Radish/Turnip Chips

I promised Caitlin of Weathervane Farm that I'd post the recipe for some radish chips I made a few weeks ago and I've been seriously slacking on my end. So here it is. We've been getting healthy bunches of radishes and turnips in our weekly farm share lately, however, Jody and I have only ever had radishes in salads and were looking for something different. I found this technique for making chips and gave it a try. Personally I think that finishing these off in a dehydrator or something would make them perfect, or perhaps a little less oil than I've been using also as they come out either a little soft or burnt (I haven't hit that perfect happy medium yet). Despite my negativity about presentation these taste great! So perhaps someone can add a personal touch and perfect this tasty (and lower carbohydrate than potato) treat.

-Start by washing your radishes or turnips
-Slice into thin discs



-Either lightly brush olive oil onto a cookie sheet or spray with cooking spray
-Lay chips out on sheet and lightly coat top side with oil or spray



-Then sprinkle the chips with your favorite spices. For mine I used a "Meditteranean" combo of Garlic Salt, Oregano, Thyme, Salt, and some Basil that was mixed with the dish of olive oil I had nearby.



-Preheat the oven to 375 degrees F.
-Cook for 10 minutes
-Flip and bake for another 5-10 minutes (or sometimes more, this all depends on how thin and consistent you slice your chips. If you are slicing by hand, expect to check on the chips every couple of minutes to pick out the ones that are done first to avoid burning.

So that's how I do it. The short of it is:
-Slice turnips
-Coat with oil
-Add seasoning
-Bake 10 minutes each side on 375 degrees F.

Enjoy!

Do trees have feelings?

This week I rationalize the idea that plants have a capacity to suffer and what that means in terms of how we treat them....among other things

It's official, I'm a tree hugger.

Summary Week 5 & 6

The question of decisions in regard to environmental policy seems to be a matter of degrees. The degree in which the environment can be cared for can be anything from zero to all encompassing. I’m learning to recognize this, and recognize under what parameters these questions under debate are being asked. The parameters that presented themselves in chapter 5 of DesJardins’ textbook were broadly covered under the topic of moral standing. More specifically the question presents itself first of whether or not environmental ethics, in any degree, should be based on anthropocentric ethics. The first step to determining this is to determine if animals, the most cognitive creature second to humans, possess moral standing and to what extent. A positive response to this then opens the door to analyzing the potential for moral standing in plants. And then of course, to what extent do plants have moral standing? Assuming then that we do show that animals and plants hold moral standing that still leaves us with the question of whether or not anthropocentric ethics is a justifiable approach to any environmental topic. I think this can be answered to varying degrees of certainty and circumstance.

Looking more at the question of whether animals have moral standing. I think that they do. First and foremost I hold a strong conviction that human instinct and natural compassion holds a strong weight, although it is hard to use in argument, in regards to the "proper" treatment of living things and our environment. So if you see something that makes you feel bad, it probably is. But, like I said, it can be difficult for one person to fight against something that they feel bad about but can’t determine the source of that feeling. This would make it important to intelligently argue in favor of nonanthropocentric ethics. I find it easy to associate with Peter Singer and Tom Regan’s philosophies because of the shortfalls of previous philosopher’s arguments against animal moral standing. The anthropocentric musings of Aristotle and Aquinas are the foundations for the inaccuracy of subsequent anthropocentric philosophers in that they express a fundamental example of relativity. What I’m saying is that as developed as many arguments are, that doesn’t excuse the fact that we as humans are making a value judgment based on the fact that something is not like us, therefore does not possess an equal moral standing or standing at all. This is an arrogant presumption based on an inability to communicate with and previous ignorance in regard to the nature of other species. Some arguments that would otherwise successfully exempt animals from our little club of moral standings overstep their bounds by also exempting certain humans from this privilege of life. Immanuel Kant’s view says “only autonomous beings, capable of free and rational action, are moral beings” (DesJardins 97). If in fact animals did not possess this capacity, this view can be heavily and successfully debated on the grounds that certain human beings do not fit this qualification. So we would then be forced to hold this “rule” for them as well. An example would be a mentally handicapped child. We would not disregard the value of that child’s life, so this argument is unjust. A similar argument is given by Cartesian ethics in that the “criterion for moral standing is consciousness. Anything not conscious is a mere physical thing and can be treated without concern for its well-being” (DesJardins 97). This again opens an opportunity for inclusion of animals, but barbarically excludes anyone that, for example, has fallen into a coma or is cognitively impaired. In this sense Descartes might as well just say “kick ‘em while he’s down.”

