Before I start my actual essay, I’d like to say one non-essay like thing to the class.  Namely: Y’all need to stop hating on bats.  Seriously.  Mosquitos I get, but bats are entirely harmless and hugely beneficial both to basically every ecosystem they live in and directly to humans.  There are basically three types of bats: the nectar drinking ones (that pollinate plants), the fruit eating ones (that spread seeds), and the carnivorous ones (that consume enormous numbers of insects, including pests that destroy crops.

In any case, essay time.

The difference between deep and shallow ecology, and whether one should value nature for its intrinsic or extrinsic properties is very interesting, but at this point it really does not matter.  Deep ecology might well be better for the environment in the long run, but right now I’d settle for any type of ecology.  Especially if you consider some of the less obvious utilities of nature, the difference between the two is not necessarily so distinct.  Rainforests should be left all but untouched due to the immense number of possible very useful species living there.  In effect its an unmanned chemistry lab, where if we leave it alone to do its own thing it can come up with the solution to so many of our problems.  It will even go a long way to regulating the environment for us, as huge wooded areas tend to do—filtering air and water, absorbing heat and sunlight, and regulating climate.  The best thing we can do is protect it and occasionally send in scientists to explore and find useful organisms.  If you consider the aesthetic and recreational properties of nature to be useful you get an imperative to preserve large areas of various environments, as in the National Parks system.

Beyond preservation, shallow ecology and extrinsic interests encourage the use of alternative, renewable energy sources, the reduction of all types of pollution, and the reduction of and sensible disposal of waste as much as deep ecology does.  Once all those things are accomplished, maybe then it will be the time to sit down and think about whether we need to take a deep ecology approach, but until then it’s a purely philosophical debate.

The question of whether deep ecology should be subscribed to, or whether it even exists, is complicated by large fuzzy animals.  Most people might not think insects or plants have their own rights to life, but they might think that dogs or pandas do.  And while dogs bring us companionship and fun, the vast majority of people will never see a panda in the wild.  From a shallow ecological standpoint, wild pandas are really not that important, making this a case where there is an actual difference between deep and shallow ecology.

The discussion about whether mosquitos should be wiped off the face of the Earth was also very interesting.  Nobody in the class seemed to take a deep ecological approach on that one—nobody voiced the opinion that mosquitos should be allowed to live for their own sake.  A number of people, on the other hand, suggested that maybe we would be better off without mosquitos.  Get rid of the annoyance; stop the disease, and whatnot.  That seems like a far too risky move to me, because while scientists may believe the ecosystems could survive without mosquitos they have no proof.  It’s just conjecture, and eliminating a species is too big an action to take without evidence.  Whether it’s a machine or a living thing, if you don’t fully understand it it’s best not to take pieces out.  Especially as in this case where it is impossible to put a piece back in once it’s been removed.  As with the cloud-inducing plankton, things can have uses we have no idea about.  When looking at an entire ecosystem, that is amplified even further.  Mosquitos might have no direct impact on the environment, but they could have unknown, possibly unnoticeable effects on other organisms, and so on until the effects of effects affect something we do notice.

Growing up, it was common knowledge that the human population was, and still is, harming the environment. However, there is a key fact that many people overlook to this day. This fact is the scale to which we are harming Earth. A single person might overlook the pollution they are emitting, but when you factor in the World’s population, it becomes quite a significant amount of pollution. To be exact, in 2011, the global emission for carbon dioxide was 34 billion tons.

I thought this was the most devastating number that was presented to me, and I began to wonder how could we possibly emit so much pollution that harms the planet we call home. We are emitting carbon dioxide quicker than photosynthetic organisms can convert it to oxygen, and meanwhile we are destroying the Amazon Forest adding insult to injury. To me, the Amazon Forest is a landmark that should be preserved. Although it may have the resources necessary for cattle ranching, the forest is an ecosystem for numerous populations of multiple species that should not be disturbed for our own interest.

Furthermore, not only do we harm the grasslands, but we harm aquatic environments as well. I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that only 10% of large fish remain today from what there once was in the world due to overfishing. If overfishing continues, I fear that many species that we take for granted may one day be extinct. Additionally, how can we allow massive nutrient runoff from farmlands to drain into the Louisiana and Texas coast, which in turn create dead zones? It is unbelievable that we are generating areas on the earth that become inhabitable, something that I view as horribly as the effects of a nuclear bomb. All of these statistics lead me to ask this question: How did we allow all of this to happen, and what is being done to lower the emission of these harmful pollutants?

