Flannel Ethics in Practice

I made a collage of pictures I took when planting trees on Arbor day. Planting trees shows flannel ethics in practice. I added one of the actual pictures so everyone can see what the pictures kind of look like. The pictures illustrate how flannel ethics offer a rational and fun way to help the enviroment!

For my project to conclude this class, I have drawn two pictures that compliment each other. The first image is of a human face with tiger eyes. The second is of human eyes in a tiger’s face. The point of these pieces is to convey the idea that there are ways to communicate that do not involve words. I believe that the eyes are one of the most expressive parts of the body, and the kind of emotions and ideas that can be articulated through the eyes can be more meaningful than any words or sounds uttered from the mouth. I think that looking into someone’s eyes can reveal the heart and soul of that person and bond two people together. The reason I chose to show each face with the other creature’s eyes is to pose the question, “What if we could see the world through another’s eyes?” A common argument against recognizing the interest and worth of an animal is the fact that they do not have the capacity for speech. However, in emphasizing the eyes, I make the point that speech is a very limited form of communication and this nonverbal form can be much more effective. If humans could see the world through the eyes of a tiger and communicate with them, perhaps they would recognize the sentient being within, not the source of fur coats on the surface. Because of this longing for knowledge and understanding, the human’s tiger eyes are large and hungry. They are wanting and searching for that connection.
The tiger is draw with human eyes because, even though it may appear anthropomorphic, I think the only way humans can understand animals is in relating what they see to their own lives and experiences. Because of this, my tiger uses human eyes to convey his message. The right eye on the tiger’s face is open, expressing a willingness to communicate wisdom and insight into its life as well as an honesty of response. The left eye is closed and has a single tear falling from it. This eye illustrates the sadness and heartbreak involved in being treated as less than worthy of respect and compassion. If creatures could share eyes and find a common form of communication, imagine what we could learn from each other.

My work of art represents the class. The four larger corners represent the philosophers that we read as well as modern thinking. The inner four colors represent the four elements and the inner sphere represents the Earth. The black lines between the corners and the elements make them remain separate, however, the only thing that is not separated is the Earth which is an amalgamation of the 4 colors I used to represents the four elements. The upper right corner represents Ezarim Kohak. The blue and the green are mildly reminiscent of the colors on the cover os his book The Green Halo. However, the colors are interwoven in with the green and are intended, in their style, to somewhat represent his flannel ecological perspective. The lack f any solid pattern in this quadrant was intended to represent Kohak’s broad views as well as how many points of view he put forth in his book. The bottom right corner represents Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature. Once again the colors chosen are reminiscent of the cover art on his book. The orange form in the middle represents the dead nature, like the canary did on his book cover. However, the red that shoots out around it represents its rising like a phoenix. This was to represent McKibben’s book because although he is grave about the end of nature, he is not despairing or melancholic. The bottom left corner represents Mary Midgley and her work Animals and why they Matter. The yellow base represents her encompassing philosophy of nature, as well as her covering of all the possible angles of a situation. The red flames wicking up represent her firebrand nature.
The upper left corner represents the modern world. The red, white, and blue do not necessarily represent America, but all the countries that have since adopted liberalism. This is also to represent the Enlightenment, because that was when man first stopped looking at nature as ‘mother nature’, as in the middle ages and the ancient eras. The rigidity of the colors is supposed to appear manufactured when compared to the flowing colors of the rest of the painting.
In conclusion, the Earth is represented by the orb in the center. This orb contains all of the colors used to represent the four elements. Also none of the corners touch the center, purely the elements. This was done to show how elemental the Earth was, and how far apart we are removed from it. The black lines that edge each section shows hoe some of the corners use the same colors, but they never full touch. This represents how each writer we have looked at has had their own very unique perspective on the question of ecological ethics.

The Human Change of Nature

This project shows how different aspects of nature have changed. The first picture in each series shows how the earth used to be before humans made their impact on it. This is what I consider the real nature. This shows how nature used to be so magical, gorgeous, and pure. In almost all of the series there is a middle picture. This picture shows what nature looks like with a small human impact. In these pictures, the real nature can still be seen, but there is obviously an artificial human influence that has altered nature. In some cases, these artificial and somewhat small impacts resemble aspects of the real nature. The last pictures in the series show how big of change humans have made on nature. In many of these pictures, it is very difficult to see where the real nature exists anymore. In these pictures, the real nature does not even exist or is a very minute spots in our artificial structures. Many of these pictures also show how we have tried to resemble parts of nature with our constructions. For example, there is a two picture series that shows how the highway roads we have created that look like tangled messes resemble the rivers that nature has created itself.

The main purpose of this project was to show how big of an impact human progress has made. Such progress has slowly been causing nature to disappear as more and more artificial structures take over. I found it very interesting how I could find similar pictures with different levels of human impact in them. What I hope people can take from this is to realize that we need a drastic change if we still want to have the real nature as a part of this world.

Artistic Piece

This piece draws from a number of sources from the semester. On a whole, it evokes a general feel of the dichotomy between the natural world and desolation and pollution by man. It draws from Koyaanisqatsi and the books regarding the pollution and death of the natural world.
On the upper half, the waterfall on the left flows with clear, pure water, implying an undisturbed and precious resource. The green forest to either side of the water is full of life and rebirth. The trees and bird in the upper right again show the nature that is endangered by the actions of man. The reflecting lake below the trees shows the lack of pollution, as does the clear blue sky with a single white cloud. The bird stands contentedly on a branch untouched by destruction.
On the lower half, a garbage truck empties its load onto a giant trash heap. The splashes of color on the dull gray of the plastics and other debris show the unnecessary waste of useful items and recyclable materials carelessly thrown away. Streaks of paint in the sky imply the scavenging birds whose only source of food now is the refuse of man, for all normal sources of food are dead or driven away. The smokestack to the right releases billowing grayish-brown smog into the air, across the clean, pure nature in the top half of the piece. Its polluting clouds rain down into the waters, smothering and dirtying them. The smokestack rises from the barely contained trash heap to spread the pollution everywhere.

The project that never was...

I decided to post a picture of one of my ideas for a project that never came to be, because if it had, I think it would have been really cool :) This is a Keith Harring-inspired social commentary on the way humans are impacting the environment. If you can't see (because it is really tiny in the picture), at the top of the hourglass is a picture of a pretty valley at the base of a mountain, with lots of flowers and happy nature stuff. This scene is falling into the bottom of the hourglass where a polluted, exhaust-strewn scene of factories is growing. The hourglass could be turned over and this horrible trend reversed, were it not for the electrical cords that humans are indirectly pulling on through the factories, where money spews out of the smokestacks. It kind of looks funny, because my black marker ran out of ink, but you get the picture.

Here is my project. I decided to do a collage of some animals in captivity and some of their art work since my artistic ability is about equal to Koko's. Some of the more famous animals on here include Christian the Lion and Jessica the Hippo. I also added some of the artwork that animals do. Some are from Koko and Micheal and some are from animals who are trained to do it like elephants and seals. In my paper I looked at some of the moral issues that go along with having wild animals in captivity or domesticated. I also talked about how animals in captivity are put there because they can make money for their owners, whether it be doing artwork like above or being "show" animals.

GAIA

Although the picture quality is not great here, I did my project on GAIA. I thought this would be a very interesting topic to draw on because there are so many facets to the Hypothesis. Lovelock first proposed his hypothesis as a scientific view of the Earth. He believed the Earth was a self-maintaining super-organism capable of homeostasis. His hypothesis was then named after the Greek Earth goddess, GAIA. In the middle of the Earth, you can see a picture of the goddess, definitely the most time consuming part of this drawing. On the left side, I tried to illustrate the Earth as a super-organism by including blood vessels running in the same pattern as you would expect to see rivers flow. This left side shows the way Earth is supposed to be, in its most alive and natural form. On the right side of GAIA is today's world. As you can see, the blood vessels of the planet have been replaced with paved roads. The green landscape seen on the left is covered up with multiple cities and factories. These factories are all pumping the clouds of polution into the atmosphere. Also on the right side is an oil tanker ship and a giant footprint, both of which represent our carbon footprint. The goddess GAIA separates the two halfs. It is understood that our ways of life, as seen on the right side, are tearing the plant apart ecologically, which is why cracks at the top and bottom of GAIA can be seen.

