Environmental Studies Response 7

Here is another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology’s biodiversity chapter implies that nature is inherently valuable. However, the articles With Mouth Wide Open and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems inadvertently disprove this claim, for to justify it they rely on man’s existence.

Value presupposes a valuer. If an item is unvalued, it is worthless. For example, if Product A is developed and sold, it clearly has value because developers use it to earn profits, and consumers purchase it. However, if everyone including the developers dispose of Product A, it becomes worthless. Product A is not worth $3 because it costs $3 to produce; Product A is only worth $3 if individuals are willing to buy and sell it for $3. If no one wants Product A, it is worthless.

The same is true for nature; it is worthless unless it is valued. Fortunately, nature is valued by man. This is evidenced by With Mouth Wide Open’s and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystem’s attempts to scare and shame readers. The articles state, “Man is destroying the cod, and once it is gone, he can no longer eat it,” and “Man is destroying ecosystems and species, once they are gone, he can no longer see them and use their resources.” Essentially, nature has value because man exists. Therefore, man should not preserve nature for the sake of preserving it, but for the sake of preserving something he values.

Of course, some argue man should preserve nature even if he does not value it because animals value it. However, that must be proven. Just because Animal A eats Plant B does not mean Animal A values Plant B. Animal A’s instinct programs it to eat Plant B. Is that value, or is that distinctly different from man, who derives happiness from what he values?

Environmental Studies Response 6

Below is the sixth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Several environmental mediums, such as Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff depict corporations as ignorant, voracious, and obese top-hat-wearing instigators and perpetuators of environmental problems. However, corporations have serious motives to solve environmental issues.

Leonard argues that in the past, present, and future corporations destroy nature to earn profits. However, corporations’ profit motive ensures that they will not continue to destroy nature. Corporations desire to create the cheapest and most effective products because individuals want them and they are inexpensive to make. Essentially, profit motivates corporations to create ideal products, but ideal products cannot be constructed before inferior ones. Furthermore, ideal products are environmentally friendly, for they use inexpensive renewable fuels, produce clean and harmless unobtrusive waste work as well as their predecessors, and cost the same. Simply imagine a car with these attributes. Any corporation that created it would become exceedingly wealthier.

Since most environmentalists blame corporations for instigating and perpetuating environmental destruction, they turn to the government to provide solutions. However, the government has no motivation to do so. If the government was motivated, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendations to develop water conservation techniques and efficient farming would already be accomplished, for the state subsidizes water utilities and farmers. However, these subsidies eliminate any motivation to develop, for they remove all fear of bankruptcy caused by a competitor’s superior product. Water utilities and farmers never worry about profits because they are always guaranteed money from the government.

Environmentalists must remember that corporations’ environmentally harmful past is not vicious. Attacking corporations for their former inferior environmentally harmful products is like attacking the man who invented fire because he did not invent the light bulb. The light bulb is the ideal; however, man has no idea how to make it unless he makes fire first.

Collective Punishment

Last week in my Environmental Studies class one student argued that there need to be global regulations on birth. That is correct, some super-state, as if there is not enough government already, needs to pass a law governing all the people of the world, which would restrict the number of children each individual can give birth to.

This statement immediately reminded me of collective punishments. Through my experience I find that they are most prevalent where children are involved like elementary schools or youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. These bullshit punishments penalize an entire group for the prohibited actions of specific individuals. Simply, individuals who have not violated any rules are disciplined because someone they are next to did. This does not teach individuals to stop committing certain acts. The only thing individuals learn from these punishments is that they are not individuals; that their lives have been forcibly tied to other men. Thus, they also learn that since all lives are tied to one another any individual can force another individual to stop committing an act for the sake of preserving the virtue of a human knot. Of course, this is completely false, and is just another source of the prevalence of warped morality.

These false teachings were indeed the root of the student's comment. He was acting like an individual who had been punished this way numerous times. He now assumes all human lives are latched; thus, it is his responsibility, as one of the shackled, to punish all the shackled for some of them are having too many children. First, I am not sure if this is even a vice, and it certainly does not violate any individuals' natural rights; therefore, there can be no government regulation of the act. However, that individual is not thinking like this. He is thinking like the child punished with collectivism, punished for the vices and rule breaking of individuals next to him. Thus, he now acts and thinks as if that system of punishment is just. Clearly, it is not for it punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It punishes those who happen to be similar to others or near others at the time of the prohibited act. Subsequently, he now propagates that thinking. He is a teacher of this warped philosophy through his punishment of others. He is now a fountain of moral corruption.

Additionally, collective punishment is also somewhat like racism. In fact, racism is a form of collective punishment. In my post on racism I pointed out that it identifying an individual negatively based on the actions of his ancestors. That is partially it. There is also negative identification based on arbitrary physical factors shared by a group of individuals. In any event, they are both very similar because it judging all similar individuals based on the actions of a few individuals. However, since men are independent individuals, using this collective judgment is irrational. Man's liberty separates him from other men. Therefore, if he is disconnected from a particular action, he cannot be associated with it, for his liberty allowed him to choose not to participate in the acts of other men.

