"Water" and Dams

As the group mentioned, even though access to water is considered a human right, there still appears to be debate about what “access” or “use” means. The group provided two examples of dams that limit indigenous people’s access to water, yet because they theoretically can acquire drinking water from another location, this limitation, according to dam builders, does not impede on that right. It seems like another example of how these debates always involve redefining the right in question to favor the argument promoting the resource’s extraction. Also, arguments in favor of building dams seem to have a strong utilitarian ethical dynamic, as they appeal to the end result of construction, that being energy independence, greater number of citizens on the electrical grid, all at the expense of only a few indigenous groups. Like the Water group mentioned, these dam companies often deliberately mislead the general public about the people being displaced, as some reports that the Belo Monte Dam would displace 25,000 indigenous people while the company estimate was at 2,400. They also mislead people about what enters this water stream when it is diverted for more human use, as many pollutants and waste sewage now flow directly into the river.

Much like the mountaintop removal companies redefining of “reclamation” or “restoration” to be synonymous with “pasture,” the dam companies mischaracterize the facts in the debate to cover up the social and ethnic inequities arising in these cases. I find it slightly unsettling that these arguments work so well with the general public even when the people in the exploited area revolt or protest and receive recognition for these actions. Still, forgetting about the people in the Appalachia or the people along the Yangtze or the Xingu Rivers is easy enough when the end product of their suffering is increased comfort and energy stability for the wider population; yet, so much of that cost-benefit calculation ignores the social and environmental loss, both in the river-based lifestyles of the people and the actual, dramatic changes to the river’s landscape.

"Shelter" and the Tiny House

After listening to the Shelter group’s presentation, I am really intrigued by how and why sustainable housing is becoming a bit of a social movement. Although I think many people are getting on the bandwagon solely because of cost-efficiency, its still great that this movement’s values fit with many of the ethical perspectives we’ve studied in class. Hopefully this means that as people adopt new habits that are economically efficient, they also slowly internalize the ethical and environmental purposes behind these innovations and living styles. I find that the Tiny House movement fits well with Deep Ecology’s emphasis on self-realization not by material goods, but in understanding how to live simply and according to necessity.

Even though I sometimes find Deep Ecology to be an abstract or academic approach, the Tiny House movement’s connection to this ethical theory proves otherwise, as anyone could lead this minimalist lifestyle (as soon as their basic needs are met from the lower direction, of course). I think that the premise behind the Tiny House movement is part of the Deep Ecologist’s path toward a “good life…spent in pursuit of basic and true interests” (DJ 216). More importantly, I do not think everyone must adopt the most extreme version of the tiny house; rather, the lifestyle that reflects these assumptions about basic needs will naturally meet the standards for a good life. To me, there is serious hope and optimism in the sustainable housing movement for fostering an ethical approach with the environment in mind, as many of these strategies seem like common sense rather than radical, Leftist plans to turn the country into a fascist regime that forces you and your family to cower in a 400 square foot shack.

"Earth" and Overpopulation

The Earth group mentioned that concerns about overpopulation are relatively recent and although I’m not sure that’s entirely true (thinking of Thomas Malthus), this point is still extremely relevant. Concerns about overpopulation seem to be voiced most often in the developed world where populations are stable or declining and the “let’s make them change before we change our habits here” argument seems to have at least indirect support. And I think that the fantastical solutions reflect the developed world’s half-joking way of saying that we will likely either not change our consumption habits or will do so as slowly as possible. Even though there appears to be plenty of space for everyone (I read somewhere the world population could fit within the state of Texas, with each of us give six square feet of space), the developed world appears frightened by the idea that other people will live like us, which of course immediately signals that we are in fact aware that many of our habits/lifestyles do not fit within earth’s carrying capacity.