Sociobiology

I thought Kohak's theory of sociobiology was very interesting. I think that many actions and feelings that we have are somewhat genetic and can be linked back to other animals that share our genetic makeup. I think that the idea that humans get their tendencies for infidelity and divorce from chimps is an interesting concept. It does make sense in the fact that similar species act in similar ways, but I do think that this human behavior cannot all be blamed on the genetic makeup. Humans are different from chimps in the fact that humans have a more complex brain and can use rationality better than chimps. Even though we have tendencies to cheat, we should be able to realize that it is wrong and prevent ourselves from doing it. I also thought the reference to wolves was interesting. Even though we are not as close in genetic makeup as chimps, we do act a lot like wolves. Wolves live in packs just like our families. When the wolves hunt, they bring back the food for the whole pack just like the parents of the family provide for the whole family. This makes it seem like we do not need a genetic similarity to explain our behavior and that blaming our tendencies on genes is not all that correct. I think humans need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to find excuses for the wrong things they have done in their life. Even though I do believe that we should own up to our faults, I believe that genes do have somewhat of an influence but we should be able to reason what is right and wrong and choose against bad influences.

Flannel Ecology

Flannel ecology is the idea that we should roll up our sleeves and do some down to earth work that everyone can do. This type of ecology thinks that the least amount of damage to nature the better and that striving for perfection is not what is best. Striving for perfect ecology is impossible and unrealistic because we can never make such a dramatic change to our lives. I think flannel ecology could really work as long as everyone put in a conscious effort to try to change things. People also need to realize that we cannot continue to live the way we do now. We all need to make sacrifices and do a little work if we want things to change. I know that not all of us care about the environment and animals, but to those people I ask, "What are we going to eat when all the plants and animals we eat are gone?" The future of the human race as well as all life on earth depends on us humans trying to counteract the damage we have already done before it's entirely too late. I think that there is a lot of damage that we as humans have caused that is not able to be reversed or fixed, but even it seems impossible, there is no harm in trying. Sometimes even the smallest amount of effort can make a difference. That is what flannel ecology is about. Everyone just needs to pitch in and stop being selfish, and each person can have their own specific role that fits them. Flannel ecology also involves some other ideas from other ideas and types of ecology. This philosophy can also be seen in the practice because people from all over and from all different types of backgrounds can contribute in their own way.

Consumerism

Consumerism is a very big problem with today's society. Society makes people think that they more they have the happier they will be. So, people go out and by all the new and most expensive things so people will think higher of them. This is not always true. There are some people who see these people who strive to get the biggest and best of everything as greedy and selfish. I completely agree. People who strive to always have the biggest and the best really cannot be that happy. Maybe they have all this stuff and money, but what did they have to do to get it all? Who or what did they have to hurt in order to get where they are? I understand people wanting nice things sometimes, but there needs to be control to it. Without control, a life and society of consumerism occurs. This consumerism causes a lot of damage to the environment and animals. If companies always need to produce more, they are going to need bigger factories. If they need bigger factories, they are going to have to build one and this will probably where many animals live because that is the only place where there are not buildings already. Consumerism is also causing the demise of many animals because of their use in clothes, decorations, and food. Many animals have just been hunted because of the fact that parts of them could be used as a luxury item like rhinos for their horn and elephants for their tusks. As for use in clothes, many animals like alligators, snakes, and furred animals have been hunted to make purses, shoes, and coats. Consumerism is causing the loss of nature, and something needs to be done to limit the negative impact of consumerism.

Absolute and Relative Dismissal

The topic of absolutely dismissal and relative dismissal came up in Midgley's book. She said that absolute dismissal was the idea that we as humans have absolutely no moral obligation towards animals. There are some people that think they have this mentality. They think that animals mean absolutely nothing and are just machines. I think a lot of big companies thought this way before the green movement started. Many companies did not care about where they built their buildings and factories or what they were putting into the environment. Now, there are some laws that restrict where building can be built and what can and cannot be put into the air. Midgley mentions that no one really has the mentality of absolute dismissal. She says that absolute dismissal is actually relative dismissal in disguise. Relative dismissal is the mentality that humans do have a moral obligation to animals but they come second to human obligations. This means that the people that think they have absolute dismissal do not follow that mentality completely. From what I understood about relative dismissal, it can be exercised in many different levels. The most biocentric way is that animals have just as many rights as humans do but when it comes time to choose between human rights or animal rights the human rights take priority. I think this is the way the world today should strive to be since I believe it is impossible for humans to consider themselves complete equals with animals. Relative dismissal is about as close as we can get right now, but since it can be practiced in more ways than one, I think we need to be careful. Practicing relative dismissal in a way that is as close as it can be to absolute dismissal will not be good. This is basically having human do whatever they want but just feeling slightly bad for the damage to the environment and animals.

GAIA Hypothesis

The GAIA hypothesis was very interesting to me. It provided me with another way to look at the world. I think the idea that the earth is a super organism that is cable of self-regulation is a good way to describe the earth. As we look back as history, we can see that the earth took care of itself and regulated the life that was on it. There were many big natural events that allowed for the earth to go back to a balanced life. Life on the earth seemed to live in harmony with no one species dominating over the other. When life became unbalanced, a new natural disaster hit that wiped out a lot of the life if not all of it that existed. Once the new disaster hit, a new way of life came to exist that was now back in harmony with everything else. During this age of harmony, humans began to excel. While the population grew, so did the impact that humans had on other life. If the GAIA hypothesis is true, the earth will soon right the unbalance that humans have caused with a natural disaster. From what the research shows, the action of GAIA is global warming. Maybe GAIA's plan is to heat the earth so hot that humans are wiped out because of lack of food. No one knows what is going to happen for sure, but the GAIA hypothesis does provide one explanation for everything that has happened and could be a possible outlook for what is in store for us and the earth.

Animal Symbolism

Animal symbolism is a very interesting topic. It made me think a lot about how much animals are really used as symbols for human life. The first thing that came to my mind was the Chinese calendar. The Chinese use animals to represent certain years. These animals also represent certain characteristics that are used to predict how things are going to be as well as characteristics of people born in that year. Another example of how people use animals as symbols is in trying to judge a personality. Many people use the kind of pets people have to tell them what kind of personality a person has. According to this idea, if a person has a cat, they are said to be more calm and sophisticated. I think these kind of stereotypes can be very misleading. The species of an animal such as a dog can also be used as a symbol. Many people see certain types of dogs representing different things. For example, a beagle is a symbol of hunting, a golden retriever as a family friend, a poodle as a symbol for wealth, and a rottweiler as a symbol of viciousness and fighting. This is not just seen in dogs, but the example of the dogs is what I am most familiar with. The idea of typing types of human characteristics to animals is also used. This was seen in the Plague Dogs movie. The fox was pictured as a sly and cunning animal. Many other animals have had human characteristics tied to them as well. I think as long as animals exist we will use them as symbols for things in our lives. Even if all animals fail to exist anymore, they will still be remember in one way or another through the symbolism they were tied to.

Animal Language

The topic of whether animals have language and emotions or not was brought up in the book when discussing whether animals should have rights or not. I think that the language barrier is often used by humans in order to distinguishes ourselves from other animals. In a way, many people use the language barrier as a way to make humans seem superior to all other animals who do not have speech. I think this is a pretty poor way of making humans look superior. In reality, humans are equal with animals. We are all a part of one big nature. Humans are animals. In nature, no one animal is superior to the other. Since humans have developed speech as well as learning how to dominate most of the things around us, humans think that we are superior. Just because humans have found ways to dominate other things in nature does not mean we are superior. We developed through evolution from the same animals that we dominate and kill. We need to stop thinking that we are so superior and start acting like an equal. If we don't, then life as we know it today will drastically change. I believe that if we continue on this path of destruction and domination, we will soon become just as extinct as other animals which died out because of our actions.

