Blog 11 - The Plague Dogs

After finishing The Plague Dogs this morning, I have conflicting feelings about it. On one hand, it was a very emotional movie that really showcased the destructive effects of animal testing. On the other hand though, at some points I felt as though the film was trying a little too hard to convey this message, and that the animation disconnected me from what I was supposed to be feeling.

No one can deny that this film really plays with the emotions of the viewer in order to prove its point. From the very first scene where the black lab is being drowned only to be resuscitated to the final scene where the two dogs are swimming aimlessly toward an "island," the film leaves no [negative] emotion untouched. I know I felt saddened when the dogs were treated so poorly in the village, even though they were only trying to survive. I felt angry when the workers at the testing facility were trying to cover up what they were doing and what had happened (because they knew they had created a real mess). The scene that upset me the most was the death of the fox who had helped the dogs on their journey. The death of this fox just seemed so unnecessary and depressing. Because of all the emotions that run through the viewer's mind, I think it can be said that the film successfully helped the audience to see animal testing in a different light - as something destructive, harmful, and not preferable in many circumstances (if at all).

At times during the film, I did feel as though the creators or producers were trying a little too hard to convey their message. For example: I am not sure why it was necessary to show the dogs being hunted by humans so much. It seemed as though these scenes constituted almost half the movie. One or two would have been affective enough in my opinion, there was no need to add more. Also, all the scenes that seemed to be specifically designed to make us sad for these dogs (like when people in the town were talking about how nasty Snitter's bandage was and they should stay away from him) seemed like overkill with all the other emotions the movie was already piling on us. The other downside to the movie was that it was animated. While the animation was very good and lifelike, I still felt at times that I couldn't feel quite what the filmmakers wanted me to feel because I felt like I was watching a cartoon that I couldn't translate into real life. This is probably more of a personal critique; I have never really liked watching cartoons anyway (I loved movies like Homeward Bound - with real animals - when I was growing up), so the animation did make it slightly less interesting for me.

Blog 11-Plague Dogs

The film, Plague Dogs, is about two dogs that escape from an animal experimentation research laboratory and who are now being hunted down. Although the film is a cartoon, it is not for children at all. It shows gruesome and harsh situations throughout the film that definitely causes emotion in the viewer. The dogs were anthropomorphized, thus allowing the viewer to connect with the animals even more. Though this movie was hard to watch, it definitely sheds light and raises awareness about animal experimentation.

Because of the director decided to give the dogs human emotions, we were able to identify with them and the struggles they were going through a lot better. Compared to The Kestrel's Eye, where there was no dialogue or music, the audience couldn't connect as easily with them. This does pose the question however, that if there was no music or dialogue in Plague Dogs, would the same emotions that we experienced be present? I believe so just because this was an animated film and the viewer could easily distinguish what was occurring .

This film by far was a difficult film to watch because it was so depressing to watch the dogs flee from humans who want to kill them. As well as the accidents that the dogs provoke were very grotesque. It can be depressing as well because it is safe to say that we all have had a dog or at least got to pet one. It would be difficult for us see our own dogs struggle through what these dogs went through.

Therefore, this film does a good job in addressing the issues of animal experimentation and it causes one to think that if the results of the experiments really worth the pain the dogs are put through? However, one has to realize that this movie was a cartoon and was a bit dramatized as well. But nevertheless, it does point out things that must be changed in animal experimentation. Methods should be drastically changed to not cause so much stress and pain on the animals. Because animal experimentation has been around for so long, and it has led to so many discoveries, so more important than others, that it would be difficult to completely abolish it in an instant. However, new methods can be developed that better facilitate the animals used. Overall, this was a good film in that it addresses the issues of animal experimentation. However, i wouldn't recommend it to any kids.

Blog 11 - Plague Dogs

This cartoon movie is following the adventures of two dogs who were originally involved in animal testing. After they escape from the lab, they have to become wild dogs and fend for themselves, whether that means killing farmer's sheep or digging through trash for food. The director of this movie, although it was cartoon, really involved emotions of the animals as well as the humans. There were many scenes that probably touched some people's emotional side, such as when Rowf was drowning, or when the dogs were looked at through the barrel of a gun.

In watching this movie, it reminded me of watching slaves escape from their masters. These dogs were basically being treated how slaves were, always being hunted and having to stay undercover while moving from place to place. Also, the way these dogs were treated while in the lab was horrible and emotional, just how slaves were treated while on their plantations.

This movie was definitely hard to watch, especially coming from someone who wants to be an animal trainer. I would never be able to use animals for this type of testing, because my emotions would have too much impact on the issue. Overall, I could say I absolutely hated this movie, not because of a bad story line, but because of the cruel things that the dogs, and even fox, had to go through.

Blog 10- Plague Dogs

Plague Dogs is a cartoon animated movie meant to highlight the cruelty of animal testing and experimentation. I think that this movie emphasized that there is a place for emotions in moral decision making. This movie definitely appealed to my emotions.

In the opening scene, a dog is seen drowning in a pool with no way to escape. The dog struggles to stay above the water until finally, too exhausted to swim, passes out and falls beneath the surface. The next thing you see is a hook being sent into the water to drag the dog out by its collar. It is revived by a machine. Right away the movie depicts the cruelty and inhuman ways of animal experimentation. Dogs are also shown in cages with barely any food. One of the most disturbing scenes in the film for me was when the experimenters scoop up a dead dog and just throw it into the incinerator like it’s a piece of garbage.

The two main dogs in the film do end up escaping and throughout the movie are transformed from “good dogs” to animals that are not afraid to kill to survive. I think that the title was fitting for this movie because it does seem as though bad luck follows the dogs wherever they go. One of the dogs accidentally slips on the trigger and kills a hunter. The community sees them as dangerous and a disturbance that must be done away with instead of the “good dogs” that they actually are.

I think that this movie did an excellent job of appealing to the emotions of the viewer and really depicted the realistic cruelty of animal experimentation. Yes, I believe that animal experimentation does have benefits, especially for medicine, but I believe that we need to go about it in a much more humane way.

Dog Movie

The movie the class watched on wed. and friday, I almost could not watch all the way. I have seen first hand brutal and cruel acts against animals and dogs aspecially during my time in the Army over seas. Me being a dog lover and having two at home that are like family; it was very hard to watch as the two dogs in the movie faught to survive and make sense of the new world out side of the testing labs. Unfortunetly alot of people in the U.S. and around the world do not see dogs or any other kinds of animals as living feeling creatures of nature. More like any other resource that can be exployed like any other natureal resource in the natural world.

Blog 11 - Plague Dogs Film Response

Plague Dogs is a film that follows two cartooned dogs in their escape from an animal experimentation laboratory. It seeks to raise awareness of the needless cruelty that takes place unknowingly in many experimental facilities. It is an interesting film that is animated like a child’s movie, but it portrays adult themes. It is a movie that is uncomfortable to watch and yet it gets across a strong message to those who view it. Plague Dogs is able to evoke such feelings due to it anthropomorphizing all the main animals that appear throughout its duration.

The directors anthropomorphized the main dogs who escape in the movie to allow us to connect and relate to these animals. We are able to understand the pain and horrible lifestyle they live when they are continually forced to swim until they drown, then they are revived and placed back in a cage. They are not cared for in anyway, besides the necessities of food and water. One dog chronically suffers with head problems due to the experimental vivisection performed on his brain. We are able to see the pain he suffers from and are taken aback by the big scar he carries on his head from the surgery. And yet even though the “white coats” did this to him, he continually tells his companion that he wants a master. Despite the horrific treatment, he yearns for a human companion. This is exemplified by the naivety of him walking up to the man with a gun who was searching for him. This longing to be accepted and loved by someone is another thing that we, as humans, can relate too. It would be hard to evoke these feelings in us if the dogs were not given human characteristics, such as the ability to talk in our language or the yearning to be loved. These feelings that were evoked in me have led to a more negative outlook on animal experimentation. I still believe that some animal experimentation is needed, but I think that tests which will provide information of trivial consequence should be stopped.

