth exponentially. Aldo Lepold's theory ("Thinking Like a Mountain") was also examined by the class. The class was reminded that the theory looked at the world as whole biotic system, and worked to avoid actions that disrupted the biotic equation. It was also pointed out that this outlook on life seemed to cast the Species Barrier into oblivion - the Species Barrier no longer dictates what or who is important. Instead the process of life dictates who or what is valuable - those things/ species that help to maintain the strict balance of life. Lastly, the topic of Environmental Aesthetics was introduced to the class. This area of study looks to determine what people find beautiful in nature. Many psychological surveys were conducted on people around the world to discover this answer. It was revealed that the African Savannah is the most appealing landscape - a testament to the evolution of man. It was also discovered that humanity's favorite color is blue - a color that reminds humans of the sky overhead and the water below. This new topic, along with the theories discussed in class, have helped to remind me of the vast material that the class has covered this semester and continue to spark my interest in ecology and humanity's reaction to it.

Blog 15-David Abram: Becoming Animal

2011-04-17T17:50:00.000-07:00

The article written by David Abram talks about humans and our relatioship with animal and nature. Abram believes that we need to accept the fact we are closer to animals than we think we are and that we need to see ourselves as a creature of the earth. Abram also inlcudes a chapter about the language of the birds and how birds speak to one another. The language of the birds allows for us humans to see ourselves a part of nature and lets us become reconnected with nature. This language allows us to have a new humility in realtion to other no human animals. Since Abram wants humans to become animal it allows for a broken speices barrier because we relate to animals more and accept the idea of our relationship with non human animals. Since there is no species barrier it allows for no hierarchial systme and having one organism higher than the other organism. David Abram also talks about the difference between his view and Descartes view. Abram believes that we need to include the mind as much as the body when we relfect on our lives. Including the mind and body is embodiement and Descartes thinks that we do not need to express embodiement but to have body and mind separate with reagards to thinking. This idea of inlcuding the body and mind allows the human to reconnect with themselves and lets them become closer to the real meaning of life and the reason for human beings and nature.

Blog 15 - Becoming Animal

2011-04-16T09:56:00.000-07:00

David Abram raises some thought provoking points in his book, Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. Abram believes that if we realize we too are animals and are linked directly to the earth, then we would be less likely to abuse it as we do. This is a statement that I think holds some validity upon closer inspection.

Humans, as the species Homo sapiens, have evolved from other animals over millions of years. We have developed from animals, because we are animals. I believe many people do not consciously realize this fact and many hold the notion that as “humans” we fall into a whole new category separate from animals. The ability to reason and think abstractly has made us more than mere animals. At the core though, both humans and animals have all the same basic needs: food, water, shelter, want for companionship and mates. Just because we are the most intelligent does not separate us from the other beings of this earth. Different animals are superior at varying things, but it does not make them better or worse than another; different but equal is they way things should be seen. But the feeling of superiority most people hold isolates us from all of nature. This detachment allows us not to notice the harm we are causing to wildlife, because we are “above it”.

If humans were to “become animal” or in other words reconnect with our origins and realize that we are a part of the earth just as much as our fellow animals, then we would be more aware of what is happening to the world around us. We would see the strain we place on natural resources. We would see the animals going extinct. We would see nature slowly being destroyed. And then we would realize how wrong it was and act to stop this from continuing.

Blog #15

2011-04-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

David Abram's book Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology was vey enjoyable, or the little part that we read. I could understand the book much easier when compared to the videos that we watched in class of him speaking. In the introuction of his book, he states "Owning up to being an animal, a creature of the earth." What he is trying to say is that we must admit that we are creatures of the earth, a characteristic that many seem to forget sometimes and place themselves above others. He also says in the introduction that "Tthis book is about becoming a two-legged animal, entirely a part of the animate world whose life swells withing and unfolds all around us." I would have liked to read the full book to get a better understanding of what Abram actually meant by this statement instead of an overview.

Another chapter of Abram's book that we read was based on the idea of Language. This chapter discusses the means of communicatio among the birds. Abram says there are three typres of calls: begging calls, aggression calls, and alarm calls. The begging calls are usually heard in late spring or early summer and are made by calling for food. The aggression calls arise when the male bird flies into the terriotory of another male from the same species. The alarm call is the sound when danger is sensed. This will occur if a predator is in the area and the bird feels violated. I believe I have seen all of these types of bird calls because birds are everywhere around us and usually the first thing we wear in the morning when we wake up in the spring and summer.

In relation to this chapter, we watched a film called Winged Migration. I really liked this film much better than the Kestrel's Eye, because there was narration. This film allowed the viewers to see the perspective from the bird's eye view and followed them on their migration route. In this film, I was able to see all of the calls that Abram had discussed in his chapter on the language of birds. I found it neat in this film that when one bird left, the others followed; it was as if the birds were not independent whatsoever. Or it could have been that they did not want to be left behind.

Animal Self

2011-04-14T12:49:00.000-07:00

A lot of the environmental issues the world faces today is due to the lack of what David Abrams calls the "animal self." The lack of a connection between people and nature has lead to nature becomed devalued less and less by people and being replaced with things like technology which can ultimately hurt nature. I think an important way to look at this idea of "animal self" is through the concept of evolution. People are animals, we evolved from them not away from them. The thing I believe that has truly seperated people from animals was the developement of culture. Somewhere along the lines people began to think our ability to think and talk seperated us from the animals we evolved from, then we put ourselves at the top rather than as part of the animal kingdom. The farther people put between themselve and the "animals self" the less nature will mean to them. Today nature doesn't mean very much to most people and this is why we are in the environmental situation today. Seperatation from nature devalues animals and makes them food, devalues trees and makes them paper, it makes nature into resources rather than part of a global balance that we used to be part of before we seperated ourselves. If the environmental issues today are ever to be resolved people need to return to nature the value we took away from it.

blog 6

2011-04-14T11:56:00.000-07:00

The main part that I want to focus on in this section of the book is lifeboat ethics. This is a very important idea that we as humans need to take seriously. Lifeboat ethics refers to the problems that we as humans create in the environment. All of the humans are responsible for the negative impact we put on this world. The population is growing out of control to fast. In lifeboat ethics there are three basic options: We can attempt to save everyone which is impossible, therefore we will die, we can attempt to save some people, or we can attempt to save no one and move on. Many people would think that the first option is the most desirable. However, if you were actually put in that position, would you risk your own life to save others? Our basic animal instinct is to survive. Do whatever you can to survive. Today we live in a world that is denies most of our animal instincts, but there are still times when it comes out.

A great example of this would be the Titanic. Towards the end of the movie, all the rich people are in life boats while the others are freezing to death ion the water. They have to watch all the people die. That is our animal instinct: To do what is necessary to survive. As humans we create all sorts of emissions and other problems that our world has to face. We need to fix them or we will all have to face them at some point!

Blog 15

2011-04-14T08:12:00.001-07:00

David Abrams is different than the recent philosophers that we have read. What I like most about him is that he does have a poetic twist on his writing, which I enjoy a lot. Just in the introduction, he rhythmically explains to the reader that this book, Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. His goal is to transform the reader into a “two-legged animal” that views nature as a critical part of their lives, not just something that surrounds us. He expresses a need to enable us to think in a critical way that binds us even more deeply to nature.

Abrams uses birds to focus on the Cartesian way of thinking about cognition. Abrams believes that thinking requires a whole body experience, not just the abstract involvement of the mind. Abrams also believes that technology keeps us in a shell that prevents us from experiencing actual nature. It keeps us from seeing its true value.

In class we watched parts of Winged Migration. I enjoyed watching the bits and pieces of this film much more than the Kestrel’s Eye. The sceneries were more varied and showed different species of birds and their unique characteristics. I think that watching clips of this film highlighted the beauty of nature.

I enjoyed reading Abrams so much that I am actually probably going to write my paper on him and contrast his beliefs with Descartes’ beliefs. I want to somehow tie in technology and the role that it plays in our society as well as include the two bird movies that we have watched in class. I also have been thinking about possibly tying in Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis somewhere in my paper as well.

David Abram

2011-04-13T19:06:00.000-07:00

David Abram's take on nature, humans, and animals was very interesting to read. The very beginning - the introduction - to the pages sums it all up when he basically states we must tune our "animal sense to the sensible terrain" and then goes on to discuss nature in relation to humans. It seems as if all throughout the readin, Abram focuses on humans taking a better grasp on our "animal self". The species barrier is called to attention which I think poses a very important viewpoint both of Midgley and Abram.

Overall, we must change the way we think about the species barrier. It is not such a strict barrier as once thought to be. Rather, it is stressed how animals and humans are similar and, in relation to birds, they both adapt to different circumstances so there should be no hierarchy of order. I thought it was interesting when the comment was made in class - "we are contituted by our relationships with other species". The more I thought about this, it is nothing but the truth. Whether we want to aknowledge it or not, humans are related to all species. I feel that on a daily basis we relate to animals whether it is through hearing the birds sing in our shared environemnt or interacting with out pets. Abram's work made some very good points which reveals the fact that although humans tend to try to shut themselves off from the world of nature, we are, in fact, never fully removed form it.