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham gets things going in the right direction by stating “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?” (DesJardins qtd. 97). To answer this in discussion of animals it is much easier to say yes, and therefore conclude that animals possess moral standing. But then we have to ask- what degree of moral standing? To say that other animals possess a higher moral standing than humans would be a difficult debate to win. We may hold a particular animal (our pet) in higher regards than a stranger, but to find a human that holds any animal higher than themselves would be rare. Equal moral standing would be more rationally debated, although I think again if it came down to mortal consequences that the animal would lose. After that however I think that animals can justly be held, and should be held, in the highest regard feasible without putting humans in direct mortal harm. One example would be, if you are being charged by a bear you would shoot it if it were clear you were in mortal danger. But that bear can be held with higher regard if we recognize its territory and avoid it in the first place, or protect both of you by properly managing your trash receptacle. While either of you can impose mortal harm to the other, there is no reason both cannot live in harmonious proximity of each other. I posted a direct question to my classmates seeking anyone who did not feel that animals possessed moral standing. Unfortunately (or fortunately), no one disagreed. A consistent notion that our needs came first did present itself in my classmates’ responses, but all agreed that animals are qualified.

Two new debates of degree now arise out of accepting animals into our realm of moral standing. The first is whether there is a balance between our need for cheap and abundant food supply and the treatment of our livestock. Concentrated Animal Feed Operations are the means to providing us with the meat that we demand. Much of our society is unfortunately greatly disconnected with the sources of their food. It doesn’t take much however to alter ones perception when presented with the realities of CAFO’s. The introduction to this chapter which presents us with the story behind our veal cutlet had a resounding effect on the opinions of my classmates. Unfortunately it sometimes takes a violent and disturbing reality check to derail our comfortable disregard of the realities of how our food gets to our mouth.

This shock therapy often leads us to the second debate of degree. That is whether or not animals should have equal status to humans and therefore should not be a source of food in any form. The result is veganism. Peter Singer and Tom Regan support this end in their philosophies, and no matter how arguable their ideas may be I cannot deny our human nature to live as omnivores. Humans killing for food is no more immoral than a predator killing its prey. It probably is necessary for all of us to cut back on our consumption of livestock in light of our population, and it may even be necessary to live a nearly herbivorous existence in order to sustain our current population. But I don’t feel there are moral grounds to completely deny the ability of humans to consume other animals.

So if we are to eat less meat, what are we to eat? Plants! But what about moral standing for plants? Before this week I would have run into this conversation with my hands tied behind my back knowing that there are no grounds to deny our right to eat vegetables. Not especially on moral grounds. In fact when Patrick B. asked this very question on our discussion board that response is exactly what I was prepared to give. But his comment, “Does the sun give [plants] pleasure?” made me think first. What is pleasure? From a human perspective isn't our desire for pleasure more simply put as our desire to be removed from pain? And then we can ask is pain anything more than an evolved response relating to our instinct to preserve our own life? It's kind of like how our body reacts instinctively to extreme heat, we pull our hand away. So let’s say that our reaction away from pain is a reaction to a potential threat to our life. From that example you could say that our "desire" for pleasure is because it inversely relates to pain. We feel good when taking a warm bath because it promotes life and doesn't resemble something that could cause us pain, just the opposite of suffering.

So, if you still follow me, then what we call pleasure is our natural response to something that promotes life, or simply does not resemble a threat against us. Then you could argue that plants do react to positive stimulation as we humans do. And now that we show plants have a capacity for pleasure, than they must possess a capacity to suffering. So under the grounds of Singer's argument, plants do show a "capacity to suffering" (DesJardins p.110) and therefore possess moral standing. That puts us in an awkward predicament. But I would revert back to what I said about eating animals and now feel morally obligated to abstain from eating plants, but now we may just have to reconsider how we treat them while they are alive.

