environmentalethics4409

[environmentalethics4409]

Environmental Justice and Solutions

As discussed towards the end of last week's reading, race is an important factor when it comes to environmentalism, especially when it heavily affects the outcomes of waste disposal. It has been shown how low-income and people of color are disproportionately affected by waste disposal and environmental damage. This week's reading by Robert D. Bullard focuses on identifying the unequal environmental protection that affects low-income communities and communities of color and offers a framework that seeks to create equal protection.

Bullard first addresses the need to address the unequal protection of environmental protection. He states that the nation's environmental laws, regulations, and policies have not been applied fairly across all population groups (Bullard 238). Studies show this unequal protection. For example, race and income are related to the distribution of air pollution, the location of incinerators, abandoned toxic waste dumps, and lead poisoning in children. Further, African Americans and Latinos are likely to live in areas with reduced air quality (Bullard 240). These are a few examples of unequal environmental protection affecting low-income communities and communities of color. Aside from environmental racism, Bullard believes that the reasoning behind unequal protection is due to the paradigm of the EPA.

The EPA is not interested in seeking to resolve environmental justice. As Bullard states, the goal of the EPA is to manage, regulate, and distribute risks. Due to the lack of targeted protection by the EPA, unequal enforcement has been institutionalized, exploited the vulnerability of economically and politically disenfranchised communities, delayed cleanup actions, placed the burden of proof of victims and not polluters, and more (Bullard 242). Thus, if followed, a new framework will correct the paradigm, creating equal protection.

Bullard's framework is based on five principles: environmental protection as a right, a public health model of prevention, a shift of the burden of proof to polluters, the inference of discrimination using disparate impact and statistics, and readdressing discrimination by targeting action and resources. The first principle recognizes the right of all individuals to be protected from environmental degradation. As a result of this principle, legislation that addresses both the intended and unintended effects of public policies and industry practices that have disproportionately impacted minorities and low-income communities would need to be passed. A public health model of prevention would need to focus on eliminating threats before they occur as the primary strategy. Too often, action is taken when the damage is already done, which can have devastating effects depending on the damage done. For example, lead poisoning in children can lead to stunted IQ and stunted physical growth (Bullard 244). The third principle addresses the difficulty many face in challenging polluters of the damage they have done. This would require industries applying for landfills, incinerators, and other potentially harmful sources to prove that they will never produce any harmful waste that disproportionately affects low-income individuals and minorities. The fourth principle involves using statistics that show a disproportionate impact to infer discrimination. Proving purposeful discrimination difficult in a court of law. Thus, this strategy would select areas where a disproportionate amount of environmental damage affects minorities. The last principle would require directing action and resources to areas most affected. Based on the studies showing how poor communities and communities of color are affected, this principle would likely help these communities first, thus providing equal environmental protection.  

It is critical to include environmental justice-oriented goals in policymaking that seek to improve environmental conditions by targeting issues that disproportionately affect people of color. An organization that shows these goals is the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. With the help of others, this organization has been very successful in bringing awareness and influencing policies focused on environmental justice. One accomplishment was the efforts of Fix The Subway, which led to the passage of the first congestion pricing plan, which will generate revenue to be invested in NYC public transit.

[environmentalethics4409]

Environmental Justice and Organizations

Most of the readings so far have been critical of the current state of environmentalism and have argued for a shift to more environmentally conscious attitudes. This has also brought other movements and ideologies into the conversation through their connection to environmentalism. However, a movement or ideology that has yet to be covered is environmental justice. This is the topic covered in philosopher Charles W. Mills's "Black Trash," who argues for the need to recognize how race has been and is an important factor to consider when speaking of environmentalism.

Mills first shows the significance of race in environmentalism by explaining the history of polity in the United States, specifically through the social contract. For political theorists, the social contract has been responsible for the liberal democratic polity through human creation and support. However, what needs to be discussed is the historical racial domination in what was supposed to be an equal system free of domination and privilege (Mills 75). A white majority has performed this racial domination onto a nonwhite minority through laws that have favored white citizenry, the perceived value of white and nonwhite people, and the civic and moral status of persons in particular spaces. Thus, the social contract has not been equal; in reality, it can be viewed as a racial contract by a white majority excluding nonwhite persons.

After establishing the social contract as a racial contract, Mills continues to discuss the connection between race and space. For Mills, space is politicized. Space is necessary for the social contract to be practiced and the polity to be achieved. Achieving the social contract in space requires transformation from that which "violates" the social contract or from bad to good (the polity). Historically, this transformation has been seen from European expansion–in this case, the United States–in wild spaces where "civilization" was not seen, but in reality, those spaces contained nonwhite peoples (Mills 77). Thus, the social contract (or racial contract), has functioned as a tool for Europeans to justify colonialism and to move and change nonwhite spaces.

