It's Over!

We're done with the blog for the semester.

Thank you for participating!

Stuart Mill's Attempt

John Stuart Mill’s challenges the idea that in order to have more prosperity and welfare, resources need to be overly used to ensure economic growth. Conversely, he believes that constraints on our over consumptive attitudes is needed in order to improve the quality of life. Ultimately, Mill is arguing for a more qualitative way of live as opposed to a quantitative. He states that the increase of wealth is not boundless, and that the progressive state will one day come to a halt. The only logical conclusion is that this unlimited growth attitude will destroy the environment and inevitably reduced quality of life. However, he seems to write as though he knows we will always move forward, and will not heed the warning signs the environment throws our way. This article was written in 1884. We have, to this day, not slowed down. In fact, humanity is moving ever forward. Every year the Earth is pumped with more gases due to the anthropogenic caused by mankind.

Another thing I picked up on was his common idea of integrating humanity and the universe. He groups everyone and everything together as a species in which needs to work together to improve the overall universe. He pushes for education to be a main concern. It’s as if being less educated is a scape-goat, exemption from the overall economic crisis. Therefore we should include them. The “better” minds are those who are going to bring this universe to a standstill, but it will affect everyone inside it. Overall, people should take responsibility for their actions, and in the meantime cease the notion that economic growth comes from killing the Earth.

I could not agree more with Schmidtz’s view that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is necessary but not sufficient to determine morally permissible policies and decisions. As a “framework,” CBA would serve as a starting point for an open dialogue as to deciding what policies to enact. If a policy should fail the CBA, in that its costs would outweigh its benefits, it should be sent back to its makers for revisions or be discarded in its entirety. But, should a policy pass the CBA, it should necessarily not be automatically assumed that the policy is reasonable and should be enacted. Instead, we should conclude “that the policy has passed one crucial test and therefore further discussion is warranted.” Using CBA for the sheer sake of having full information of all benefits and costs a specific policy may cause is logical and necessary, in my opinion. It does well to guide our discussion, but CBA should not be used to decide policy alone.

Unfortunately, it is past this point at which I became stuck. In describing the limitations of CBA, Schmidtz emphasizes the importance in respecting people’s rights, certainly an important and admirable action. However, to illustrate his argument, he introduces Peeveyhouse v. Garland Coal (1962). He notes that Garland Coal refused to perform its contractual obligations in their entirety by not restoring the Peeveyhouse property back to its original condition after completing a strip-mining operation on it. Restoring the land would cost Garland Coal $29,000, while the restored land’s value would have be worth only $300. Referring to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s decision to award Peeveyhouse $300 in damages as “generally…regarded as utterly mistaken,” Schmidtz explains that the court reached its decision because the restoration would not be cost-effective. Though quite biased, nothing Schmidtz stated was false. Still, I feel need to offer defense to the court’s decision. To do so, I used the case law - http://academic.udayton.edu/CasesLawEcon/Contracts/Peevyhouse%201962.pdf.

One aspect ignored by Schmidtz was the actual contract itself. In exchange for royalties on the extracted coal, Peeveyhouse allowed Garland to strip-mine a section of their land for five years. A provision of this contract was that Garland was expected to return the land to its original condition. Although the major terms of the contract were upheld by both parties, Garland did breach the contract by not performing the provision. However, there was substantial performance of the contract. Although it can be argued that $300 in expectancy damages (the value of the land had Garland restored it) was not sufficient, it is also not unreasonable to argue that $300 is an equitable remedy. For instance, the economic waste doctrine holds that “if granting repair costs to the owner would result in ‘unreasonable economic waste,’ then the proper measure of the owner's damages should be the difference between the value of the project as promised in the contract and its value as delivered” (https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=43+DePaul+L.+Rev.+185&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=5c38a755056f84a867ca8216380126c8). As a main rule of contract law, a party should not be awarded more damages than she would have anticipated had the contract she was a party to had it not been breached. In an ideal world, Garland would owe Peeveyhouse specific performance, or at least enough compensation for Peeveyhouse to find an outside party to hire to fix his land. In such an ideal world, the court would consider the subjective value of the land to Peeveyhouse, and not just its monetary value. But, such a thing as expectancy damages is necessary in the realm of contracts.