So now if we agree that we can show that animals and plants have moral standing is there a need for anthropocentric ethics at all? The heart of anthropocentric ethics comes from the fact that to think anthropocentrically is to think centrally of oneself and one’s species. This point of view is reinforced by a divine scripture telling us it is so. I think that we can stop here and say that the idea of anthropocentric ethics is not without reason and basis for these two reasons alone. But it is within our human cognitive ability to debate what this implies as far as our rights to treat other lives with respect and much deeper and far reaching topics. The idea of anthropocentric ethics can have its negative effects on our ecology, as we see with greenhouse gas emissions and global climate. Also if taken in its literal mistranslation the anthropocentric divine right bestowed upon us in the Bible in the story of Creation can serve to mislead the principles of our heavily religion based culture (Gen 1:28). I had previously formulated my own opinion of how our modern religious society has grossly misinterpreted the words "subdue" and "dominion" in the ancient religious text of the Bible (Gen 1:28). My interpretation is that God blessed us with our cognitive ability and morals and we have the responsibility to care for the other creatures on the earth and in turn we have the privilege to reap benefits from those creatures. But for those who choose to misuse and abuse these creatures with disregard because they feel that holy text (that has been translated into hundreds of languages and by many individuals) says that is how we should act, obviously didn't pay attention to the rest of the message in the Bible. I was pleased to read that Lynn White Jr. shared a similar sentiment in regards to how western religious beliefs can be tied to the cause of our current environmental dilemmas (DesJardins 98-99).

Although there are problems with anthropocentric ethics in some regards, I feel that this mind set is deeply rooted in our subconscious. Because of this a rather large degree of consideration should be given to this mindset when addressing environmental debates. Even if an underlying motivator for change is based on nonanthropocentric ideas, which I have supported in the previous paragraphs, it may be necessary to formulate an argument that is based on positive anthropocentric outcomes. I don’t see that there is anything wrong with that. If some interpret this as promoting a hidden agenda that would be irrelevant because the outcomes were based on anthropocentric discourse which ensures that the action was in the interest of humans. So if we justify preserving the spotted owl’s habitat through argument favoring human standing, there is no harm done- only positive progress.

So now in our current understanding of the world we can show that animals have moral standing, plants have moral standing, and anthropocentric ethics have their place in our environmental decisions. Despite what I hope I have been able to clarify in regards to these topics the questions will always remain, to what degree do these ethics get applied? Perhaps it can be through Aristotle’s principle of virtuous means that we are able to balance through rational thought the best mix of these ethics for the health of our planet.

Overanalyzing week 3 and 4

Read and see if you think I've successfully over analyzed the problem of over analysis:

Summary Week 3 & 4

Through the introduction given in our textbook I recognize the importance in the application of philosophical analysis to ensure that our actions are supported by proper contemplation. There is a point, however, at which I feel that a particular topic can be over-analyzed by a zealous thinker or in favor of a particular outcome. The underlying theme that I picked up from reading through chapters 3 and 4 posed the rhetorical question of “how much over analysis does it take to justify our actions or inactions in the case of implementing change. The case for chapter three was the use of economics as an oversimplified way to analyze the value of environmental resources. But I found an interesting need to balance a moderate amount of economic influence into our environmental policies. Chapter four brought to light the shortcomings of the arguments against preservation for future generations. Because of lengthy analysis these arguments begin to make sense, but when looking at the overall message it just sounds silly.

As I mentioned, I found there is actually good argument for the use of economics in environmental policy. The beginning argument in chapter three covers this with the example of the mechanics and operations of the US Forest Service. First of all it is essential that we as individuals, in our efforts to mold our opinions and develop the foundation of our actions, seek out a better understanding of the history of that which we so readily publicize our criticisms and opinions. In the case of the Forest Service many, including myself, assumed that the purpose of this government entity was to preserve our forests for the health of our ecosystems and our recreational and aesthetic enjoyment. Now I have come to recognize that the Forest Service is a division of the USDA- The United States Department of Agriculture. So the Forest Service is an agricultural entity. The definition of agriculture as found in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products”. The key word there is products. So while all this time I was under the belief that the Forest Service was acting in the best interest of my recreational endeavors and the beautiful tranquility that I’ve enjoyed, this was an external benefit of the business being conducted in order for me to have the paper and wood products I desire.