Mills then continues on to show how the black body came to be stigmatized, which made it unable to join the white polity. Firstly, Mills explains how the color black shaped the encounter between English colonial and African. This encounter came to be shaped by the meaning of the color black, which was described as evil, dangerous, and repulsive. Next, the color black would be associated with the genital and anal regions. Following this, black bodies have been seen as savage. Black religions were viewed as savage and evil, opposing Christianity. Through the slave trade, Africa was seen as a space of nothingness and savagery. Lastly, following slavery, the black body became associated with dirty and menial jobs.

The history of the social contract and stigmatization of black people is significant in the conversation of waste disposal. Handling waste disposal depends on how the polity functions if it is racialized or not. Historically, black people have suffered from waste disposal. This is even supported today through conducted studies showing that race is the single most important factor in the location of toxic waste sites (Mills 88). Ultimately, race needs to be considered when discussing environmentalism and waste disposal.

Aside from the few studies listed in the reading, many recent studies do show the importance of race in waste disposal; thus, it must be considered when creating solutions that address environmental damage and waste. For example, African Americans and low-income communities are disproportionately affected by air pollution in the United States. African Americans face a cancer risk above the EPA's level of concern due to unclean air (Racial Disparities and Climate Change, PSCI). Therefore, more must be done to address the disproportionate damage that low-income communities and communities of color face. A way to address this damage is by supporting policies or organizations that address these outcomes. An example is the organization We Act For Environmental Justice, whose core mission is to "build healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices."

[environmentalethics4409]

The Anthropocene

Given the severity of climate change and the threat it poses, this is a significant point in history. Furthermore, as it is well known, humans have played a role in creating this situation. Since humans have played a role in the Earth’s transformation, it is worthwhile to note when it began. This is the goal of authors Simon L. Lewis and Mark A. Maslin’s “Defining the Anthropocene,” Both set out to explain possible markers for the beginning of the significant effects on the planet due to human activity: the Anthropocene.

Defining the Anthropocene requires finding a global marker in stratigraphic material known as the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) (Lewis and Maslin 173). Lewis and Maslin point to four possible starts to the Anthropocene: the impact of fire, pre-industrial farming, socio-metabolism, and industrial technologies. Although fire may be a possible start to the Anthropocene due to its extensive use (cooking, clearing forests, etc.), it is a local event, so it cannot provide a global GSSP. Pre-industrial farming is a better marker because of the transformation of the land to crops and grazing lands around the year 6000-8000 yr BP, which significantly increased CO2 levels; thus, if the evidence is found in ice, it could be significant, though this is debated. Next is the contact between the new world and the old world. The contact between both hemispheres created significant changes. From major population changes to the exchange of non-native resources, ultimately reducing CO2 levels (Lewis and Maslin 175). Finally, industrial technologies such as metals and even nuclear weapons show GSSP through significant rises in pollution and radioactive activity levels.

Lewis and Maslin discuss the implications of deciding on the start of the Anthropocene, which puts other readings into perspective. As they point out, deciding, for example, between the exchange between the new and old world or industrial technology, each gives different perceptions of human actions on the environment. The exchange between the new and old world highlights economic growth, unequal power between people, globalized trade, and effects that have been difficult to manage. In addition, the marker reminded me of Nancy Fraser’s “Capitalism and Nature,” as Fraser shows the different phases of capitalism and its historical impact on the environment through human activity. Thus, perhaps capitalism and the Anthropocene are connected, with the start and activities of early capitalism being the start of the Anthropocene. Whichever event is marked as started, the Anthropocene will guide the solutions that are created; however, it is important to recognize that humans overall have impacted the Earth in great ways, and we must find ways to limit our impact, which can take the form of the covered philosophies and action.

[environmentalethics4409]

Deep Ecology and Strategy

Many of the ecological ethical theories and concepts seen so far have rarely touched upon their compatibility with religion. Environmental ethics and religion are often portrayed as incompatible, as religion (with Judeo-Christian often being used) is seen as responsible for anthropocentric attitudes held historically. However, while religion and environmental ethics may be considered incompatible, others argue that certain ecological ethical theories and religion, specifically Buddhism, may be compatible due to overlap in their foundations. Philosopher Arne Naess presents deep ecology in "The Deep Ecology Movement," which challenges the anthropocentric attitudes shared by many today by being based on specific principles, mirroring principles found in religions, in an attempt to save the environment, and authors Julie Gregory and Samah Sabra who further highlight the compatibility of deep ecology and a specific practice of Buddhism: Engaged Buddhism.