As discussed in my business law class, consider my making a contract with a builder to build my dream home. I stipulate a specific placement of the windows in my house. Upon completion of my home, I see that my windows are placed in wrong positions by a matter of inches. The builder did in fact breach our contract, and I want him to correct his mistake, which would indeed involve a great sum of money and seems on the whole, an unreasonable remedy for the builder’s innocent mistake. Protecting the builder from such a commercial impracticality, the court would consider any loss of value to my home due to the different placement of the windows. Although the placement has important subjective value to me, it would not change the monetary amount my home is worth. As such, no action would be taken against the builder.

This tangent was probably not worthwhile, in that I still find myself agreeing with Schmidtz’s core points. Maybe it could illustrate the complexity behind decisions and policies in that cost-effectiveness must at least be a consideration in addition to morality. But overall, I just found myself irked at Schmidtz’s quick dismissal and simplification of the Oklahoma court’s conclusion.

Citizens or Consumers?:

I agree with Sagoff’s argument for a Kantian approach to policy recommendation in regard to the environment – humans ultimately have to be treated as “ends in themselves” and not as simply a set of market preferences. It is obvious, however, that what people politically support and what people consume can be completely different and, in fact, contradictory. Our market preferences will never completely align with our political preferences, but this doesn’t mean that we should view human beings as merely “haver[s] of wants” (635) but rather it suggests that our market preferences ultimately cannot be the judge of our policy, especially in regard to the environment. The economist approach to policy formation suggests that what we ought to do as a community is less important than what we actually do as individuals making choices in the market place. Morality, however, isn’t concerned necessarily with the way things are but rather with the way things should be, and indeed, the economist’s position then isn’t concerned with morality but with efficiency and expediency in the market.

The challenge which Sargoff faces, however, is the practical application of the Kantian position. If, as the economist suggest, our market preferences accurately reflect our interests – though we would support just political causes at the same time – then ultimately our policy must coincide with the majority opinion. We can’t pretend that we are against factory farming if we are consistently supporting the industry; our market preferences show to the economists our true selves behind the politically correct/ideal mask which we hide behind. Sargoff, however, responds to this objection by claiming that, though our market preferences as consumers may ultimately express our true interests, we are nevertheless still outside of morality, that is, still talking about the way things are rather than how they ought to be. The practical application of Kantian principles, while extremely demanding, may be exactly what morality requires and our obligations as citizens may, in fact, sometimes trump our preferences as individual consumers.

Schmidtz

Schmidtz’s piece is one of the few readings we have had that seems to takes other arguments more seriously, and understands that things are not simply black and white. His support of Cost Benefit Analysis is well placed, as is his skepticism in it. Though I agree that there are benefits from CBA Full Cost Accounting, such as the public’s ability to scrutinize and provide input in, Schmidtz does not address the issue of value enough. To be clear though, CBA, if done properly, does offer a chance for greater equity, environmental protection, and other goods. To denounce CBA in every aspect implies turning a blind eye to another tool that may help people makes good decisions (not a definite), something that makes no sense.

The other issue I have with CBA concerns values. Schmidtz makes reference to this, but he does not seem to give the idea enough weight. He falls back on the fact that we are simply human on several occasions. We are not evil, just human. Does that imply we naturally do not act fully accountable? If that’s the case then there is a great deal of work ahead of humanity.

I got a bit side tracked, but another point I wanted to mention regards the case of the neighbor with the barking dog. It says he’s not evil for keeping his neighbors up at night, since he was not fully accountable. In this case, and many others though, I believe he (or a she) is fully accountable though. The point here is that the others do not react when they have the ability to do so. One last thing to mention is the use of the Ontario Hydro case. Schmidtz final mentioning of this is that the prospects of public accounting made Ontario Hydro rethink what they owe the environment. There could be a multitude of other reasons this happened that Schmidtz does not mention, ranging from tax breaks, a new CEO, new legislation, a bad series of PR, and more. Schmidtz should not presume so much.