Interestingly enough, there seems to be an answer for my first question: Anthropocentrism. When this term was first explained, I immediately thought of Darwin and his theory of the survival of the fittest. Only those most fit will survive to produce viable offspring, and it is every species goal to reproduce. In those terms, it makes sense that as humans, we will do whatever it takes to survive, even if it means harming the environment whether it is directly or indirectly. The real debate is whether or not this thinking is ethical.

To address this issue, a system was proposed in which the environment and all species were assigned an intrinsic value. This seems like a good idea, however to what end will this “intrinsic value” system work? Most humans make their decisions based on self-interest, and these intrinsic values hold no meaning to our interest. Instead, we rely on instrumental value, or what the value is of something to some end. When we see raw materials, we instantly think – what can we turn this into so that we can better ourselves? What is most shocking to me is that most people do not forecast what repercussions these choices have on the future generations. Yes, it may be ethical for us in the present, but will the future generations view our decisions as ethical, when they are the ones who have to deal with the 34 Billion Tons of carbon dioxide a year that we have emitted into the atmosphere? They will simply not. Clearly, some policies must be changed, new policies must be created, and the human population must be enlightened on the drastic influences their every day decisions have on the Earth as a holistic unit.

Seong Im Hong
MHC 200 – 005
Professor Alexandratos
September 3, 2012

Week One Reflection — Introduction to MHC 200

I expected to greatly enjoy this class, and my expectations were proved to be right. I loved Professor Alexandrato’s dramatic opening to the new semester, which was quite different from most first days of classes. The projected workload, however, is daunting, as was the thick syllabus packet. Granted, most of it was describing the options we had for later project. Still, the fact that Dr. Alexandratos put so much work into the syllabus kind of pulls me in a contract in which I must put as much effort into my work as he did. It’s an unidirectional contract that I made up, but it holds weight in my mind nevertheless.
I liked the slides and the presentations. I do, however, have a criticism. I thought that the juxtaposition of McDonald’s burger and the rainforest was too emotionally charged.

Don’t get me wrong– I do agree with Professor Alexandratos that the rainforest is far more important than a cheap Big Mac, but I am always weary of dichotomic ideas that play on our emotions. For example, I think most people are brought up now to be disgusted by or at least ashamed of fast food. I think there is a subconscious equation of fast food to those who cannot take care of themselves. Fast food means fat people, or poor people, or fat poor people. Whether that’s a fair assessment or not is another story, but still, I think the emotional knee-jerk reaction of disgust to fast food is widespread enough for me to make this point: to use fast food as an alternative to the rainforest is unfair, because like Dr. Alexandratos said, other businesses use Brazil’s cattle for meat. Why didn’t he, then, use a picture of (delicious, delicious) steak from Four Seasons in place of a big Mac? I can’t believe I’m defending mega-chains of fast food, but I think unless we know for sure that fast food chains like McDonalds are the main driving force behind deforestation, we should use a picture of McDonald’s burger as an alternative to the rainforest, especially when the Supersize Me clip of a man throwing up a McDonald’s burger was so fresh in our minds. It plays on our preexisting emotion (disgust and shame) on fast food. The powerpoint was an undeniably effective tool, but shouldn’t classrooms be neutral environments?

The class on environmental ethics were a great fun because we were involved in the flow of the dialogue between the professor and the student. Often, in lecture classes, the dialogue is really a one-way street. I’m glad I have at least one small seminar class this semester for this reason. I especially thought the distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value interesting, mainly because I am not sure if there is a fundamental difference between the two. The functional differences are clear, especially when looking at the theories of Deep Ecology. However, I think the driving force behind intrinsic value is the same as the force behind instrumental value: feeling good. (Speaking of, a cute little comic about dopamine and serotonin attached after the second page.) Whether it’s for fur or companion, we still see “value” behind the same entity because the entity serves us in some way.

This makes me think anyone can be part of the Deep Ecology movement if they have enough time and resource to associate non-human things with benefits to themselves. I read a feature article about elephant poaching in the New York Times today, and all I could think of was, “Poor elephants,” and “But we emphasize selectively. Would we care as much about factory farming of stupider animals?” I thought the same thing about controversies about eating dogs that make people recoil in horror. It’s only because we, as westerners, have had the luxuries and the cultural tendencies to associate dogs with anything besides their uses. I think if the whole world can afford to take a break from struggle to survive, we would have a lot of more willing converts to the Deep Ecology movement, even superficially.

Walking into class on the first day, several minutes late, I hear an orchestra playing. The first thing I think to myself is: rrrright, I’m in Alexandratos’s class. Where else would I get such an introduction? To be honest, I had forgotten who my professor was, but when I remembered, I also remembered why I decided to be in this specific MHC 200 class. Sir, I’ve seen you present powerpoints twice, once in front of all the Macaulay freshmen and once during Judith’s intro to science research class. After that second presentation I thought to myself the only way to stay awake and alert during MHC classes, (I have quite the habit of falling asleep), would be to make sure I have a professor who is creative and thinks way out of the box in order to keep the attention of his students and to make them think. So here I am, and I haven’t slept in class yet.