Blog 15

2011-04-13T16:08:00.000-07:00

I found David Abram's work interesting, but a challenge to read. His writing was more drawn out and fancy than was Kohak's for example. Kohak seemed to always get straight to the point, while Abram seemed to want to dance around the point with complex words and sentences - both approaches are fine, but I found I had to use my brain a little more while reading Abram's writing than I have had to do with the other texts we have looked at. One thing I really liked about the way he wrote was how descriptive he was. Although at times I was thinking, 'alright, I get that the earth is beautiful!', overall I liked the way he used lots of descriptions in order to paint a vivid mental picture for the read - especially in the prologue. I think his word choices worked well, and I really did get a good feel for what he was talking about and why he has so much respect for nature. The chapter about birds was very interesting. I really liked reading about the different types of bird communication because, as we talked about in class, it can really be useful in everyday life. I had never thought of how the sounds birds make differ from one another, but after being prompted to think about it by Abram's writing, I wondered why I had never thought about it before. After talking about the different bird sounds in class, it seemed obvious to me that the three types of noises were distinct - even though I had never really considered them before. What Abram said about birds and the way they communicate just further proves the point - in my mind at least - that animals do have their own language of sorts and should not be treated poorly based on their "lack" of language as we know it.

Blog #15

2011-04-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

David Abram makes very good points, and I would have to say I agree with most things he says. He proves to show that animals and no better than humans, and humans are really no better than animals. We each have different ways of communicating in which neither humans or birds understand each other but each has their own language. Just because we do not understand what a bird could possibly be saying to one another does not make it any less of importance. Just because a bird cannot understand our conversations with one another, does not mean our conversations are not important. Birds have different ways of communicating in which we talked about today which are: Bird's song, "Clucking" their information to one another, for instance if they are trying to stick together, they have "location calls". Lastly, they have an "alarm call" which is more of a squawking sound. When talking about a birds squawking sound, a human could relate to someone yelling or hollering because this could be what we would say is our "alarm call". Once again, humans are no better than animals, nor are animals better than humans we just have different languages.

blog # 15

2011-04-13T13:06:00.000-07:00

It is very interesting how Abram portrays animals throughout these chapters. He uses strong auditory imagery to connect the reader with the sense of nature he is trying to portray. His purpose is to remind us of where we came from, and challenges us to revisit our "animal-selves", understanding their nature to help understand ours. He uses examples about nature that reflect the way we live out our daily lives. He emphasizes that too long we have sheltered ourselves from the nature that surrounds us and something that is apart of us. He shows our connectedness using certain characteristic that are usually thought to be human, and explaining how they are evident in animals as well. For example, the characteristic of having language he argues is expressed in animals too, only in a different manner. The language of animals is more of a body language, but it is still a form of communication that they understand. There is meaning behind each action, as there is meaning behind each word, and both help a certain goal to be met. He also uses the concept of intellect, and portrays the spider's ability to weave a web so precise that it is exactly how it needs to be in order to accomplish its task, and each time the web is destroyed, the spider is able to rebuild it the same way again. He talks about the ability to adapt, and how even humans in some cases are not prepared for certain circumstances and must quickly adapt to the changes. All that he describes is very interesting, especially his examples with birds. His goal is to remind us of our origin and to "own up to being an animals, a creature of the earth", something that very few people choose to do (3).

Blog #15

2011-04-13T12:45:00.000-07:00

David Abram makes some interesting points. He is saying that animals and humans are more alike than what people think they are. We both communicate with each other with body language and sounds. Humans speak to each other verbally with words animals do it with different kinds of sounds. We humans may not understand what they are saying but they do, just like they do not understand what we are saying. We are different but very much alike. When animals, for example, birds sense something bad or even if it was good coming there way, they have different sounds that they use to let the other birds know. Those birds will understand what is going on. Birds are actually very vocal and this is their kind of language. Animals think and and have thoughts just like humans do. We do it very differently, but we all do it. We both have to do it to survive, we need to think in ways that would help us get through each day, each situations and way to stay alive. David Abram made me realize that animals are a lot like us. I never really thought that animals would think but it does make sense because in certain situations. For example, if it is for them to save their lives or even to hunt for food they have to have a certain strategy to do so, and the only way to do this is by using their thoughts and thinking it out.

Blog 15

2011-04-12T18:29:00.000-07:00

David Abram shows how animal and human intelligance differ but also relates it in a way that shows that animals are not superior to humans and humans are not superior to animals. Animals think just as much as humans do; however, they think in a different way that humans do. They think differently only because they think to fit their own needs. They think in ways that help them to survive in the habitat that they live in, just as humans do things to stay alive in the habitats they live in. Both humans and animals speak but in different ways. He demonstrates this with the birds. Birds are very vocal creatures. Another thing that Abram shows is that animals are just as capable as humans to express emotion and fear. When a danger is near or birds need to alert one another they have certain vocal sounds. They speak in a type of bird language that is different than humans, but it works for them and it can even work for other species of birds. Abram shows that there might be a species barrier, but it is not nearly as big of a barrier as most people see it to be. Animals and humans have a lot of things in common. Body language is one thing that humans and animals have in commong. It is in a different way but both species do it. Same with vocal sounds. Humans speak and birds have songs or vocal sounds. It all is nearly the same thing just in different ways that the other species does not understand. Speech and thought is not only a human trait. Abram shows that things in nature also do those things.

Blog 5 Deep Ecology

2011-04-12T18:23:00.001-07:00

Naess presents what deep ecology is and tells us what it consists of. Deep ecology is looking and examining all the way to the bottom of what the problem is. We as humans are fastly destroying our planet. The farther we put ourselves away from nature, the more we seem to destroy it. Our lives are so boxed up and closed in from nature. Maybe if would spend more time outside, or were not so dependent upon our houses we would be inclined to help nature? Shallow ecology of our environment would be looking at problems that our world is facing and temporarily fixing them. We need to take a much "deeper" look into the problem.

The book No Impact Man is a very good book that explains to us how to live a year without making a significant impact upon the Earth. The man in this book Collin Beaven commits to this idea and changes his whole lifestyle. He also finds out that he and his family become more happy due to the project. This book is a perfect example of deep ecology. This man does not impact the environment negatively at all, and trust me that is a very hard thing to do. Everything a human being does today hurts the environment in some distinct way. We need to change how we live our lives and give up some things that are not necessary or essential in our way of life.

Blog 15

2011-04-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

David Abram makes some very interesting points in the selections from his book, Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology, read in class. He challenges the commonly held Cartesian beliefs regarding intelligence and their place next to the imperceptible wall known as the species barrier. In his chapter regarding birds, Abram shows how animal and human intelligence differ, but then relates these intelligences to the roles that each play in the lives of the human and animal - showing one is not superior to the other. "We spend much of our time deploying a very rarefied form of intelligence, manipulating abstract symbols while our muscled body is mostly inert. Hence, thinking, for us, seems to have little bearing on our carnal life; it often seems entirely independent of our body and our bodily relation to the biosphere...Other animals in contrast...think with the whole of their bodies. A nuanced necessary to orient and forage in a world of ever-changing forces" (Abram, 189). With this quote Abram shows that animals think just as much as humans, only differently to fit their own needs - the needs of one forced to survive in the forests and skies of the earth. Next, Abram focuses on speech, another trait specifically held as strictly human. Through a demonstration of the various calls and songs of the birds, he shows them as not only a thinking species, but also a vocal one - using language to warn the other creatures of the forest about possible danger. "The alarm call is uttered whenever danger is sensed...and it usually varies in volume with the degree of sensed danger...Upon hearing an alarm call, even birds form other, neighboring species halt whatever they're up to...Other animals, too, commonly stop and take notice" (Abram, 194). With his demonstration of bird "language," Abram shows that animals are just as capable of humans to express fear and emotion, speaking as part of "...an enigmatic cosmos that already spoke (speaks) to us in a myriad of tongues" (Abram, 4). In the selections from his book, Abram works to show that the species barrier is not nearly as dense as once imagined. The traits once considered strictly human, speech and thought, surround the earth in every aspect of its being - among the animals, through the trees, as a living biosphere.

QUIZ 13

2011-04-11T18:48:00.000-07:00

Burdiansky argues against Perterson's idea about animals having the emotions that humans consist of. In the article Burdiansky expresses his thoughts saying animals do not have the morals and emotions that humans have and that we are different. I feel that Midgely would respond to this argument by discussing the differences between animals and humans and that we are completely different species. This does not mean that she believes that animals have no values and are mindless machines that are spread throughout the earth but that humans and animlas do not fit into the same category when it comes to cognitive processes. She would argue that it is antropocentric to apply human emotions to animals. That is why she would not agree with Peterson's argument about the Gorillia acting with his human like emotions to rescue the boy because we are just insisting on what we feel the animal feels which Midgely would openly disagree with.