this post has no title

I agree with what Mill says about how more economic growth doesn’t correlate to total well being of a population. It makes to me know how certain people hold the wealth in the word. An example would be corporations that set up shop in third world countries paying employees cents a day. They make huge profits and their products are sold in the wealthier nations that can afford to buy their products; it limits the movement of money to first word nations and because the third world employees are getting paid so little, little money moves between the first world and third world. Corporations like Nike, Dell, and once Union Carbondale have outsourced to the third world for the cheap labor. It’s a win/no-gain situation where the first world wins. The argument would be the trickle down affect but the trickle down affect is limited to the first world nations where the products are sold, because the only money in the third world goes to the workers which is very little. Third world nations aren’t in a strong position to fight back because these corporations one of their very few significant sources of income; if they start demanding more, then corporations can just uproot and go to another poor country that seeks their services. In essence the third world nations are at the mercy of the corporations. The fix to this problem would be to get a significant flow of money in third world nations. If they could produce their own product and sell it to first world companies not at dirt cheep prices, then they could start to see some improvement. Costa Rica has done this with real estate; it started out very cheap, but as more people moved in, the shops and restaurants in the area where first world citizens lived would have first world prices which has significantly helped improve the status of well being in their nation because the money has trickled down to the workers who have spent transferring it throughout the nation.

I strongly agree with Sagoff’s opinion that basic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is not the best tool for decision making. As he points out, it may be the best tool for basic decisions about how much of a specific product should be produced for sale, but it cannot be fittingly applied to social and environmental issues. This is because most people think that there are things in the world that have worth that goes beyond monetary value. However, some would argue that value is merely determined by “willingness to pay.” But, though we as consumers may buy a product whose manufacturer pollutes the environment or exploits their workers does not mean that we support those actions. I agree with Colm to an extent that our personal consumer actions are often selfishly driven by personal desire while our voting/political actions are more often guided by our views of right and wrong. This dichotomy tells us that in making decisions there are things outside of mere costs and benefits that matter to people. Therefore, basic CBA is not an adequate tool for measuring the desirability of stronger labor laws or stronger environmental standards. I would like to point out that I do not think the dichotomy between consumer actions and political actions is right. People should consider what they are indirectly supporting when they purchase a specific product. This is difficult because patrons rarely have all the information about where a product comes from and how it is made, but if we made an attempt to vote with our money some of the things we value intrinsically would gain in monetary value and be given more consideration in cost-benefit analyses.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Decision Making

Mark Sagoff argues in his article “At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic” that cost-benefit analysis should not necessarily be the determinant of political decisions. I agree with this claim and believe that many political decisions, such as the decision to pass a law such as one proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that would (supposedly) protect American workers from exposure to harmful toxins, should not be made solely on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. However, I think that Sagoff could have made his argument stronger by acknowledging the usefulness as well as the inadequacy of cost-benefit analysis. One could argue, for instance, that some such decisions, such as the decision to employ methods of geoengineering should be based at least in part on cost-benefit analysis.
If the potential costs or disadvantages of injecting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere (e.g., causing further anthropogenic harm to the atmosphere/ozone, causing harm/injury to people, causing species extinctions) outweigh the potential benefits of doing so (e.g., improving the condition of the atmosphere), the logical conclusion that we would then come to would be that we should not use this method of geoengineering because of the risk(s) associated with it. However, any decision, whether or not it concerns the environment, should be made based on the consideration of multiple factors- cost-benefit analysis could be one of these factors but should not be the only one. Likewise, any other factor should not on its own be the basis of any decisions, especially those decisions that directly concern the health of the environment.

In Defense of Steady-State Economics

Mill makes strong points in his support of a steady-state type of economy. He focuses on two main components of our current societies that must be addressed and changed in order to reach a favorable state of living for all (humans and environment). Both population and consumption should be controlled and reduced.
In realizing our current condition with overcrowding, struggle for employment, depletion of natural resources, and extremities between classes, Mill states that a steady-state would be an improvement. Being in a more stagnant system does not mean there will not be continued increase in spiritual, educational, technological, and scientific fields. And it could increase these parts of culture and social progress as a whole.
Mill offers a few options for steps to reaching a steady-state. He mentions stricter population control (and distribution) and legislation that leads to restraints on sum/acquisition of fortune one may have-leading to better paid and overall wealthier population of workers.
I feel, however, more information is necessary in this excerpt concerning the process of reaching a steady-state economy from our current status. How exactly is population going to be controlled so that it reaches a state closer to the birth rate mirroring the death rate? There should also be more mentioned about the policies or steps for controlling our consumption (of energy and materials). There should be a focus on planning out and setting aside enough land and water so that ecological processes may continue with little/less disturbance to maintain a balance between human presence and natural ecosystems and species. Increased regulations on rates and amount of resource use is also necessary in addition to higher/stricter standards for emission (limits) and toxicity (severance taxes, quotas for extraction...).
Finally, a statement Mill makes on page 601 should be treated more as a matter of opinion rather than fact, and may not be the best support for the notion that steady-state will work. Mill claims, "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back, by the efforts of others to push themselves forward", yet where is the evidence that this is fact? For throughout history, I personally only am familiar with constant states of competition, of bettering oneself or one's clan/group. Biologically, I feel that his statement lacks support, for every species strives to continually evolve to a more "fit" state. Such a Utopian world he describes doesn't appear to have ever existed (or consequently prove it works/is feasible) and seems will be an extremely difficult status to attain based off of (evolutionary) history.