For Naess, one can only claim to value the environment by ridding away anthropocentric attitudes and basing their value on principles; not doing so is shallow environmentalism. Naess explains shallow environmentalism first through an example of the goals of the World Conservation Strategy. He shows that although the goals claim to "value" the environment, they are human-focused at their core (Naess pg. 3). Thus, deep ecology is needed to combat the shallow human-centered ecology that finds itself in the environmentalism movement. Deep ecology is a movement and philosophy based on principles that recognize the value of both human and nonhuman life and that any acts of environmentalism must reflect deep ecology principles. For example, the first principle recognizes that nonhuman and human life has an inherent value independent of the nonhuman's usefulness for human purposes (Naess 4). Naess goes on to state seven more principles that reflect the goal of the first principle. After establishing these principles, Naess recognizes that deep ecology principles overlap with the principles of several religions–Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism–and other philosophies.

According to authors Julie Gregory and Samah Sabra, Buddhism, specifically engaged Buddhism, is a religion that can be seen as compatible with deep ecology, as it values both human and nonhuman life. Unlike Theravada Buddhism, which has been accused of being individualistic compared to Mahayana Buddhism, engaged Buddhism is a mixture of both. Founded by Thich Nhat Hanh, engaged Buddhism emphasizes interconnectedness (Gregory and Sabra, pg 55) seen in deep ecology. In addition, engaged Buddhism contains principles similar to those of deep ecology. For example, the first precept states, "I vow to cultivate compassion and learn ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants and minerals…" (Gregory and Sabra, pg. 56). Thus, both engaged Buddhism and deep ecology contain principles which value nonhuman and human life, and seek to maintain both as they are interconnected.

Having principles, especially those which value the environment, to work off is very valuable. Arne Naess' reading shows how having no principles can make it easy not to value the environment through his examples of shallow environmentalism. We have seen other authors (Leopold) give similar examples, such as the farmers valuing the environment more when given financial support. In addition, other authors (again Leopold) have even called for a change in values, like recognizing the interconnectedness of nature (land pyramid) and valuing human and nonhuman life.  

Deep ecology can be applied by recognizing the principles and supporting organizations that align with these principles. Arne Naess states, "Given this situation, support for global action through international nongovernmental organizations becomes increasingly important." An organization focused on collaborating with people and organizations by creating tools and strategies is Ecologistics. Ecologistics contains principles that mirror Deep Ecology principles (see Ecologistics affirmations).

[environmentalethics4409]

Capitalism and Nature

As discussed in previous readings, a large part of how humans interact with their environment is tied to the dominant economic system in the Western world: Capitalism. In this week's readings by Nancy Fraser, we read about how Capitalism's structure contains ecological contradictions, ultimately leading to environmental damage and crises. Thus, a new anti-capitalist movement is needed, the trans-environmental movement.

For Fraser, Capitalism is more than just an economic system; it is a way of organizing the relation of production and exchange to their non-economic conditions of possibility (Fraser 99). In the relation is where one of the contradictions is found, an ecological contradiction. This contradiction rests upon the value assigned to the economy and nature. The economy is where value is produced, exchanged, and distributed. On the other hand, nature is not seen as the same as the economy; it has no value since nothing is being produced, exchanged, and distributed. While nature isn't seen as having value, nature provides the raw materials necessary for the functioning of the economy. Therefore, an ecological contradiction arises as valueless nature is wrecked through the extraction of the raw materials that it provides to create value in the economy. In addition to the environmental wreckage, the population has to face externalities through pollution, contamination, and other effects. While the ecological contradiction shown leads to an environmental crisis, the relationship between social reproduction and the economy is another contradiction within Capitalism.

The relationship between social reproduction and the economy is the 2nd contradiction discussed by Fraser. Fraser explains the contradiction using the concept of value used to describe ecological contradiction. Just as nature makes the economy possible through the raw materials it provides, so does social reproduction. Included in social reproduction is the work needed to raise and take care of children, as well as taking care of the sick and dying. Thus, social reproduction involves creating the labor force that the economy needs to function; however, social reproduction is treated as valueless despite providing value to the economy. In addition to social relations being devalued, social relations suffer through environmental wreckage–from the ecological contradiction–and communities and livelihoods are disrupted. While social and ecological contradictions affect the lives of many, one contradiction is left: the polity and the economy.

The final contradiction explained by Fraser is the relationship between the polity and the economy. This contradiction can be explained by the political structure that Capitalism relies on. A capitalist economy relies on legal systems to ensure private property and capital accumulation (Fraser 104). However, these prerequisites, specifically legal systems, are undermined when the goal of many firms becomes endless accumulation and focus on profit; firms seek to weaken regulation and evade taxes when possible to meet greater profits. Thus, it becomes a constant battle between the necessary political structure for Capitalism and the capitalists that wish to undermine the structure to be more profitable, leading to a political crisis. Aside from political crises, it is not hard to see the possible negative consequences focus on accumulation and profit may have on the environment, thus connecting the contradiction to ecological contradiction and even social reproduction as communities are ultimately affected.