Quiz 13

2011-04-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

Budiansky argues Peterson saying that animals have no moral reason or ability to know what is right and to act upon it. Budiansky believes that animals are inferior to humans in this sense. A great example would be the case of the gorilla. In this instance, a gorilla saves a boy who falls by bringing him to the door/fence. Does the gorilla do this knowing that it is the right thing to do, or is it just playing around and fetching the boy like they do with the gorilla with a doll. Budiansky says that the gorilla has no moral values. They do not know right from wrong. Midgley disagrees with this statement. She believes that animals do have a sense of right and wrong, its just in a different form. For example if a human walks by a baby cub, they can easily be killed because the mother of the cub is protecting her baby. She does not know that we are just passing by. So, animals values are a lot differently than humans. Gorillas are some of the most enhanced species out there. They are very smart and can learn very well. So, overall Midgley believes that animals have moral values and Budiansky does not.

I believe with Midgley that animals do have moral values. They just have a different sense of them than we do. Why should we believe that we are better than animals and are more superior? If anything we have the responsibility to help them rather than consume them and act like they are of no value.

BAY pig in the city blog 14

2011-04-10T18:45:00.000-07:00

This was a very interesting movie. Overall, it was pretty good. This movie is about a pig named Bay who visits the city with his mother. They stay in a very peculiar place with other animals. Bay has never seen the city before and is very fascinated by it. His mother gets herself into some trouble by the police and is arrested. At the same time the "hotel" that Bay is staying in is being swarmed by the police and animal control people. Bay manages to escape and frees his friends that are being held in an animal prison. Bay's mother finally gets loose and finds out that her pig is missing. Eventually they find each other and everything turns out fine. The place where they were staying is back up and running and is now allowed to accept animals in its facility.

In this movie I noticed that the city that they were staying at combines New York City, Hollywood, and some other imperial cities. This movie also makes you want to help animals. It appeals to your emotions in a very sentimental way. This was a good movie for the class and I think we should watch more like it.

Babe Pig In The City

2011-04-08T06:26:00.000-07:00

This movie is a good example of how the human directors putting a huministic charictoristics of animals. I saw this movie when I was jounger and found it more enjoyeble at a younger age then I did this last time. I think that the audience is a key aspect when it comes to animals and human interaction. The plot of the movie was smoother and better understood than the Plegue Dogs movie. You had a sense of what the main objective that the director was trying to get at, i.e. the meaning behind the sense and context of the movie as a whole. Even though the meaning behind The Plague Dogs is more profoun than Pig in the City.

Babe: A Pig in The City

2011-04-05T19:00:00.000-07:00

Babe: A Pig in The City, is an interesting film to watch. It is a film that gives anthropomorphic qualities to animals who live in a large house, from mice to chimpanzees and orangutans. The protagonist is a pig from a farm that travels to the city with one of his owners in order to save their farm. However, everything that can go wrong for them does. They end up living in a house filled with animals and a women and man who are kind of weird, but then again what wasn't in this movie.

I thought it was very strange that the movie gave human qualities, such as emotion, to animals. Especially to the chimpanzees and orangutan who even dressed like humans. However, this is the main reason why the movie was such a success. By giving animals human qualities, it is the only way that the audience, humans, can connect with the animals and what they are experiencing throughout the film. This is the only way that the species barrier can be broken. Without this, and the whole hollywood effects in the movie, it would have been very unappealing just like the Kestrel's Eye.

This just shows that without giving animals that human element, we can care less what they are going through. To say that animals share the same emotions as us would pose a major problem as well. If we knew that an animal felt fear and pain, we would not be able to slaughter them or shoot them as we do today. Though I believe animals have emotions to a certain degree, many don't want to due to the fact that it would raise a moral questions.

Babe is a great family movie that is entertaining and interesting film to watch. However, it is no nature film at all such as the Kestrel's Eye. It just shows that the species barrier is definitely present when comparing the two films.

Big Pig in the City

2011-04-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

In Big Pig in the City, the human characteristic given to the animals allowed us to connect to the plight of the animals. The emotion I think most people would find particular disturbing when given to an animal would have to be compassion. In particular the scene when the fish had been left on the floor after his jar was smashed and babe rushed up the stairs to save it. Anything going into a pigs mouth is lucky not to be eaten. People don't want to believe animals like pig experience compassion and other emotions, because if animals can feel emotions we are obligated to apply our wmotion towards them. Accepting animals with emotions would mean a huge lifestyle change for human kind. First of all, a sense of feeling would mean animals would deserve an equal treatment when it comes to testing or being put down. Animals have a right to life without torture or death without their consent. For us, animals suffrage will always be a slow and aching process because most people do not want to admit animals can experience emotion. It is much easier to pretend animals because it involves much less effort and no justification for the deplorable treatment of animals throughout history along with the great unjustice we have done to the environment. The language barrier will always keep animal emotions from being accepted by people because a bark or tail wag means nothing to us. The animals can say all they want to each other, just like in Babe, but it won't ever mean anything until people speak out for them.

Babe: A Pig In The City

2011-04-04T17:13:00.000-07:00

After watching Babe, I can honestly say I became emotionally connected to "Pig," as well as all of the other animals in the movie. Not only was Babe the hero, throughout the entire movie and not just at the end, but it was amazing how these animals could bond together in order to help each other out.

Obviously there is an enormous amount of anthropomorphism. Besides talking animals, the monkeys were what mostly made me realize. At some points, it even got weird that these animals could be so similar to humans. The fact that the orangutang had to be dressed before going outside is something you would never expect unless in humans. Also, when the mom and dad chimp were holding each other after they realized she was pregnant, was spooky because it really looked like any other normal human family would be, besides all the hair. I sometimes forgot I was even watching animals, partially because of their intelligence, and along with the language that they don't normally possess.

Obviously, being a kid's movie, you can expect a happy ending, but throughout the movie I really felt for the animals, especially the starving ones. There was definitely a plug against animal abuse but I would have never noticed that when I was a little kid.

Overall, this movie was very good and very emotional (for me at least), but I am a sucker for animal movies -- especially if they are placed in a life or death situation. I found myself "aww"ing at the little kittens, new born chimps, and even all the animals together when they were walking through the hospital. I also was laughing at duck-man as if he was any of my other friends. Although this may seem juvenile, I blame the anthropomorphism for connecting me to the animals that strongly.

Blog 14 - Babe: A Pig in the City Response

2011-04-04T12:43:00.000-07:00

Babe: A Pig in the City is a family movie that anthropomorphizes animals, allowing the viewers to be drawn into the events of the story. Anthropomorphizing animals enables people watching the movie to better relate to the characters. It provides a connection that movies such as Kestrel’s Eye fail to create. Despite it being based for the family setting, there are underlying environmental tones throughout its duration.

Babe refuses to let the species barrier keep him from showing true compassion to other animals, whether they are dogs, cats, chimps, orangoutangs, or humans. He cries out that cats and dogs should get along and he provides food for all of his fellow animals in equal amounts. When he is being attacked by a vicious dog he asks, “Why?”. Even after barely escaping with his life he saves the same dog. Such actions shatter the species barrier for Babe. This brings up the question of whether the species barrier is anymore solid or less irrational than the one for Babe. Midgley would say there is no difference, and in both cases a species barrier is unwarranted.

The director portrays almost every human in the movie as crazy or radical. The only people who are shown as normal are the ones who have pig like characteristics (pig noses). Even the lady who keeps the house for animals is slightly crazy. I think this portrayal is trying to show that Babe’s nondiscriminatory actions are the moral ways to live. But even this portrayal adds some comedy which is nice for the family setting.

Overall this movie was very entertaining and much less disturbing than Plague Dogs. It had a protagonist with redeemable qualities and a story that kept you interested. It is great for both the family setting and for those who want to look deeper into the subtle themes that underlie this movie.

Babe: A Pig In The City

2011-04-04T07:15:00.000-07:00

Babe: A pig in the city was a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed watching. This is a movie that I had never seen before, so it definitley kept my interest. I have to say that I liked it better than the other movies we watched becuase it was not as sad and the animals were safe during this moive. No animals ended up being harmed or killed. I think that because the animals were acting like human like creatues, it made the movie the great movie that it was. The animals were able to talk and express there feelings. Talking animal movies have always been movies that appeal to me. It is a great way for the audience to relate to the animals. I think that some of the characteristics in the movie went a little to far; however, for children they were great. The animals were able to determine right from wrong and make choices. I think in real life animals are not capable of doing that sort of thinking. However, one thing in the movie that I think was a true quality of an animal showing human like traits was when Babe rescued the dog. I believe this shows that animals do have emotions and are sensitive to one another even if it breaks the species barrier. I think this movie really helped me go to back to my childhood years and remember how much animals really did use to mean to me. Living in the country, I grew up with numerous farm animals such as turkeys, cows, pigs, chickens, etc. My friends, sibblings, and I used to pick our favorite ones and name them and we always hated to see them get taken away to be butchered. I still like animals now, but I do not interact the same with them as I did whenever I was a child. I liked that this movie ended with no harm done to any of the animals.