100+ years later, we're still not there. Why?

In his piece, Mill argues that there is a stationary state that will inevitably be attained by modern society, when the standards of living remain unchanged. This concept is reminiscent of the ecosystem/scientific idea of equilibrium - an ecosystem will continue to change until it reaches a point of stasis where the distribution of resources is sustainable. Our society, despite his prediction made in the late 1800s, has still not yet accepted that stationary state. Our lives remain a constant struggle, I think, because of the combination of economic valuation and capitalist economic system. Our economic structure reinforces the concept of comparative advantage: that having more of something than our neighbor offers us benefit that we deprive from that neighbor. This motivates us to continue to relentlessly pursue more - we must always be chasing the accumulation of capital, which is itself an arbitrary and constructed object.
We cannot continue to obey the commands of comparative advantage and accumulation. To do so is to delay the inevitable achievement of stasis, jeopardizing the environment and human well-being.
I think Sagoff can use Mill's concept to further explain why somethings are - and should remain- outside the control of the market, owing to their super-economic value (i.e. have moral or aesthetic value beyond that for which we are willing to pay.) The economic valuation of things, exemplified by the application of cost-benefit analysis and the commodification of the environment or worker safety, is a driving force in our refusal to accept a stationary state.

Sagoff

Mark Sagoff succeeds in bring to light the problems experienced in a society that uses a cost-benefit analysis to judge different situations. I felt that he did an excellent job of presenting the problems with an economic-based value system and offering a different possible perspective, the Kantian one, to judge given situations of right and wrong. The quote by Reiff offered on p. 627 “the public world is constituted as one vast stranger…” I thought was a strong illustration of how the individual views the world around themselves currently.
I felt that Sagoff’s critique of the cost-benefit analysis adequately displayed the problems in using such a system. How could a person’s life, or even their safety for that matter, ever be treated as a commodity and therefore given an exact monetary value? Coinciding with Sagoff, I believe that one’s life cannot be accounted for in this manner and that human life, as well as environmental quality has a greater, inherent value. Given this, I did find the first few sections of the article to be a bit overwhelming; however they did continue to illustrate his Kantian viewpoint.
With that aside, I had a question of whether or not this Kantian value system was one that Sagoff thought could be implemented practically. He describes the system as needing individuals to “put aside their personal interests, it would follow that they put aside their power as well.” (p.627) However, isn’t he advocating that this value or practice of neutral positioning be instilled in the individual, since there would be no way to enforce it? How could we force individuals in power to accept this Kantian view in order to find a neutral position from which to judge? Also, if this system were accepted, what would happen in situations where there are opposed sides, each with their own legitimate claims? I understand that this may be delving too much into the practicality of the issue but it just arose as I finished reading the piece.
Overall Sagoff clearly displays the problem with the cost-benefit value system in today’s society and does a good job of calling for a replacement using the Kantian value system. I felt a personal agreement with the aim of a society where the individual is valued for himself and the population disregards making decisions in a cost-benefit manner because it ensures that there is never an acceptable amount of personal suffering. Also, he does an excellent job of calling to the individual to realize the power they possess in their actions and use it to benefit others not just look in self-interest.