Plague Dogs also is very depressing. The dogs are continually hunted and treated as outcasts. It seems very unlikely that something good will happen to them by the end of the movie. This feeling though is a powerful tool in raising opinions that oppose such practices. Animals experimentation is not a pleasant subject, so it makes sense that the movie itself provokes an uncomfortable feeling within us, in the hopes that people will start to speak out against such happenings. Dogs are animals that have a special place in the hearts of humans. Their place as “man’s best friend” also serves to make this movie more influential. It is easy to think of all the dogs we love and imagine that they were treated in such a way. When thinking of this I know I become appalled. The director did a great job in adding all these aspects to the film, making it much more effective at changing opinions on this subject. Plague Dogs is an animated movie with a serious theme that speaks out effectively against the cruelty of needless animal experimentation.

Blog #10

I think that the book "Animals and Why they Matter" by Mary Midgley has been interesting so far. She begins the book talking about Life Boat Ethics just as how Kahak talked about it in "The Green Halo." However, Midgley talks about Life Boat Ethics in relation to relatives and competition. She then speaks about how this gives us great moral decision making and i agree with this philosophy because there is so much competition throughout our lives it is unbelievable. Whether it's getting into the college that you want, getting a college scholarship, or competing for a job against someone; all of these happen every day and I agree with Midgley's perspective on this. She also says something that also makes sense: us as human being's cannot take competition so seriously, and we cannot make competition our lives.
I like this book so far, mainly because it talks about some of the same things in the last book that we have read, but it gives us a different perspective and a different thinking to which method we think the right one is.

Blog #9

Kohak talk's about "flannel ecology" towards the end of his book. A person who is a flannel ecologist is someone who believes they are missing out on living our lives if we strive for a perfect environment. This philosophy makes sense because nothing in life is perfect, so how can we expect our environment to be perfect? Flannel ecology does talk about us as humans doing our part to help our environment grow stronger though it does not want us to strive for a perfect one.
I agree with flannel ecology, because what I said before...nothing in life is perfect and it would be unfair to try and make our environment that way. With all of that said, we do need a way to improve our environment because I believe that we are ruining it with all of our high tech gas guzzling cars and smoke factories (there are so much more other examples as well). It is our job to take care and protect our environment and I believe that we need to all do a better job at that.

Blog #8

The GAIA Hypothesis that Kohak describes is James Lovelock's view on earth as a superorganism. Lovelock talks about how GAIA can be both spiritual and also scientific to the earth and deep ecologists strongly support Lovelock's GAIA philosophy.
With that said, Lovelock went against the deep ecologists perspective when he talked about the actions of mankind. He has more care for the GAIA, rather than human beings. He thinks that humans actions towards our environment is uncalled for and he believes that one day there will be a greater species of human beings. Lovelock wants humans to take care of the environment while we are alive and he realizes that the earth has been here for forever and we shouldn't hurt it while we are alive, but rather protect it.
I do agree with some of Lovelock's points on how we should take care and treat our environment. But it isn't right to not care for mankind like he does (and I believe his statement towards mankind is fairly ignorant). In my personal opinion, I feel that both the environment and mankind needs to be evened out. What I mean is that we wouldn't be here without the earth, but the earth wouldn't be the same without mankind in it.

Film Response

While watching The Plague Dogs, I found it very interesting that a cartoon film about animals was able to stir up such a real sense of emotion, specifically in the initial scene. Watching the dog swim until he sank to the bottom and almost drown was hard to watch as a cartoon, I cannot imagine watching something that occur in person without having to stop it. I, to a degree, feel like a connection between the characters in the movie and us is a bit easier because they are given the ability to talk. You sympathize with the animal who is able to verbally communicate the displeasure he is in, but still understand our role through the scientist who do not understand the horror of the animals, because the do not hear them talking. Upon their escape from the laboratory, you almost wish you were there to pick the animals up and take them home with you, but then you see the distrust between the animals and the people that formed during their time in captivity, which is understandable granted the trauma they were subjected too. The animals developed a true fear of death, that reverts them to the their natural instincts where they are turned from "good dogs" to "sheep killers." The people who once took care of them are now hunting them, but given the oppurtunity they easily go back to the pet lifestyle, because their accustom to it. Then when the dog accidentally killed the farmer it is considered a huge deal within the people of the village, but if one of them had killed the dog it would have been considered killing vermin. As the talk of the people continues, they talk of the horrors of vivisection, do not seem very interested in being proactive in stopping it and the scientist are more frustrated with "losing all their work."

Blog 9- Midgley; Lifeboat

As discussed in the Green Halo, the Lifeboat Model reappears in Midgley's book. The Lifeboat Model is seen as a stark philosophy in which, if presented with a life or death situation, there is only one clear choice. However, in the first chapter of Animals and Why They Matter, Midley probes into this topic from a realistic, moral point of view.

Midley examines the Lifeboat Model in relation to relatives and competition, as a basis for moral decision making. She examines the role that competition plays in our daily lives. There is no denying that competition drives much of what we do, many times to an unhealthy point. Althetics, education, entertainment, and even survival thrive on competition. However, we cannot allow it to become the basic groundwork on which our decisions are based.

Midley also points out the the Lifeboat situation is, in reality, very rare. It only occurs in very extreme cases. In this chapter, Midley shows us a heirarchy of circles in which the inner rings have more importance than the outer rings. Midgley helps us put on a new set of "goggles" by showing us that each circle is more closely related that we think and that, in fact, each circle is strongly reliant on the others, therefore dismissing its hierarchy.

Blog 8- flannel ecology

I thought it was interesting that Koha’k starts his postscript with saying that he doesn’t want people to read it. He is uncomfortable with expressing his opinion. He believes that ideas, not his personal opinions, should be what matters.

Koha’k’s flannel ecology consists mainly of a two-fold philosophy- 1) that action is required in order to create change, and 2) it raises awareness of the devastating effect that human actions are having on the environment.  The purpose of this ecology is not theory, but practice, forgiving ways of human dwelling on this earth by showing respect to humans and the Earth. Although pretty broad, I think that this philosophy offers a good course of action. As a flannel ecologist, it implies work.  When a person wears flannel, it usually means that they are going to be doing something physically demanding. Therefore, flannel ecology is meant to denote action.

 As for the other philosophies, he doesn’t discount them. Instead, he carefully examines each attitude and believes that we can learn something from each, and that they play a critical role in teaching us how to approach nature in a respectful way.

Blog #10

The book, Animals and Why They Matter, is hard for me to understand for the most part.  In order to to get a full understanding of the text and what Midgley is trying to say I have to reread the passages over and over again. Midgley starts the book talking about the lifeboat ethic which was also discussed in Kohak's book.  Midgley states that this model is inaqeduate for most situations where it is applied to human affairs because we are not usually in lifeboats.  We are never in lifeboats becuase in these situations there is only one choice.  Us as humans never have just one choice to make because most of the time we are never in moral situations where this is needed.   The situations that we face are not just black and white, but are far more compicated than that.

Also in this chapter, Midgley discusses competition and states that is it "real, but not limited."  She describes competition in a sense that creatures are always in a competition with each other, especially if they are using the same limited resources.  She also says that this competition is in proportion to the limitation.  With this competition, of the two competing species, one will eventually vanish.  This is evident in the real world because many species are going extint from lack of resources.

Along with this idea of competition, Migley makes a comparison of a hunter and an elephant.  She says a quote that I thought was really disturbing becuase it is completely true for some people.  "An elephant killed for strictly competitive reasons--for necessary meat, or to save crops--ought not to be kept waiting, half-killed, while those in charge have their coffee."  This quote really appealed to me because non-humane people would definately do this, without a doubt.  They would half-way kill the animal and make it suffer just because they can. 

Blog #10

I think Animals and Why They Matter, by Mary Midgley, is pretty interesting so far. In the beginning of her book she starts out discussing the life boat ethic and if it is morally right for us humans to think this way. She explains how the Life Boat ethic does not give you many choices to chose from and how it should be used only if all the other possibilites have been tried before this. The three options that the Life Boat ethic consist of is take all people on board and sink the ship, take only some people, or save yourself and no one else survives. She believes that this is a very selfish way to think and we should use other possiblities before this.

I really liked how she described our society as being very competitive because I think that this is very true. She decribes how competition is a metaphor for our social lives and that can be some what of a problem. I believe some competition is good for people because it can make people want to do better and it gives them a sense of meaning. I also liked the elephant example that Midgley used about the hunter that was bored of hunting smaller animlas so he decided to hunt the giant elephant for the only meaning of hunting and killing it and nothing else. He believed that the elephant was good comeptition to him because he was such a great hunter but the elephant had no involvment in this competition. We strive to always do better than others and to be the best which can also be very harmful to our environment as a whole.