Blog #14 Babe Pig In The City

2011-04-04T07:07:00.000-07:00

The movie Babe Pig in the City shows anthropomorphism, because all the animals had some sort of human qualities. Since the animals in this movie had the ability to be like humans they were able to speak, make decisions on their own, and most importantly express their feelings. Animals as we know in real life cannot do any of the things that humans can do like speak out how they feel or express their feelings, but they do have feelings they just show them in different ways. This movie shows a great deal of animals being abandoned and not being treated very well by human beings. I feel like you do see more abandoned animals in the city rather than in the suberbs. These animals were put in tough situations all through the movie, and they had to use their heads to get them out of it. Babe was a perfect example of making decisions he was the one who was trying to always do the right thing and would even help save the other animals. He cared for them and did not put his self first. Us humans need to be more like this, we need to start helping and putting others first rather than ourselves, animals included in this. Animals need to be more respected than what they are and this movie made me realize that. After watching this film made me want to have even more respect for animals than what I already do. Seeing animals having human qualities in this movie made me wonder if they really do feel and think like we do, but since they do not speak we do not know. I am glad that all the animals were happy and free at the end of the movie, that made the film be that much better that nothing had happened to them.

Blog #12

2011-04-03T18:36:00.000-07:00

The "Grizzly Man" Timothy Treadwill was (in my opinion) a crazy individual. Treadwill was killed by an animal that he loved so dearly-The Grizzly Bear. The people that knew Treadwill the best said that he thought that he was a Grizzly Bear, and after watching the movie you can see that he truely did. He would play with the Grizzly bear's throughout the video and you could show that he really loved playing with Grizzly Bears. He also named the bears and knew all of them that he encountered because of his previous encounters with the Grizzly bear's. I personally thought that the video was a little weird. It reminded me a lot of an Animal Planet documentary where the host's of the show do unbelievably crazy things. This was something that I have never seen or heard before. A man playing with a 500 pound Grizzly Bear is insane. A lot of the people throughout the movie talked about how one day he is going to see a Grizzly Bear that isn't going to put up with the things that Treadwill did. I think (like the people that thought Treadwill was crazy in the movie) that he personally caused his own death by almost irritating the Grizzly Bear that killed him. I thought that the movie was very interesting and it brought a lot of things that have never been recorded again because Treadwill was so fearless. It showed a lot of live Grizzly Bear, human being action that you won't be able to see until another Timothy Treadwill comes around again.

Blog #13 (QUIZ)

2011-04-03T17:51:00.000-07:00

Stephan Budiansky makes a very interesting case. If Midgley were to respond, I think she would disagree with Budiansky and I feel that she would explain the parcimony principle. The parcimony principle talks about reaserchers and says that they should come up with the easiest solution. That solution is speaking with reasearchers about no more testing animals. Midgley feels that the cruelty to animals is too much, and we know all that we need to know about animals.

A great example would be the case of the gorrilla saving the little boy. Researchers are the ones that talked about the reason the gorilla saved him. They said that the gorilla was trained to carry a doll to them and she was just doing it to get a treat. Midgley would not agree with something like that because she would feel that the animal is caring just as a human being is.

I believe that human beings and animals should integrate and interact with each other because it shows that we all love and care for each other in the world that we live in. Many human beings think that they are more superior to animals because they cannot interact with us, but many animals develope their own language and way of communicating with each other. A good example is dogs that travel in a groups. This shows that they are trying to "run the show" or dominate. They have a communication through movement, vocal sounds, and body language just like humans have. There are very good points made throughout the book that show animals could be more superior to humans.

Blog #14

2011-04-03T17:26:00.000-07:00

Babe Pig In the City was a very interesting movie to watch during class. I have never seen this movie before and I thought that it was very unique. We learned about anthropomorphism in class and the movie depicted the true meaning of anthropomorphism because of what the animals said and of course by them speaking in english. Without the use of amthpomorphism in the movie, the people watching it cannot relate and this makes the movie less interesting. I thought that it showed a lot of good scenes that showed strong moral character by Babe, the main character. The best scene in my opinion was when Babe was being chased by a dog. The dog was out to kill Babe and Babe was fortunate enough to get away. The dog on the other hand, ended up upside down drowning to death. Babe, ends up saving the dog that nearly took his life and he ended up getting respect from not only the dog, but the other animals. With all of that said, I didn't especially like the plot and theme to the movie and I also didn't think that the ending was a little over the top. I'm sure that it's a great movie for children to watch, but it just wasn't for me. Babe Pig in the City showed great moral values for children and I'm sure that they enjoy watching this movie.

Blog #14

2011-04-03T17:18:00.000-07:00

Babe: A Pig in the City was a very appealing movie to me and I am glad I had the opportunity to watch it again as an adult. I remember watching the movie when I was a child, but of course I forgot the plot of the story. I thought the producers for this movie did an excellent job of presenting the idea of anthropomorphism among the animals, which enabled the audience to to relate to the animals in a way that they may never thought was possible. I personally did not feel like I was watching animals because the tasks and thoughts at hand were all that could be incorporated in any human being's life and mind.

There were multiple occurrances that were very suspeneful and I just kept thinking how would I react in this situation. For example, when Babe was being chased by the dogs and one of the dogs was hanging by his chain upside down into the creek. Babe, being a brave pig, resuced the dog even though he was trying to harm him before this incident. I believe this is a perfect example that the animals in the film were thinking like humans. I for one would never sit and watch anyone die without making an effort to help in some form or fashion. Another instance in the film was when the animals were being impounded from the house and the fish was lying on the floor because his tank had shattered on the ground. Once again Babe put his life at jeopardy and was destined to help the fish in this situation.

At the conclusion of this film, I think that my soft spot for animals grew even more. The voices that were used for the animals just made you fall in love and only hope for the best for the animals. Although there were multiple times throughout the movie I thought there was not going to be a happy ending, I am glad the ending was indeed a happy ending where all the animals lived together happily ever after.

Babe: Pig in the City

2011-04-03T14:54:00.000-07:00

The movie Babe: A pig in the city was a movie that I actually enjoyed watching partly because no animals were harmed or killed during the movie, unlike the other movies that we have watched. This movie presented the idea of anthropomorphism very well because of the way the film maker gave the animals human qualities. The animals were given the ability to speak, make choices, and express their feelings. Since the animals were capable of carrying out human traits it made the movie a little more appealing to me and made it easier for me to relate to the animals. By giving the animals human abilities, I was able to feel for the animals and after watching the movie it was easier for me to realize that animals do understand and can express their feelings and emotions, without being anthropomorphized. In this movie, the situations that Babe and the other animals are faced with are many situations that require the ability to think. The animals are given the opportunity to think from right and wrong and are capable of making the right decision. I would agree that by giving the animals the abilities to make right and wrong decisions goes a little too far but I think that was not the general of the purpose since the movie is aimed at children. If a child were to watch this movie, they would relate to animals and see the importance of animals and how they too are just like humans and don't want to be hurt. The purpose if the film was to show the relationship between humans and animals and how we are obviously superior to animals but animals still deserve our respect. This movie allows for the audience to see animals as animals even though they are given human qualities. It gives the animals the right to be respected instead of being treated as machines. After watching the movie, I think the audience will have a different view on animals and hopefully will give them the respect they deserve and not participate in animal experimentation. This movie was a great choice in showing the anthropomorphizing of animals and how they too deserve human respect no matter what the case, and the situations they are placed in during the movie

Babe

2011-04-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

The movie Babe Pig in the City fit in very well to what we are discussing in Midgley's book. The movie was about animals not have very many rights and very few people treated them with the respect that they deserve. The movie was quite sad to me and the part that really got to me was when Felix, the dog that was crippled and the animal patrol threw him to the curb living only him behind because he was useless to them. There are homeless animals all over the world and it is so sad to think about how mistreated they are. This movie portrayed of how some people really do act towards helpless animals.

Babe pig in the city

2011-04-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

This was a very interesting movie and I after watching it I was left feeling abit confused and sad. I was sad because it presented a view point of animals that live in the city and are abandoned by people or are mistreated. I was confused because I wasn't exactly sure how to react to all the "human" qualities that appreared. For example, it was interesting how the orangutang, wore clothes and even insisted on it, while the other animals like the chimps, didn't care after awhile and in the end, went to live in the trees, while the oragutang stayed behind and lived with the humans. In that sense there was definatly a cross over in the species barrier and I thought it was amusing as to how the farmers wife accepted the orangutang taking a liking to her. This movie definatly is a great sense of anthropormorphism. The animals talk like people, show emotions, and even have morals that they live by. In a way, this movie treats them like a lesser society of humans. Any skeptic of antropormorphism would be appalled to watch this I am sure, because the animals do not act like animals, but instead like people.