Despite this unfortunate misunderstanding of the true purpose of this organization it does serve a good intentioned purpose for our benefit. Unfortunately this government division that is fundamentally designed to work as a business of crop production and marketing is not operating on the competitive and self equalizing open market. I am now aware of how the structure by which the Forest Service operates is under the effect of budgetary control. As I now understand it, additional annual funding is a needs based program. The more expenses that are shown in a year in turn pushes up the amount of financial funding that is provided the following year. How about that? The more I spend, the more money will be provided for me to operate a “business” with complete disregard for efficient operations and improving the bottom line. This is ridiculous, and supports the need for open market operation to curb frugal spending and inefficient operations. Since the Forest Service is structured under the presumption that it is a producer of a national product, it would only lead one to believe that the most effective way for it to operate would be under the structure of the open market where careful management of the forest “crop” and intelligent structure of operations would yield the greatest results. In my opinion it would be a wise decision to address the pitfalls of the current policies directing the operations within the Forest Service and possibly take on a more complete economic approach to operations.

While the influence of the open market and economic analysis can be seen to benefit the structure of conservationist efforts of entities like the US Forest Service, this approach is not all encompassing in regards to environmental policy and resulting positive effects. For there is a side to environmental ethics that argues that problems with environmental concerns can be resolved entirely by economic reason. This is expressed by the classical economist’s belief in the magic of the open market and its ability to provide the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people through their expression of desire in their willingness to pay for any particular want. My first point of disagreement with this is that there is a great deal of value in nature that cannot be put into tangible monetary terms. Natalie L. responded to a question in our textbook that addressed this issue. The question in our text posed “If a Disney-like resort opened in a wilderness area near you, would you be willing to pay money to visit it? If so, would that be evidence that you preferred development to wild preservation? Are those things that people are willing to pay for always the things that people most value?” Natalie intuitively responded by saying “People who value friends, family, religion, and so forth might not place as much meaning into money spent because true value does not cost them anything in life.”

In my opinion, in the case of wilderness preservation, I can use an example of my recent summer activities to show that money spent does not equate to a higher level of desire and enjoyment for myself. Part of what I enjoy about hiking in the wilderness is that it is free! I am free to enjoy the marvels that have been created (and not destroyed by us!). This summer I have had the opportunity to get out hiking nearly every weekend. This has been one of the greatest summers! And I haven't spent a lot of money doing it. Two weeks ago I forewent the hiking to drive up to Denver for the weekend. I haven't watched TV or gone to the movies in months, so my wife and I packed in a double header on Monday. This followed a fun day at the Scotfest in Estes Park, and finished with dinner at our favorite Mexican restaurant. So clearly, my weekend consisted of making the most of modern development (i.e. Movie Theater, restaurant, fairgrounds, etc.). And it cost me! We spent more money in 3 days than we had all month!! It almost took the fun right out of it. So to make my point, a great deal of what we value about something can be based on the fact that it is available for all to enjoy. If someone closed down my local movie theater, I wouldn't much care (as a matter of fact they did close the Buena Vista movie theater!). But close down, or destroy the wilderness outside my back door and I'll surely be chaining myself to some trees! Placing environmental policy solely in the hands of the open market is a dangerous way of simplifying our responsibilities to thoughtful policy making.

Another drawback to open market environmental policy is that it forces us to clamor over each other in order to obtain that which we strongly desire. This means working longer and harder to earn the money necessary to purchase land and the opportunities to enjoy nature before some other knucklehead with more money can grab it up and keep it from the rest of us, or from my sole enjoyment (maybe I’m then the knucklehead). Open market policy would say that the knucklehead with more money obviously wanted that item more than the rest of us and was willing to pay for it, therefore according to the economic environmental philosophy the greater amount of good was provided through this competitive market system. I would have to disagree. Victoria K. posted a youtube.com video that exemplifies a quote that summarizes this final thought on the drawbacks of the competitive open market. The quote is “What would it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul?” I’ve been fortunate enough to lose everything in my financial world recently, and it has blessed me with an opportunity to reevaluate what is worth pursuing and protecting.