With the contradictions and their connections explained, we now show how they have been shown throughout Capitalism's history. Fraser breaks down the history of Capitalism into four phases: mercantile-capitalist, liberal-colonial, state-managed, and financialized Capitalism. The first phase involves labor in the colonies of imperialist powers and their homelands. The contradictions become clear when the labor in both places (colonies and homeland) was used to transform the land through the extraction of resources–using slave labor–and the transformation of homelands to meet market demands–from farmland to pastures and small factories–thus disrupting the environment and social relationships. The second phase was the changes in labor–city-focused–and acceleration in resource extraction to begin and support industrialization. The third phase involved new inventions, such as the car, which made the economy thrive, disrupting the environment, social relations, and political structures worldwide (Fraser 116), mainly through a focus on maintaining trade and generating profits. And the last phase involves all the contradictions by using technology to protect firm "property" (Ex. patenting of crop strains) and continue extraction of resources used in modern goods (lithium and coltan). As Fraser has shown, the contradictions within Capitalism lead to multiple crises; the only solution is an anti-capitalist project that addresses the contradictions, or as Fraser calls it, an 'eco-socialism.'

After considering the readings so far, I agree with Fraser that Capitalism's issues need to be addressed if we ever hope to resolve the problems that threaten the environment. I believe that many people are starting to question the issues with Capitalism, especially its effect on the environment, as we see a rise in trans-environmental movements that Fraser believes are not anti-capitalist enough (Ex. Green New Dealers). Therefore, I don't see a shift away from Capitalism happening very quickly; it would likely be a slow process. And as Fraser labels some movements not anti-capitalist enough, I believe those movements still deserve some credit, especially seeing how anti-capitalism and socialism have been seen as taboo (at least in the United States); their effort in creating palatable solutions aligned with their supporters and even nonsupporters, slowly introducing anti-capitalism into the national discussion, should be seen as a positive.

Therefore, if one were to fully agree with Fraser on needing anti-capitalism and 'eco-socialism' to save the environment, I see supporting movements that Fraser deems weak in anti-capitalism as a good step forward. An example is the Green New Deal, briefly covered at the end of the social ecology reading. These movements are gaining support among the public. As of 2023, green new deal-esque policies have passed in states like New York, showing their increasing popularity and support. More work should be done to work off these policies' increasing popularity and support as they see success.

[environmentalethics4409]

Ecofeminism and Activism

As the readings have shown different attempts at addressing human disregard for nature, this week's readings focus on an approach that aims to combine feminism and environmental ethics: Ecofeminism. Ecofeminists Karen Warren and Carolyn Merchant set out to explain how feminism and environmental ethics are interconnected through the shared domination of both women and nature. The shared domination between women and nature necessitates a new philosophy that addresses the domination of both. Thus, Ecofeminism is the solution to the problems feminism and environmental ethics separately set out to resolve.

In her reading, Warren establishes that Ecofeminism seeks to address the oppressive conceptual framework that has maintained the subordination of women: the patriarchal framework. For Warren, an oppressive conceptual framework has the following conditions: value-hierarchical thinking, value dualisms, and the logic of domination. While the first two conditions are important, the third condition is most responsible for justifying the domination of women and nature. Warren shows how, in western culture, the logic of domination has been used to justify the domination of women and nature by arguing that, historically, women have been identified with nature. The connection between women and nature has led to specific arguments (Warren 283), which use all three conditions of an oppressive framework to justify the domination of women by placing nature below humans, making nature inferior, and thus leads to women being seen as inferior and to be controlled through their link to nature. Therefore, for Warren, any feminist ethic must include environmental ethics due to its historical connection with nature, and environmental ethics must include feminism.

Like Warren, Merchant sets out to show the interconnectedness of women and nature and the change that led nature to become dominated. Merchant first briefly touches on the historical idea of nature as a nurturing mother. The idea of the earth as a nurturing mother connects women's history with nature's. Following the connection between nature's and women's history, Warren establishes how nature came to be seen as something to be controlled and dominated due to the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution adopted a popular idea at the time: nature is chaotic and uncontrollable. Therefore it must be controlled. In addition, with the scientific revolution came advances in technology, which made nature to be controlled possible, especially when it came to supporting commercial changes. Aside from technology allowing for nature to be dominated, Merchant points to the scientific philosophy that further justified the domination of nature.

Merchant argues that the scientific revolution produced a philosophy that justifies to itself the domination of nature: the mechanistic philosophy of nature. In short, the mechanistic philosophy that emerged from the scientific revolution advocates controlling nature for human benefit. Merchant supports her point through the thoughts of several scientists (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, etc.) that reflected this philosophy of dominating nature. Merchant quotes Joseph Glavill, "'enlarge knowledge by observation and experiment… so that nature being known, it may be mastered, managed, and used in services of humane life'" (Merchant 297). As Merchant shows, nature came to be seen as something to be dominated and exploited with the rise of science and increased scientific knowledge and discoveries.