Speciesism

The topic of speciesism was very interesting to me. I think it is a lot more common than what we think it is. I believe that every human and animal does use speciesism. When it comes down to a human deciding whether to save their own family member or another human or to save a family pet, almost all of us would choose to save the human being whether he or she was family or not. This example shows that we value our own kind over others. I think this is even seen in animals. When in the wild, an animal usual just stays around their own kind. If confronted with danger, they would protect their own kind rather than an animal of another species. This is especially seen with mothers and their offspring. Many animal mothers will do everything possible to protect their offspring. This is also very true of human mothers. On the other hand, pets can be the exception to showing this speciesism. This is because pets often become very attached to their owners and their property. Many dogs especially will attack other humans as well as other animals that try to harm their owners or come on their property. After writing all of this, my view on speciesism has changed. I think speciesism is mainly expressed through humans and wild social animals. The animals I exclude from this would be pets and wild animals that live a solitary life and are not social.

Yellow Paint

The topic of yellow paint that was brought up in Kohak's book was very interesting. I liked how the destruction of the earth caused by humans and humans lack of acknowledgment in order to fix it was referred to as yellow paint. I think the book really opened my eyes to how much we do really just tag things as problems but decide to deal with them later but never actually get to them. As far as the environment goes, I think there are a lot of people who "procrastinate" with the problems in the environment especially. It seems like they just think that if they ignore them they may go away or someone else will take care of them since they have marked them with "yellow paint". Our impact as humans on the entire world has greatly increased just as our population has. The more humans there are on earth, the more "nature" suffers from it. This is obvious when you look at how the landscape has changed since the pilgrims first came to America. Every since the Pilgrims landed here, the original land here in America has been destroyed gradually. Humans have known that many things that we do is destructive to the earth but it is often justified. The justification varies, but a few examples are that it is necessary for humans to live or that it is necessary for "progress". The term "progress" needs to be altered some if we want to be able to continue existence in the long run. The term "progress" has meant for a long time doing whatever it takes to have a better human life. This idea has not thought about the damage that many progressive actions have caused to the environment and animals. Today, the impact we are making on other nonhuman things has started to be incorporated into progress. I think that we still need more of this because we are running out of yellow paint, and when we do run out, will we even be able to fix the problems that we covered up with the yellow paint?

Defiant Reflex

I thought todays discussion about Defiant Reflex was very interesting. I agree that we are trying to create or attempt to keep our standard of life while dealing with or ignoring the global crisis. I feel that we need to start substituting items. People need to realize that this is an end of an era. Sometimes I think that people are in denial of what is happening to our earth. They know that nature and the earth is coming to an end, but they don't believe it. I admit some times I read information about the global crisis and it seems impossible to me. We need to get the information out to people and show them how they can change. If we just tell people that we are domed, then they are not going to change their actions.

Arbitrary Lines (it looks better in person)

Okay, Okay, now before you go making an artistic critique, let me just say that this is meant to be more symbolic than aesthetically pleasing, and that this is in no way typical of my usual style. My other stuff is usually much different... just so you know.

I got the idea when I was studying for my biology lab practical. I had been throwing around extravagant -and might I add, pretty awesome- ideas for this project, but I honestly didn't have the time to commit to a 14+ hour work and wanted to do something a little deeper than political cartoons. So as I was reviewing the hominid lineage for my exam, and got to thinking that all of these "in between" steps really muddy the water, so to speak, when it comes to drawing the line between humans and animals. When did this animal actually become human enough to be considered human? Was it when Homo erectus began walking upright? Was it when Neanderthal began to communicate through rough "speech?" Or was it when Australopiticus began to favor a larger brain? Looking at these skulls made me wonder how we can try to draw a definitive line when there are just so many similarities and when the transition from apelike animals to Homo sapiens was a very gradual one. And then, what if we weren't the only surviving species in the genus Homo? If we had contemporaries like Homo habilus and Homo erectus, how would we label them? The arbitrarty lines that humans like to draw are truly that: arbitrary.

The GAIA Hypothesis

On considering the Gaia hypothesis and its implications, I considered the current plight of the world and its connection to the earth being a self-regulating creature. In my opinion, the Gaia hypothesis is not contradicted by the earth's current situation. Animals are self-regulating, but can contract diseases(pollution) and have fevers(global warming). The self-regulation of the earth would be the result of the workings of its components, much as the self-regulation of a human body is due to its cells' workings. However, when foreign substances enter a body, they can cause the body harm. That the earth seems unable to self-regulate completely would liken it to a sickened creature, possibly in the process of dying...

Natural beauty was an interesting topic in the last class. When I think of it I think of nature as pure and being untouched by humans. It is a beautiful sight that is almost hard to imagine anymore because it seems like humans are interfering with all of nature. Kant's thoughts were true and something that I never really thought about. When people are not familiar with a certain part of nature, we tend to think of it as mysterious and something we do not totally understand. We think of it as forbidding. This would include things such as mountains, swamps, or the desert, etc. Objects in nature that we see daily, we think of as gentle and harmonious and beautiful. Human beings always seem to be scared of the unknown even if in reality, it is not a scary thing at all. In this class, I have learned a lot about nature and the environment. It has opened my eyes and made me realize I need to be more conscious about how my actions can affect the environment and animals in either a positive or negative way. I need to do my part to keep animals safe and the environment beauty and healthy.

Reliance on Technology AOL article

A few days ago I read an article on aol.com titled "Huge Solar Storm Could Shut Down U.S." which I feel relates what we have talked about in class. This article discussed how the U.S. and other nations are threatened by the possibility of a massive solar storm. These storms are formed when bursts of plasma explode off the surface of the sun which creates what is called a coronal mass ejection. These coronal mass ejections can cause electromagnetic interferences which would mess up the electric technology on earth. These CMEs could cause failures with transportation, communication, and financial systems. This article goes on to say that we would not be ready for something like this because we rely so heavily on technology. I feel that humans are too dependent on technology. This is an incident in which humans are not respectful of the power of nature and not always aware of its impact on us. We take for granted the beauty of nature while ignoring the potential destruction it can create.

Natural Beauty

As one of the previous bloggers wrote, I too feel that natural beauty is different with people. Therefore you would first have to define what is natural and what is beauty? Is natural defined by the absence of humans; what is ugly to some might be beautiful to others. For example, some people feel that insects are nasty, ugly, and vile but they are part of nature. And aren't humans part of nature as well? So if you think a beehive is a natural beauty then why can't man-made structures be beautiful as well?

Overall, this course has increased my awareness of nature and the effects my behavior has on the environment. Not only have I learned the points of view of major ecologists, but I have acquired the knowledge to at least NOTICE my behavior in regards to animals and the earth. I used to be okay with throwing away paper and not using the backs of pages and throwing the occasional piece of trash on the ground. Now, however, I realize that my selfishness affects species that cannot speak for themselves. I recently found myself criticising a friend of mine for throwing a plastic cup on the ground after dumping the juice out of it. I made her pick it up and throw it in the trash can. At work, I have set up a paper recycling can and I have decided to take the old ink toners from the printers to be reused rather than just throwing them away. This is a big step for me considering I would have done the same thing a few months ago without thinking twice and now here I am throwing out my opinion for someone to catch on to. I'm not bragging about my efforts by any means, I'm just excited that a class based on 3 books we have read had this much of an impact on me. I know that I am no longer above nature and that I need to make the living conditions for other species just as accommodating as my own to the extent possible.

The topic of children and animals recently came up in class again and I find myself thoroughly enjoying the discussion. As I have said before, I have a 2 year old dog who holds one of the top spots in my heart. I like him more than I like some humans (species bond? I think not). I also have 2 nephews, ages 2 and 7 months, who interact with my dog on a regular basis. Crosley is a very well behaved dog to begin with, but he puts up with a lot of tail pulling and ear tugging when it comes to the 2 boys that he wouldn't tolerate if an older adult were to unpleasantly touch him. This goes into the idea that play signals penetrate the species barrier with ease. Seeing Nicolas and Jacob interact with Crosley is a real sight to see. When the boys were both young and had never been acquainted with Crosley, they immediately took to him and Crosley reciprocated the love and went as far as to "nurture" them. He would lay in front of their crib and be excitingly interested in watching them eat (which he now knows exactly who to sit under at the dinner table). Signs like this show the true relationship that exists between animals and children and prove that we all need to return to our childlike state of mind when it comes to interacting with animals.