One such thing that is worth protecting is our relationships with both friends and family and brings us to the topic covered in Chapter 4. The main topic, which posed the question of what our responsibility is to future generations, really confronted me with the use of over analysis. I can’t believe the extent to which some philosophers have micro analyzed this topic in order to justify inaction. The argument that I am talking about is the “disappearing beneficiaries”. I have heard this argument in person from one perspective, in which it was said that our world is so far gone that it would be unjust to bring a life into it in the first place. This life which has been chosen never to begin is the disappearing beneficiary as I see it. So now we are making decisions based on a person that may or may not ever exist, so what is our responsibility to that person? The argument then becomes one for complacency because, it is argued, that if we make a decision for the benefit of one intended descendent then that decision would in essence change the course of destiny and that descendent may never come into existence because of that. So now we are looking at a decision intended to benefit one person, but we have altered the future and are now presenting this decision to a wholly different individual. This is the stuff Hollywood movies are made of….like Back to the Future- “Marty! Don’t change anything!” And it encourages us to sit in a corner of a dark room and do nothing for fear of making the wrong decision for the wrong future people. While this argument is deep and intriguing, I think that it creates an opportunity to throw our hands up and continue enjoying ubiquitous consumption on a growing scale. We’re focusing on the wrong questions! What is the correct focus? How about to what extent should we make sacrifices in order to benefit ourselves and our future offspring most effectively and productively?

I’ll start by answering the question of whether or not future generations have rights, it’s an important starting point. My answer is yes. But now that we have established that future generations should be thought of in our decisions and that they do have such rights I have to really be careful in my consideration of what I am willing to give up. My initial response to this question was a quick and easy- “I am willing to sacrifice for future beneficiaries whatever is required of me.” But given further consideration this statement might be a bit hasty. For instance, in order to analyze my own true willingness to sacrifice for our future generations I posed the hypothetical scenario:

I'm starting a four year investment in my education so that I can have a degree in engineering. Financially I plan to make out really well when I start work, and am hoping to retire early like many of the engineers that I have met (most under the age of 35!). So now imagine, after I have worked my butt off for 4 years in school sacrificing my social life and time with family, and spent say another 10-15 years at work, I get to that day of early retirement. But on that day I find that I am forced to give all my savings to a trust fund for future generations and I have to go back to work as a clerk at a retail establishment for the rest of my life and never get to reap the benefits of my hard work. Would I make the same decisions today if I knew that this would be the results of my efforts? i.e. would I willingly pass on the fruits of my labor to an unknown beneficiary?

I posted this question on our class discussion board and got some encouraging feedback. Ryan B. made an important statement that I feel brings the discussion back into meaningful perspective. Ryan is a father of one child and has another on the way. He draws a more direct connection between future generations and who they are in his mind. For him they are his children and future grandchildren. He is able to put faces on his beneficiaries, even if he does not yet know his grandchildren. He states: “I definitely feel that I have an obligation to do my part in making sure that they have the necessary resources and wilderness areas for enjoyment that I have had.” Kelley V. also supported this idea by acknowledging that in spite of the disappointment felt by missing out on an opportunity she selflessly feels that “it would suck even more if I got to experience the chance to get some fruits, and I know that someone else didn't, and them not getting that chance was related to me not putting all my cash in the trust fund.” Kelley, Ryan and I seem to have come to the same conclusion that the right decision is typically the hardest to initiate, but I find that in the end a sacrifice is not as bad as we imagined.

If one thing is clear to me at this point in regards to environmental policy and the philosophies behind it, it is that much of this general area of study is not simple and one dimensional. Because our societal structure is so complex it would prove to be an overwhelming convenience to be able to summarize our roles and responsibilities into a general all-encompassing set of rules and applied ethics. Religion, legislature, and the media are the greatest examples of attempts to develop such structure. Unfortunately there seem to always be flaws with either or any side of ethical philosophy. It is admirable and fundamentally important that philosophers have attempted to summarize our intentions and responsibilities into neat little theories, and their studies have brought to light many important revelations. But as I have come to see in the examples of economically driven environmental conservation and the arguments concerning rights of future generations, balance of the good of all arguments is the most effective means to act upon our philosophical observations. Conservation, when implemented in harmony with preservation will yield the safest and most responsible outcome for our future generations who we will love and care for simply because they are our offspring by maternal and societal means.