Lifeboat Reconsidered

We first learned about the lifeboat theory from Koha'k in which there were three options, they were save no one, save only a few or save everyone. With Midgley she also has some ideas about the lifeboat theory and those are save everyone or save no one. In the case of the lifeboat theory we are not always in that type of situation in that we need to figure out if we save everyone or don't save everyone. We need to limit the thought of the lifeboat theory and not use the metaphor all the time. With the lifeboat theory I think it canbe a good thing sometimes but it is something that should not be taken so seriously because we are not always going to be in that type of situation where we are going to have to choose who is saved and who is going to die. The idea about the lifeboat can be helpful but I don't agree with what Midgley thinks in that we only have two options in which you can save everyone or save no one.

I agree more with Koha'k in the sense of getting three options becuase even though you don't have the right to decide who is eligable for being saved and who isn't at least the you are able to save some people instead of saving no one. The downside to saving only a few is that your not saving everyone but the effort that is put forth in saving those few people can make a difference by giving them a chance to live longer. Midgley does have the right thought with the diagram of how we look at things which is us vs them, people tend to look at animals as something against us and that we are superior to them and that we are more important then them. We tend to start with ourselves as being in the middle and being the main concern then starting with other things around us.

Blog 10

Once again we visit the Lifeboat model that was introduced to us by Kohak in The Green Halo. In this book, Midgley focuses on the two extreme options we have to choose from - either letting everyone on and sinking the boat, or not saving anyone. This obviously poses a huge dilemma because if you choose the second option, then how could you live with yourself knowing that you possibly caused the death of many individuals. In the first option, you would be attempting to save everyone, but then they would all just die, however you would die with this decision as well.

Midgley also looks at how you would pick people if you could choose a few to save. She says it basically becomes us v. them (or more me v. them) since you can't really decide what "us" includes. She gives us a couple of diagrams of concentric circles to decide how close each group is to us, but then decides that overlapping circles would work much better.

These diagrams kind of confused me, because they didn't include a majority of things and they can't be applied to every single person. Some people would say that personal friends are more of a family to them than their actual family so they would put personal friends ahead of family in the circles.

Although it is hard to make a choice as clear-cut as the lifeboat model asks for, humans all do have a a humane side to them because like she says, it would be difficult to drive down the road and not help a suffering dog, especially if you were the person to hit the dog. For myself, I have an extreme passion for animals and it would be hard to place them before some people even in the human population... I realize this could raise some controversy but that is how I feel.

Finishing out Kohok

I think Kohok finished out his book very smoothly. He got his point across very clearly and with out ridiculing a or saying that any other the out ideas that people have had about ecology. His point that we wants to tell every body with his flanal ecology, is if we want to fix the problems out in the world we need to get our hands dirty.

first 10 new book

With going into our new book, the author gives me the sense that or feel of how the book on animals will go. It is intresting that she did not start putting down her thought about the envirnment and how animals inter act and are treated until she was in her 50.

first 10 new book

Blog #10

Mary Midgly discusses about the lifeboat model. With the lifeboat model there are three different possibilities. The first one is taking on all passengers which is the right thing to do. Second, is to save as many people as possible, and the last thing would be to not save anyone which is the unjust thing to do. She had said that we are forced to the conclusion that we help no one. She then focuses on the idea of competition, how we stress individual competition, meaning me against the world. This whole concept of competition does not really make sense to Midgly, she says it is real and has its place in ways we think about our relationship with others, but we are all members of one another. I agree with her, we should not be in competition with one another we should be there for each other.

Midgly gave an example about a hunter and an elephant. The big question of this example is choosing the hunter or elephant. The hunter had left the animal suffer while he had his coffee, and that is a very humane thing to do. The reason why the hunter killed the elephant is because he wanted the elephants tusk, so it was not for food. The hunter was also bored with hunting deer so he went to something bigger which is an elephant. The lifeboat thinking does not apply in this situation. Mary Midgly had said if it came down to the hunter or elephant she would choose the hunter. She believes we should be there for each other before anything else, even though she did not agree with the hunters actions. I completely agree with her on her decision. I would always pick a humans life over an animals.

I agree more with Midgly's beliefs than I do with Kohaks. Midgly is much easier to understand plus to me it is more humane. I am curious to hear more how Midgly thinks about humans and animals, and also to hear what her beliefs are.

Blog 10-Competition in Society

In the second chapter of Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley discusses the lifeboat model and competition in our society. She mentions how the lifeboat model is really only used in extreme situations as in the movie Titanic as Kohak points out. Therefore, it is a model that can be at times misinterpreted. She presents figures that show how we may go about choosing who is more important to us when it comes to the lifeboat model. For example, it is first me, and then my family, friends and so on. She applies this model as well when we as humans display importance to animals, that it is first us, then the animals.

Midgley also discusses the presence of competition in society. Due to competition, we have developed a sort of monetary value towards animals. That they are only good to make a profit from or else why should they matter. This is why our society has and will continue to use them for animal experimentation, factory farming, and even entertainment. Other than that, it would appear that animals are nothing else to us as humans on the whole. That our competitive attitudes have caused us to think in this manner. Such as in the case of the elephant and the hunter. Was the elephants life less important than the hunters pleasure?

So far, Midgley has presented good arguments regarding humans and their views towards animals and like Kohak, it is difficult to dispute against them. However, it good to discuss her arguments in class because it can be difficult to understand her arguments at times. So I agree with Midgley in that if we didn't have such a competitive society, perhaps the environment would be treated with more respect.

blog #4

In the beggining of this section it talks a lot about vegetarianism and about causing the least amount of pain towards the animal and plants of the earth as possible. The point of being a vegetarian, is to not participate in the evil that exists in this world. Therefore, you would have a clean conscience. But, even as a vegetarian, you are still killing plants. The point however, is to cause the least amount of pain and torture in this world. Regarding this topic, I myslef am not a vegetarian nor will I ever be. I do consume a lot of meant and have no guilty conscience of it. I do feel terrible when you bring up that cows are being injected with steroids and are left stuvk in a cage without walking around just so that the meat is extra tender. I believe in what the indians did. As long as we do not waste what we kill or consume then consuming is not a problem. However, I know that in today's society we waste a lot and the people in the U.S. consume 25% of the earth's goods. The fact that you told us in class, that a child in the U.S. will consume 15 times as much as a child in anothe country, is uncomprehendible.
Another intersting point in this section is that it says that one person can make a difference. Everybody in the population is made up of (I) individuals. Therefore what you do can make a triple effect in the society. For example if you decide to walk to work or take the train, you are preventing someone else from taking a car and polluting the earth.
Bernard Rollin presents his topic in the same case as Singer. He believes that animals and people are different in that humans are more superior. This does not mean that we can treat animals like garbage. The main difference that he presents is that humans have freedom and animals do not. The most powerful statement that he presents is that the benefit of the experiment must outweigh the damage involved.
Another big topic in this section is consumerism. Consumerism can basicly be sumed up by the word greed. Not just in our society do we see consumerism, but in the rest of the world. We go by the more things we have, the more powerful we are as an individual. In my opinion this is the wrong way to go about being the most powerful,but i do it. I have purchased a cell phone, car, ipod, boat, etc. All of these things i do not need but i bought them anyway. I am not sure that if purchasing an ipod could have forced the Apple company to expand their business and create a factory by tearing down trees and the homes of many animals and plants.
Evernden states that humans stand out of nature by our very nature. He means that we surround oursleves by a so-called wall of technology. Most of us have computers and television sets. We all have houses with walls blocking the sounds and movement of nature. The more we technologically advanced we become, the more we will stand out of nature. Evernden presents one of the strongest discussions in the book.