This reading made me consider the part of an argument by Willaim Cronon, especially after considering Merchant's argument. Towards the end of his argument, Cronon explains how humans have become associated with the urban. Thus, humans must stop ignoring an integral part of their identity and find ways to create a balance to honor nature. Similarly, science is arguably integral to human identity, as it is a practice of human capacity. Instead, a balance must be found to honor human capacity and nature. Honoring both human capacity and nature may only partially challenge the mechanistic view. However, science is amoral, and there is no reason to believe that there cannot be a position that honors and values the functioning of all human and nonhuman parts.

Similar to the other readings, on the practical side, Ecofeminism's goals can be achieved through education and advocacy groups that stress the importance of the relationship between women and the environment. Organizations such as the Mary Robinson Foundation or the Women's Environment & Development Organization (WEDO) focus on climate change and seek to address how to safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable people and how change can be implemented on the policy level.

[environmentalethics4409]

Social Ecology and Rethinking Economics

As a species, humans arguably inflict the greatest amount of change on the environment; no other species is clearing forests or using vehicles that pollute the air and water. Because of the scale of human impact, many have looked for ways to address the problems that arise. And as we have discussed before, solving environmental problems requires a change in how humans interact with the environment. In this week's readings, political philosopher Murray Bookchin and sociologist James O'Connor set out to explain the importance of social ecology and argue for a shift away from one of the most significant causes of ecological problems: the economic system.

For  Bookchin, part of social ecology requires humans to notice their connection to nature; humans are no different from nonhuman animals. Like nonhuman animals, humans have undergone biological evolution; Bookchin calls this first nature. Through biological evolution, humans developed second nature. Bookchin defines second nature as: "the way in which human beings, as flexible, highly intelligent primates, inhabit the natural world. That is to say, people create an environment most suitable to their mode of existence" (Bookchin 270). He acknowledges that animals also contain a second nature but that humans have a far greater ability to change the environment than nonhuman animals do. Thus it is imperative to recognize how humans negatively affect the environment, and for Bookchin, society is riddled with conflicting interests, contradictions, and antagonisms.

Bookchin argues that social ecology addresses characteristics that are very detrimental to the environment. These characteristics are hierarchy and the domination of nature. Hierarchy is seen as having its roots in several factors, such as the spread of warfare, technological changes favoring males (Bookchin 271), and many more. He later claims how nature found its way into the human conception of hierarchy but, with the rise of religion and slavery, was seen as something to be dominated. Both hierarchy and the idea of dominating nature would become embedded in human society, having consequences for the environment when combined with arguably one of the main forces behind damage: capitalism.

As social ecology stresses the importance of identifying harmful ways humans have used hierarchy and adopted the dominating of nature, it also stresses the importance of identifying harmful social systems such as capitalism. Bookchin supports this by stating that capitalism has no regard for the environment; it is amoral. He claims that no matter how well-intentioned a capitalist may be, being ecologically conscious puts him at a disadvantage to competitors. This is because the marketplace leaves no room for moral appeals and instead focuses on production, growth, and profit (Bookchin 273). A proposed solution to address the incompatibility of ecological factors and capitalism is socialism.

James O'Connor agrees with Bookchin that socialism is the solution to solving the incompatibility of the environment and capitalism. He notes capitalism has created the need for socialism through the conditions it has produced because it is based on the necessity of growth. Since growth is a necessary condition of capitalism, slowdowns of growth have led to "wrenching poverty and violence, rising misery in all parts of the world, especially in the South, and, environmentally, to toxification of whole regions, the production of drought…" (Connor 277). Thus for Connor, socialism and ecology must be combined to address the social problems capitalism has created and "to end the degradation and destruction of the earth" (Connor 280).

Shifting away from the economic system that has dominated the globe for the last 200 years is a very ambitious goal. It requires a global restructuring, making it a challenging task. But with the damage the planet is experiencing, the difficulty should not be a deterrent. Perhaps in the future, socialism will see more support, given the rise of various movements around the world. However, the shift to something like socialism is slow; the ecological damage needs to be immediately addressed if humans wish to make it to the future. Thus, moving forward, there is great value in focusing on supporting environmentally conscious policies that can slow, or even reverse, the effects of climate change and environmental damage. Examples of these policies may be the proposed Green New Deal (see below) or the changes the Biden administration has pushed through, such as reduced carbon emissions, tackling super pollutants, and scaling up carbon removal (see below).