Quality not quantity: High densities promote the spread of infectious diseases

I agree with John Mill. He feels very strongly that nations need to adopt the motto “Quality not quantity” in regards to human populations. John Mill states that every country has the capability to grow, but provides a very detailed description why it isn’t the greatest idea for the future of the human race. Mill creates an illusion of humans walking on one another’s’ heels as a common practice. As Mill proceeded on with this hypothetical situation, I couldn’t help but to think of the Tyson and Perdue chicken farms that Singer and Mason spoke of in “The Ethics of What We Eat.” Singer and Mason give horrid details of the lives of animals confined in an unsuitably small space, and it isn’t too farfetched to think that humans, when existing at a very high density, will begin to experience the same problems. With a population spike, it is no surprise that food quantities would have to increase. In this scenario, humans will be forced to live in close proximity to livestock. This presents a great threat to the safety, health and wellbeing of the human race. In the past diseases specific to birds participated in gene transfer with human infectious bacteria or viruses. This resulted in deadly diseases like swine and avian flu. Investigations deduced that the avian flu originated in China. It turned out that duck farmers kept their livestock around their house and allowed their ducks to interact with wild ducks. While this sounds like a novel idea, it presents a huge problem. Wild ducks confer diseases to farm ducks, who then act as the vector to transport the disease within close proximity with human infectious agents. Gene transfer occurs between the two and low and behold a disease which was once specific to birds mutates to use humans as a vector as well. To avoid this scenario, human densities should be kept in check. By keeping human populations low, we will experience a healthier and a higher quality life.

Cost –benefit analysis or at least the definition that Schmidtz is operating under does have many intriguing points. Within his argument he brings forth many of CBA’s limitations and believes that if we understand these limitations then we will be able to use CBA as a tool. His goal is then Full Cost Benefit Analysis which, “refers to an attempt t carry out CBA in such a way to take all known costs, external as well as internal, into account” p. 269. Using this type of understanding we will make more educated decisions not use CBA as the sole decision maker. However, I am fearful that this is optimistic at best, with which Schmidtz would also agree. Unfortunately CBA is not immune to corruption. The reasons for people’s actions might not be the same as other people’s costs more likely than not they will be in direct confliction. While he holds out hope that people will be able to use this tool effectively I have serious doubts. Everyone has their own subjective view of the world yet this does not mean that either person is in the wrong. For example, two children dangle from a bridge; the fireman can only save one because of the time and the circumstances. Neither child’s mother would be wrong in wanting their child to be the one to be saved. Even if it was their child verses five other children being saved odds a mother will still want their child saved. The problems with CBA is not that we are corrupt but that we are human and have vastly different value and those values and different doesn’t always mean bad but it makes it harder for use to come to conclusions on how to act appropriately in moral situations.

Thoughts on Sagoff's Message

I found Sagoffs commentary about the how there is a struggle between what we want as citizens and consumers to hold fairly true. As a consumer I know that it is always tempting to buy things regardless of how little I know about the product, how trivial it is, or maybe I even know it was produced irresponsibly. Personally I believe that it is our “political” or moral goals that should be the main guide of our actions, however to me it seems like there is largely a failure to uphold them. I feel like I see things somewhat differently than Sagoff does. The problem is not with the dichotomy between our personal wants and our political beliefs; I largely believe them to be the same. The problem is that the market hides the value of things that are not commodities and ignores that even things we don’t necessarily pay for can have great amounts of value. I believe that we as individuals do not want to burden ourselves with the costs of paying for things which others will also benefit from yet not pay for since the market does not really view them as a commodity. If there was actually a way to have people fairly split the costs for cleaner air, and water amongst other things people would gladly do so both for their “political” reasons and for their own self-interest. I also think the playing field can be somewhat tilted towards these large corporations. The corporations claim to be “people serving people” however they are inherently well organized and generally have a lot of capital to spend in favor of their point of view. It is much harder for individual citizens to get together and to raise money to express their opinions.

Redistribution is the best bet in my eyes.

