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.

Environmental Studies Response 2

Here is the second reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In chapter three of The Politics of the Earth, John Dryzek characterizes Prometheans’ as closed-minded; thus, implying that environmentalism thinks outside the box. However, true Prometheanism, and Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons reveals environmentalism’s closed-mindedness.

According to Dryzek, Prometheans believe “natural resources, ecosystems, and… nature itself, do not exist” (57 Dryzek). This actually directly contradicts Prometheanism, which believes reality exists; thus, it understands matter is finite. Prometheanism also believes man is productive and progressive, and that he has successfully lessened his dependence on nature for survival. Thus, Prometheanism believes man can progress beyond nature to a point when relying on it for existence will be unnecessary. Environmentalists argue the exact opposite, for they believe man cannot exist without nature. Thus, man must not progress beyond nature, but stagnate and preserve nature. Nothing could be more in the box.

Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons illustrates another environmentalist inside-the-box thought. In his parable, Hardin explains that individuals are inclined to place more cattle on a communally owned pasture, or commons. Eventually, there would be too many cattle for the commons to support, and must would starve. Hardin equates the parable to the current environmental problem, and concludes “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (805 Adelson) is the only solution. Coercion is completely unnecessary; however, environmentalists cannot see another solution because the parable’s foundation is closed-minded. The solution without coercion is privatizing the commons. Consequently, the owner would want to sustain his property to continuously profit. This is impossible with commons because communal ownership is no ownership; no one is responsible for the property’s upkeep.

Closed-mindedness is not wrong. Knowing the truth is closed-minded. The problem is closed-mindedness about falsehoods. That is environmentalism, which believes nature is communal and man needs it; therefore, he must be forced to sustain it.

I would just like to add an example of a discussion from this very class to capture environmentalists' closed-mindedness.

The class was discussing how privatization could solve several environmental problems; however, most of the class was laughing and poking fun at the suggestions. One of the suggestions from the book was that whales could be privatized. Consequently, environmentalists could purchase whales to protect, and whalers could purchase whales to breed and slaughter like cattle. I pointed out that the one problem with this is that the whales could freely swim around from international waters to state owned waters, and that first sections of the oceans must be privatized, then one must find a way to keep one's whales in his plot of ocean. Once again the class laughed and pointed out how stupid this was. They argued that it could never be done because whales migrate. I stated that they were thinking like the first man who invented fire, claiming that man would never go to the moon and that man would never be able to electronically communicate with other men on the opposite side of the globe in mere seconds. I said that I did not know the solution, but that does not mean it will never be solved. They continued to point out that this was a completely different circumstance because whales' migratory patterns could not be controlled.

A few hours later, after class, I found the solution. I kept thinking to myself that cattle and horses used to freely move around, but then man invented fences and kept them in one spot, curbing those unstoppable migratory patterns. The whale solution could be implemented today. First, plots of ocean are privatized, and the geographical positions of one's plot of ocean is recorded on a computer that communicates with a satellite. Next, one purchases some whales, and herds them into these plots of oceans with boats or something. I am sure herding whales has already been pioneered. Then, one creates a device for whales which is similar to the electric dog collars. This device also has a GPS that communicates to the satellite the whale's current position. Thus, when the whale approaches the limits of one's plot of ocean the satellite knows and sends a signal back to the device, ordering that it zap the whale. The whale is zapped, swims in the other directions, and is conditioned not to leave that plot of ocean. Additionally, once more is understood about the brain, a chip could probably be placed on the whale's brain so that as it reaches the limits of the plot it just decided to turn around without any zap or conditioning. Man's mind has incredible potential, but it appears my classmates hate man too much to understand the greatness of his mind. In turn the only solution they see to such problems as this environmental issue is stagnation. Maintaining the environment for what it is, even if they have to violate individuals' natural rights to achieve this stagnation.

Environmental Studies Response 1

This semester I am taking an atrocious class called Environmental Studies. It is a general education requirement, and it was either do this one which is related to political science or one that was purely science related. I never really enjoyed science, so I decided to choose this one. Over this semester I am sure I will be writing about this class on several occasions; however, I thought I would also post some of my work for the class. Currently, the class is assigned weekly readings, which we must respond to in no more than 300 words. Below is the first response from a few weeks ago.