Blog #3

The strongest statement in this section is, "Civilization depends on the exploitaion but cannot justify it." This means that the human civilization has to take/destroy parts of nature of the earth in order to increase a higher standard of living. There are three responses to this dilemma. The first is to refuse all limitations that animal suffering is natural and necessary to gain higher standards. The second is to declare that different animals are different but they are equal. This means that we would refuse to participate in cruelty in any way. The third way is to find compromises. Satisfy our needs no matter what gets in the way, but we would try to be reasonable to towards the cruelty of the animals.
Overall, I think that our society is leaning towards the third dilemma. Our society does not try to exterminate animals for no reason. Almost all of the time it is for profit/greed.
I have known a certain area my whole life where there was beautiful land with a great big white house in the middle of the plantation. The "people" wrecked the land and tore down the house in order to build apartments. There use to be deer on that land every day and know there are none. The land is no longer beautiful and i just past by it without noticing it. My example here is that we mainly tear down forests and land to build factories or whatever for our own greed.
Peter Singer has a very interesting point of view in this section of the book. He does not necessarily love animals, but he believes that we should treat them with the same respect that we do for humans. Just because dogs cannot express words, does that mean they don't feel pain? He also expresses that we are racists towards each other. We ignore others needs because we only look out for ourselves. Overall, i would have to agree with Singer. He presents his idea strongly and he backs it up. He considers all cruelty to animals utterly unacceptable and refuses to be a part of it.

Competition is Real but Limited

In this reading Midgley brought up the idea of the lifeboat model and competition and how humans face the idea of these two components. Midgley presents the lifeboat model and how humans deal with dilemmas that are presented when it comes to saving people. There are three options of the lifeboat model; 1. take on all passengers 2. save as many people as possible 3. do nothing to help save anyone. Midgley stated that individuals seem to be in competition with each other all of the time. However she is not sure why because we are all in the same. All individuals have resources and imaginations. Midgley suggest that we should think of each others as allies. I agree with Midgley because if we weren't always competing with one another people could help each other strengthen ones weaknesses.

In the section THE COMPLEXITY OF MORAL CLAIMS Midgley describes four different figures that hit on the lifeboat model. The first figure relates to helping only the people that are closest to you and then if there is more room for say help the rest of them. Figure four suggest we must look at every situation or claim which happens to concern our problem or choice. She gave an example of a human and an animal being hurt on the side of the road. She went on to say that individuals will always stop and help a human or animal if they are hurt. Competition doesn't play a toll in a situation like this. She insinuates that we are not in a lifeboat situation all of the time and competition doesn't always need to play a part.

I believe that Midgley's readings are easier to understand compared to Kohak. I am looking forward to hear more of Midgley's explanations on her ideas of ecology. The class lectures which are held after the readings help clear up exactly what the reading was hoping for one to get out of the information.

Blog #10

Mary Midlgley brings back up the concept of a lifeboat. However, she changes the way we think about it. She focuses on the idea of competition and how competition structures the lives of humans. It is built into our way of thinking. The one example she gave is the story of the hunter and the elephant. The hunter was hunting for tusks and just for pleasure and self satisfaction of killing an elephant. She raised the question as to whether or not the elephants life is more important than the hunters pleaseure.

I agree with the fact that life is more important than pleasure for any circumstances. Midgley really helped to put that into perspective for me. One thing that also helped to understand and picture in my mind how we has humans kind of think are the graphs that she placed in the book. It helped to bring a real picture to my mind and understand Midgley's point more clearly.

I feel the entire concept that Midgley was trying to get her audiance to grasp during the part of the reading was that humans should not always want to be in competion mode. Competing structures our lives, but instead of competing we should overlap our interest. I understood this to mean that instead of competing we should think what is morally correct. Once again back to the hunter and elephant story. Yes the hunter wanted the tusk, but the elephants life was more important than the hunters pleasure. This goes for many other things in life as well. If we would just think before some of our actions and quit competing and just be at peace and satisfied with what we had, then it would be a start to fixing the idea of man verse nature.

Competition is Real but Limited

In this section Midgley brings up the idea of the lifeboat model and competition and how humans face the idea of these two together. Midgley presents the lifeboat model and how humans deal with dilemmas that are presented when it comes to saving people It deals with the idea of nearness and distant. The idea of nearness is to only save the ones near to you and let the distant ones to fend for themselves. Humans may all be in competition with one another but according to Midgley it doesn't make sense because we are all members of one another. According to Midgley competition will always be present, but she says the lifeboat model doesn't deal with competition because it draws a sharp line at negotiation.

As I said before, Midgley deals with the idea of nearness and distant with regards to completion and who we have closer claims to. The people closet to us of course would get the most respect and the ones distant to us would always be last in line. This relationship of course brings up the idea of selfishness and how we think of only ourselves and the ones closest to us first. Midgley agrees with that idea because that is how most people think in terms of who we care about first. But I like the idea of Midgley when she says that nearness cant be the only way people think about life. I like this idea because when it comes to an event where we don't know someone and they are strangers to us like in the example of The Good Samaritan. For example Midgley states "First sharp competition is not always present. And second, there are plenty of other claims which can, on occasion, outweigh nearness" p. 23

Blog 10

This chapter in Midgley involves the lifeboat ethic. Until now, I never really thought about her view which is humans are very rarely in lifeboats. None of us are ever totally in a situation in which we are so isoloated and independant that competition dominates. The use of this model is just an excuse humans make when we dont feel like dealing with the problems.
I really enjoyed Midgleys section called "Nature is not always red in tooth and claw". In this section she says that cut throat competition between species in the law of evolution is false. I would whole heartldy agree with her here. If anything, nature is very interdependant on each other. Each species has its own gap and job to fullfill in the ecosystem. Midgly points out that people used to beleive that they were so culturally flexible that they could live anywhere. The human race however has not found that to be true. In our effort to increase the resources we used, we destroyed the competitors that we saw against us. These would be insects, rodents, deer etc. Humans have also been the cause of crazy unnatural events like the dust bowl because of our greed for resources.
I thought it interesting that Midgley says there are cases in which competition between people and other species is unavoiadable. The one that she brings up is eating meat but there are other examples like deer or bugs eating crops. I again agreed with her on what I feel is an important point; that of competition not giving us the license to kill anything and all that we please. It is horrible, I think, that people would kill sharks, chop off their fins, and throw them back in the water. Not only is it wasteful but it is inhuman and cruel.

A Modern Frakenstein... kind of.

Since we're on the topic of animals and how they should be regarded, I just wanted to know what everyone thought about a topic that's bee in the news lately... that is, if you read the nerdy-type news that I do. So, the USDA has recently approved, among other mistakes, a genetically "enhanced" salmon for commercial production. That is, this breed of salmon has had its genetic code tampered with such that it gets bigger faster, a veritable frankenfish meant for consumption.

My personal concern revolves around the inevitable escape of this fish from the aquaculture facilities in which it is bred and raised (because they always escape) and the subsequent upset of the ecosystem into which it swims. Not only do these superfish pose a threat to wild salmon and other fish via competition, but they also pose the risk of fertilizing wild fish eggs, thereby "contaminating" wild populations with their laboratory-grown genetic material.

So... what is your opinion on this? Should humans custom-tailor our livestock? Do we have the right to engineer animal species? Do we have the right to, in turn, patent these animals (because we do, you know).

Blog 10 - Moderate Midgley

In Animals and Why They Matter, Mary Midgley gives a very balanced and logical view on environmental issues. She stays away from any extreme, be it radical traditionalism or environmentalism. Midgley is a firm advocate for animal rights, but she is not blinded by any ideology. She realizes that there is a middle ground to every issue, and this makes her very influential and respectable.

When the issue of competition is brought up, she has a very acceptable view point on the situation. When first reading this chapter, I became alarmed when I thought she would take the stance that in a dire situation, it is not right to save a family member over another person or animal. Midgley admits that there are special duties based on kinship and that to deny this, the person would be “muddled” (p.23). She balances this out with the fact that there will not always be competition, so then you can help others who are “farther down the queue” from you. She also believes that there are situations that arise where helping another overrides kinship bonds. She supported this with the story of the Good Samaritan, which really established this point with me. Also, Midgley’s view on eating meat is something I could actually conform too. I know I could never take meat out of me diet, but her belief that if everyone could lessen the amount of meat they consume, it would make a large difference is an idea that would be plausible to many more people. This is an idea that I could make part of my life.

Midgley moderate view points make it easy for a person who is not overly concerned with animal rights to buy into her ideas. It is hard for someone who has never thought of animals as equals to suddenly adopt ideas that animal activists hold. But mild view points such as lessening the amount of meat you consume and protesting against factory farming and needless animal experimentation are plans that can easily be adopted into a style of living for many more people.