[environmentalethics4409]

Land Ethic and Sustainable living

Similar to last week's readings, this week's readings attempt to build a framework for a future environmentally-focused ethical theory. This framework is called the Land Ethic, described in Aldo Leopold's "The Land Ethic" and in defense of this ethic in "The Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic" by J. Baird Callicott. The land ethic stresses the importance of respecting the land, that this respect is gained once relationships between all living things are considered, and that efforts be made to maintain the relationships as they are susceptible to change. By the end of discussing these readings, I hope to show how the land ethic may look in practice through sustainable living.

An essential condition in constructing the land ethic is realizing the relationship between humans and land. Leopold demonstrates this relationship by claiming that humans, instead of rulers, are members of the environment. He does so by referencing American history. Leopold explains how European settlers in the midwest manipulated land through agriculture and livestock to survive, putting the land through stress, and the land responded well. However, the same cannot be said about the settlers in the Southwest, where settlers struggled to reproduce the results the Midwest had seen. Thus, humans historically were reliant on the quality of the soil and, therefore, members and not rulers.

Leopold then shows how the current state of education detaches people from the environment. The current state of education rarely challenges the economic self-interest that is practiced. Leopold shows this economic self-interest by giving an example of farmers only acting in favor of the environment within the boundaries of economic profit, stating: "To sum up: we asked the farmer to do what he conveniently could do to save his soil, and he has done just that, and only that" (Leopold 196). Leopold's point is that education needs to be revisited and changed, as economic interests are often considered most important. Following this, Leopold attempts to present a model which may be educationally helpful: the Land Pyramid.

The Land Pyramid is the focus of "The Land Ethic," as it demonstrates the interdependence of all the living organisms in nature, which humans should strive to maintain and preserve. The pyramid is a model composed of different layers with many organisms in each layer. For example, at the bottom is the soil, with plants on the above layer, and these layers continue with apex predators at the top. Leopold then explains chains between layers, with these chains providing a source of energy to the above layer. These chains are not rigid; they can change and adapt to being interrupted by human or nonhuman activities. However, more often than not, human interference creates the most drastic changes. Leopold's pyramid model allows one to understand relationships that exist in nature, thus creating something to value, as the stability and existence of organisms depend on one another in this energy system. While the pyramid may seem abstract, perhaps unscientific, Callicott defends the model as having a scientific backing as he quotes Yale biophysicist Harold Marowitz, who puts Leopold's model in more scientific terms, effectively showing that the Leopold pyramid model is scientifically valid (Callicott 209). As shown, the earth functions as a system. Thus the land ethic is whatever maintains the system, or as Leopold concretely states: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." (Leopold 200).

While last week's readings focused more on extending worth to other living things, this week’s readings focused more on valuing the relationships between living things and ecosystems (a point I discussed towards the end of last week’s blog entry). Leopold’s land pyramid is very effective; it draws a picture of the relationship between living things and their ecosystems. By showing the relationships shared among living things, one will ideally be more conscious of any actions interfering with the relationships. A disruption to the relationship may have negative consequences for everyone involved since humans can create great change–like driving a species to extinction–therefore, the relationships must be considered and valued.

In practice, Leopold's land ethic can be applied through policies that are land conscious, as well as practicing a sustainable lifestyle. For example, a current land ethic-orientated policy may be the federal sustainability plan, which has several ambitious goals such as 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2030 or net-zero emissions procurement by 2050. On the personal level, a sustainable lifestyle minimizes the violence on the environment, which may be in the form of making sure to recycle and reuse when you can, being conscious of what you consume, and realizing its impact on the environment, for example, meat-eating or excessive use of plastic, or focusing on your transportation habits to reduce your carbon footprint. These are just a few lifestyle habits that value and preserve the environment.

[environmentalethics4409]

Respecting Nature and Green cities

For many, especially those in cities, being environmentally conscious means reducing waste and recycling. The reasoning behind environmental consciousness is to improve the quality of life. While improving the quality of life is great, rarely is there a focus on why we should value nature itself (outside of the quality of life). This week's readings focus on valuing nature, specifically, what does an ethical theory that considers nature look like? To answer this question, we must have foundational ideas, similar to the principle discussed last week, to base a theory. Therefore, this post will focus on the biocentrism in Paul W. Taylor's "The Ethics of Respect for Nature" and the assumptions regarding wilderness addressed in William Cronon's "The Trouble with Wilderness." After discussing these works, I hope to discuss how we can apply these works on a practical level.

In "The Ethics of Respect for Nature," Paul W. Taylor outlines what a biocentric outlook on nature is and requires. The outlook requires first establishing certain principles, namely inherent worth, and justifiability, with the end goal justifying the outlook itself. Taylor first explains that an entity's good is its ability to grow and flourish in its environment. An entity has worth if the goodness is valued and entities are considered ends in themselves, similar to the Kantian position that humans are ends in themselves. Once these principles are clear, a Kantian-like structure is formed. According to Taylor, this structure is composed of a belief system, an ultimate moral attitude, and a set of rules and standards. 