Thus far, Red Sky At Morning indicates that environmentalism has a religious quality. Therefore, incorporating environmentalism and government produces tyranny.

Religion’s essence is valuing another entity more than one’s self. Environmentalism is similar, for it believes nature is greater than one’s self. Subsequently, “energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government” are not the worst catastrophes, but “the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats” (pg 24) are. Essentially, animal and plant extinction is worse than suffering, oppression, and death. If this is true, individual men are less valuable than individual plants and animals; one’s self, life, liberty, property, and happiness are worth less than nature.

This similarity with religion indicates that government implementation of environmental policies results in tyranny. Government’s purpose is to protect man’s natural rights. However, religion identifies another entity as greater than man. Therefore, it would be correct to oppress man for the sake of the greater entity. Thus, appropriate government environmental policies would include “require[ing] new SUVs and pickup trucks to achieve forty miles per gallon,” financing the development of renewable energy, and “[increasing] tax[es] on oil and gasoline” (pg 70). These policies violate every individual’s property rights. One’s natural right to property allows one to manufacture and sell any car variant he chooses, and to use his money as he pleases, both free of government intervention.

Unfortunately, the government violates individuals’ natural rights through similar methods, so few will notice the harm behind environmental polices. However, a victim’s apathy does not legitimize the attacker’s actions. Furthermore, apathy towards environmental preservation and thus self preservation does not legitimize tyranny; natural rights protect apathy.

Meld

In the same Sociology class where femininity was discussed, my professor mentioned a far more disturbing concept at the end of class. It began as a discussion on terms for sex. The professor wrote the following sentence on the board, "Honey, we're finally alone. Let's __________," and asked the class to fill in the blanks. It actually was pretty funny some of the terms people came up with. However, at the end of class the professor mentioned that there were no terms on the board that reflected anything "spiritual" or "mutual." She said all the terms were about desiring to do something to another person, and she suggested that in our spare time, not for class, we come up with a term that was both mutual and spiritual. Apparently, she has been thinking about this for some time, saying that the only term she could ever come up with was meld. She then said something to the effect that the term isn't about doing something to another person but just melding together and becoming one.

This is gross. First, all I am imagining is two people melting into a giant fondue of sex. However, that is beside the point, and even if I did not envision that the term would still be grossed. As I have said before, love is about becoming more, meaning achieving more happiness. Therefore, there cannot be two people melting, or melding, into one. That is subtraction. That is less. That is the destruction of two selves for some new entity. This common concept that in love 1 + 1 = 1 is perverted. Love is not about destroying two individuals into one entity. Love is about individuals maintaining who themselves and achieving happiness for themselves. It is not about achieving happiness for some singular fondue from their remnants. It is about achieving their independent happiness. Once again, love is selfish, it is not altruistic as this term suggests.

Additionally, though their is some mutual aspect to love, this does not mean that sex has to be equalized in every action. Nor does it mean that both individuals must agree that certain actions are pleasurable and other actions are not pleasurable. For example, the two individuals do not have to agree that doing something to another is pleasurable, yet having something done to them by the other is not pleasurable. If the two individuals had to pursue this, then mutuality would make sense because both individuals would mutually want to both do something to the other person all the time. Of course, then mutuality would also be impossible because sex does not work that way. Essentially, in each act one gives and the other receives. "Melding" suggests that a knew form of sex must be found where each individual is neither giving nor receiving because for mutuality to exist everything must be equalized both in actions and which actions derive pleasure and which do not derive pleasure. Obviously, the only way to achieve this is on the fictional spiritual level, which obviously delves into the irrational, and in order for a romantic relationship to function properly it cannot exist in some ignorant mystical atmosphere. Part of love is A's desire to do something to B, and B's desire to have A do something to it, and vice versa. The disgusting mutuality of "melding" would remove this pleasure, and all that would exist is some mediocre compromise with lots of irrational mystical elements involved.