Blog 10

In Animals and Why They Matter, Mary Midgley conceded that there is a point where conflict between Human Beings and animals is unavoidable as opposed to Kohak she believes eating meat is wrong. It seems more realistic for her to acknowledge that eating meat is an acceptable behavoir; however, it seems to her that animals should only be killed "if only by starvation- by people who mean to survive". She does continue to clarify that while compitition may give a liscence to kill, it does not give a license "for what may be called refinements of the process", for any animal killed for competitive reason or necessary meat should not be left half dead while those in wait finish their coffee. This is not different thatn Kohak's deep distaste for factory farming. The animals in these farms should kept in reasonable conditions and not forced to live in deplorable conditions waiting to be raped of their milk eggs or even their lives. Between the two I did see similarity between the attitudes of equality when it comes to animals, but again Midgely is a little more realistic when it comes to the idea. Human kind will never be able to accept that things like ameoba are just as valuable to earth as a person and as she said it could be rightfully so. I think she makes a valuable point whenit comes to the way we treat our environment, aimlessly tossing pesticides into trying to eliminate the need for compition when in reality it destroys environments and increases the rates of compitition.

midgley #10

Midgely begins this chapter speakng of our responsibility towards animals. She presents the arguement that there are not enough resources for the human species, and if there were, then some of it would be given to animals as well. Midgely does not agree with life boat ethics, beacuse "it tends to generate bad faith" (20). We often have many more options that we can choose than just one option that life boats ethics describes. She does not think that life boat ethics is realistic, and that it is never the case. Everyone does not need to be competitors for life or resouces, there can be a unity to help each other out. She states that "competition is not the basic law of life" (21). Everyone is unique and individual, but no one would be able to survive with out eachother; we need each other to live.

In the next section, Midgely tells the story of the Good Samaritan, and how the "good samaritan" took the time to help a stranger who injured on the side of the road. This story depicts our responsibility in the world not only being to ourself and those we know, but to all others around us, especially those who need help. She states that in a time of crisis we usually go to help those closest to us first, but this does not mean our help stops there. Competition is not the driving force; therefore, we should be able to help others that are strangers, or even a different species. Natural selection is a theory that presents competition as the underlying force of survival. Midgely says that there is error in this theory being competition, related to this theory, exists mainly within species, and evolutiuon goes on despite competitive behavior. Instead of competition, mutual dependenc is required to continue life.

Midgely realizes that competition is inevitable sometimes, but it is wrong when we believe that it gives us a licence to kill, prefering human interest to an animal one. She states that when animal interests are put first, those people are seen as eccentrics. Even actions that are done, which better animal treatment, are done for human reasons. Midgely uses the exampls of vegetarianism becoming more popular, but the reason is because it is seen to be healthier in many ways for humans, rather than because it prevents the killing of animals. Meat-eating and vegetarianism have two different typer of sybolism behind them; one symbolizing the conquering of life, and the other death. Midgely uses several diagrams to depict competition and who we would save first. The center is ourselves, and the farthest is the biosphere. I think this is a good depiction of how the world works today; however, there can be variations. When we are able to put others before ourselves and make sacrifices to create a better world, then there will be an imporvement to life.

Blog #10

Mary Midgley starts off the second chapter of her book, Animals and Why They Matter, with a discussion of lifeboat ethics. In Midgley's opinion, the lifeboat scenario is not accurate because we rarely, if ever, find ourselves in such drastic situations that we can do absolutely nothing to try and help ourselves and others. She does not dismiss the seriousness of the ecological problems we are facing, but she states that we are not at a point where we should be deciding to just leave other beings (namely animals) behind to suffer and die off in the name of "self-preservation." I agree with what Midgley is saying. I do not think we should give up yet and just assume that we cannot to anything to better our situation, we should keep trying to find solutions.

Midgley also talks a lot about competition in this chapter and about whether or not it is natural for us to apply this "us vs them" mentality to animals. One thing I really liked about Midgley's take on it is that she seems to have a moderate viewpoint. She says that of course kinship and closeness play a role in who (or what) we want to "save," and that is OK (unlike some thinkers who claim we should put the same value on animals as we would our own children). However, Midgley also says that sometimes the needs of animals outweigh our own, and that should be taken into account (unlike those who believe humans should always be a higher priority than animals). For example, when using the elephanticide example from the first chapter, Midgley states that the elephant's need for humane treatment should outweigh the human's desire for "pleasure" while killing it. I really like this way of thinking because it is reasonable. It is not too conservative (only value humans) and not too liberal (no distinction between humans and animals). I think this appeals to me because it emphasizes that humans are innately good. Midgley states that almost all humans would abide by this principle instinctively, which gives me hope for humanity - something that some other philosophers seem t to want to take away.

Blog 9

At the end of his book Kohak brings up his view which he calls "flannel ecology". The attitude of a flannel ecologist is one of a person who feels we are missing the point if we try to find the right attitude to have. They would feel that we need to see the true merits of each approach and kinda mesh them together. When the author says this, he means that if we are exclusivily for one type of thought, then we miss the point entirely. If we are to take an exclusivly objectified approach of subjuctivity, the this would lead to narcissem which means that you can't see anything beyond yourself. On the opposite end, if we are to take and exclusivly objectivist approach, this would lead to thinking in the abstract- for example that we can make a technology to solve everything. Overall, flannel ecology brings the best of both worlds together.
Kohak mentions that flannel ecology is for everyone, but we first must break out of our ideologies. Personally I think this true. Ideology is the "ideal way to think" or that false consciousness that people share. Many times it feels like people are so caught up in the small details that the larger and more important picture seems to fade out and become fuzzy. Flannel ecology calls for the "refocusing" of our minds to get the broad picture.

#10

In chapter 2 of Competition is Real but Limited, Midgley brings up two approaches which are a sensitive approach and a realistic approach. She also concentrates on the "Lifeboat Theory" throughout this chapter in which I will mention. Midgley brings up that, "there is not enough of everything for human beings. If there were enough, it might be nice to give something to animals too." (p.20). This is when Midgley starts to talk about the lifeboat model.

With this model, there seems to be only one choice. Midgely believes that lifeboat situations "can do nothing, either to increase existing resources or to distribute them better." (p.20). She also brings up the idea of mine and yours. We as humans do not want to share, and some of us only think about ourselves, and this is where the lifeboat theory comes into play. In the end we normally only save ourselves.

On p. 29, she give diagram representing claims and loyalties, and if given the opportunity who would we save. Of course it starts of as saving ourselves first, next being family, then personal friends, etc. I can honestly say that most of us would do this including myself. I would want to save myself first, then my family, then my close friends. I can disagree with this too because if I had a younger sibling, I would want to save them before I would even think of myself. Midgley brings up a good point, and I enjoy talking about the lifeboat theory. Midgley believes that despair gives rise to lifeboat theory, and I believe we should live life without regrets.

Midgley - Competition

In chapter 2, Midgley refers to the lifeboat model and immediately states how we have two options. One is to heave all people into the boat, thus saving everyone. The other option is to let the whole boat sink, thus saving no one. These two options seem like the simple and obvious answers to the dilemma, however, as Midgley further expresses - it is not such a simple dilemma after all. She states that the lifeboat model attempts to standardize our moral relations to our fellow-beings around a single simple model (19). I agree with this, in that such a prominent issue in today's world can not be dealt with by a model. Other aspects need to be considered and one must not focus on one solution.

Midgley focuses a lot on competetion in today's society and how ultimately, the humans are in competetion with animals. As described in the story about the elephant killing, humans seek to kill their compettion because it is seen as an opponent. In my opinion, it reveals that everyone is trying to be saved which is why everyone struggles to survive, even if it results in taking another life. However, Midgley goes on to say that humans often help their family or people they are close with, yet we are all in the same boat and competeting with eachother. That being said, it does seem rather silly that we are incompetition; what is the point of discriminating between animals, random people, and close relationships in terms of competeting with these people/animals. If we are all in the same position and dealing with the same issues, it seems like we are, in essence, relying on one another to survive. As Midgley states, "We are indeed individuals, but ones who could not exist if we had not been brought up in groups..." (21).

I found it interesting how Midgley compared the relationships with others through the concentric arrangements. To me, it seems like all the problems get back to individual's greed and self-centered nature. As Midgley put it, the problem stems from not understanding the claims of "yours" and learning how conflicts can be arbitrated (22-23). I also found it interesting how she explained that it seems in emergency situations we would stop to help others but in everyday life we tend to draw the line and decide who we want to pay attention to/help. This again gets back to the competition level and leads to relative dismissal which ultimately leads to absolute dismissal. What is needed is a sense of compatibility among all creatures and the understanding that competition will only lead to destruction.