Babe

2011-04-03T10:19:00.000-07:00

In the movie Babe Pig in the City, anthropomorphism was shown throughout the entire film. All of the animals that were in film could talk, and they all showed their emotions and personalities. By having the animals have human traits this helped me to be more connected to the film and the characters in it. The part of the film which was my favorite was when the orangutan finally seemed as if he gained respect for Babe when he told the other chimpanzees to “thank the pig”. He told the other chimps to thank Babe when Babe spotted that the baby chimp was about to fall from the chandelier.

The part in the film which really related to anthropomorphism was when the orangutan had the other animals wait for him before they escaped from the animal laboratory. The orangutan said he had to get dressed before he could leave. This relates to anthropomorphism because humans don’t go out into public without wearing clothes. Also another example that showed anthropomorphism well was when the Chimp had her babies and Babe started singing a song and all the other animals in the house joined in. This is really similar to when people start singing happy birthday to someone out in public, normally everyone else joins in.

Lastly this movie showed how some humans think of animals as being an annoyance. An example of this is when the lady across the street from the hotel called the animal control people to come and get the animals. I found it quite funny how after the hotel was closed down a club was put their instead. It made me wonder what would that lady really like to be their animals in a house or a night club. Another example was when Babe and Ms. Hoggett were stuck in the airport and they wouldn’t let them stay because she had Babe with her, even though they were not bothering anyone. This is true in the real world also. Some individuals do not like animals and if an animal is loose in their yard they will call the SPCA instead of trying to help the animal on their own. In conclusion I agree with Chelsea that animals are on different levels than humans intellectually and morally in real life. But that still doesn’t mean that animals don’t have human traits because, they do show emotion even though they don’t speak. The film depicts some anthropomorphic traits which are actually present in the real world among animals.

Babe Blog

2011-04-03T07:46:00.001-07:00

The movie Babe 2: A Pig in the City was surprisingly interesting and portrayed a lot of examples of anthropomorphism. The main plot of the film is the adventures of Babe and his farmer’s wife when they decide to travel to the city looking for a way to make a little extra money for the upkeep and survival of their farm.

The example of anthropomorphism that stuck out to me the most was when the orangutan was determined to be completely dressed before making their escape from the animal laboratory that they were taken to. Time was of the essence and instead of not even worrying about clothes, he was determined to be dressed before going back out into the public. To the orangutan’s obsession with clothes, Babe says, “But you’re an orangutan. Orangutans don’t wear clothes!” This bluntly reveals the anthropomorphic nature of the orangutan. Most humans would never dare to venture out without clothes on and the orangutan shows the same preoccupation with clothes that a human would.

Watching this movie made me think of the various other American, specifically Disney, films that include anthropomorphism- Dumbo, 101 Dalmatians, the three mice form Cinderella, the Fox and the Hound, and even King Kong. I think our culture is somewhat ironic because while we eat animals, torture them, and use them for experimentation, we also teach our children to help them, save them, and respect them. All of the movies that I listed above all anthropomorphize animals in such a way that puts them on equal playing fields with humans. Many times humans even befriend these animals and have purposeful, well-thought out conversations with them. Although animals obviously cannot talk, I think that these movies and Babe specifically, has good meaning behind it. Animals are often ill-treated and that is not right. The one example that I can think of from the movie that I thought represented our culture’s attitudes towards animals, was the woman who lived across the street from the animals hotel. She was always complaining about the noise and thought that the animals were nothing but a nuisance. I don’t believe that animals are on the same level as humans intellectually and morally, but that still doesn’t discount our duty and responsibility to respect them and I think that this movie emphasized that point to me in a unique way.

Babe

2011-04-03T05:56:00.000-07:00

Unlike other movies in this class, I really enjoyed watching Babe: Pig in the City. It was a good change from watching movies like the Plague Dogs, and Timothy Treadwell's film. This movie does a great job of anthropomorphism, and giving the animals human traits. There were so many animals in this movie, and each had to gain respect for one another. It seemed as if the humans were cruel and could care less about the animals beside Mrs. Hoggett and the Landlady. In the beginning of this movie, it seemed like the chimpanzees would never gain respect for Babe. I felt so bad for him, when he was hungry and they wouldn't help him get food. By the end of the movie it was good to see the respect the orangutan had gained for Babe by saying, "Thank the pig," for waring them that the chandelier was about the fall and that's what the baby chimpanzees were hanging onto. Because all of the animals had human traits, and could talk and understand each other, it was almost as if they all finally decided to cooperate and work as one, instead of being individuals. This being a children's movie I was pleased to see that no one died because a few scenes worried me. For example, the Farmer Hoggett who fell in the well, and the more little dog with wheels, who got thrown from the truck. I was hoping that this would not lead to scenes like the Plague dogs. I think that Midgley would be on Mrs. Hoggett and the Landlady's side and try and help them find the animals. Not only because they are their animals, but if you take enough time to understand animals, in time you will understand them. Although animals may not be able actually talk to us, that does not make them any different and we should not ignore them because they can't technically ask us to help. I really enjoyed Babe:Pig in the City and I wish we could watch more anthropomorphism movies in class like this that portrays the animals in a positive view where animals have rights.

Babe Pig in the City Blog

2011-04-02T18:23:00.000-07:00

Babe Pig in the City was quite a nice reprieve from the various other movies viewed in class. I enjoyed watching the movie and could see how it would appeal to both children and those studying ecological ethics. The animals viewed in the movie (including Babe, the apes, the gorillas, dogs, cats, ect.) were given distinctly human characteristics and thoughts. One could see that this was done to help the audience connect to the animals in the movie and their plight - by giving the animal distinctly human voices (especially the sweet, childish voices of Babe and the kitten) and putting them within human plots, I personally felt my heart connecting to the animals and fighting for them because I could place myself in their shoes. While some would argue that this employment of human characteristics to the animal characters in the movie is an underhanded application of anthropomorphism, Midgely, and myself, would argue -how else are humans supposed to relate animals? As Midgely pointed out, if humans say that they cannot relate to animals because they do not understand them, how can they relate to other human beings - humans cannot enter into the minds of animals, just as much as they cannot enter into the minds of humans. Midgely explains that one understands other humans through projecting their own experiences onto them; it makes sense that humans would project their own feelings and experiences on these animals. By understanding this, one can see why the producers of Babe Pig in the City used human voices, human plots, and human characteristics in the movie - they was trying to help the young audience relate to the animals and understand their plights in light of this audiences' human experiences. Overall, Babe Pig in the City was a very enjoyable movie. Personally, I did not mind the anthropomorphism apparent in the movie - it helped my viewing experience. I was able to relate to the animals in the movie and enjoyed the obviously human experiences and plights that the animals were placed in.

Babe Film Response

2011-04-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

Overall, I found this movie to be more entertaining that the other ones we have watched so far. The plot was interesting and well developed, the special effects were well done, and the overall theme was one of hope and happiness as opposed to the tone of sadness and depression in the Plague Dogs. While movies that portray more somber stories are beneficial and have an essential role to play in the media as a whole, I found the lighter movie Babe to be more entertaining and fun to watch.

This movie did a great job of subtly (or maybe not so subtly) getting the audience to feel for the animals and identify with them. As we talked about in class, this movie definitely used anthropomorphism in order to make its case for animal rights - and in my opinion, it was successful. As a viewer, I could not help but feel bad for Babe because he always seemed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or cause big problems unintentionally. It was impossible not to feel anxiety when Babe was being chased by the dogs, sadness when the animals were all being captured and separated, and joy when Babe was reunited with the farmer's wife and all the animals lived happily ever after. Although much of the movie was a little on the ridiculous side (like at the end, when the farmer's wife and some of the animals were swinging from the ceiling at that party...), I think it accomplished its goal of portraying animals as human-like and therefore deserving of good treatment.

There were a few times in the movie when I expected a death to occur (like at the beginning when the farmer fell in the well, or when the dog with no hind legs was thrown off the street), but it remained essentially a children's movie with those individuals recovering quickly. Perhaps I was still in the mindset of the Plague Dogs, and that's why I expected more carnage. I liked that this film was so different from the others we have watched because it really presents a more mainstream version of an animal-rights movie. It was able to show us that animal-rights media is not only small-scale and "artsy" (although there is nothing wrong with that), but also that it can be mainstream and big budget as well - which makes it more appealing to people who do not have as much exposure to independent and small-scale films.

Babe film respone

2011-04-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

In this movie there was anthropomorphism throughout. The entire movie was centered around the human-like qualities and behaviors that the animlas possessed, from their talking to the expression of vivid emotions. These human-like qualities allowed the veiwers of the film to relate to the animals and connect with them on a emotional level. We were able to feel their pain and their anger when they were mistreated, and we were able to feel a sense of hope for the animals as things began to turn around. This film was different from what seems to be the common perception of animals. The animals in the film were able to act as rational beings making decisions and understanding what was right and wrong. They possessed language and emotions as well as the ability to "out smart" the humans in some cases. This presented them as actual beings rather than "machines". These qualities strongly support the anthropocentric view and place the animals on the same level as the humans.