To have the whole world and still lose your soul

One of my classmates posted a link to this short film (6 minutes) in a discussion we are having analyzing the effectiveness of economics in environmental policy. The idea that was presented was that of maximizing the collective good by providing the maximum amount of resources to the most people as an ethical way of providing for human beings. The author posed a strong concern in the form of a quote that my googling seems to have linked back to a biblical quote of Jesus Christ-

"What would it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul?"

This short film puts into theatrical context this question. Which makes you ponder, what is it that I am working to accomplish? In the end, is it what will really bring me happiness? Check it out

More from on Vimeo.

What I learned at school today....

I've been gone from the blog for a while and it's killing me. The reason, calculus! Among other things. I'm back at it for the fall semester and haven't had a lot of time lately to keep things up to date. The unfortunate thing is that I've been keeping busy with some great topics in my online classes. It's unfortunate because I've been wanting to share some of it with you here. So, I'm stealing a minute to paste in a paper I submitted that summarizes the first two weeks of reading and discussion from my online environmental ethics class. Our textbook is aptly titled Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy by Joseph DesJardins. This summary essay covers the introductory chapters of this book and relates some of my own thoughts on the relative content of the various philosophies mentioned in the book. Enjoy:

Summary Week 1 &2

I see that week 1 & 2 are directed to introduce the class to the field of ethical philosophy, and specifically set the stage for a semester long discussion on the various viewpoints of environmental ethics and the principles behind environmental concern. I come to this class with a well developed sense of my own environmental purposes and stewardship, as well as a fair amount of technical understanding of the issues and intellectual resources. After all, my focus of undergraduate study is electrical engineering for the explicit purpose of working in the renewable energy industry. Philosophy on the other hand, outside of my own self analysis, is a brand new topic for me and chapter one and two served to introduce a more educated perspective to my own amateur reflections.
What stood out to me most prominently in chapter 1 was how DesJardins emphasized the importance of science and ethics assisting each other in the advancement of environmental analysis. Based on this week’s discussions I feel that this idea had a positive impact on many of the rest of this class. In relating to the importance of ethics to scientific activity Jordanne S. prompted an interesting discussion about the ethical quagmire of discerning the choice to label and kill a pest or not. Jordanne made the point that an organism that humans label as a pest can actually play a vital role in an ecosystem. Also in spite of our best efforts at waging chemical warfare that many “pests” evolve around our noxious attacks and simply become stronger. As I see it our ethical appeal to preserve life (pests included) seems to fix, or correct the intentions, of what science is screwing up. For it is the nature of living things to survive. Our chemicals seem to rarely change that successfully in the long run. However natural order tends to control such issues if we would only allow that to happen. An example to finish this argument is found in my search for a proper insect control method for my garden. Chemicals are out of the option for me, so I looked to natural insecticides. Nature has provided this in the form of other living organisms such as lady bugs and green lacewings. Both mitigate the aphid population. So by doing as DesJardins recommends and following the process of philosophical ethics, “stepping back to reflect on our decision making”, we can see the solutions that nature has already provided to us!
On the flip side of Jordanne’s discussion Eric queried the importance of including scientific evidence with ethical motivations. While some of my classmates didn’t whole heartedly believe that ethics requires scientific support, I feel that this can be just as dangerous as scientific activity without ethical consideration. I couldn’t help but be reminded as I was reading last week of a scene from one of my favorite movies. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur rides up on a town gathering as Sir Bedevere “the wise” questions the crowd that has brought a woman before him that they claim is a witch. The crowd is adamantly and excitedly determined to act on their “ethical” opinion that this woman is a witch and should be burned (because, after all, that’s what you do with a witch). Bedevere uses some off kilter rationalizing to conclude that if the woman weighs as much as a duck, that she is a witch. So he does give the impression that an ethical decision might be made with the help of scientific evidence. But two things mess this up, first his scientific logic is whack. Second, his scale is not properly calibrated. In the end a perfectly normal woman is sent to be burned because of a strong ethical motivation and a complete lack of scientific proof. This theatrical example pokes fun at the historical actions of religious fanatics that performed similar acts of “witch hunts”. So I think that it is accurate to say that ethical opinion can be empty without science.
Reading chapter 2 really served the meat and potatoes. In fact I found one particular topic very helpful to my own understanding of a new arena that I have recently become more active in. The arena is politics (shudder). The topic addressed in the text is utilitarian tradition in section 2.6. It served to give me a more clear understanding of how public officials much of the time are forced to make their decisions. Part of what DesJardins shows us in these first two chapters is that ethical philosophy is not one dimensional. Along that same understanding is the multifaceted expectations that our society impresses upon those elected to represent us. So with the innumerable ethical opinions that our officials would otherwise have to choose to acknowledge and act upon it makes perfect sense, no matter how flawed, for them to rely on preference utilitarianism. As I understand it this is a pretty way of implementing majority rule as a means to satisfy ethical desires. I also understand it as a way to help quantify the good, as I just learned. The ability to quantify issues of public interest allows for a more scientific approach to making public policy, this is especially true in our highly economically driven society. If it can’t be put in a pie chart, it can’t be put into a 60 second news reel that will hold our attention. Fortunately we have the arts, like theater and music to capture more of our emotional responses to the issues like global climate and pollution. This I feel is because it takes more time to build adequate character development in order to attach our subconscious, and our ethical foundations, to a particular topic.