“Turn to page [pause, then said sharply] three-hundred and ninety four.” I’ve heard that line too many times, to the point where I am sure it is unhealthy. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the environmental issues you discussed on that first day of class. The environmental crisis is always something I know of in the back of my mind, but when asked about it, the first things I’d probably say are, “Oh, the polar bears! Oh, the ice bergs!” I would have never said, “34 billion tons of CO₂ goes into the atmosphere every year.” “Only 10% of sharks, tunas, cods & other large fish remain.” “Between 1966-75, 38% of the Amazon’s deforestation was due to cattle ranching, and between 1990-2001, Europe’s meat imports from Brazil rose from 40-74%.” I would not have made a connection between this last fact and the movie, Supersize Me, which most individuals have watched and been disgusted by. I am proud to say that my consumption of fast food has decreased since that movie, but it was because of my health. It wasn’t because of the environment and how so much of it gets destroyed to create those unhealthy meals (that reason is now included in my boycott). By the end of the first lesson, I was once again considering all the different ways I could help the environment, which I believe is a natural reaction to hearing about the crisis. But I couldn’t help but think to myself: Duwa, you always do this. Horrible issues are brought up to your attention and you believe you can do so much to stop it and you will! You’ll organize your time and do your best to be involved in putting an end to all the issues, the environmental crisis being just one of them. In other words, time is the biggest concern for me. There are so many things wrong with the world and the way it is run, how can I put my two cents in and put a stop to them all?

The second class I feel branched a bit away from the problems of the environment and was going more towards ethics. What is right and wrong about what humans do to the environment? Is it okay for farmers to slash and burn forests for land? Is it okay to kill wild animals foraging on private/public lands? Obviously other animals do their part too and may destroy parts of another’s home in order to get what they want. But humans do this to a huge extent, mostly because we want more than what we need. We want those plasma TVs and cheap food, even at the cost of another. So many people don’t realize the consequences of their actions because it’s not affecting them as directly as it is to other organisms. But I find it interesting that anyone who is anthropocentrist doesn’t realize that assigning intrinsic value to only humans doesn’t benefit the species but hurts them. If you don’t care for the Earth, the Earth won’t care for you. Destroying your environment only leads to the destruction of self. I agree that we should follow actions that will benefit the Earth as a whole and not just ourselves. Who wouldn’t agree to that? But what does that mean? Does it really mean to follow those 8 points, one of them being for humans to only satisfy their vital needs? For humans to have a smaller population? How in the world will we be able to accomplish that? (What is a vital need anyway?) This class honestly left me with more questions and more confused than I was before, but it did also leave me with inspiration. There may be things that I agree and disagree with, but it’s still good to know that at least people were trying to do something about the issue. They weren’t just sitting around being all confused like I am.

But I do want a solution. I do want this crisis to end. However, I am stuck between either hearing of all the types of solutions there are and choosing from there or if I should just take the time to think up my stance on the issue and see if it fits with anyone else’s. The latter seems like something most people would recommend me, but unfortunately I am not as articulate as some people are (like my classmates!) and I would just continually contradict myself. So for now, I’m probably going to be confused for a while, but I don’t plan on keeping it that way.

And I do realize that this essay was all over the place, so please forgive me!

This week’s discussion centered around the idea of sustainability. We covered a number of instances where humans are not acting sustainably, from the huge amounts of carbon we release into the atmosphere each year, the destruction of the Brazilian Amazon to make way for cattle ranches, and the creation of oceanic dead zones. We learned all sorts of numbers about the extent of the damage, but the main theme seems clear. Despite popular environmentalist solutions like recycling and energy-efficient appliances, we are not doing enough to make our existence sustainable.

It’s clear that we cannot keep living like we are indefinitely. Desertification will lower crop yields, overfishing and acidification of the ocean will hurt another critical food source, and a warming planet will cause all sorts of other complications.

But simply decreasing our usage means slowing growth.  Oil fuels our economy, and any increase in its price will continue down the supply chain to every good that needs to be transported or needs power. Decreasing fertilizer use means smaller crops and more expensive food. And telling developing nations not to take advantage of their natural resources, putting environmentalism over the fight against poverty, is a tough thing to do.

I agree with Professor Alexandratos that whatever regulations are put in place must be mandatory, not voluntary. But beyond that, they must be nuanced. Regulation must take into account the needs of the community it affects, as well as all of the possible alternatives.