Femininity

On Monday this past week in my Sociology class an intense debate about femininity began. It started out that the class was discussing how genders were becoming neutralizes. Next, one student stated that he thought that was sad. Obviously, everyone knows he is already approaching that line, and unfortunately he did not address it in the best way. However, I think there is significant merit to the foundation of his argument, and it is something I have considered and may have even briefly addressed in a previous post. Unfortunately, as I already said, he could not capture the essence of the issue well, and personally, I do not think I can either. Basically, what I am going to do is present a very simple idea really with no solution as to whether it is correct and virtuous or incorrect and vicious; however, it is something that should be seriously addressed, which just is not addressed in the current trend of gender neutralization while also remaining politically correct.

First, I want to specify gender neutralization. The term does not refer to males and females holding the same careers, enjoying the same natural rights which they are both equally entitled to, equally receiving judgment on their character and not physical qualities, etc. Gender neutralization refers to males trying to be like females and/or females trying to be like males. In turn, though there are certain physical features that classify males and females, the genders are essentially exactly the same in all other facets.

Secondly, I want to say that I believe that everyone regardless of gender may choose how they want to appear or behave in anyway as long as their actions do not violate another's natural rights. If a male wants to behave or appear as a female, or a female wants to behave or appear as a male, that is their right to choose it, and I do not necessarily consider it vicious. For example, some male homosexuals behave and appear more like females because that is their character, their self, and what makes them happy. Perfectly virtuous. This also applies to some females who are homosexuals and behave and appear more like males.

Thirdly, the problem I really have (and I am not sure if it is a legitimate problem or not) is males who want to make themselves as females or females who want to make themselves as males even though they are not homosexual. I find this difficult to describe and that previous statement certainly did not capture it, but I think it is some of the closest material I am going to get. From personal observation I find this far more prevalent among females, but I think I could be wrong because I do not regularly observe people while I am out, I also do not go out often, and I also do not associate with many people. So the possibility that I am wrong is very high. However, I think what I am trying to illustrate is clearest is some feminists movements. Some variations of feminism do not appear to be concerned with convincing people to judge females on the content of their character and not on their physical qualities. Instead, some aspects of feminism are interested in making females equal to males in almost every aspect. The difference is that the former wants both genders to be judged on the content of their character not on their gender. The latter appears to want females to be males.

The first issue is that philosophy, if that is indeed what some feminist movements are aiming form, implicitly classifies male gender as superior to female gender, when that is certainly not the case. It is as if the philosophy is stating, "the male gender sets the standard, and females must achieve that standard." Instead, the philosophy should be, "this is the standard, all genders must achieve that standard."

The second issue with that philosophy is that a male is a male and a female is a female, and it appears some females are not acting more masculine because that is their self and what makes them happy, but because that is how they believe they must achieve the "standard." Essentially, the idea, which I think is false, is "in order for equality between the genders, meaning equal judgment of character, I, a female, must be more masculine. " That is certainly not the case, and I believe this is what that student was trying to address, for at one point he said, and his entire argument focused on this, "there are some things that make a woman a woman." I think there is some merit to this, but I think those unique female qualities are not determined by her job, social status, etc. I believe a female can hold any job, social status, etc. and still maintain femininity. I think it may actually come down to physical and behavioral characteristics, but I am not sure. The best analogy I can think of is that an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. They are both fruits, like males and females are both humans. Furthermore, an apple is not better than an orange, and an orange is not better than an apply. Like a male is not better than a female, and a female is not better than a male. However, an orange cannot be an apple, and an apple cannot be an orange. There are unique qualities that make an orange and orange, and unique qualities that make an apple an apple.

My final issue with gender neutralization is that I believe it may contradict one's nature, which is a vice. Obviously, it does not contradict the nature of some homosexuals because their selves' have qualities that are closer to the opposite gender. I am specifically referring to the people I previously mentioned who believe they achieve equality by acting like the opposite gender. The problem is that each person has unique characteristics which make them an individual. Including in these characteristics are also physical ones. Some are far more shallow than others, such as hair color and eye color. I do not think that gender is as shallow as those two; however, it is also certainly not as deep as one's character. This is why I think it deserves some level of acceptance. One should not contradict one's gender out of spite or the attempt to achieve equality. The former is a dependent life, one driven by the positions of others and contradicting them. The former is just the incorrect route to equal judgment of character.

However, once again I admit I could be completely wrong. I have not fully explored this topic. I do not understand it as well as I would like to. It is something I have though about on and off for some time, and I was reminded of it in that class. I thought this would be a good place for preliminary exploration.