Utilitarianism was the concept that had the greatest impact for me, however, the ideas of deontological ethics, ethical relativism, teleology, and religious ethics were important to me as well. Teleology was important in establishing the idea of everything of importance serving a specific purpose. But that opened the question to “what the heck is our (human’s) purpose?” And that draws an interesting connection with religious philosophy. I feel that religion has been a means to direct us towards whatever purpose that might be. Rick Warren made a powerful attempt at helping the Christian faithful find their purpose in life with the appropriately named “The Purpose Driven Life”. Much of what Warren and the teachings of my own religious upbringing have revolved around is a life with the purpose of serving God, in more or less words. The fact of the matter is, no one knows precisely what the purpose of humans on earth is! And that question alone, I feel, is the foundation of environmental debate. If we could only know what our purpose is it would be so much easier to argue, or agree on, what our communal responsibility is to the world around us.
Let me further expand on my thoughts regarding religion as a means to understanding our purpose. We have developed (in the Christian world) a textbook for understanding and acting on our purpose on this planet. However the bible is old, and has been manipulated in order to maintain a current understanding of what is expected of us, but at the cost of misinterpretation. As an example, if we took the literal translation of the King James version of the bible, in Genesis 1:28 it says “God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”, we can easily justify our collective actions involving the environment and the ecosystems we are effecting. But one thing that I find troubling when confronted with a religious argument is that there are so many different versions and interpretations of a text that was written thousands of years ago that has been translated into hundreds of different languages and countless generations of lingual adaptations. So the meaning of “subdue” may not hold the same meaning as it did in ancient times.
Even with the different uses of this introductory text of our own existence we all still need to recognize what is important and what we must take care of. Teology serves to build a foundation for this type of analysis. Aristotle developed a belief that enables us to recognize the full understanding of an individual creature or living organism. Teological principles also allow us to recognize when we do not fully understand the value of a living organism. This is important to the preservationist arguments in that if we have not come to understand the final cause of an organism that isn’t to say that it does not have one, and therefore should be protected. This is a principle argument for the protection of the rainforest, which had been an area of concern for as long as I can remember. The argument that I have heard more than any, is that there are so many undiscovered species in the rainforest that the mathematical odds of finding a medically revolutionary drug in the form of one of these undiscovered species is greatly in favor of preserving this lush resource of unstudied ecology.
Relativism touched home with me because I frequently refer to my religious upbringing as the foundation to who I am now, ethically and morally speaking (although religion is not an active part of my life these days). So my ethics are stated to be relative to my environment as a child. Religious ethics is an interesting side topic to me, because while I just pointed out their influence on my ethical philosophy, I haven’t witnessed very strong evidence of religious environmentalism. This is in a prominently Christian experience. Not to say that religious persons are not also environmentalists, but many of the folks that I know who are devote Christians lead a very conspicuously consumptive lifestyle, this could be tied to the interpretation of “subdue”.
I have saved deontological philosophy to discuss last because this is the ethical basis that I feel most predominantly represents my own environmental ethics. I don’t cast aside the other examples that DesJardins has introduced us to however, because I feel that the collective most effectively represents the most rational and fair means to explain what our duty is to the environment. That is, within the positive points of each example. The way in which DesJardins introduces us to deontology instantly clicked with me. It helped to categorize that unexplainable, unquantifiable, feeling that you get about certain issues. I also like how it brings back a sense of personal responsibility, unlike the consequential comparisons of utilitarian ethics. As I write this and review our textbook, I’m a little unsure of exactly how Immanuel Kant intended to represent his ideas. My first impression of Kantian ethics was sort of like a more intrinsic means of ethical analysis. Taking care of our environment and ecosystems simply because it is the right thing to do. But as I reread section 2.8 on deontology it is beginning to sound like Kantian ethics gives us the negative argument of not being responsible for what we can’t control. I think that this is a lazy scapegoat for important issues. I bet that Kant did not mean to provide such an argument for the irresponsible but rather emphasis the importance of being “held ethically responsible for our intentions” as DesJardins explains.
Awareness and understanding of all of these various ethical philosophies is interesting and important to me because I recognize that I exhibit a bit more of a deontological character. Often I consider packing it all in and starting a sustainable farm that would support my family and simply enjoying what I have without affecting anyone else. Therefore I would have no concern over whether or not I was harming anyone. The reality of this is that by shutting myself off from all but my closest family I would in a round about way be harming the rest simply by my absence and non involvement.