Natural Beauty

Today we talked about what natural beauty means. I believe that the meaning of natural beauty can be different for different people. Natural beauty, in my opinion, symbolizes purity and awe. When I think about natural beauty, I picture nature how it was before humans touched it in any way. I see the vastness and amazing creation by God. Picturing the first idea of nature makes me think about how small humans are and how amazing and overpowering nature can be. Humans could easily be wiped out by nature, but humans are slowly destroying aspects of nature as well. This makes me think that humans and nature are battling back and forth. Humans continue to live their lives however they want whether it is harmful to nature or not. Nature in return is dying off, but it is also fighting back in a way. One way nature is fighting back is through global warming. The GAIA hypothesis can be seen through this in the way that the earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Humans have been allowed to thrive and multiply as much as they want. Now that the earth is running out of resources to sustain humans, it is changing and will sooner or later not allow humans to remain as they currently are. I believe that we have lost the natural beauty that once was found everywhere. Today, it is hard to even find a glimpse of it without it having an artificial influence. Humans have tried to preserve some parts of nature in wildlife reserves and other things like that, but it is obvious that there is still some human impact.

Frontiers

In class today, we discussed the concept of frontiers and how humans have this innate desire to seek new frontiers. As far as America is concerned, the frontier has moved from "The New World" to the "Western territories." Then it was on to Alaska and other northern reaches of our country. Because we have already conquered each of these, we then searched for a new type of frontier. In 1960, the frontier was the deepest part of Earth's oceans, the Mariana Trench. This lowest point on Earth's surface (6.78 miles down) was reached in 1960 by Navy lieutenant Don Walsh. In 1969, it was of course, the moon with Neil Armstrong. Once again, humans found a new frontier to explore. When the horizontal expansion was complete, we expanded upward (Moon) and downward (Mariana Trench). The point being, we as humans have this innate desire to expand, and find frontiers. Sure these frontiers provide a stage for competition, but they do much more than that. They connect us with the idea of the wild as something we want to test ourselves against. As we "use up" these frontiers, we are manipulating them in ways that make them once again, new and exciting. This is connected with the Red Bull, jumping out of the plane example. "Sure sky-diving is fun, but we've already conquered that... so lets put a new twist on it and do it without parachutes." This is only one example that illustrates our innate desire to find more. Experiencing the "wild" is an addiction that we all own, and its a perfectly natural one.

Flannel Philosophy and Arbor Day

Saturday was Arbor Day or so I assume because I had to convience myself to get out of bed at 8:30 am to go plant trees at Saint Ann's Convent. While there was the incentive of recieving a bright yellow shirt that had "I planted a tree" across it and some free ice cream I was suprised of the number of people that attened to the event. There were families with parents pushing strollers and old women. There were probably about 75 volenteers to help the nuns plant a lot of trees (I am not really sure on the number). The arbor day event allowed me to understand why so many people would practice flannel philosophy. It was fun! It was nice getting up and working with a bunch of strangers to help something greater. Not only were we helping the convent but we were also doing a small part to help the enviorment. The event probably took 2-3 hours of my saturday. Such a small amount of time I thought. I wondered if everyone took 2-3 hours out of their week to do something small than maybe helping the enviroment would not seem like such a monumental task but something that people could learn to enjoy.

Global Warming

The first half of the book discussed the impact that humans are having on global warming. This part of the book made me feel wasteful and terrible about myself. I think a lot of people know the affects of their actions on the earth, but they keep doing what they are doing. For example people know cars and trucks can hurt the environment, but we still drive enormous SUVs. I think people will start to change their actions when it starts to affect them. And by then it might be too late. On another hand I have notice that a lot of places are trying their best to be green, such as recycling and reusing items. Maybe the government should mandate businesses to be green in some sort of way or give them a tax break if they are green.

Loss of Nature

I agree with the idea that we have lost the original meaning to the word "nature". Humans have made such a major impact on the world and therefore have caused a lot of changes to occur. There are very few places in this world that man has not been to or explored. Even though many humans want to preserve nature, we still manage to destroy parks of it. For example, there are many nature trails that were built for people to experience "nature". This seems like a good idea, but is it really "nature" if the animals are used to seeing humans and there is some trash and other signs of humans along the trail? I don't think it is because "nature" to me does not have human influences. Wild animals should not be used to humans and they should not have to live in human trash. The growth of human population has caused a decrease in what is considered "nature". Because of humans, many animals have become endangered or extinct and many ecosystems have become almost nonexistent because humans have destroyed them in order to build houses and businesses. I also don't think that we can save the original "nature" even if we tried. Humans have made such a big impact and have caused the demise of so many things that it is hard to imagine what it was like in America when the pilgrims first inhabited this land.

Commercial Environmentalism

Does the fact that much of the Environmentalist movement has become commercial lower its value? You see all over the place these days 'green' versions of old products like windex. If you were cynical you could say that they are selling inferior products for a higher price, but is their Environmentalism sincere? Perhaps the market shifted as it did with the CFC's. Either way things like Cpt. Planet, and all of the merchandise that went with that, and the recent 'green' products seem to be counter productive. Perhaps they are not counter productive and maybe they are even effective, I rather doubt it though. Even Kohak criticized the American Environmentalist movements for their commercial affluence. Why cant affluence and Envionmentalism live side by side? The American public seem to be torn between commercialism and Envoronmentalism and the market is showing that.

Global Warming

I found the topic of global warming in class very interesting. It is not that I don't believe in global warming, I completely do, but I believe it is more global climate change. Ever since the world began there has been changes in climate. The dinosaurs had a warm climate, then there was an ice age, then the Earth got warm. While humans have accelerated the climate change, it was bound to happen at some point. The scare tactic that scientists take to try to fix it is a good idea though. As humans we tend to think that we own the Earth and can treat it however we want. This is evident by the massive amount of garbage we see on the side of the road driving to school. While we should all do our part to help eliminate the harm we're doing to the Earth, we also need to realize that the climate change was inevitable.

Happy Arbor Day!!!

I know we spend a lot of time on here talking about animals, but let's not forget the trees too! Did you know that Arbor Day is even older than Earth Day? The first Earth Day celebration took place in 1970, but the first Arbor Day was celebrated on April 10th, 1872 in Nebraska. The holiday was the brainchild of Julius Sterling Morton (1832-1902), a Nebraska journalist and politician originally from Michigan. Throughout his career, he worked to improve agricultural techniques and served as Secretary of Agriculture under Grover Cleavland. When he moved to Nebraska, Morton thought that the landscape would benefit from the planting of a few trees, and so set about planting orchards, shade trees and windbreaks. His neighbors thought this was a good idea too, and so the practice started to catch on. When Morton became a member on the board of Nebraska's board of agriculture, he proposed a special day be set aside for the promotion of tree planting and increasing awareness of the importance of trees. On Nebraska's first Arbor day, over a million trees were planted. A second Arbor Day didn't take place until 1884, but was made a legal holiday in the state in 1885, and the date changed to April 22nd to coincide with Morton's birthday.
Needless to say, the rest of the country thought that Morton's idea was pretty groovy and soon Kansas, Tenessee, and Ohio were celebrating arbor days as well. Today, all 50 states celebrate an arbor day, although the dates vary in keeping with the local climate. And now, arbor day is celebrated in other countries as well, including Australia, Japan and Israel. So hug a tree today!

Earth Day

To mark Earth Day 2009, here is an observation from Mary Midgley's introduction to a recent collection of reflections on James Lovelock's GAIA hypothesis.