But in regards to carrying capacity, I think the number is less important than the measurement of how we live according to our respect for the environment. Another point I find both interesting and slighting annoying is the argument about the how the developing world moves from heavy pollution into decreased pollution as development leads to better technologies and wider access to those resources. Although this might be true, I think it ignores the reality of the current U.S. situation: even though we are technologically advanced, these developments have not solved the pollution problems. Instead, technologies like filters in coal steam stacks and “safe” nuclear storage have allowed countries like the U.S. to continue to use the same resources without requiring a serious commitment to other, renewable and potentially cleaner sources.

Ecofeminism

One of the components of ecofeminism that I find both relevant and insightful is the “logic of domination” (DJ 247). When I really think about how the world is organized, these “value hierarchies” do seem to be underlying the relationships many humans have with their environments. Once again, like in social ecology, the position of this hierarchy determines how one relates to the natural world and in the ecofeminism approach the umbrella dualism might be the preference for reason over emotion. In the United States, policy decisions seem to be under the influence of this binary, as the cost benefit analysis fits perfectly under the “reason” column. Following the implications of that preference, because this trait is often associated with men, nature becomes dominated according to resource allotment. I’m not sure I follow the radical feminists argument that women have an inherent “ethics of care,” but I certainly can envision how the woman’s association with the passive and the emotional and the male with the aggressive and the reasonable dramatically shapes how we interact with the natural world.

Also, I think that these dualisms control the language we use to talk about the land, that is, the “reason” approach denotes value according to specific measures like money while the “emotional” attempts to measure something intangible and most likely subjective. Maybe the rejection of the ecofeminism approach stems from the difficulty in properly measuring that subjective or aesthetic component against human needs (of course, what is necessary for living is also debatable, which complicates even the “reason” approach). But I think that attempting to understand why humans have historically “dominated” nature is at the core of ecofeminism and perhaps, to some extent, to Timothy Treadwell’s reasons for living with the bears. Both seem focused on developing ways to escape the social dualisms that lead to the environment’s steady degradation. Both seem to step back from the social arrangement to make sense of why things happen they what that they have, which creates a foundation for injecting change into the very system. I think that these two approaches expose the human obsession with control and how this obsession cements those dualisms. With control associated with the aggressive/reasonable half of the dualism, emotion and nature are often uncontrollable, which I think makes them unsettling to the group or ideology trying to assert its superiority.

Environmental Justice

Overall, I find that Bookchin’s social ecology is helpful in framing the range of ethical issues involved in moving toward environmental and social justice. Unlike Deep Ecology or many of the other non-anthropocentric viewpoints we’ve examined, social ecology finally addresses (or at least in a more direct way) the ethical connection between the dominated and dominant (both human and nonhuman). It also does not seem like an ethical theory only practical for those of higher social status. More importantly, I find that social ecology steps back from the individual moral question and instead attempts to make sense of why we might think as we do. First understanding this question seems important when thinking about why certain solutions to moral problems are immediately rejected while others seem to fit well with a large number of people.

In this way, Bookchin’s claim that ideology intimately shapes how people see the world is relevant to addressing environmental issues. It seems impossible for humans to separate themselves from the social system that so subtly produces and then reinforces these values with their roots in domination. I also think his use of hierarchy “as a social condition” (DJ 235) is fascinating and also important as it directly relates to the rights people assume they have and the ethical questions they choose to ask in the first place. Why avoid polluting water tables when you know you can purchase a Brita water pitcher from the Target on the corner? Here the hierarchy is evident in what seems like a simple choice. Morever, to me it makes sense that access in the social order (as it follows from the social hierarchy) is such a dominant force in ethical decision-making.