Blog #10

In the section, Competition is Real but Limited, Mary Midgley discusses the idea of lifeboat ethics and the ultimate question of our reactions toward others; does this idea of lifeboat ethics cancel out generous actions toward and the rights of other humans, and if so, where does that place animals (already seen as very low in human consideration) on the list for demands of the world’s resources? Midgley argues that the first problem with the lifeboat ethic is that it turns all people into useless and meaningless mouths to feed, not allies, friends and helpers. Secondly, she argues that this ethic poses the idea that all resources are truly limited (which is usually not the case – a small group of individuals consume much of the world’s resources). Lastly, Midgley argues that this viewpoint points to the fact that those closest to us are those that receive first priority and consideration when dividing resources. As she points out later in the chapter, these lines of kinship can become easily blurred – leading one to become confused over who is the closest to them.
Midgely concedes that competition, even competition as drastic as the lifeboat ethic suggests, does occur in some areas of the world, but that humans do not have to see other humans and animals as only main competitors for resources – they can also be friends and allies. Midgley describes various examples within the animal world where interdependence, not death and pruning of resources, helps the animals to live better lives. And even in the instances when killing is justified, killing should be done and quick manner – not the way described in Cumming’s journal. The main task for humans to realize today is that while competition and differences in species may be natural, men must realize that the world is no longer a struggle between man and beast but a rather a state of interdependence.
I thought that Midgley’s writings, if understood correctly, seemed very reasonable and understandable. Midgley did not seem interested in drilling a point or thought into my head, but rather showing me many different ways of thinking and decoding the world around me. I especially liked the way that she showed the concentric circles of human relationships when describing the lifeboat ethic. It really showed just how complicated the seemingly simple statements of the lifeboat ethic could become.

Blog 10-Absolute vs Relative Dismissal

In the first chapter of, Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley discusses the issues of animals and the way they are viewed and treated in today's society. A section of the reading that stood out to me was the section discussing the differences between absolute and relative dismissal. Absolute dismissal is the mindset that has no regard or emotions towards animals. Humans with this view don't care at all for animals and think of them more like machines than actual living things. Relative dismissal is the mindset that recognizes animals and that they are a part of nature. However, they are not as important as humans are. They are are relatively last on the list of importance in nature.

Midgley discusses how no one can really possess the absolute dismissal idea because everyone feels something when they see an animal being slaughtered or killed. The only times when this kind of mindset is put into practice is when arguing practical purposes of animals such as animal experimentation. Midgley points this out when professors are asked about whether the killing of animals for experimentation is ethical. The professors responses were, "why should they matter?"

As a Biology major, I have and will continue to perform experiments on animals for the purpose of increasing my knowledge about concepts of their anatomy and physiology. However, I can assure that the animals used are treated in a respectful manner and are euthanized in a humane matter. This may not justify the uses of animals in experimentation, but unless new methods are developed, this is the only way to learn. I am open to new methods such as interactive 3D models or something like that but this will never be the same to actual practice. But, until then, animal experimentation will continue for the time being in my career.

Flannel Ecology

In the book by Koha'k he talks about the idea of flannel ecology and how it is something that involves people being able to notice that there is a problem in the environment and then fixing that problem. The main idea that we need to knowledge that there is a problem with the environment and then fix those problems would help our environment in the long run in that we can then hopefully extend the life of our resources. With the other ecological philosophies is that they are great concepts but there is something missing from each one of them and that if someone accepts anyone of them there will be something missing from each one.

The book was interesting in that it kind of shed some light about things that happen in our society and how our ethical views can affect how we look at things. It was a different type of book but it was good at the same time and Koha'k was able to show the environmental problems that we have and how our ethical views affect them.

Blog 9 - Postscript

Reading the very first section of the postscript where Kohak says not to read this section surprised me, and got me thinking, I wonder what could possibly be in this section that he wouldn't want us to read his thoughts after reading his entire book. Thankfully we were assigned this section because instead of it being straight information about beliefs, I actually liked the personal insight we got from the author of this entire book. He raised more questions in this section that I could personally relate to -- for instance, when he asks if the US is the problem because we are the ones that continue to consume.

Kohak also goes back to his thought on "flannel ecology" and clears some of the confusion up for me at least. Not only is he telling us we have to go out and do something about the problem, but he is trying to educate us about the problem. That is a major thing he is addressing -- the fact that the problem may not be that we are careless and don't want to help, but instead that we are ignorant of the problem and we don't exactly understand it.

In order to solve a part of the problem, Kohak gives us two options -- consume less or produce more. This is where we have to step in and think about what each choice would give us as a result. Obviously the most ethical choice would be to consume less, but that is easier said than done. Even if we make a personal choice to consume less, America (in particular) pushes a consumer society. Because of this, it is hard to consume less while every one around us is telling us we should consumer more. We would be considered the black sheep, the minority, of the states, and just like other races it is hard to stand out against the majority.

However, if we produce more that is making us want to consume more, which is the less ethical option. Also, a lot of problems that people have are the thoughts that, I am only one person, how can I change the world. If we would just forget this problem and think like the person on the beach saving a couple starfish, we would be more likely to try and consume less.

Postscript

The book The Green Halo was a very interesting book, nothing like I have ever read before. I liked how Kohak ended the book with his own views on ecological philosophy. I enjoyed reading about Kohak's experiences of ecology that were talked about in the postscript. I found his story of how he lived in a home on a homestead to be very interesting. He stated that his concern was to show that cultivated life does not need to be more economical or ecologically costly to the earth.

Kohak goes on to describe all of the aspects of the house such as; the lights were oil lamps, and how he used a cool cellar as his refrigerator. Kohak does not believes that by just using some of these methods such as oil lamps and wood stoves etc. that the ecological crisis would end. I agree very strongly with Kohak. I believe that our society is very focused on technology and disregards the concerns for a better environment.

Kohak also asked a question which grabbed my attention, which was “Are we, the over consuming ecoterrorists, willing to change our ways so that we could preserve what is truly significant and extend it to all humans?”. This question really got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that the majority of society over consumes and they are not willing to change their ways. Kohak states that over-consumption is the most dangerous problem to ecology. I believe that this is true and not many individuals are going to be willing to cut back on their consumptions because most people believe they can have what they want. Kohak stated that an intimate experience with nature opens ones eyes, however many individuals don’t get that experience. I am looking forward to the next book that we have to read, and learning other philosophers views.

Blog 9-Postcript

In the last section of, The Green Halo, Kohak gives more of his perspective of the environmental problems present in today's society and discusses a little more about his "flannel ecology" and how we as humans can change the over consuming ideology present in our society. Kohak respects the views and conclusions that he has shared with us throughout the novel and feels that's its important to teach them to others who are "ecologically illiterate." This part of his "flannel ecology." That instead of allowing people be ignorant towards ecologist and their efforts and to nature as well, we should try to educate them so that they can be aware of the issues.

Kohak also calls for us to do work towards improving the environment such as cleaning a river or lake to planting a tree. Though this a small community thing we could do, if other small communities around the world would take part, then a bigger effect would be the outcome. But, if we continue with our over consuming views, all the work will be in vain. So the biggest challenge of all would be to change the attitudes towards nature. The views of the "ecologically illiterate" are something that will be difficult to change since it has been a part of their entire life, but the more aware they are, the more likely they are prone to change. Though it will be a change that will take time, it needs to take place as quick as possible.

Before reading, The Green Halo, I had no idea how serious the ecological present were. I didn't care much for nature and I showed it too by driving my car as much as I can and not throwing away my trash in a trashcan, things like gum wrappers were just thrown on the ground. And whoever drove one of those hybrid cars, I would regard them as tree huggers or nature freaks. As as a biology major, I was taught that experimenting on animals was ok but it really isn't. I had even killed a groundhog that was just simply looking for food in my backyard. After reading this book, I have developed a much greater respect towards nature and have a much greater understanding of the ecological problems we as humans face and that it is up to us to change or else we will be forced to. We must learn to, as Kohak says, "tread lightly upon the earth."

Blog #9

Kohak had said, "Ecological philosophy is not an ideology but an effective response to the threat and destruction of life on this Earth." (Kohak, 155) This is why flannel ecology is very practical for him. Flannel ecology is to get the work done, and flannel ecologist will use subjectivizing, and objectivity ecology to make a change on this Earth. Subjectivizing Ecology comes from narcissism, where you cannot see the world outside yourself, and this reflects our attitudes towards nature. Obectivizing Ecology is ones from turning into abstractions.