This also holds true for attaching positive qualities to similar individuals based on the actions of some of them, or having pride in positive actions based on the fact that one is similar to the actual actors. Specifically, one should not have pride in his culture. He may admire the actions of particular individuals; however, he cannot say he has personal pride in them as if he participated in some collective act. In fact, there was no collective act. In fact, the individual is just riding on the coattails of another individual who happens to be similar to him in some way. One must be proud of his own accomplishments, not partake is a false collective pride that he earned only because he was born with similar physical characteristics as the actors. Once again, the fact that he has liberty, the fact that his mind is disconnected from the actor, the fact that he may have the choice to participate with the actor or not, indicates that he cannot seek merit for actions he did not commit. Essentially, collective punishment, judgment, merit, any form of collectivism is impossible without a collective mind; liberty, meaning independent minds protect individuals from collective punishment or judgment and bar individuals from stealing the merits of other actors.

Environmental Studies Response 5

Another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

The scientific evidence presented in Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 synthesis report was certainly impressive and difficult to challenge. However, physical science does not direct government policy; that is philosophy’s purpose.

The science presented in these readings is most admirable, even to those who do not understand all the specifics, such as how CO2’s interaction with the atmosphere causes global warming. Science in general is admirable because it illustrates man’s desire and passion to understand physical reality, and that his mind has an almost infinite potential to comprehend and solve problems. One example of science’s admirability is displayed in the readings’ description of using an ice column to analyze and compare past CO2 levels to the present.

However, a problem arises when scientific discoveries are used to justify governmental policies. Governance is not science’s responsibility, for no amount of digging, exploring, drilling, or chemical testing will reveal virtues. Virtues are uncovered via morality not physical facts. Therefore, proper governance is solely philosophy’s responsibility, for it unearths morality.

Unfortunately, environmentalism appears to only be focusing on science when it is actually a two-step process also requiring philosophy. First, scientific evidence must be accumulated and confirmed; the environmental issue and its potential harm to man are solely answerable by science. Second, philosophy must determine the virtuous resolution. For example, philosophy determines if violating individuals’ property rights for the sake of lowering CO2 emissions to resolve the environmental issue is virtuous or vicious. Obviously, vice is to always be avoid, while virtue is to always be pursued. However, simply following the first-step and jumping to moral conclusions undoubtedly results in an unacceptable and avoidable mix of virtue and vice.

Environmental Studies Response 4

Here is the fourth response for my Environmental Studies class.

Judging from Paul Hawken’s The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World, and Thomas Friedman’s Politics for the Age of Globalization, it appears some do not understand that globalization necessitates liberty.

Globalization is essentially the disintegration of state and national borders via individuals’ increasing potential to interact with others beyond those borders. Furthermore, divided individuals can only interact if they are not restricted by the borders’ creators. Thus, globalization requires liberty. However, Hawken muddles globalization with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and Friedman believes globalization requires expanding government paternalism, both of which oppose globalization’s liberty component.

Hawken’s mistake is clearest when he describes the United States filed complaint with the WTO regarding the European Union’s (EU) acceptance of independent Caribbean farmers’ bananas, but refusal of Chiquita Brands International’s. The WTO decided the EU was biased towards the independent farmers, and forced the EU to also accept Chiquita. This is not globalization, for businesses were utilizing the government’s monopoly on violence to force products upon individuals. Additionally, the EU’s restriction of Chiquita bananas also contradicts globalization. Globalization demands grocers independently choose what products to sell.

Friedman argues, globalization requires the government “to equip each [individual], and… society at large” (256). When the government assumes this responsibility it invariably violates rights and corrupts accountability. For example, Friedman proposes government loans for starting personal businesses. Firstly, this requires redistributing wealth, which necessitates thievery. Secondly, unlike a bank, the government can steal more money. Therefore, the government has no interest in restricting loans. Consequently, several unqualified individuals would receive loans. Furthermore, there would be prolonged low interest payment plans; thus, the hassle is limited if the business fails. Essentially, these loans depreciate personal responsibility.

Hawken must realize that globalization fosters freedom not oppression, while Friedman must learn that some of his recommendations hinder globalization.

Friedman, Thomas. “Politics for the Age of Globalization.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 251-261.

Hawken, Paul. “The WTO: Inside, Outside, All Around the World.” Environment an

Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell, Brent Ranalli, and

K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 261-268.

Environmental Studies Response 3

Below is the third reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In his chapters on administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism John Dryzek emphasizes a higher value for citizenship than individuality, though the reverse is warranted.

Dryzek’s purpose for these chapters is to explore different methods of solving the environmental problem. The two basic methods are addressing the problem collectively through government, or individually and voluntarily. Dryzek argues collectivism is the best model, for it is a “flexible process involving many voices, and cooperation across a plurality of perspectives” (100) that also preserves camaraderie. According to Dryzek, collective methods like nationalizing nature into parks creates “repository[ies] of common trust and community pride,” and “emblem[s] of what it means to be a Canadian, an American, a Costa Rican, or a Japanese.” These “are experiences that Walt Disney could never provide” (139). Unfortunately, Dryzek’s argument implies significant violence.

Regardless of whether or not nationalizing nature better preservers it than privatization, nationalization relies on the government stealing from individuals. Either the government would steal land to nationalize, or it would steal money to sustain the nationalized land. Additionally, Dryzek favors collective problem solving, i.e. democracy, because “nobody wants a hazardous waste treatment facility in their backyard” (105); therefore, when that possibility arises, the community can veto or regulate it. This is violence. It is individuals who do not own the property deciding how the owner may use it. That is thievery and oppression. The peaceful way to black a hazardous waste facility’s construction is purchasing all the possible sites of such a facility. Subsequently, one owns the land and has the right to decide how it may be used. Another peaceful method is simply moving.

Obviously, many will argue that most individuals lack the resources for purchasing land or relocating. However, insufficient resources do not legitimize the violation of others’ natural rights.