Bookchin’s assessment that “societies characterized by a high degree of hierarchy are also likely to abuse and damage their environment” (DJ 635) is also reasonable, but I think it also implies that there must be constant reinforcement of that social order to continue this domination. In general, because of the individualized undertones of the U.S. social system, it seems almost inevitable that people will use any reference point, including the natural world, to create some sort of higher, or relatively higher social standing. Like DeJardins points out, “success,” usually measured in income level, drives this sort of inequality. To me, it seems obvious that if human relationships are based on this same sort of domination/success model, then our relationship with the natural world should follow those same guidelines. And it appears as though, for the most part, it has. And where it has not, another group seems to take the place of nature, as in the case study we looked at featuring Larry Summers. When we argue to protect our own environment, the hierarchy isn’t removed, but only seems to shift to some other group, allowing the dominant body to remain in place. Frightening.

Deep Ecology

One of the components of Deep Ecology that I find particularly useful is that it contains certain ethics/philosophy that translate directly into lifestyle choices. Even though this approach moves away from having humans at its center, it still ties in the need for human beings to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives. I agree with Deep Ecology’s emphasis on self-realization, but in this view, it has less to do with the individual pursuit and more with the “process of self-examination in which people come to understand themselves as part of a greater whole” (DJ 216). In my understanding, when the criteria of this statement are met, the human is following a path that moves within certain ecological boundaries; however, these boundaries are meant in no way to hinder the growth of that person. I think this type of development suggests a community beyond the self that is important for human growth but is often overlooked in those societies that hold individualism as the highest form of self-realization. According to the Deep Ecology approach, living minimally or adopting “lifestyles that ‘tread lightly on the Earth’” (DJ 218) are the underlying features constructing this path to self-realization. To me, one of Deep Ecology’s strengths as a set of ethics is that it provides this fairly straightforward foundation, which can easily translate into everyday decisions, namely, eliminating the waste in daily life.

That said, as I look back over the paragraph I’ve just written, there might be something too abstract about Deep Ecology, or if not abstract, something too extreme to be an approach that can be used by large groups of people. As DesJardins mentions, “self-realization” is already such an ambiguous concept and its role in an ethical approach also seems problematic. But I do think that by including self-realization Deep Ecology does move away from some of the problems that non-anthropocentric ethical arguments face, that being a complete revision of the human-animal relationship that places humans at the same moral standing as animals. Although the approach still does this, by including the “self-realization” component the ethical approach provides humans with an already widely accepted purpose of life (finding the Self).

Animals and "The Cove"

Various blends of anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric ethics characterize the environmental ethics standpoints of the people in The Cove, which, to me, immediately indicates the obvious complexity of determining what rights animal have. One general observation about the people in the film making these non-anthropocentric arguments was that most of them were white and appeared to be relatively wealthy or middle-class (I’m assuming this class category because of the type of employment each held such as former dolphin trainer, representative of animal rights organizations, well-known surfers and even Hayden Panietierre). With that social background, it seems reasonable that many of these people are at liberty to adopt a more “extreme” set of ethics that gives animals like dolphins the same moral status. Social conditions do seem to play an important role in what ethical framework appears reasonable and also speaks to the type of creatures certain people choose to protect. The place of the dolphins in the film largely centered on their use in entertainment and I think that for many people, this still provides the background for their desire to grant a dolphin moral standing.

Although I think that we could be more respectful to animals and acknowledge their importance in our lives, I find extending complete moral standing to them problematic. Fully applying non-anthropocentric ethics also might be difficult given the ambiguity about which organisms have enough of a life to be granted moral standing. Do we grant moral standing to the chicken’s unfertilized egg, which could imply that we can no longer eat that egg even though doing so harms neither chicken nor egg? In my own experience on a farm, being able to watch a calf through its life cycle, ending with its slaughter on our farm or at the local processor, seems to have a significant amount or respect tied into the process. With that in mind, if we find that full adoption of animal rights is impossible, perhaps a transition to this sort of human-animal relationship would be more reasonable. In nature, animals eat other animals and have a dependence on one another that embodies this respect, but the way human industry goes about production (factory farms, growth hormones, etc.), in contrast, contradicts any sort of respect for animal itself and instead disconnects the entire process from that obvious human-animal interdependence.