The main character, a pig named Babe, was the "underdog" that was able to rise above and lead the group of various animals. A pig is often not an animal that one thinks of to portray any heroic qualities. But, through out the film, the treatment of Babe and the series of unfortunate events that take place, allowed the viewers to feel a sense of pity for the animals. This pity, and the movie's strong anthropomorphism often made me forget that the animals were the main characters. At some points of the movie, it even made me think of the humans as the bad guys. I thought this portrayal was very interesting to get the point across of showing the animal point of view, and by giving the animals the human qualities, it was easier to sypathize and think of them as "little people in fur coats". Situations, like when the humans walked into the hotel and saw the animals all throughout it, I thought of what I would think in that position. Of course my first reaction would be shock and the desire to get all of the animals out, because thay do not beliong there. But, then when you think of the animals perspective, with nowhere else to go, it made me feel bad for them and want to help them, as the hotel owner did.

This movie was a good one to show the different sides of the treatment of animals. It showed the good, like the farm, and the bad, like the city. I think it allowed the viewers to understand an animal's perspective and hopefully think twice before acting as though animals are just pests.

Babe

2011-04-01T13:20:00.000-07:00

In the film, "Babe: Pig in the City", there is an obvious depiction of true anthropomorphism. Every animal in the movie has human traits which makes the main focus of the film be on the animals and their capacity to behave like humans. Many emotions are also depicted which allows the viewer to be drawn into the plot and even identify with the characters. I also thought it was intersting how the film distinguished between the two women who were fond of the animals and the majority of the humans who strongly disliked the animals.

I think the major theme that can be discussed with the film is one that concerns an outcast attempting to fit in with society. To take it a step farther, it seems as if smaller themes fit into this one. For example, when Babe and his owner get to the city, Babe has to fit in and almost prove himself to the other animals. He eventually gains their respect. Likewise, Mrs. Hoggett has to alter her country lifestyle and learn to keep herself safe in the city. While all this is going on, the animals and humans appear to be against eachother when the city officials come to take the animals away. This depicts the idea that some people try to "draw the line" between animals and humans and prove one's superiority over the other.

The variuos obstacles the animals had to overcome not only reveals their human-like abilities but also incorporates a sense of pity the viewer can't help but feel towards the animals. In essence, the animals are portrayed as cute animals with a sense of humor; this contrasts the dark personalities of the humans (except for the landlady and Mrs. Hoggett). In relation to Midgley's thoughts about putting forth effort to understand animals, it seems that this was proven to be true in that the landlady fostered the animals and had an understanding with them.

Quiz 13

2011-04-01T05:29:00.000-07:00

Budiansky disagrees with peterson regarding animals and the emotions they feel. Mary Midgley would respond to their argument by saying it is very anthropocentric to apply human emotions to animals. Animals are of a different species of us and it would be inaccurate to suggest that they share the same emotions as we do. However, this does not mean that they are mindless machines roaming the earth either. They still communicate within their own species and share common traits, they are just simply of a different kind than ours.

Also, many species of animals are able to coexist with each other without harming one another. We as humans can only be able to live with only certain kinds of species such as the dog, cat, horse, and birds. However, when living with these animals, they must be trained to respond to our commands. They are under our control and so we dominate over them. So when the gorilla saved the boy, that happened due to mere training. The gorilla was trained to show care to a doll and in return, it would receive some type of reward. This type of treatment to other animals will keep the species barrier and continue to allow humans to mistreat animals.

However, I believe that animals do share some basic emotions as humans do. Such as pain, anger, and a certain sense of love towards their kin. So to say that animals don't feel any emotions is ridiculous.

Quiz- Budiansky, Peterson article and Midgley

2011-03-31T18:03:00.000-07:00

In the article Still Red in Tooth and Claw, Budiansky argues against Peterson saying that animals do not have morality or a sense of emotion and that only humans have the ability to decipher between what is right and wrong and to act on emotions with a higher purpose. The main example that Budiansky uses is the gorilla who heroically saved the boy. Budiansky is very skeptical of Peterson's thinking that the gorilla acting to rescue the boy was the result of higher thinking. Budiansky retorts that Peterson often deflates human cognition to even the playing field between animals and humans. Budiansky further attacks Peterson's attempts at justifying the gorilla as acting in a morally higher manner by pointing out several studies that have been done proving that there are phenomenal differences between human and non-human minds in the area of conceptual reasoning. Therefore, Budiansky concludes that the gorilla taking the boy to safety was nothing more than a dog playing fetch. No emotional or moral reasoning was placed into this action.
Midgley believes that those who anthropomorphize are not necessarily questioning the existence of animals, but instead is examining the way in which we perceive them in the right way. Migdley points out the skeptical argument against anthropomorphizing saying that our idea of an animal is made up of elements drawn from human life. However, animals aren't humans and therefore that idea is only a "mirror" and tells us nothing about animals. Midgley also points out the fact that we cannot truly know what animals are thinking and they cannot know what we are thinking. So, I think Midgley would be very skeptical of Peterson's argument that the gorilla was undoubtably a case that animals have the ability to think morally and with a higher emotional purpose. I think that she would want us to focus on the question of since we cannot truly know the logic of animals and since they can never truly know ours, is it our place to put on them characteristics of our human ways of thinking so that we can better relate to them or concieve meanings for the things that animals do?

Quiz 13

2011-03-31T10:58:00.000-07:00

Stephen Budiansky does not agree with what Peterson is saying or thinking about the relationship between human morality and the social lives of animals. If Midgley had an opinion about it she would probably discuss the principle of parcimony which is the simplest and stingiest solution. Midgley would reject the principle of parcimony because it is simpler not to attribute any human life portrayed to humans. She is not okay with people saying that we have no evidence what so ever that animals take human emotion. I believe that animals do have emotions but nothing like humans do. We are completely different kinds of species, for example, we humans communicate with each other in a completely different way than animals do. We speak a language with words out of our mouths, and they speak to one another with body language. This also goes for how they share their emotions with each other, they use body language and we speak out with words. A perfect example that goes against parcimony would be how the gorilla saved the boy. Although, researchers had clarified why the gorilla had saved the little boy is because she was trained to carry a doll and bring it to her keepers, and then she would get something like a prize for doing the right thing. They had trained the gorilla to do this because they wanted her to develop normal maternal instincts. This here is the prime reason why people put a barrier up between humans and animals.

Quiz 13

2011-03-31T09:09:00.000-07:00

I think that Mary Midgley would think that Stephan Budiansky is crazy. He does have an interesting point, but I do not think it would be one that Midgley would like. I think Midgley would explain the parcimony principal which is the simplest solution. Midlgley does not like the parcimony principal and she would have examples to back her up. I think would example would be how the researchers explained why the gorilla saved the boy. Animals are always being integrated into our lives and that example puts a barrier up between humans and animals. It is easy to think that animals are beneath us, but in reality most of us are interacting with animals more than we think Animals have feelings and emotions and they can even have a certain body language that helps them to communicate. Often times the language can even go across species. If an animal is lonley and we put another animal with that animal, usually it will no longer be lonley. I think that animals have feelings and language even though they do not speak english. I had a dog all while I was growing up and to this day I still feel that every dog we had would take the feelings and emotions were in the household that day. If my dad would come home from work in a bad mood, then the dog would sit in a chair with him and be in a bad mood too. All of this makes me wonder if there is more to animals than what we know. I feel that we may not have enough understanding about how animals communicate and they could be a lot smarter than what we see them to be. I believe we interact with animals on more instances than we even realize. I know people who bird watch or set out squil feed. Other people feel bad when a dead racoon is laying on the side of the road. All of these interactions and emotions are tied with human animal relationship.

The Mixed Community

2011-03-31T08:34:00.000-07:00

This section in Animals and Why They Matter is one that most of us can definitely relate too. When Midgley talks about how animals are always being integrated into our lives, I can agree. Not only are we being more cautious about the deer that are standing on the side of the road, but we are also extremely involved with animals that are living at our house -- whether our pet dog/cat, or the birds that are eating at our feeders in our backyards. Whether we know it or not, we are constantly interacting with animals because of the "mixed community," and even if some people don't like it, they will have to get used to it.

Feelings are also brought up in this chapter. Since the animals are integrated within humans, as well as other animals, we can hold a stronger bond towards them, even if they aren't our house pets. For instance, if we see a deer on the side of the road, we are going to feel sympathy for that one deer in hopes that it could find the rest of its family, or make it safely to where it needs to go. Also, in my case, the bird feeders I put up are constantly being filled because I feel a closer connection with the birds that come to them, because they are mostly the same birds every day.

Overall, this section was very interesting to me, because it finally talks about how wild animals, as well as domesticated ones, are still involved in every day lives of humans and need to be accounted for as well as respected.