Taylor's biocentric outlook on nature thus is a belief system that is part of the formation of an ethical theory, with the established principles composing part of the belief system. The biocentric outlook states that humans are part of Earth's community of life, the Earth is seen as a complex system of interdependent parts, each member (including nonhuman organisms) is seen as possessing a good, and humans are not superior due to the previous conditions. Once those conditions are settled, the moral attitude can be seen as a direct result of the conditions, namely that organisms part of the Earth's community have inherent worth that must be respected. Taylor's biocentric outlook on nature sets the groundwork for an ethical system that considers the Earth's organisms, which has not been seen before. 

Unlike Peter Singer's, Taylor's outlook allows for various organisms to be considered in an ethical theory, not just animals. The broadness of the outlook is crucial to the planet's future, as humans make environmental decisions that affect more than just animals. That is not to say that animal suffering is irrelevant or that it does not deserve attention, but rather the wellness of the planet is something that should not be ignored, as wellness is what enables both human and nonhuman life to be possible. The outlook's role in such a theory is clearer when considering Cronon's essay on the human-formed idea of the wilderness. 

In "The Trouble with the Wilderness," Cronon demonstrates how the idea of wilderness was culturally formed and how perpetuating the idea is detrimental if humans ever wish to solve problems related to the environment. Cronon states that the idea of the wilderness came to be through European immigrants settling in "unclaimed" territories, creating civilization where they settled, thus creating the myth of the frontier, which would become part of American identity (pg 359). This myth would continue as wealthy Americans came to see the wilderness as a pastime, engaging in activities that they perceived to be part of the frontier. In addition, rarely do people consider the original inhabitants of the wilderness that were pushed out through war: Native Americans. Cronon's point in showing the progressive formation of the false idea of the wilderness is to show how alienated people became. People must accept that the urban-industrial lifestyle has become ingrained into what it means to be human. By accepting urban-industrial life as part of humanity, humans will seek to be more sustainable; that the nature inside and outside of the "wilderness," similar to Taylor's principles, are seen as having autonomy and thus respected. Ultimately, realizing the connections between all the organisms that compose the Earth, the connection humans have created with the wilderness, will lead the way to creating solutions and guiding action in ways that consider the connections and relationships nonhumans and humans have with the environment valuable.

Unlike last week's readings, this week's readings are much more inclusive and have more potential to be accepted. As discussed, biocentrism includes not just animals but all living things. Including all living things in the conversation communicates a greater sense of importance since all living things are interdependent. Humans and nonhuman animals rely on plants to be able to live (breathe and eat), while plants rely on nonhuman animals and humans through carbon dioxide (photosynthesis). All living things have a relationship. Therefore, if one considers the relationship between all living things, one may be more conscious whenever acting in a way that may disrupt the relationship. If the relationship is disrupted too much, then life (for nonhuman and human) is threatened (for nonhumans and humans). Recognizing and valuing the relationship between living things creates the opportunity to have conversations and act in ways to honor these relationships to ensure that life is possible on the planet.

Seeing how accustomed humans have become to the urban lifestyle, it is unlikely it will be abolished soon. In fact, by 2050, about two-thirds of the world's population will be living in urban areas  (United Nations). Thus, finding ways to transform cities to be more sustainable is essential. Two solutions for creating more sustainable cities may be through transportation and combing nature with the urban. For transportation, focusing on creating better public transport to encourage its use or the use of bicycles. For a nature-based solution, introducing more green in urban areas, similar to New York City's green rooftops, will improve storm runoff and the urban climate overall.

[environmentalethics4409]

Animals Rights and Factory Farming 

Humans consume tons of animal products daily, with Americans alone having access to 224 pounds per capita (USDA 2022). With such high consumption, it becomes clear that many people are fine with consuming animal products. However, do people not have a problem with consuming animal products, or do they avoid thinking about the problems, such as the harmful effects of high consumption levels of animal products on the environment, or even arguably more problematic and discomforting, the discussion of animal treatment and animal rights? Although much can be said about the impact of high consumption on the environment, this week's readings by David Foster Wallace and Peter Singer focus on animal treatment, animal rights, and the equality between humans and animals. By the end of the discussion of the readings, I hope to show how these readings may be helpful to those wanting to further animal rights and eliminate the effects of industrial farms. 