"Personifying the earth means that it is not just a miscellaneous heap of resources but a self-maintaining system which acts as a whole. It can therefore be injured; it is vulnerable, capable of health or sickness. And, since we are totally dependent on it, we are vulnerable too. Our deep, confident, seventeenth century conviction--expressed in a lot of space literature-- that we are really independent minds, essentially detached from a planet which we can easily exchange for another one, has been a fantasy. Like babies, we are tiny, vulnerable, dependent organisms, owing our lives to a tremendous whole. That is surely what the Greeks meant to acknowledge, and what our own ancestors meant when they spoke of Mother Nature."

Midgley, Mary (2007), Earthy Realism: The Meaning of Gaia (Societas)

Neoteny

I think the fact that humans can possess the quality of neoteny, which is the prolonging of infantile characteristics throughtout maturity, is a good characterisitc to have. This includes an affinity towards animals. Why should adults be seen as emotionally immature just because they have an interest in animals or other things? Usually these type of things are of interest to children. Another interest could be curiosity, which can expand the growth of an individual. Curiosity allows interest in many different things and aspects of life. Play, such as singing, dancing, and things of pleasure, is seen as a sign of intelligence in humans and other advanced species. Humans do it more than other species, and it is something learned as a young child. Neoteny allows humans to break the specie-barrier, which is much easier in humans than other species. Showing kindness towards animals isn't childish, but a sign of care, which I don't think is a sign of emotional immaturity, but a sign of love and compassion. Curiosity is a great characteristic to have because without it, humans wouldn't have as much knowledge as they do or growth, as was said before.

Emotion Vs. Reason

Many of the thinkers that have been discussed in the two books that we have read believe that the distinguishing factor between humanity and animals is the ability to reason. Reason has always been held in great regard by civilized humans; in fact the Stoics went so far as to say that it was the ‘spark of the divine’. However, more modern thinkers, like Peter Singer and Albert Schweitzer, throw out the notion of superiority through reason. Midgley, although in a far less extent, agrees with the Utilitarians that language and reason do not determine ethics.
Midgley, like many other thinkers, proposes that sentience and emotion are important factors in determining ethics. The fact that the animal can feel emotion is important to Utilitarians, and the fact that people feel good when treating animals nicely is important to both Midgley and Kohak. Albert Schweitzer, as Kohak pointed out, appears to some to be sappy and naïve, so also must Midgley with her ideas of the Golden Rule with regard to animal ethics. While Midgley makes very good points, she ultimately appears to be swearing off entirely the arguments of those in the reason camp. She uses the pejorative ‘absolute dismisser’ to describe someone that believes that animals do not matter. She paints the portrait, through straw man arguments and quoting silly philosophers, that if you believe that organized language and reason separate man from animals than you are an absolute dismisser. While she probably does not believe this herself, given her compromising nature, she, nevertheless, paints the radical Utilitarians as slightly naïve and Rationalists as tyrannical.
Although Midgley herself might not be guilty, many of the thinkers she quotes are guilty of another kind of ‘absolute dismissal’. Namely that they dismiss off hand any argument that man is separate from animals on the grounds of reason. While many of the Rationalist philosophers say that animals can’t have ‘rights’ for semantic issues; Midgley believes that you can’t say that animals have rights or interests either. While Midgley herself might not entirely swear off a reason argument, she presents the argument in a very derisive tone.

Animal Rights

For the past week my friend's mom has been in the hospital (this is related, I promise) and she is unable to talk because she has a tube in her mouth. Well the nurses, while I know they're doing their job, tend not to shut the door or close the blinds when they are cleaning her up from things. Which, I think if she could talk, she would ask them to do ... just because most people tend to be private about that stuff. It just made me think back to the comment of just because people cannot talk does not mean they should not be treated ethically. I know this really isn't an ethical issue, just shutting the door, but it does show that most people don't really think about other people's feelings UNLESS they are able to speak them. I think the same goes with animals. If a dog could cry and say ouch that really hurts when a person kicks them, that person probably wouldn't do it again. Language seems to truly be the barrier as to how well we treat one another. I know I tend to brush people off if I don't understand what they're saying in a different language so I'm sure most people brush off other animals because they don't know what their language means. The golden rule needs to be followed in situations involving most living things because it transcends the language barrier that is faced.

Animals and Economy

This is a response to the Animals and Economy post. I also have read about the increase of animals at animal shelters. The lady that was interview was very upset and said, "She was losing a family member. " It is sad that the economy affects animals who have no control over the problem and doesn't understand the problem. When watching the segment you could tell the animals were confused and upset. It shows that animals do have feeling and connections to people. Animals do matter, because they do have feelings, interests and emotions.

The Real Birds Eye View

This guy actually attached a camera to his pet eagle. Its a cool birds eye view. Although, I have no idea what is being said. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APViUODDhT0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent%2Ecom%2Fgreen%2F&feature=player_embedded

Live Animal Markets

This is another link that deals with animal cruelty.  It talks about live animal markets in China where people can come and buy fresh animals for food.  The images are very disturbing.  It shows the animals living together in hordes and one very graphic shot a cat getting dragged out of a cage.  These markets are places where diseases are spread such as bird flu.  I believe that the clip almost makes me question absolute dismissal.  The report obviously cannot dismiss the animals because she literally vomits when seas the cruelty but the sellers are treating the animals as simply for food and economic gain. I believe that their emotional less response shows that they do not truely care about the animals.  I feel like the animals could be sold in a more sanitary and friendly manner but the images illustrate that the animals are simply seen for their food and economic purposes.  I could not get the link the work but it is on current.com and under china's live animal markets. 

Animals and the Economy

I recently saw a short documentary about the rising issues  dealing with the increase abandonment of animals due to economic hardships.  With homes being fore closed more people have to give up their pets because they do have the resources to care for them or the places they are moving will not accept pets.  This has lead to an increase of population for shelters which are having trouble founding the shelters because the economy has also lead to a decrease in donations.  I think the clip illustrates the point that animals and humans do live a mixed community and what effects the human world also effects the animal world.  I also find it almost a contrast with the story of Nathan because the poor man cherished his pet.  It is almost a sad fact that modern humans are quick to give up pets.  Now some of the families do experience grief and it is sad they have to make the choice but the fact that animals can be quickly desposed of shows a human distance for animals.  This a link to the clip if you would like to watch it.  If it doesn't work go to current.com and it is under subprime pets. http://current.com/items/88913553_subprime-pets.htm

Today in class we talked about the mixed community. The part about interest in animals is merely a childish activity that we should eventually grow out of because of maturity really caught my interests. I think this is not true because there are examples in real life today that disprove this. Many people spend their adult lives helping and caring for animals and while doing so form emotional bonds with them and understand how they are feeling most of the time. For example, there are veterinarians, animal rescue groups, trainers, groomers, pet spa workers, etc. These people devote their lives to animals and would therefore be criticized by those who think that interests in animals are childish. I believe that everyone should keep some childish characteristics with them even in adulthood. This will allow us to have a better connection with ourselves as well as with animals. Then, maybe everyone would give animals more meaning and not consider them as much of machines as they do now.

I also thought the reference to the tall fence was a good example of how interests in animals changes over time. The book said at the bottom of the fence has many holes but the top has very few holes. The bottom of the fence represents childhood and the top is adulthood. So as you go up the fence there becomes fewer and fewer holes through which you can cross over the species barrier and have interests in and understand the emotions of animals. Midgley notes that the way to cross through these holes is through play. Critics may say that adults do not play, but this is incorrect because adults have found ways to make play acceptable. For example, adult sports like basketball, golf, cards, marathons, etc. allow adults to play and are not criticized. So I interpret that adults who participate in these adult play activities are the ones that are more able to find the few wholes that exist at the top of the fence.

Play

I thought the discussion of play was very interesting. Children can relate and interact with animals through play. When I thought about it play has played a big role in our own species. Children at a young age learn to interact with other children though play. We develop social skills though play. As we get older play is looked down upon and we are told that we are being immature. Why is play seen as immature and why is it immature for people to play and interact with animals? I feel that it is good to interact with animals. Animals, especially pets, have a way of making a person feel good. Maybe if adults would go play with animals they would not worry so much. Play may seem immature, but I see it as a good stress reliever. What does any one else think about this?