Quiz 13

2011-03-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

Stephan Budiansky most likely thinks that Peterson is a nut, despite the fact that he makes a very interesting case. If Midgley were to respond, I think she might start by explaining the parcimony principle. This principle encourages reaserchers to adopt the simpilest solution. This encourages reasearchers to come to the conclusion that there is nothing "in depth" to animal. Midgley does not like this theory. For example, in the case of the gorrilla saving the boy, researchers are the ones who "demistified" the reason the gorilla saved him. They said that she was trained to carry a doll to them and she was acting in accordance to her training in order to get a reward. This is a example of people putting up a barrier between humans and animals. Some people don't want to live in a world where animals and humans intermingle, and where animals have emotions. It is very easy to say that animals are beneath us when they cannot speak for themselves the way we can. However, many animals have developed a language of their that can transfer to other species. For example, a racehorse can get lonley and tempermental. In order to keep the horse happy and calm, many times they put another animal such as a goat or cat in to live with it. Another example is dogs that travel in a pack, have a clear hiearchy of domninancy. There is communication through body language, movement, and vocal sounds. Just because an animal can't speak english doesnt mean that it cannot feel or express its feelings. Perhaps we as humans are the ones who missed out on this language barrier. Animals seem to able to coexhist and communicate in ways that we may not even understand. Perhaps humans are true dumb ones after all.

Quiz 13

2011-03-30T05:28:00.000-07:00

If Midgely were to respond to Budiansky's Still Red in Tooth and Claw, she would probably start by explaining that the best human explanation for the action of the gorilla would be to relate to the dog playing fetch. Saying the gorilla went over to the boy because he could see the boy was in distress would be accepting the idea that gorillas have a complex ability to interperate emotions and states of mind just as people do. If this were true than there would go longer be a barrier between species and a "mixed community" that Midgely describes would exist. The issue comes because men do not want a community where animals are none to experience the same emotions that people do. If animals can experience the same pain when pricked with a needle or the same emotional pain when there children are ataken away, then those actions then have a larger emotional efect on us. Its easy to put a dog down when his life means less than our own, but when his life means as much to him as ours do to us then putting the poor guy down turns into a holocaust of innocent animals. The things that we belive seperate us form the animals, may in fact not be as unique to our species as we believe them to be. For example, while animals have never developed a voicebox and the ability to communicate through speech, the have developed a complex sequence of facial expressions we have observed them use to communicate. Really, the only thing that can truly seperate us from animals is our ability to use logic and reason; however, this argument can really hold its ground. There is no evidence for or against this argument, but the way Midgly sees it is that we can not see the logic and reasons of other people and yet we say they experience it. So how does the idea that we can see the logic of animals mean they don't have any? The more logical response is to say, animals have this logic or even the sense of emotion, but just as they cannot understand or see ours, we cannot understand or see theirs.

2011-03-28T16:57:00.000-07:00

In the following passage from his recent review of Dale Peterson's The Moral Lives of Animals, Stephen Budiansky takes issue with Peterson's understanding of the relationship between human morality and the social lives of animals:

Despite having begged the question of human exceptionalism at the start—by dismissing the sense that we are different as mere "Darwinian narcissism"—Mr. Peterson does develop a provocative case for the existence of a broadly shared evolutionary imperative that under pins human moral instincts. Among his better-chosen anecdotes are vivid illustrations of the social mechanisms by which primates and other group-dwellers mediate access to mates, food and other resources. Vampire bats, strikingly, remember which members of the group have shared a regurgitated blood meal in the past and know who to return the favor to. It is hard to argue with his propo sition that the powerful emotional saliency moral issues have for us, and their connection to serious matters of social organization and conflict—sex, territory, possessions, reciprocity, kinship—point to a hard-wired evolutionary adaptation of group-dwelling animals.

The problem with leaving it there, however, is that the moral world of humans, to even the most casually reflective observer, reaches far beyond such primal urges. Humans of the 21st century, after all, have exactly the same instinctual emotional urges that humans of the 18th century did. Yet because of language, argument and an ability to weigh abstract notions and hold ourselves accountable to moral ideals, the intervening centuries have seen a transformation in attitudes about slavery, democracy and the rights of women. These hardly amount to "this or that obscure issue."

How do you think that Mary Midgley would respond to Budiansky's complaint that Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality?

Blog #13

2011-03-25T14:35:00.000-07:00

The topic in Chapter 10 discussed by Mary Midgley is the idea of a "mixed community." At the beginning of this chapter, Midgley talks about the domestic animals that we have at home have been conditioned to interact in the manner that they do. Midgley states, "These animals became tame, not just through the fear of violence, but because they were able to form individual bonds with those who tamed them by coming to understand the social signals addressed to them." Domestic animals are able to relate to the human beings personally and easier to train. Migley makes the comparison of a domestic animal to a wildcat. A wildcat may be impossible to tame because their species does not allow them to respond to social signals. I see this as a species barrier because humans cannot interact with these creatures in a relationship. I think most of us in our right minds would not try and house a wildcat as a pet, but are more comfortable with dogs and cats because these animals have the capacity to be trained and it interact socially with human beings.

After reading some of the blogs on the topic, I was thinking the same way as Bethany in relation to the mixed community. I have always wondered why dogs can be trained by most people, but why the wild animals, lions, tigers, and bears can only be trained by a select few. This is probably the result of only those select few that try to take on training a lion or a bear are breave enough to interact and attempt to relate to these animals in a way that we relate to domestic animals. This whole chapter just makes me consider Timothy Treadwell. He thought he was capable of interacting with the grizzly bears and he did seem to have a connection with them, but one little mishap caused the bear to turn on him in the drop of a hat. I think those humans that interact with wild animals in a way that they would with domestic animals need to understand that there is a species barrier with these creatures.

The section on animals in relation to children made me think of why animals do not harm young children when they handle them in improper ways. Midgley asks the question of how does a kitten know that a baby much longer than itself is a child? This question has never really appealed to me until now. I have never really noticed the idea that domestic animals react differently with children. Even though I have observed this taking place time and time again, I never really thought about the issue. I remember an instance when one of my baby cousins approached my black lab and I was so scared that the dog would react thinking the baby was a "toy." I should have never doubted this thought for a second because all the dog did was lick my cousin and show compassion. The species barrier is broken with domestic animals becuase there is a social and emotional relationship that forms from the beginning.

blog 13

2011-03-25T05:17:00.000-07:00

The "mixed community" from Mary Midgely's Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley describes the relationship between children and animals and a level of tolerance based on the recognition of immaturity. Its similar expectations, the way a person would treat a puppy would be more lenient than one would treat a full grown dog and it seems dogs treat small children the same way. But the idea itself I feel was more intended to illustrate a strong relationship between animals and humans as a way to convey the idea that man and animals are capable of coexisting.

This relationship between child and animal led me the question of what happens as we grow up that pushes us away from this relationship with animals? As we grow up, something happens to us that in our minds creates us as superior to animals. It probably has a large amount to do with a culture that portrays us a s superior, but is that a good excuse to remain solidly set in our ways. You can look at Timohthy Treadwell and say "you know maybe this whole human animal equal relationship just can't happen, it just won't work." Thirteen years is a long time to do what he did without being killed by bears and its obvious proof that what he was doing worked.

I think a realtionship of equality between not just humans and animals can exist, but equality between humans and life. Where it is understood that in the chain of life for one organism to live others have to die. Treadwell lives 13 years with bears completely safe with bears, but mayber the bear goes a day without food, two days, and so on. For the bear it turns into, I must eat this man or die. Just as the Donner party had to eat people to survive when placed in hard times that required extensive measures needed for survival. As humans "develope", we forget that we are animals to and whether we like it or not we are part if the environment and just as suseptible to being eaten as as a deer or a cow.

Blog #13

2011-03-24T20:11:00.000-07:00

The "mixed community" I found the most interesting to read. One of the sections Midgley focused on was parent and child behaviors. I loved reading this section. Midgley was saying how kids love animals, and animals love kids. An animal will tolerate a lot more from a child than they would from an adult. For example, a kid could pull on their tale, or jump on them, put their fingers in their mouth and the animal might get annoyed but will more and likely not cause any harm to that child. If an adult did the same thing, then that could be a different story. Across the species barrier a cat recognizes the child as a kitten, even though the child is much bigger than it is, but it treats it as if it was and this is where the bond comes in.

Midgley was saying how children have a natural relationship with animals. In our culture the passion we have torwards animals is much less as an adult than a child. Adults still love, play and take care of their animals, but not as much as a child would. I agree with this completely, when I was young I loved dogs and cats, but now I do not have any nor would I care to ever have one. When I was young I always wanted to have both dogs and cats. Maybe this changed because I am allergic to cats, but still I am a little scared of animals. Back then this was not the case.

Midgley also talked about how animals do have emotions due to exploitation which requires sympathy. To exploit an animal we have to recognize it's pain. We humans put our interests above any other animals, so this is hard for us to see sometimes. We really know that they are not completely different from us. I believe that they do have some kind of feelings, but still it is nothing like ours. For example, when an animals owner is upset that animal can sense it and will act differently, but I do not believe that animals can grieve over things like us humans. We have much deeper feelings than they do.