Ecological Literacy is where we do not know what we are doing. Kohak believes that Americans are th worst at overconsuming, and thinks it comes from ignorance. If we tried to see ourselves as the rest of the world sees us, I believe that we humans would realize what we are doing wrong. We are used to overconsuming, and to stop it would be very difficult. This is why I agree with what flannel ecologists do. They get out there and will try and make a change rather than waiting on somebody to do it. If we are ignorant on what we are doing, then we need somebody to show us what we are doing, but if nobody tells then nobody knows.

There are two options that we have is to either produce more or to have less. I believe the demands we make on the environment need to be less for their to be change. We do not need more, we already have too much. People will never realize what they are doing to their surroundings if they have more coming to them. I also feel if we have less things, we will appreciate them more than if we had an abundance of things. I agree with what Kohak believes.

blog # 9

I found it interesting that Kohaks goes back to the aspect of "flannel ecology." He describes flannel ecology to be getting to work and doing something about the negative effects human have on nature. Flannel ecology means to get to work and and not sit back and watch and just hope for something to happen. I was fascinated by the story of his father and how he had to stare at a white wall for hours on end and he had never been so excited to see a fly. It really made me go back and think about my experiences with annoying creatues or bugs. I am always swatting flys away or smacking at them, but I never took the time to sit down and watch one. Flys could probably being very interesting and they deserve room here on earth too.

This reading that we had to do just really made me think of my own experiences and if or how I respect nauture and interact with the earth. I can say that I love to camp and hike and do things in nature, but I have never lived for a long period of time without running water or electricity or a refrigerator. It would probably be a pretty fun experiences though. However, not many humans could live like that because Kohak brings up the question to wether or not we are "overconsuming ecoterrorists." He asks if we are willing to change our ways to preserve what is truly significant rather than just our wants. I like that statment that Kohak mentions and I would have to say that I think we do overconsume and agree that to change it takes modesty and justice rather than greed.

Kohak also mentions two strategies on how we could resolve the crisis. They were more effective technology or less demanding humanity. Therefore, we either need to desire less or produce more. In my opinion, I think that we need to desire less. There is no reason for us to keep producing more when we already have an abbundance of so many things in this world. His way of describing it was really intriuging. So to sum it all up, it is all about how we can interact with nature so that we can live in harmony.

Movie

The movie about the Kestrel's was very intresting but at the same time agonizingly slow and I found my self driffing off into a day dream. I got that the area that the Kestrel was living in was a very slow passed town. Kind of like how the kestrel lived. The bird had a daily rutien to it kind of like the humans it was watching. We as humans observe animals but do we ever think that the animals observe us in the same way. This movie to me came accross in that way.

Deep nand Shallow

With deep and shallow ecology and the way our society sees our state of affairs when it comes to the enviorment is some times very sad. Instead of looking at a scource of recourse that can replenish it self it put in the right messure so future resources will be their. All because it will cost more money is not the right mentality.

Postscript

I like how in the end of the book, Kohak finally decides to end with his views and ideas on the aspects of ecological philosophy. When Kohak says the purpose of ecological thought is the thought of practice and what humans need to do in order to respect the integrity of the earth and human race. Kohak continues to say that injustice is the root of the problem and the idea of lowering overconsumption and overpopulation. I'm not a firm be liver of lowering the overpopulation because I was brought up to believe that the world will always be populated, and yes some people may go a little far and consume far more than what they need, but in reality everybody does that even without thinking it.

I like how Kohak puts his experiences of ecology into play during his postscript. They play a big role because it gives the reader another idea to think about, and how the way they think today may possibly be because of environmental experiences. I also like the way he says that these experiences shapes the way he thinks about the environment today. A small little event can change a person's life forever and the way we think about animals and nature. Kohaks states that his experience caused him to appreciate it and not be alienated from nature like humans today. I really liked how he said that he doesn't believe the crisis can solved with oil lamps and wood stoves. I found this interesting because some of the philosophers we were presented with wanted humans to drop their normal habits and change. For example to stop eating meat and become a vegetarian. Kohak realizes that we are humans and can't revert back to the old ways of not overconsuming. Kohak believes we need to change our way of thinking and try to steer away from events that could cause a catastrophe.

To steer away from a catastrophe will take some time but more effective technology and less demanding humanity will help with the idea of crisis of demands and possibilities. The real crisis is that humans are demanding more than we can satisfy. If humans want to change the way we think about overconsumption, then we need to act locally, and show empathy not only towards humans around us but also to the nonhuman world. Overall I don't think that Kohak ever fully comes out with his idea on environmental ethics, but I do think he presents the reader with different views to the reader and disagree or agree with certain points.

Blog #9

In the postscript, there was a question that really stuck out to me.  "Are we, the overconsuming ecoterrorists, willing to change our ways so that we could preserve what is truly significant and extend it to all humans?  Once again, Kohak goes back to the idea of overcomnsumption in the American population and once again he pin points us (humans) directly as the problem. Kohak states that overconsumption is the first ecological danger and overpopulation is the second.  With these two "ecological dangers" continuing to increase, then the answer to the question above is a NO.

The answer of the question above comes from Kohak describing his experiences with nature that shifted him to his "flannel" ecology.  Kohak states that "an intimate encounter with nature opens a person to it, teaches empathy, and so provides motivation for ecological activism.  Kohak mentions numerous occurrances where his intimate experiences with nature helped shaped his ecological beliefs to this day.  He describes his days when he lived in a house and only used what was needed.  He states that he remained in his tight budget, yet lacked nothing that he needed to survive. 

In relation to the situation above, I believe that most American individuals are too comfortable today to consider cutting back.  We are so used to the idea of having anything and everything we want, that we do not think about our actions and the harmful results that could occur.  As said above, Kohak believes it takes an intimate experience in order for any change to our norms to be altered.  However, for most of us, that will never occur because we are too busy to take the time and admire the beauty of nature because that is just the way of life in this day and time. 

Blog 9 - Ecological Illiteracy

In the postscript, Kohak mentions moments in his life that were profound ecological experiences. These experiences helped to shape his view on environmental ethics into what they are today. This made me consider my life and if there have been any momentous occasions that have made me feel sympathetic towards nature and change my over-consuming ways. I have had many wondrous encounters with the beauty of nature, but have never even thought about changing how I live. The main reason for this is because I didn’t know there was a different way too live.

Ecological literacy. My lack of this is the reason I have never considered my way of life as detrimental to nature or that nature was in peril at all. This is the reason that even my most breath taking encounter with nature was not enough to change my ways. This moment was when I was hiking up to the peak of Mt. Rogers (VA) in the rain and the mist, through a thick forest. After many hours of unpleasant weather, the rain stopped and I finally emerged from the thick undergrowth onto a rock ledge that dropped 200 feet. On top of that rock ledge I could see many miles in all directions. I watched the rain clouds start to dissipate and the sun finally broke through in rays that would make a younger child say “heaven’s light is shining through”. If I knew the situations that nature faced, I would have deeply contemplated how I could help change things, but instead I was ecologically illiterate at the time. I believe this is a major problem that needs to be addressed if society is to be changed into a culture that is sustainable.

It is sad to think that my first exposure to environmental ethics is when I am already in college. Kohak’s novel, The Green Halo, has really made me consider what is to become of this world. In one of my science classes I hear people in discussions say that it is better to experiment on guinea pigs than on apes, because they are “more developed” or that “they are just guinea pigs, who cares if they die in experiments”. These are sentiments I know I would have agreed with or stated myself before I read this book. Now I realize that is just ignorant talk from ecological illiterate people. It is the same presuppositions I held that there is a hierarchy in this world that should be blatantly apparent to everyone. I realize the flaw in this thinking now, because as Kohak put it, all life is “different but equal”.

Blog #9

Kohak finishes his book with a summary of his feelings on the matter of ecological ethics. He states that normally he does not offer his opinions because he feels it is his job to educate others, and their job to make up their own minds about where they stand on the issues. This stood out to me because it is a classy position to take, trying not to force his opinions on others. I don't think he was entirely successful in that respect in this book, but I do believe he tried, which does make a difference in my mind.