In the piece by Mill, I think there are many important points that need to be dealt with if the world is going to continue to “grow” industrially, and increase its wealth, which it inevitably will. He claims that a restraint needs to be placed on the population because if not, the number of people will exceed our max amount of capital, and we will collapse. Specifically, by that I think he is trying to focus on the lowest classes being affected the most. I agree that with even the slightest change in the economy, the poorest of the poor get hit the hardest. So if we exceed our economic capacity, the “classes who are at the bottom of society” will be affected the most, and feel the most damage. He proposes to restrict the number of people coming in a nation to simply be within the numbers needed to replace the existing people of that nation. However, he never gives any way to go about doing this. Sure it’s a great idea, as someone dies, someone should be born, however I don’t see any practical way of keeping track of this, or regulating it in any way. He does give another proposal to keep the nation functional ideally, which is to distribute the fortunes of a nation better. I liked those ideas and I think the better point to focus on, when trying to save the nation is the redistributing of the wealth of the nation. I think one of the best ideas he had was that there be no enormous fortunes, except what is earned in one’s lifetime. Meaning, there be no major inheritances that just get passed on from family member to family member instead of being used to help the nation prosper. However, I find this a little too invasive, because someone in their family most likely earned that money somehow, so they deserve to keep it in the family, but I think there should be laws that require them to give a certain amount to charities or lower income families, each year. Almost, forcing these people to give back and put some of their money back into the nations capital. I think this is a better idea than telling them they simply cannot pass their money onto their relatives, but it would help spread the money that is in the nation around to other classes and maybe help decrease the gap between the classes. I realize this isn’t going to “fix” any major problems either, but I think it is a better way to go about it than some of Mill’s more drastic ideas that I don’t see ever being able to be carried out.

Cost-Benefit Doesn't Cut it

I agree with Mark Sagoff that we cannot make decisions regarding public policies about the environment or anything else non-economic related based solely on a cost-benefit analysis. Decisions based only on what the costs will be compared to what the benefits will be is irresponsible and disregards very important conditions that should be considered such as how moral a certain situation is. In some situations, while the monetary benefit of a particular decision may be great, the ethical repercussions of that decision may still make it unfavorable.

I am in agreement with Sagoff that economic factors should not be the only concern especially when dealing with things in which the value cannot be determined by how much one is willing to pay for it. For example some believe that steps should be taken to protect worker only insofar as the benefits outweigh the costs. This is speaking in market terms. When protection becomes too expensive, the cost is no longer worth it to some people. However, the cost of these safety measures is too limited of an analysis of if they are worth employing. While society may get more "bang for its buck" this way, it is at the expense of the safety of the workers. To not take the proper measures to protect these people is immoral. This ethical dilemma according to Sagoff outweighs any monetary costs that will result.

Similarly, in the case of the environment, one cannot put a price on the trees, the land, and the creatures that inhabit them. While one cannot give a monetary value to the environment, many still argue never the less, that it has substantial value. Sagoff argues that there are two sides to every person: the consumer, who only looks for what he or she wants or needs, and the citizen, who makes decisions based on what is best for not only themselves but the population as a whole. The cost-benefit analysis only takes into account how much someone will pay for something. People are only viewed as consumers. We tend to only our wants and desires.

Sagoff points out that we also act as citizens and that this causes us to act to maintain the balance of a "good" society. Cost-benefit analysis is a good place to start when dealing with things such as public safety and environmental quality, but we must not stop at how much people want something and how much it will cost us. We need to look further into the moral implications that the decisions incur. Just because something is economically more cost effective, doesn't make it right.

Sagoff

I had to laugh when Sagoff made his confession on p.621 about how he "supports any political cause that he thinks will defeat his consumer interests" because I often say the same things about myself. I have to face myself in the fact that I frequently don't practice what I preach. Most of us don't, in at least a few aspects. We are all guilty of this. Sagoff hits the nail on the head in saying that we have this contempt for the the interests we act upon daily. Our consumer lifestyle is not consistent with our judgements as a citizen. We are products of our society and this living contradiction we practice is the result. Im not holding society responsible for individual actions, as individuals are responsible for themselves, but society did influence this lifestyle that people use to cop out of their internal desire to change. They say "Thats the world we live in. We are just doing what we have to in order to survive" and they allow that defense to excuse from the knowledge that living solely in consumer senses is a guilty lifestyle.

I agree with him that a big problem is the fact that individuals don't realize the influence they have. They are not lost in the multitude. I remember I confronted a friend of mine recently for not recycling some bottles and such and she said something along the lines of "It's not like it makes a difference. I'm just one person". She didnt understand that it is individuals who lead to a multitude. It has to start with someone before it can become many. People need to face the fact that they can't be lazy and say they don't matter because they are only one person. It will take this recognition on people's part before the proper changes can be met.

He reminds us that we prevent significant deterioration of air quality as a matter of self interest and as a matter of collective self respect for everyone and our planet. This is the compromise, the balance that is needed between the two types of interests. The answer involves, in part, a recognition of responsiblities both from us and from the government. As humans, we must address our contempt for the contradictional lifestyle we embrace, we must step out of our habitual tendencies and up to the plate that has a time limit, which people are just starting to understand.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Dec. 3 by Mill, Sagoff, and Schmidtz.