During the second session of the week, we delved deeper into the discussion, beginning with a summary of Deep Ecology. I’ve been conflicted about the philosophy since I first heard of it several months ago. On the one hand, Deep Ecology proposes the sort of change that may lead to increased quality of life. I think it’s very possible that a deeper appreciation for nature and a transition to a sustainable economy based on providing for core needs might be better than the growth-based/luxury-driven one we have right now. If people have less cluttered days with more time to walk in the park and tend to their own needs rather than that of the workplace, we might better appreciate the time we have.

On the other hand, I have a hard time getting my mind around the philosophical principles of Deep Ecology. Diversity is aesthetically pleasing and healthy for a community, but I don’t see why we should value it for its own sake. Similarly, the idea that all life has inherent value is something I can’t immediately agree with. As I brought up in class, this seems to imply that every disease causing bacterium is valuable, as well as every malaria-laden mosquito. I understand that these organisms fill a vital role in their ecological niche, and that eliminating them can and does lead to great disruption in their community. But eventually we reach a new equilibrium, which may be better or worse for each participant – it seems a matter of practical concern, and I do not see where inherent value comes into the matter.

I come from a Secular Humanist background, so I might have a bit of an emotional reaction to things I perceive as “spiritual” or “supernatural”. I value humans because I can empathize with them much better than other animals,  and I admit that I am an anthropocentrist – but the little I know of Deep Ecology hasn’t convinced me that that’s a bad thing. I want what’s best for humans, but it seems that our prosperity depends on the prosperity of all inhabitants of the earth. I respect and admire the methods and visions of the Deep Ecologists, but I can’t agree with their philosophy.

It is incredible how quickly human beings have altered the environment. The Earth has been around so much longer than us, and is so much larger than an individual, that it feels beyond mankind to have a substantial effect on our home. However, the first image of the Earth viewed from the moon, in 1969, adds perspective to our actions. The Earth is finite and fragile and we are already changing it drastically. Both the pragmatic repercussions of our actions and any underlying morality call for a shift in human behavior. This is not fear mongering either, as the numbers of tons emitted, trees uprooted, and animals slaughtered are a factual wake up call.

I have held a very anthropocentric view, assigning instrumental value to all things aside from mankind. This is not because I believe humans have a special right to the universe or that God favors us. It is because I believe any species subscribes to this practice, although they may not be conscious of it. Animals take care of their survival and well being first and foremost, not even considering the concept of environmental responsibility or morality. Human beings are different because we have the unique ability to debate the morality of what we do. However, we are still animals and still have our needs and even wants at the forefront of our functioning. Because of this, my view has been shallow ecology. So long as our damage to the environment is not irreparable and does not harm mankind, I have been fine with it.

One example of this is the cyclical parable of the bat and the mosquito we mentioned in class. When I was young I was once told that bats were important because they kept mosquitos at bay. In class we said that mosquitos were important as a food source for bats. Of course I do not know about the exact repercussions of eliminating both bats and mosquitos but the metaphor stands. There are some parts of the environment that, if eliminated, would have minimal significance in an instrumental sense.

Despite this, mankind has shown an inability to protect the environment in even an anthropocentric capacity. The staggering rate of overfishing and deforestation are great testaments to that. I was particularly shocked to learn that only 10% of the fish that were originally on the Earth remain. Nutrient runoff fuels dead zones, killing off marine life and making entire areas unlivable. We create dead zones while making food but dead zones kill our food supply. This wastefulness is too prevalent. Cattle ranching is another good example, as we tear through forests, making them unlivable for animals, just to make areas for cattle to graze in. This wastefulness means that even beyond anthropocentrism, humans as a whole are not even working just to preserve their species, but really just themselves as individuals and perhaps their family and just a few generations ahead.

Perhaps ironically, this has pushed me to consider deep ecology as a tool for shallow ecology. This means that as of now my view is still very utilitarian. However, because of the failure of capitalism to quantify environmental costs and the unwillingness of individuals to think in the long run, a major shift in attitude is necessary. It is unsustainable to consume at the rate we do and fear for the future of our species is far off and almost as alien to us as the desires of a beetle or tree. If humans begin to think of themselves as a part of nature’s web, respect all life and assign it intrinsic value, they will be much more fit to survive as a species.

Of course there is always the school of thought that technology will evolve at a rate that races pollution and other environmental problems. Efficient means of harvesting solar energy, purifying water, farming food, and filtering emissions are on the horizon of research. In this case, why not consume at whatever rate makes us happy and wait for science to fix our problems? I am not necessarily advocating this plan of action, it is risky and arrogant, but some may think this way.