Response to Plague Dogs

This film was an animation about two dogs that started out at a research facility and ended up escaping. The movie followed the two dogs, Ralph and Snitter, through their adventure. I think the goal of this film was to show people the side of the dogs in hope of inspiring more sympathy for animals. Even though the movie was somewhat harsh in presentation, I believe this movie did inspire me to have more sympathy for animals because it showed more of how the animals feel.

The movie starts out showing how Ralph is being tested for endurance by having him in a deep container of water and making him swim for his life. Once Ralph gets so exhausted, he drowns. Then, he is taken out of the tank with a hook and resuscitated just so he can do it again. This seems so cruel, and I feel so bad for the dog. I don’t really see how this is necessary. While watching this, I wanted to cry and the question came to mind that would the “whitecoats” want this done to them.

Then, Snitter was a dog who they performed brain surgery on which made him unable to determine the subjective from the objective. The “whitecoats” were then going to study him to see how it affected him. Snitter was once owned by someone, but his master was killed by a bus which was somewhat Snitter’s fault. Throughout the movie, the effect of the surgery was seen by Snitter’s flashbacks to his old life with his master. These flashbacks interfere with his normal life. I fell sorry for this dog as well because he doesn’t know what is real and what isn’t at all times. I don’t think that people should be able to mess with his brain because this totally changed his way of life. In my opinion, they lessened his quality of life.
While the two dogs are escaping, the images of other animals that were being experimented on were shown. This made me so much sadder for these animals especially since the monkey had to sit in a metal cylinder all alone. That wouldn’t have been a fulfilling life and probably was a very miserable life. I am glad that the dogs were able to escape.

After their escape, they roamed the hills and mountains trying to fin food. They ended up having to kill sheep in order to survive. For this, the people got really mad and wanted to kill the dogs. I think this is mean because all the dogs were trying to do was survive just like any other animal or human would do.
I think Snitter had really bad luck especially when he killed the man that was trying to be nice to him. He thought he was not supposed to have a master after that. The poor dog was just having bad luck and because of it he beats himself up about it.

I thought it was ironic that the fox that was called the Todd was depicted as a sly and cunning animal. This shows how many animals have a certain stereotype attached to them which is why animals are often used as symbols. Some stereotyping is seen in Snitter since he is a smaller dog he is seen as more sophisticated than Ralph.

Overall, I think this movie gave me a better appreciation of animals and their feelings and struggles. A lot of the situations I saw as comparable to human situations. Many of the feelings of the dogs could be the same feelings that humans would feel in the same situation. I think people get a better appreciation of things when they can be related to themselves or if they are useful to humans.

Pollution Personified

Has anyone here seen the movie Fern Gully? I watched it over the break (it was one of my all time favorites when I was little) and couldn't help but make a few observations. First of all, I'm not quite certain that there are rain forests in Australia, and I am positive that kangaroos don't live in them if there are -but that one's not too important. My second observation was of the character of Batty, a bat that escaped from a biology lab and still experiences side effects from some of the experiments performed on him. I caught many more references to his abuse watching it this time than when I was younger and from what he says, it's no wonder he's wary of humans. Finally, I can't thinks of any other film in which pollution itself is personified (maybe a Captain Planet episode, but that doesn't really count). Anthropomorphism as it is applied to animals is common, but personification of pollution isn't something we run across every day. I think this is partly because, unlike animals, it can't be portrayed as good or bad. Pollution has to be bad. I can't think of any legitimate reason it could be presented otherwise. And maybe this is why we shy away from it. If pollution is bad, one is left to infer that the cause of it (ahem, humans) is bad also.
Anyway, it was interesting to watch this movie with a new perspective. I certainly am able to see it in a different way than I did when I was six years old. Watch it sometime.

Plague Dogs

I thought that Plague Dogs was a sad cartoon. The dogs thought that everything would be ok once they escaped the research facility, but they seemed very scared of everything. They didn't trust anyone or anything, and constantly thought that the white coats were after them. It was sad that the dog had nightmares because he thought he killed his master, although the master is still alive according to the book. The nightmares continue when he inadvertently killed the man by stepping on the trigger. They only trust things after they seem to prove loyalty, like the fox. The movie has a sad ending after they try to swim out to sea to the island. Although I don't agree with the mistreatment of animals by any means, I don't think it is a great idea to test on humans who have the possibility of dying. They do say products work differently on animals than they do on humans. I think there should be regulations for companies who test on animals to treat them with respect and don't abuse them or go out of their way to be cruel. Animals deserve respect just as humans do, and I would never want to see an animal be mistreated or abused.

Animals as tools

In class, we watched a film called, The Plague Dogs. This film was about the adventure of two dogs escaping from a Research Institution. It demonstrated what the animals went through while in the Institution, and how it affected them.
Although most of the film was cruel, gory, and sad, I believe that a quote from a veterinarian expressed in Animals and Why They Matter represents the overall theme of the film of The Plague Dogs.
“Animals used in biomedical research should not be considered as mere animals but rather as standardized biological research tools.”
This quote conveys that lab animals are merely tools not a living species. It states the humans use a buffer between their action and torturing animals. The main purpose of saying that lab animals are tools is to emotionally distant ourselves from the animals and what we do to them. Cutting off these emotions proves that animals are living organisms that we feel that we have moral duty to as well as their own emotions and value. If we felt like animals had no emotions or no value to us or the earth that we live in, then we would not even have to state that lab animals are not mere animals, but standardize biological research tools. Alimentally, lab animals are animals, but humans use them as research tools for their benefit and not the common welfare of the animals.
In conclusion, the Plague Dog film demonstrated the cruel, gory and mistreatment of the lab animals at the Research Institution brings up the argument about the right way to treat a lab animal or animals in general. It sets up the theme of use of lab animals as standardize biological tools. Stating the lab animals are tools shows the humans must emotionally detach themselves from the animal and what they perform on the animal. This proves that animals do have meaning to humans and should be treated the right way.

Plague Dogs

I agree with what some other people wrote about not being completely against animal testing. It has led to so many advances in medicine. In one of my classes we had to read about some of the early disease discoveries and how medication was made for these illnesses. Animal testing was heavily relied upon then as well and it was done in some of the cruelest ways. I think that for animal testing need to be done but it needs to be very controlled, just like anything else that could potentially cause harm. However, this leads to the question as to who controls it, which animals are included in these standards and so on. Unfortunately, there will be companies that always mistreat animals when they test on them. Plague Dogs was a good eye opener for people to see what having no control over the situation could lead to.

Through an overwhelming sense of despair and constant reminders of mans cruelty and willingness to inflict pain on animals The Plague Dogs leaves the audience, at it’s least, shaken and thoughtful. As years pass more and more disease and health problems arise making animal experimentation more of a sensitive subject. Is it okay to mistreat animals for human profit? The dogs are depicted as both beasts and affectionate creatures. By keeping their animalistic value and also showing their joys, fear, and frustrations the validity of the movies objective is not lessened. Instead of presenting the viewer with a vision of a world divided between good and evil, a reality populated by persons who themselves mix decency with cruelty. The reality of the movie allows the audience to reflect on animal rights. Because animals cannot talk the movie assumes a role in deciding what they would say if they could. Regardless of the accuracy of their remarks it is clear that the animals have led a life full of suffering and yearn for something better. As a psychology major animal experimentation is an important topic for me. Already at school I have encountered breeding rats for experiments, usings dogs to conduct beahvioral exepriments, and dissection. All of these involved no pain or harm to the animals and all had safe homes to return too. This movie made me think about the actual animal statistics. I did some research on the internet and found that 50% or more of animal exerpimentation in the US and Canada is done for "curiousity driven research." Basically researchers have a better reputation with the more research articles and experimental papers they publish. I am not sure where I stand on animal experimentation. I believe we have in the past been able to accomplish great advancments with animal testing but this doesn't seem to me a very good reason for subjecting animals to experimentation. I think there needs to be more strongly enforced guidleines and requirements for anyone to be allowed to conduct exerpiments on any animal.