Geoengineering

I believe that Gardiner has successfully outlined several substantial problems with the Arm the Future Argument, or AFA. One aspect of the AFA that concerns me is that it essentially looks upon mitigation, or reducing global emissions, as being impossible, or so improbable that we ought not to focus on it, and perhaps we even ought to give up on it. Starting research now on geoengineering would detract attention from mitigation and “non-evil” forms of prevention. Both reduction and geoengineering research would require us to act now; if this is the case, then why not choose the wiser action. I do not see how research on geoengineering could be justified if at the same time no steps toward reducing emissions were taken, as this would imply that we do not care about future generations enough to spare them the climate catastrophe, only enough to provide them with a “less evil” way to deal with it. Furthermore, such research provides us with a convenient excuse for not mitigating. If we are already helping a future generation out of the disaster we are creating, then perhaps we would not see the point in changing our ways as well—why would prevention matter more than our lifestyles if we are giving them a remedy anyway? Another problem that I have with the AFA is that it does not address the problem of political inertia. The AFA sees political inertia as something that needs to be accepted rather than confronted; however, any successful measures that might be taken regarding climate change must address this issue, and I see it as a problem to solve rather than to work around. Political inertia ought not to be passively accepted along with a plan for the future that is dubious at best any more than a climate catastrophe ought to be accepted, and to accept one is really to make room for the other. Perhaps we ought to invest more in combating political inertia instead of geoengineering. I also think that the AFA is a bit narrow in vision, as I do not see that it is likely for geoengineering to be the only solution available, let alone the best solution, for a future climate problem. I would also question how successful geoengineering would actually be, what the long-term effects would be, and if it would actually be the lesser of two evils—this questioning could perhaps provide reason to support minimal limited research. If, for instance, it was found that the effects of geoengineering would be far worse for a distant future generation than the climate catastrophe would be for the future generation, then perhaps the research was valuable, of course, only with other mitigation efforts well under way as well. Reducing global emissions is the best option that we have to address climate change, and that ought to be our focus; geoengineering, on the other hand ought to be more of an experimental side project, and have nothing to do with actual considerations or preparations for the future. Geoengineering research seems somewhat irrelevant when compared to the reductive measures we need to be taking at present, and simply because political inertia is in the way does not mean that we must quit—it only means that we ought to be more creative and persistent. Reliance upon geoengineering research ought to be for when our sincere actions are not working well enough or quickly enough and nothing more can be done, not for when we have a multitude of valid “non-evil” options, but we choose not to use any of them. There may seem to be only two options in the AFA, but in today’s reality, this does not hold true.

sophie's choice comparison

Gardiner’s Geoengineering piece “Arming the Future” criticizes Crutzen's favored proposal that we should be exploring the possibility of injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere in order to suppress global warming by blocking the incoming solar radiation and modifying the Earth’s albedo. Gardiner argues that making choices relying on such technological fixes as geoengineering would not solve the underlying problem but treat the symptom. He argues that this type of solution is just as reckless as the attitude that got us into the problem in the first place. Furthermore, he seems to believe that geoengineering imposes huge risks on others and further alienates us from nature.
I wholeheartedly believe most of Gardiner’s piece in terms of our blindness to the underlying problem and our arrogance to think we can control the Earth; however, there is one point in his paper that deducts from his overall argument. He details additional liabilities and marring evils to geoengineering. He makes the point that he agrees that we have a moral responsibility to future generations with geoengineering but that we also have a moral responsibility to pursue better climate policies. This is an example of Sophie’s Choice. He discusses Sophie’s Choice as an illustration that can be applied to the geoengineering debate. Sophie had a choice; one or the other. She had to choose between saving one of her children or submitting both to be killed by the Nazis. There was no in between. She made a clear choice in a black and white decision. However, in the geoengineering debate there is plenty of gray area, which makes this a poor reference and argument that deducts from Gardiner’s argument.
Geoengineering is not something that we have to do cold turkey. Why are we suggesting that it is one or the other? To do it or not? Sophie’s Choice is not a good comparison as it was only a decision with two choices. Crutzen favored exploring the possibility of geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. Therefore, with more research of geoengineering, there could be many ways in which we pursue this option so its not a do it or not solution.
Because climate change is a complex and intricate problem, there is no black and white. Thus, it might be our best option to benefit ourselves from technical fixes, like geoengineering, in the transition for a change to even occur. Why can’t we at least investigate whether geoengineering could be one of those fixes? Geoengineering might have the potential to be a good way to bring rising temperatures under short-term control and it could also allow us to wait for the longer-term fix of cutting carbon emissions. Here is a gray area that is unlike Sophie’s Choice in terms of being one or the other. Therefore, it seems as though we have a moral obligation, one that is very different from Sophie, to consider geoengineering through more research so to better understand the gray area.

