Green Shelter

I thought group three did an overall good job of addressing the residential side (on an individual scale) of shelter and the environment. While some of the concepts/information could be applied across the world, the presentation focused primarily on what first and maybe second world nations could live to be more green. Geothermal or energy star appliances are not feasible for many third world countries not only because of high upfront cost, but electricity and heating/cooling are not as imminent (and often not available) a need as staying dry, nourished, and drinking clean water (although they did talk about a natural filtration system, but I’m not sure how expensive it was). I do feel that if looking at the scale of the United States, they did a very good job addressing how people of different economic status may approach becoming more sustainable on their own (the group activity was one example). Whereas someone with less spending money may be looking at resealing/insulating their house, someone on the higher end of the spectrum may be looking into geothermal or solar. I also liked how they established early on the need for more circular economic thinking rather than linear (which is where the U.S. is). This is one example that strikes at the heart of the ethical difference between the ethical stance that the group proposed (sustainable development/consumption) and the current dominant, at least economic/policy wise, utilitarian ethic. The big difference between sustainable development from utilitarianism is this notion of development meeting the needs of today while not encroaching on future generations ability to meet their own need. An example of this in shelter is using materials that can be sustainably harvested, which gives us the shelter we need now and allowing future generations to be able to utilize that same source, forming this cyclical cycle. Utilitarian philosophy, on the other hand, would advocate for the harvesting of materials (cheapily) that could most readily develop our infrastructure, the depletion of the source not being as much of a consideration.

Overpopulation and the difficulties with space that surface as a result was well presented with the second group of presenters. Through their demonstration with the colored bowls and the background information enabled the scale of the problem was brought into focus.  What was particularly interesting was the variety of solutions that the group went through. As an environmentalist, it was disturbing listening about prospects that called for increased rates of mining, energy extraction, and technology. Not only did instances like living on the moon did not seem sustainable, but it refreshed my mind of the notion that man, through further technological advances, will be able to bail itself out later on. By counting on technology that has yet to exist, as a society we allow ourselves to escape the guilt of our consumerist tendencies and continue to operate in the same way. What I was impressed with this group’s presentation is that they didn’t lean as hard on these prospects as I normally seem to find, and recognized that other factors, like whether we’ll have the resources to make this future technology or even support ourselves. One example: While 70 or so percent of the world’s surface is covered in water, we can’t be positive that desalinization will become significantly less costly to perform, thus such conservation techniques as hydroponics should be examined. They also explored preventative measures to overpopulation as way of answering our space problem. These included like educating undereducated societies on the consequences of overpopulation, tax incentives for families who choose to limit the size of the family to a certain number. They also brought in the complexity that different world perspectives create in answering the problem (like some see growth as still a good thing for a country).

I felt that the story of Timothy Treadwell in Grizzly Man contains some rather interesting parallels with the dualism within the third wave of feminism. Something that immediately jumped out at me was the underlying perspective that seemed to unearth in Timothy as the documentary went on. The perspective that I’m talking about seems like it’s almost unconscious understanding that Timothy seemed to possess is that the force which dominated his life was doing the same thing to animals. It seemed almost as if they (Timothy and the bears/animals) in his mind were captives to the same colony, it’s just he was shackled by his inability to conform to the culture/customs of the dominate group (human civilization), while the bears weren’t able to conform to the dominate class because they are a separate species.

In Timothy’s mind there appears to be this dualism remaining; on the one side is civilization, on the other is him and the animals. In his “victory” clip toward the end, he talks about how he protected the bears (that are so important to him) and “beat” those trying to hurt them. A confluence in struggles, at least in Timothy’s perspective seemed to have formed sometime along his journey. While I’d like to believe that Timothy’s relationship with the bears does contain a non-instrumental element to, I think that he falls short of the third wave, especially in the holistic/pluralistic perspective that DesJardins talks about in the chapter. Timothy seems to have this universal look on things, filled with ultimatums and rejections of the complexity of situations and people, something not characteristic of the third feminism.

IN reading and discussing topics surrounding Environmental Justice, I've found myself confronted with my own moral alteration. Originally, my intent to promote "environmental justice" was to preserve and protect a planet in trouble for everyone. What I've lacked, though, is ranking what exactly is important to me, this is partially due to a lack of research on contempary problems facing not only the physical environment, but the beings which are sufferring or stand to suffer from current practices. Take atmospheric concerns like climate change and pollution, I've been mistaken about is that we are all victims of this tragedy. I haven't thought about the fact that there are some policies that I have been for, like reducing deforestation in developing countries, which could directly deny people not onboard the lifeboat (Hardin) a livelihood.