Plague Dogs

I agree with Katie that animal experimentation is necessary even though it is cruel to animals. If it wasn't for experimentation on animals we would not the medications that we have today. I can see both sides of the problem. I feel for the animals that are being experimented on, but I also feel for the people who are suffering who need a cure. Most people view their own lives more important than a animal's life. That is why animals are used for experiments and not humans. Our lives are precious, but the animals life isn't? The more I think about the situation the more I get confused. We need experimentation, but what gives us the right to decide what species will be experimented on. Animals are not just experimentation tools, they are beings. However they can not fight back to our species. We can control the future of their lives and they will have no say in what happens to them.

Plague Dogs

I felt the film was an overall good one to watch for our class. It brought to attention the horrible ways in which animals are treated for the furthering of scientific knowledge. It didn’t put as big of a bias on whether or not animal experimentation is right, it just allowed the viewers an insight into what it is like for the animals and gave them the choice to decide for themselves. Of course, Snitter and Rowf are escaping and trying to find a home throughout the film, but that is their view of the situation. The humans in the film are very pro animal experimentation, or at least never protest the motives of the scientists.
As a cartoon, I felt it to be a very dark and shocking plot line. Constant images of horrible conditions for the dogs and death to animals and humans is not what I was expecting prior to viewing the film. I’m unsure of who exactly Rosen was targeting in making Plague Dogs, but I do believe it at least captures moments where the dogs carry on human aspects and relatable movements and speech that convince humans to side with them. This is a very admirable characteristic of both Rosen and his film.
I wish I could say that I was completely against animal experimentation, but I guess I fall into the category of those who find themselves confused. I, by no means, agree with mistreating animals by abuse or neglect, but I find some aspects of experimentation necessary. If only it didn’t mean creating harm and discomfort for the animals, many would come out of the confused category and be able to be complete activists for animal rights. However, as a dog owner, I feel torn. If my dog needed brain surgery, perhaps one similar to that of Snitter’s, I would allow for it in a heartbeat if it would save him. The catch: My dog is only able to have the surgery because of previous experiments and surgeries performed on other dogs that may or may not have been humane and successful. This is what confuses me. This is what I have a problem with. I wish there was a way to do it differently, and maybe that was part of Rosen’s reasoning behind making the film. Maybe he wants people to come up with new ways of animal experimentation which will better the lives of animals in humane ways rather than just give scientists another notch on their belts.

Flannel Ethics in practice on ABC

I couldn't help but to revisit the topic of Flannel ethics brought about in the first half of the semester. I recently watched an episode (as I do every Sunday night) of Extreme Makeover Home Edition on ABC. This season they have been focusing on families who have proven to be heroes for others in their communities, and this episode focused on a family who rescued and cared for wild animals. Although the show's purpose is to build new homes for those in need because the families don't have the means to do so themselves, this episode was really involved in the animals and their stories. The family lived in California and took in wild animals ranging from venemous snakes and reptiles to tigers and cougars. They founded the sanctuary that is based right on their property, but due to the hard economic times, the family hasn't been able to meet the necessary requirements to care for all of the animals' needs. Ty and his crew came in and spoke with the family and listened to all the great things they had to say about their dozens of animals. The father is who caught my attention the most. He spoke about the animals and his mission to save and protect them in a way very similar to someone who deeply believes in flannel ecology. He was out there doing what he could with doing no harm to the animals and enviornment. He was coming up with practical solutions as opposed to just letting the animals be put down after they were of no use to previous owners. Perhaps the most striking irony of the entire episode?...He was wearing a flannel shirt.

Animals as Symbols

Animals stand for a variety of things in our culture today. Animals can be evil, playful, vicious, sentimental, or competitive. As said in class, the devil is often represented by an animal of some sort. Animals can be companions or played with. Most show sympathy towards animals, especially if they are an animal owner. Today, there are many computer games or toys for kids to play with and pretend as if they are real. Animals are symbols for different athletic teams, such as Jaguars, Dolphins, Tigers, Lions, etc. They are usually portrayed as tough or competitive in this respect, and obviously their pictures show their more vicious side. Also, something that has been in the more recent media is dog fights. Training dogs to be violent towards each other and tear each other apart, while people sit and watch. Horse-racing in an important sport, especially in this area. Also, based on the behaviors of different animals, people call each other names by using animals, such as a raty, snake, weasel, dog, bull-headed, etc. with all of them being negative connotations. Soem symbols portray animals in a postive light. The dove as a sign of peace or a dog being man's best friend. Animals should be portrayed in a better light.

Animal Symbolism

As we talked about today, Animals are highly used symbols in many different cultures. I found a website that does a pretty good job at displaying the symbolic meanings of many animals among various different cultures: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/animals2.htm

The site lists the different meanings of animals among Celtic mythology, Native American tradition, and Chinese horoscope cycles. I found this very interesting because the same animal might depict three different symbols, depending on which culture is being considered. For example, the serpents are described by Celtic mythology to symbolize trouble: "Whenever they appear, strife and infertility follow." To the Native Americans, serpents symbolize, "Power, Life force, Sexual potency." Yet according to Chinese tradition, a serpent is "observant, quick to anger, usually possesses great physical beauty and is not necessarily venomous except when protecting the family." This is only one example, but the point being that animals do serve as symbolic metaphors in various cultures and traditions. The fact this symbolism stretches across vast cultural barriers, points to the belief that holding animals as symbols is indeed hardwired into our beings somehow.

Animal Symbolism

Our discussion of animal symbolism and the "squint" it puts on our perception of animals reminded me of an issue I'd heard about a few years ago with regards to endangered species in... um, one of the tropical rainforests. So, there's this really endangered, horrendously ugly primate living in the rainforests. It's nocturnal and doesn't hurt anyone, as it sits in the trees all night eating bugs. The people indigenous to the area have been working with environmental groups to preserve the rainforest, protecting it from deforestation, as well as taking measures to protect the many endangered rainforest species -that is, all species except this one, ugly primate. Why? Because in this culture, the animal (gosh, I wish I could remember what it's called. An ayer-ayer, maybe?) represents evil. So it's ugly to begin with, but it's been associated with the spirits of the night for hundreds of years, and local tribal legends held that if it looked at you you were cursed.
Now, most of the people living here today don't believe in the magical, mumbo-jumbo anymore, but they just can't get past the symbolism and it's thwarting environmental attempts to protect the species. The people of this area just can't approach the fate of this particular species objectively because it holds such an immovable status, a permanent label in their psyche. I don't think this particular species and this particular people are a special case, either. So many of our preconceptions, of our internalized notions about certain animals dictate our attitudes toward them. It's without doubt that one of the reasons pandas have had such a successful comeback is because they're cute. People associate only loving, cuddly, fuzzy good thoughts when they think about pandas. Now, how much progress has the endangered dolloff cave spider made by comparison. Yeah, like none. Don't you think that this might be because the general public associates bad things with spiders? That perhaps spiders are connected with a sort of symbolism -even if unconscious- that demotes their esteem in our eyes? And it's not even particularly ugly, as spiders go, so I doubt it's truly an aesthetics issue, but rather one of an impulsive stereotype derived from our underlying symbolic associations between animals and ideas.

Communicating without words

In the book Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley gives a quote from R.C. Frey, “Animals cannot have rights because they cannot have interests. They cannot have interests because they cannot have desires or emotions. They cannot have desires or emotions because they cannot have the thoughts required for them. And they cannot have those thoughts because they cannot speak. From my point of view, I disagree with Frey and believe it does not make sense. Frey is only basing rights and interests on speech. He makes it feel like the only way to have rights and interests is to communicate with words. In contrast, a human or even animals do not have to always use words to communicate. They can use gestures or emotions to communicate as well. For example, babies do not use speech to communicate their interest or emotion. Does that mean they have no rights? Society considers babies to have rights, so what is the difference between a baby that cannot talk and an animal that cannot talk? It is clear that animals have interests and emotions. A dog shows emotion of excitement by wagging its tail. Also, a dog shows interest in wanting to go on a walk by holding his leash and standing by the door. Doesn’t this give prove that animals, dogs, have interests even though they do not use words to communicate?