Blog #13

2011-03-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

I found the most interesting part of Midgley's discussion of the "mixed community" to be when she talked about the relationship between animals and children. Midgley states that animals seem to have the capability to sense when they are dealing with the young of other species and behave accordingly (in most cases). For example, a cat is more patient with human children than with adult humans. I found this to be very interesting not only because it was something I had never thought about, but also because it is such an amazing idea. Once I read what Midgley had to say about it, I realized that I have witnessed this type of thing before, and that she is absolutely correct in her assessment. I find it really interesting that animals can recognize infants even when they look different than themselves - especially in the case of cats and human children (as Midgley cited) because human children are larger than most domesticated cats. The fact that animals have the ability to sense out when another animal is young is amazing, and is endearing. I believe it was Midgley who stated earlier in the book that the way animals interact with their young is one of the things that provides the strongest case among most humans for animal rights - because we see that and can relate to it.

I also liked how Midlgey used her discussion of animals and children to talk about the childlike features that most human adults have which are lacking in most other animals - like how almost all adult humans still play in some form. Midlgey states that some adult chimpanzees can be seen playing together on occasion, but for the most part, once a chimpanzee is grown, they do not behave like a young chimpanzee any longer. In some cases, this is true with humans as well. Once we are grown, we are encouraged to act maturely. However, adults still joke around, laugh, and play with frequency. Midlgey cites this (as well as a few other things) as possibly being an evolutionary difference that separates us from other animals.

Midgley also talks about how children have a certain affinity for animals - that they are drawn to them. I do not think this can be denied, nor do I think that she is wrong when she says that many times this attraction is written off as "childish." I found it interesting that she quoted the bible about putting away "childish things," because I had never considered having a love for animals as being childish. However, after having read what she had to say, I can see how a lot of the world would think an adult who had a real love and affection for all animals would be abnormal. In my opinion, most adults do not spend much time thinking about animals, so the ones that do are sometimes seen as being strange or childish - which is a shame. Maybe someday we will live in a world where caring about animals is the norm, not the exception.

Blog #13 The Mixed Community

2011-03-23T13:34:00.000-07:00

I'm glad Midgley chose to talk about the mixed community and the relationships that are formed between humans and animals. I like how she first put into context that not only in today's society are animals involved in human communities but animals were also part of human communities back in the agriculture culture when farm animals had day to day contact with humans. The idea of the species barrier is broken in these kinds of situations because animals react with humans and they too are emotional and deserve respect just like humans do. The species barrier is permeable because animals relate to humans and form bonds between each other. The bonds between animals and humans are strong especially with house pets which tends to allow for animals to experience close ties with humans. Since house pets allow for the human to have a close relationship with them there tends to be no species barrier. Also there is no species barrier because of how young children can interact and play with young pets as well. The pets realize that the human is of the same species size which allows for a closer relationship between the young child and the young pet. This is why young children tend to have a closer bond with animals rather than adults.

Midgley also points out how domestic animals have been conditioned to interact with human beings. This is also another reason why the species barriers is broken. The animals become domesticated because they are able to be tamed by humans who care and look out for the animals. The animals learn to obey humans and they do this because they see that the humans are social beings and they too become social beings as well. Humans realize that not all animals can be tamed and we take that into consideration. It is really weird to think that animals like elephants and tigers especially can be tamed. I went to the circus this past weekend and I have come to the conclusion that it takes a lot of skill and human interaction between the animals and the tamer because the way the animals act towards humans is just fascinating. It is weird to think as little kids we don't realize what animals may do if they turn on you. I think that young children just assume all animals are nice and want to be close too which is why the species barrier is especially broken with the young species.

Another aspect of this chapter that interest me was the idea of sympathy and how we humans relation to sympathy towards animals. Even if animals aren't house pets we still experience a bond between animals and may still feel emotional when animals are tortured or killed. Animals don't have to be domesticated to receive sympathy from the human race. We are sympathetic to the idea that we realize animals have emotional lives but we still put our interest above the animals interest because that is norm in this society. We use knowledge and the way we react towards animals of a different species to shape our behavior. The treatment toward animals as Midgley states, "has never been impersonal'. this means that our bonds towards animals have a meaning and purpose and this meaning shows how humans care for animals. Animals are capable of having a point of view and having a point of view belongs to the idea with people rather then the idea of things. Overall this chapter was easy to relate to for anybody since I am sure we all have or had at least one pet that we establish firm bonds with.

The Mixed Community

2011-03-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

In this chapter, Midgley discusses how animals are involved in every community. I find this interesting because it is not often that humans consider animals a prominent part in "their society". It seems like most humans are so caught up in themselves that they don't think about animals. The only time that we consider animals part of the community would be if we had a pet. My family has a dog and I have to admit that we treat her as if she is more than part of the community - we treat her like a part of our immediate family.

Midgley goes on to state, "The treatment of domestic animals has never been impersonal" (113). This is an important statement because it relates to what I stated above, and shows how people tend to treat their pets as members of the community/family. In section 5, Midgley talks about parent-child behavior and how animals seem to tolerate more things from children than from adults. This shows that animals relate human children to their young. Does this show that animals can reason? It seems like multiple other philosophers we have studied so far argue that animals have no ability to reason or judge or feel, yet I think the fact that can distinguish children from adults is a sign that animals are not simply dumb machines.

The chapter also went on how to discuss how children seek variety which is a reason why they are so fascinated with animals. It says how adults tend to "grow out" of this fascination with animals and the bond with them diminishes over time. Therefore, it seems as if humans could benefit form realizing that we live in a shared community with animals and that maybe all people should look at animals from a child's perspective. Perhaps this would change the way humans treat animals - domestic or not. I think it would change the outlook that some humans have towards animals and allow them to see that humans aren't the only creatures living on the Earth.

Mixed Community

2011-03-23T12:49:00.000-07:00

In this chapter Midgley focuses on the “the mixed community”, or the relationships between animals and human beings . She looks at the animals that are domesticated and says that most of these animals are social. These animals that are domestic are the animals that live in individuals homes. Midgley talks about how animals can understand humans actions and their behaviors.

I find it very interesting how domesticated animals do show that they understand human actions and that they listen to commands that humans give them. Domesticated animals I feel like can tell whether a person is happy or sad by the way that they act around their pet. The dog that I use to have would always come up to me and want to play with me when I was upset, it seemed as if she was trying to cheer me up. I also find it very interesting like Brittany Berry said how young children can pull on a domesticated animal and do things to them that doesn't seem to bother the animal. However if an adult would do one of those actions to the animal it would probably respond in a protective way.

Lastly Midgley discussed that exploitation requires sympathy. The exploitation of animals I believe just as Chelsea Hoffmann says requires the ability of humans to be able to relate to animals. Humans treat animals very similar to the way we treat other human beings. Most individuals give their domesticated animals names, and when the animal dies we show sympathy and are upset by the death of our pets. Therefore I agree with Midgley and how she says that the relationship between humans and domesticated animals has never been impersonal. This reading has been the most easiest to understand and to be able to relate to.

blog # 13

2011-03-23T12:33:00.000-07:00

I thought this chapter of Midgley's book was very interesting to read. She starts off by explaining animal involvement in human communities as a mixed community. Animals have always been associated with humans, interacting with them in special ways. Some animals, such as dogs or cats, have been considered "pets" and are well taken care of and loved as companions or family members, while other animals such as cows or oxen, have been used strictly for work or food. Humans have always taken into consideration the emotional level of animals, and the fact that they feel and understand. Midgley points out that our understanding of this is shown through our treatment of animals, and our understanding of their emotions that allows us to control them through pain, fear, or desire. This is shown in everyday life as people manipulate the emotions of animals to achieve a human goal such as on the farm, in the zoo, or in the circus. This continues to prove that they are more than machines. I agree with this completely and it made a good point to challenge those who have a view point of Descartes.

The ability to domesticate and tame some animals, rather than others, is based on the ability of the animals to engage socially and form social bonds. This was very interesting to me because I always wondered why certain animals, such as dogs, could become lifelong friends, while animals such as tigers could be tamed for a little but always seem to turn on its "owner" at some point. This understanding also portrays the individuality of animals, the uniqueness of their point of view. This point of view explains the difference between animals and machines because machines could never have the point of view as animals. Humans are incapable as treating animals exactly the same as objects because we are aware of their feelings and their response regardless of our point of view.

This part of Midgley's book showed the connection that animals and humans have, even animals that are not pets. Most people do not desire for any animals to be tortured because we recognize the similarity and the animals ability to feel, as we do. We are able to recognize them as beings and their desire to live. We can form bonds with animals that are much more intimate than ones with our cars, we are able to feel sadness and a sense of loss when our pet dies that is more significant than when our car stops working. There is a difference that breaks the species barrier and allows a connection between humans and animals.