Wow! Good job reading through it all, thanks. Or if you just scrolled through it because it bored you silly maybe you should check out Jody's new blog for your viewing pleasure. (Lots of pictures)

1.2 Billion Elephants

I recently watched Al Gore's most recent slideshow on global warming through the TED talks podcasts and he referenced a global contest hosted by Current and the Alliance for Climate Protection called Ecospot. After checking this out for myself I thought I would share with you the winner of the ad contest below. And if you want to see more you can go here to see the rest of the 530 entries in the Ecospot challenge.

Help Wanted- Energy Ideas!

With the life of carbon energy sources nearing an end (we may not agree on how soon, but we have started to recognize as a society that these resources are not finite), we are commissioned with the task of securing a new mode of efficient energy production.

Historically our consumer driven society has steered us in our decisions concerning our energy production and consumption, which I don’t expect this to change. There are significant instances where some of our leading corporate entities have “manufactured” a cultural shift, resulting in a significant change in how we do something, for the economic benefit of that company or industry. One such example of this is General Motors acquisition and decommissioning of the California electric commuter train system from the 1940’s to the 1970’s. This, along with the former president of GM working as the Transportation Secretary under Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950’s, is a majority reason for the overabundance of petrol powered transportation in the United States in spite of having had a cleaner more efficient transportation infrastructure already in place.

Getting back to the purpose of the this article, because we have seen corporations, government, and political lobbyists steer our world in directions that may have benefited personal pocket books more than possibly the general good of society, health, ecology, and earth I am interested to see what we as the individuals of our society feel are the best “next steps” in our need for energy production. This discussion does not need to be limited to the transportation industry, or any industry for that matter. I want to hear all ideas, such as possible resources, methods, infrastructure, usage, conservation. If you had an open invitation to walk into the main offices of the energy company, government, transportation manufacturers, and the individual homes of our world’s citizens, what ideas would you present?

If you’re strongly opinionated about this topic, but don’t have any idea where to start check out a few of these links and articles below to help formulate your own ideas on the possible solutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_development

great wiki about several energy resources available to us today with pros and cons of each

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/19/energy.ethicalliving

article in the UK Guardian on towns that are already transitioning into oil free communities!

http://www.transitiontowns.org/

Oil Free community info website