SuperTramp

                Besides being an absolutely gripping and liberating film, the film Into the Wild (to me) gives a glimpse into a man’s search for his essence. The movie seems to tug at the importance of minimizing what is not necessity from one’ self if he or she is looking to better grasp what it means to be satisfied. Towards the end of the movie, Alex (actual name Christopher) says something that for me captures an important element of this story, “The core of mans' spirit comes from new experiences.” The non-essential components that I mentioned just prior seem to beyond material things, rather one can look at what else composes the persistent clutter in our minds. At different parts of the movie, Alex seems to attack or be attacked by these several of these forms of baggage: reputation by distancing himself from particularly his proud father and changing his name which not only allowed him to slip away but distance himself from the agenda of his parents. One he had particular difficulty parting with his grudge against his parents for the situation that ensued from early on in their marriage. While I still have a hard time talking about what this young man might have been feeling, I think it wasn’t until the very end that this baggage was able to be removed.  

                So to conclude, Alexander Supertramp seems to tackle an ethic for a more anthropomorphic “sake” than our last film “The Cove.” Whereas the previous film posed questions about whether differences between the rights of humans and other organisms, “Into the Wild” remains, for the most part, within the realm of our own species. What the film seems to really focus on is the power and mystery that is unveiled by removing what is consuming him from living. While Alex did this partly by ridding himself completely from the contact his family, by allowing himself to distance himself from the grudge with his parents, he was able to forgive and really identify what makes them important to him.

Animal Ethic

After finishing the Cove, I went back and re-examined the ethical positions in Chapter five of DesJardin, particularly those of Peter Singer. The reason that I was compelled to go back was because I felt I had found the boundary of my animal ethic. I just needed to be able to articulate it and Singer seemed to be the closest on the ethical spectrum. Prior to this, I saw myself as being less “extreme” as either Singer or Regan. In the past, I would deer hunt with my dad every November, and over the years I ended up killing a couple. I certainly felt some remorse after the shot but it wasn’t enough to keep me from buying a tag the next year.

 Traditionally I only hunted with my dad and one other hunter. We hunted on public land and we were lucky to shoot one deer between the three of us, but we’d still have enough meat to last us for the better part of a year. This last Thanksgiving I was invited to join dad and almost a dozen other hunters on what would be a series of drives and the chances of shooting several deer were quite high. I turned them down and I never really thought why, that is, until Monday’s film and rereading Singer. I realized that there was a Singer-like motive behind my decision not to partake. I knew that my cousins from five to eight deer a person during that season alone (they are Native American). They often had plenty to feed their families and the village elders that they would be able to sell or trade a sizable portion of the harvest. To me, I felt going along with this group was approaching sport. Also, my dad and I still had leftover meat in the freezer from last year.

More than that, I believe I’ve carried this notion that the deer have a sentience to a degree well beyond the other creatures that I hunt (grouse or fish). Maybe I’ve just grown up on the notion that the deer and bear are majestic animals. There is a part of me, though, that thinks this is based on something more; an extra quality of life that I’m still trying to pinpoint. Either way, I feel I more clearly understand why I was deterred from the big deer drive or the dolphin capture and killing. For me, the decision whether or not to hunt is not only based on a particular level of sentience, but it needs to be in the wild and not be primarily out of sport or profit.

Land Ethic

In only three weeks I already see my own land ethic evolving. Actually, evolving probably isn’t the correct way to put this; I’d say my stance is materializing more than anything. I think prior to this I have never really sought to, in any real depth, outline what my values were with regards to the natural environment. I guess I’ve generally relied on instinct when making decisions relevant to this ethic and generally not think much more about it.

When I first read the definition of holistic ethics, I was convinced that this defined my ethical stance regarding the environment. I do believe that the world we live in is inhabited by life which is extremely interconnected. I cheered when my teachers began using the food web instead of the food chain as I have seemed to always believe that the “Designer” would have foreseen this potential flaw in the disconnected system (that being the food chain model). Instead what we seem to be a part of is a more complex and interrelated system. As opposed to other moral ethics, I do think that there is a right answer in how we treat our plant’s systems. To me, in many cases of a moral ethical situation it seems that there are benefits and consequences to any argument. In terms of treatment of our natural systems, it seems the more we interfere in its’ patterns and cycles, the worse off everyone seems to be. So it is my belief that the answer when it comes to decisions regarding the environment, the less alteration/impact on the system the better.

So it sounds like this would put me on the spectrum (anthropocentric, non-anthropocentric, holistic) on the holistic side, but I have trouble settling for this. While I believe very strongly that conserving wildlife and other natural systems is a top priority, my passion for this seems to be derived from my love of my fellow man a lot more than it is to save the birds in the trees. So I feel I am holistic in my land ethic with what seems more anthropocentric leaning.