Blog 17--last one!

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

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

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

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

last panel discussions

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

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

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

Blog 17: Last Blog

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

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

Blog #17

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

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

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

Blog 17

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

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

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

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

Blog #17

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

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

17-Last Blog!

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

Blog 17

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

Blog #17

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

Blog 17

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

Blog16

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

Blog 16

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

blog 7 - kestrel's eye

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

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

BLOG 16

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

Blog #16

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

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

Panel discussions

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

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

Blog #16 Panel Discussion

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

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

Blog 16- Panel Discussion #1

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

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

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

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

panel discussions

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

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

16 - Panel Response and Comment on Factory Farming

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

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

Panel discussions

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

Blog 16

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

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

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

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

Blog #16

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

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

Panel Discussions

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

Blog #16

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


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


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

Blog 16-Student Panel

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

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

Blog 16 - Student Panel

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

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

Blog 15-David Abram

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

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

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

Blog 15 - David Abram

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

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

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

Blog 16

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

Blog #16

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

Blog 15-David Abram: Becoming Animal

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

Blog 15 - Becoming Animal

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

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

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

Blog #15

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

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

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

Animal Self

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

blog 6

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

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

Blog 15

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

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

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

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

David Abram

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

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

Blog 15

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

Blog #15

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

blog # 15

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