Animal language

Mary Midgley makes a very interesting point when she says that animals would live in utter disorder if they lacked both emotion and some form of communication. Just a few moment before I wrote this blog I was playing with my dog and I signaled to my dog that I wanted to play with a specific toy by merely pointing to it. Language is meant to truly represent ideas and the world around us in a cohesive fashion. Such communication is done in many ways such as my pointing for my dog. Whether my dog understood what I meant from actually understanding what I wanted or through a trained response, like Pavlov’s dogs, does not matter. The fact remains that my dog understood what I meant without any form of formal language at all. My ability to communicate with my dog came out of a mutual understanding of the objective world around us. I may perceive the world slightly differently than my dog, but all the laws of nature apply to us both equally. The ability to communicate with animals is not the preserve of Dr. Doolittle, but shared by all beings that can sense things in the same manner. My dog feels the pain caused by fire in much the same manner as I would. Dogs can clearly map out ideas in their mind, admittedly, these ideas are few and severely limited by their inability to properly communicate and understand abstract ideas. A dog might not understand the concept of justice, but it certainly understands what it senses. No animal starves because it’s too stupid to know what food is; it knows it is hungry and it wants to eat. It is purely preposterous to claim that because animals lack formal language that they lack the ability to understand the world around them and likewise emotion. I know precisely what emotion my dog was feeling because he was wagging his tail as well as other body language.

Animals Have "no interests"

Animals can't have rights because they can't have interests. They can't have interests because they don't have desires and emotions. They can't have desires or emotions because they can't have thoughts required for them. They can't have thoughts because they can't speak. I thought it was interesting to compare animals to senile people and babies because I think it is completely true. Babies have rights and show emotion, but they cannot speak. Senile and handicapped people have rights even though they may not be able to speak or reason. I think that animals do have emotions and desires. When I walk in the door, my dog comes running wagging his tail. When he gets to go on a walk or get a treat he wags his tail too. When dogs wag their tail is means that they are happy or excited. When an animal has been abused, many times they are scared of humans and very cautious of them. This shows fear. Just because animals can't speak words doesn't mean they don't have feelings. Most animals have their own language and way of communicating with each other that we cannot understand. We have a langauge that they may not be able to understand. I think that animals have moral value and are able to have feelings and feel emotion.

Emotions

I agree that Animals have emotions, feelings, and desires. Just because we can not communicate with them does not mean they are emotionless. You can tell animals have emotions by their actions. When a dog is happy it wags it's tail. Just the look on their face shows how it feels. I feel that animals try to communicate with us in their own ways. For example when a dog wants out it scratches on the door or stands by it. When a dog is angry or defensive it growls. KoKo is a great example that shows us that animals have emotions just like us. I feel that animals communicate with each other and just because we can not understand them does not mean they do not communicate. When it comes to desires animals may have different desire than we have. Humans have a duty towards animals. We should respect and not abuse them.

Man's Best Friend

Today in class, we talked about how animals may or may not have emotions. In Mary Midgley's book, it says that a dog can get excited when its master comes home, but doesn't know if the same will happen the next day. I can personally relate to this statement. I have a 9 year old dog at home (Maggie) and she loves my dad. There is not one time where she doesn't freak out when he gets home from being out somewhere. The way that this relates to the statement in our book is that, when my dad goes out of town and doesn't come home for a couple of days, my dog gets very depressed. She normally sleeps in the bed and she will sleep on the stairs all night. She won't eat and rarely gets up from sleeping. If this isn't an animal with emotions then I don't know what is. There is no way that my dog doesn't have emotions with the actions she displays when my dad leaves. Even though she can't verbally tell how she is feeling, her actions tell the whole story. In class we also talked about how if you can't speak then you don't have emotions. So I could put my dog in the same group with babies, mute people, and others who cannot speak. This concept does not make sense to me. I love animals, but there is no way I would classify my dog in the same grouping as a baby. Even though these beings can't speak, does not mean that they have no emotions. I think that actions speak louder than words at some points and this is why I believe animals can have emotions.

'O Lord God' Bird watching

Bird watching has at it’s the core, the desire to know all birds. Bird watchers log all their sights in their life journal. The goal of bird watching is quite obvious, but why people start doing it is entirely different and their reasons are myriad. Birds are quite beautiful, complex, and numerous creatures. They traverse the skies with enviable freedom. Man has always had a fascination with birds; in fact the Eagle has been a revered creature since Rome.
One of the reasons why people watch birds, or go ‘birding’ not to be confused with the sport of fowling, is to observe the beauty of nature on nature’s terms.
Bird watching has spurred a massive growth in a modern phenomenon of ecotourism. Many people travel to Guyana or Costa Rica merely to experience the ecosystem. These eco-tourists go into the brush and view the birds. They see wildly exotic birds that are far more interesting than the garden variety Robin. To these people the idea of E-birdwatching, which is the practice of watching birds online, would be problematic to say the least. To watch a bird from a computer would entirely defeat the purpose of going all the way to the rainforest to physically see the birds. E-birdwatching fits in well with, perhaps the largest group of birdwatchers, the recreational crowd.
These are the people who put seed out and watch the beauty of nature for purely its aesthetic value. The beauty of the bird, not its symbolism for nature, is the primary purpose for their casual watching. These people would be happy to see the same simple Finch over and over again merely for its nascent beauty. Birdwatching is also very relaxing, much like fishing without all the nasty pain caused to the fish.

The last group of birdwatchers, and the most intriguing, is the competitors. These people treat birds as though they were something analogous to trading cards. They create arbitrary rules for viewing the simplest thing, nature. They stage large scale timed competitions with set goals like a sport. Man’s competitive nature could not stay out of even looking at birds. They compete over seeing the most exotic and rare birds. The most prized of which, and also by the science community, is the supposedly extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker. There are entirely festivals devoted to the bird. This bird has inspired waves of inquisitive tourists into the south. Apparently the reports of this bird’s demise have been greatly exaggerated because there are claims of recent sightings.
Nevertheless, birdwatching is a very popular, relaxing, and useful pastime. It inspires interest in nature as well as endangered birds. It is a very relaxing pastime which clearly could help reduce stress. Birdwatching has also helped the world economy through its tourism. However, like all human endeavors some take it too far. What should be a simple relaxing pastime has been turned, by some, into a hectic, arbitrary, and fanatical competition.

... because they can't speak

"Animals cannot have rights because they do not have interests. They cannot have interests because they cannot have desires or emotions. They cannot have desires or emotions because they cannot have the thoughts required for them. And they cannot have those thoughts because they cannot speak."
Okay, you made sense until that last part there. They cannot have thoughts because they cannot speak? Like speech is a prerequisite to thinking? No way. I totally agree with Midgley when she says that this statement is complete rubbish. She acknowledges that infants cannot speak, and yet we don't say that they cannot have thoughts. And then what happens when they are taught to speak? Do they magically just start having thoughts to voice? And what about people who are never taught to speak, like feral children, or something? Or the mute who simply can't speak for whatever reason, such as physically lacking the capacities to do so? No, I don't think that the argument that animals can't feel or think because they can't speak really holds up. Midgley notes that animals have to have some capacity to think and feel and plan, because there are cycles they must catch onto (migration cycles, seasons, even taking their owner for a walk every Friday). In addition, Koko the gorrila proves a prime example of an animal's ability to think, thus feel, thus have interests. Not being able to vocalize as humans do, Koko was taught to spak through sign language. I doubt that she didn't have thoughts or feelings before she learned to sign. And what about the progress of her language? She has learned more and more signs as the years have passed, so has she begun to think and feel more and more than she did before? I think not. I doubt an argument that humans with expansive vocabularies think or feel more than those without would be accepted either.
And besides, animals, though not communicating through vocalization, do communicate in a myriad of different ways. Shouldn't this indicate that they have interests? When one considers that somewhere up to 90% of human communication is nonverbal or paralanguage, rather than verbal communication, one can't help but acknowlege the letitimacy of other animals' nonverbal forms of communication. Just because they can't speak, doesn't mean they don't communicate.