Kohak states that although he has learned from all the theories he mentioned throughout the book, the theories that advocate doing something as opposed to just sitting around waiting for our demise have always appealed to him. He says that philosophers such as Leopold and Schweitzer hold special places in his heart because he sympathizes most with their viewpoints.

I enjoyed reading this final section of Kohak's book because it was nice to finally learn what he really thinks after all this time (although, one could argue that he wasn't too detailed about his own beliefs). I agree with him that a philosophy of "flannel ecology" - a theory that encourages action - is the most attractive of all the philosophies he presented. I prefer to believe there is hope for the world and that with some hard work, we can all make a difference for the better. Kohak states a few times that we need to both improve our technology and lessen our demands. I agree with that because with those two factors working together, I think we have a shot a fixing all that we've broken. I disagree, though, with the idea that to limit our demands we should limit our numbers. I had trouble deciding if Kohak was implying he was supportive of population control, but either way I disagree with the idea. Educating people across the world about family planning, yes. But I don't think I could ever support a system like they have in China where families are allowed only a certain amount of children. Besides, like Kohak stated, most of the demand comes from the rich of the world, and their numbers aren't growing as rapidly as the rest. So the real challenge is going to be getting all those who are used to over consumption (myself included) to adapt to a simpler way of life.

Blog #8

In this section of the book, Kohak adressed the GAIA Hypthesis by James Lovelock which suggests that "the earth is a self- regulating superoraganism which is an organic response in maintaining an internal environment." Others viewed the GAIA Hypthesis in a different way and they believed that the GAIA hypothesis was not based on just life but mother earth. I really enjoyed reading James Lovelock's GAIA Hyothesis because it is more about the biological views of earth and is really intersting to read about.

postscript

Throughout the book, Kohak interprets a variety of philosophers' views on ecological ethics, how humans should treat the world around us, and where our place in it fits. He presents each theory or idea from a third person point of view, avoiding to add his own input until the end. In the postscript, we are finally able to understand where Kohak stands. "I love this Earth...I rejoice in all that is and...I dread wanton destruction and vain perishing" (155). Kohak, like all of the other philosophers, loves the Earth and life, and disagrees with vain consumerism and destruction of such a beautiful gift. He reveals his support for "flannel" ecology which seeks the practice of treading lightly on the earth, respecting it and taking care of it. He states that overconsumption and overpopulation may be the two driving forces that are leading to the destruction of the earth and its resources. The problem is that we do not know, or fully understand what we are actually doing, and by becoming aware of our actions' effects, the problem can be reduced.

Kohak shares with us his own personal testimonies that led him to his decision about our role in the world. Both of his stories about the fly caused me to think twice about how I treat another creature, even something so small and numerous as flies.
Kohak continues to agree with the philosophers that Earth simply can not handle all of the demands that we are creating. This is where we have a choice to either continue living out our demands, or where we realize the future consequences and begin taking care of what we have damaged. Kohak states how greed and unwise choices are the problems; things such as controlling overpopulation would only slightly affect the outcome, where greed is the root of it all.

He presents two distinct strategies: use more effective technology, or have a less demanding humanity. The solution to these strategies is to use or want less and produce more; live modestly and working hard to fix the already present problems. If technology is increased, it will only be used to satisfy the more demanding population, increasing the problem. This leads to the most effective solution being a "more frugal and more generous humankind in what today is the over consuming world" (161). Kohak explains that we need to understand the suffering we put on other beings in this world, and we need to share the Earth in harmony with all life.
He ends with our role being to "act locally", living in peace with life so that life on Earth can go on.

Blog #7

The documentary that we viwed in class was very different than any other documentaries that I have seen in the past involving the lives and surrounding enviroments of the animals. It showed the lives of birds and what they really do in there day to day lives without a dialogue that confuses the story and what you may imagine what could be going on with the birds.

I feel it was very different and interesting to me because it did not consist of a background dialogue and it allowed me to think more and it intrigued me more than it would with story telling. It did not try to decribe the animlas actions into a silly story just to keep some peoples attention. It discussed the through the bird's veiw and nothing else and made you feel that you were there with the bird on their daily adventures.

The documentary in some way attached me to these birds because I was able to in some way relate to them in there day to day life styles. When the birds eggs were close to be consumed from another animal I felt so sad and scared for the birds. It was a very intersting documentary and I enjoyed watching it.

Postscript

After reading about Kohak's views, it can be said that he is not strongly attached to one certain way of thinking. I agree that his statement about ideas, not personal views being more important in the classroom (155). Especially in a class such as philosophy that is not merely a black or white issue, it is important for people to keep from pushing their personal beliefs on others. Throughout the readings from The Green Halo, Kohak is careful to present the ideas of others without letting his views get in the way. I liked how Kohak recaps the different views of the people we have read about but also finally adds in some of his personal ideas.

"We need to learn to empathize and share not only with the human, but also with the nonhuman world" (161). This statement made by Kohak sums up the simplicity of such a factual point. In essence, it is vital that humans realize the destruction they are bringing about to the Earth. Things will not change unless we do something about it. Furthermore, Kohak stated that he is a firm believer in Flannel ecology, however, he respects all the views he has written about. I think it's important when dealing with important issues such as the ecological issues that one considers many different points of view rather than being narrow minded.

This concept relates to what we were discussing in class; the importance of trying not to make everything fit into "one box" so to speak. It is important to be philosophical ans combine numerous views. I especially liked Kohak's closing views when he stated that "it is a matter of learning to live in harmony, so that our cohabitation with the whole of life would not burden the Earth beyond the limits of sustainability" (163). I believe that this is the whole truth to what each philosopher was saying throughout the book.

#9

Reading Kohak's view finally, was very interesting to me. He states that, "I rejoice in all that is and lives with a Schweitzer-like joy." (p. 155). We talked about Schweitzer today in class and the occurence with the star fish, and he is on of my favorite philosophers. Kohak brings up many good point many good points, which include automobiles and how we as humans see them as desirable. I can admit that I am guilty of this.

Kohak stated that, "I do not think, however, that we would solve the ecological crisis if we reverted to oil lamps and wood stoves." (p. 157). I do not think this is the correct way to solve ecological crisis either. I think the most important and interesting quote that Kohak stated was, "Nature, in the sense of the complex of all life and all that sustains it-- cannot long service the demands we are making upon."(p. 158). I think this statement is very true. I don't think that we can up with everything that we need from nature. We count on technology today, and even though we are advanced it technology I feel like we are not up to speed on where we really should be to benefit everyone. I agree that we do need to be clear on what we want to accomplishment within our environment and nature just like Kohak.

Blog #9

I really enjoyed finally reading Kohak's own beleifs and views regarding ecological ethics, and was surprised to find that he appreciated all the views discussed in the books. This is most apparent in Kohak's quote, "...when philosophical thought seeks to define a problem clearly and casts about for solutions, it can learn from a whole range of perspectives"(158). His beliefs were shaped by the beliefs of those before and reflects some but not all of their characteristics. Kohak explains his views, "I love this Earth with an active love in the spirit of apostle James; I rejoice in all that is and lives with a Schweitzer-like joy; I dread wanton destruction and vain perishing...That is why for me practical "flannel" ecology is the very heart of the matter...Flannel ecology is the reality testing that keeps subjectivizing approaches from narcissism" (155).

Kohak believes that flannel ecology puts into practice what other theories talk about, keeping ecology from "...sliding into ideology" (155). Flannel ecology encompasses, "The purpose of ecological thought (which) is not theory but practice, (but) forging ways of human dwelling on this Earth that would respect both its integrity and the integrity of humankind" (155). Kohak believes flannel ecology helps one to express the ideas propagated by the many theories about the preservation of the Earth, explaining to people how literally to "...tread lightly upon the Earth" (155). No longer are the theories just words, now they are deeds, and these actions can help each individual to live a more eco-friendly life.

Lastly, Kohak talked about how humans need to change two basic things to save the world on a global level: with more effective technology or with a less demanding humanity. While I agree that technology alone can not save the Earth and that over-consumption is a shallow and unfulfilling grasp at happiness, I detest Kohak's belief that humans must limit their numbers. From a statistical viewpoint, it makes sense - less demand, less product (less earth used), but I wonder if it makes sense from a moral perspective - who is Kohak to tell others how to live their lives and run their families if they do so to the best of their abilities? Rather, I ask Kohak for a different change to help humanity "...learn to love this Earth and treat it with gratitude and respect" (Kohak, 163).