Undeniably, animals have minimal rights, and are not seen as important as humans by many. In the article "Consider the Lobster," David Foster Wallace acknowledges that he subscribes to the belief that animals are less morally important than humans but realizes he does not have a good reason to do so. In addition, Wallace confronts the uncomfortable questions that are raised when one considers the process of cooking lobsters: is it all right to boil a creature for our pleasure? Wallace begins to answer this question by first investigating what the organizers of the lobster festival believe and arriving at the metric that is used to determine whether the action is considered right: pain. According to the organizers, lobsters do not have a cerebral cortex, which in humans is part of the brain, allowing pain to be felt, which is not entirely true. Wallace then notes how ethicists use pain to determine whether animals require their interests to be considered, with the ability to feel pain being tied to two criteria: neurological hardware and behavior. Aside from lobsters showing uncomfortable behaviors after being placed in boiling water-the, the lobster will claw at the pot-lobsters cannot make or absorb natural opioids that are used to handle intense pain. Thus, lobsters may feel pain based on their physiology and behavior. However, Wallace realizes he cannot confirm since he can only understand pain from his own experience. Wallace concludes the article by acknowledging that he enjoys eating meat and wants to continue doing so and that he is unable to defend his position without selfish reasoning. Aside from acknowledging his selfishness, Wallace realizes that even if lobsters may feel a form of rudimentary pain, why shouldn't they still be considered? Wallace's acknowledgments and questions lay the foundation for a more philosophically focused essay on equality and animal rights by Peter Singer. 

In his work, Peter Singer notes various liberation movements and proposes that humans rethink their relationship with nonhuman species to allow the success of a new movement: the animal liberation movement. To allow the movement's success, humans must extend the principle of equal consideration to animals, as not doing so is pure speciesism. Singer explains the principle of equal consideration as the basic principle used to grant equality to different groups. Singer points out that although men and women share the same rights due to shared abilities (reasoning), men and women are still different. The biological differences between men and women give each different rights, for example, women's right to an abortion. Therefore, equality does not mean that all groups should be granted the same rights, as certain groups cannot exercise certain rights. Singer further supports his argument by explaining that the principle of equal consideration should always be considered when arguing against certain forms of oppression (racism and sexism). He does so by explaining that there are arguments that justify an inegalitarian society if one chooses to avoid the principle of equal consideration and instead base equality on certain traits and abilities. Singer's ultimate goal is to show that when adopting the principle of equal consideration, there is no good reason to exclude a group's interests (human or nonhuman). In the second half of his essay, Singer states that not adopting this principle is speciesism. 

According to Singer, human abuse of animals- through eating and experimenting- is not reasonable; Singer sees it as contradictory. This is what Singer calls speciesism, a preference for one own species. Singer later expands on this point by referencing previous philosophers and their philosophies used to justify the treatment of animals, namely that a minority of the population that fails to meet the human "norm" (babies and limited-function humans) still deserve to have their interests considered. Since animals have their own standards and cannot fit into the class of humans, they won't be granted the rights that humans have. Singer finds this absurd and arbitrary, claiming there is not a good reason not to consider a disabled human being and a dog the same; one is granted special privileges because they were lucky enough to have been born to one species despite failing short of meeting the norm of that species. Singer wants to depart from traditional thinking to new thinking to ensure that all species are considered and that there cannot be any contradictions when arguing against certain forms of oppression. 

I believe both readings offer interesting arguments, especially after considering the Singer reading. I myself eat meat and admit that I rarely think about animals or animal rights whenever I consume it. When I do think about animals or animal rights, I attempt to rationalize eating meat by thinking of the nutrients that meat offers (Ex. lack of B12 in vegan diets), appealing to nature (fallacy), or falling to the speciesism that Singer talks about. My reasons are not strong, especially after considering the thought experiments of Singer. In addition, as someone against oppression, I do not see a good reason for not extending my consideration to nonhuman animals as it also offers the opportunity to evaluate the strength and basis of my support against other forms of oppression (although suffering is a major reason). While I found the Singer piece convincing, I am curious how far Singer’s argument extends. For example, if nonhuman animals deserve consideration, should not the environment deserve consideration, seeing how nonhuman animals depend on the environment itself? Where does the environment lie in the conversation?

While there is still a long way to go from people eliminating meat from their diets, as Peter Singer would hope, not all hope should be lost. Studies reveal that people are, in fact, concerned about the current state of the animal industry when presented with enough information; thus, for someone like Peter Singer, animal rights should be viewed as a work in progress. A survey conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health, which included Americans from different political parties, gender, race, and age, showed that a majority supported greater oversight over animal farms (Survey: Majority of Voters Surveyed Support Greater Oversight of Industrial Animal Farms, 2019). In addition, the survey revealed that Americans are concerned about the effects of industrial animal farms, particularly regarding air pollution, water pollution, worker safety, and other problems. Although these surveys are mainly centered around human welfare, animal welfare, and the effects of the industry on the environment, rarely touching upon animal rights or the ethics of eating meat, the concerned responses of industrial farming should be a positive sign that the public may be open to reducing their meat consumption and possibly hearing more about animal rights in the future.