In Gardiner’s piece on geoengenering he raises many questions that must be addressed while considering the application or development of geoengenering. While he uses the example of artificially introducing sulfate into the atmosphere to combat climate change problems, I am not sure his example is as encompassing as he suggests. However, I am more concerned with the logic he applies while considering the “research first argument.” It seems he misconstrues some arguments and utilizes the selective pressure he places on them to strengthen his argument. This condition requires more detailed attention.
When Gardiner criticizes the suggestions of Ralph Cicerone concerning geoengenering, he paraphrases Cicerone’s argument to a level where it is easy to find vague and often insufficient arguments. The first aspect of Cicerones’ position that Gardiner contends is the desire to promote free inquiry in the research of geoengering. Gardiner suggests that Cicerone is considering freedom of inquiry in fantastic terms. Gardiner uses the example of counting every blade of grass on the lawn of someone in Washington just to know, for the value that simple knowledge of how many blades of grass exist in this lawn. While I am not sure the exact position of Cicerone, it is reasonable to assume that his argument for open inquiry is meant to entail at least some degree of triage. Yet Gardiner suggests that knowledge associated with geoengenering research may be irrelevant. Citing Thomas Schelling, Gardiner says that inquiry and research may prove to be irrelevant due to the expectation that technological advancements in the future will be so profound it will negate the relevance of the geoengenering research done in the present. I take this claim by Gardiner presumptuous and ill-conceived. To assume that there will be these technological advancements in the future is naïve, not to mention the assumption that present research will not at least hasten these significant technological advancements is pessimistic and reliant on the future for answers. Therefore, while I agree that some knowledge is trivial in researching geoengenering, you can’t assume that all research is so futile.
Secondly, I find the argument concerning the degree of resource expenditure on geoengenering to be insufficient. While Gardiner admits that geoengenering research is not an “all or nothing game”, he is suggesting that there is no way to adequately or prudently allocate funding or research without it becoming just that. Implicit within his argument is the contention that we are unable to rationally begin research on geoengenering without detrimentally underfunding other more important projects. I agree this is a cause for concern and that there will be difficult choices made, but this does not justify not taking the chance to do this research. Gardiner seems to take a pessimistic view of geoengering research, and ultimately finds that it’s deployment is a question concerning the lesser of two evils, but it seems he places much of his faith on the science of the future. I find this to be ill conceived because if it comes down to future generations inheriting the precedent we set with regards to geoenegering research, they will leave it to the next generation as well. Personally, why not take the chance now? There may be unforeseen goods rather than evils that come from research.

Geoengineering = Open-Heart Surgery?

I would like to investigate the similarity between the solutions to climate change, and heart disease. Consider our general environment as a human heart, and humanity as the mind. The heart’s health is slowly deteriorating because of high fat, salt, and sugar consumption similar to the effect of our consumption of fossil fuels. The mind knows that high-consumptions of such foods are detrimental to the heart’s health, but the combined craving of the body and mind makes the change difficult partly because the negative effects are in the future. Most likely, without a strong enough scare, the mind will continue the unhealthy diet until a catastrophe occurs, in this case a heart-attack. Presumably, the human being will have some kind of medical procedure in order to survive. After that, the mind may be sufficiently influenced to change the diet or possibly depend completely on medical intervention.

This analogy does not fit climate change and geoengineering completely (Ex. It does not fully consider the intergenerational dilemma by having only one human body), but I am interested in its implications. Political inertia is similar to the resistance one has to changing their diet because both are a result of conflicting values. While the body desires fats, salts, and sugars in large quantities, the mind can also realize the negative effects of such high consumption. Similarly, “we” can see the theoretical implications of our consumption of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions, but that comes into conflict with our “high-consumption” way-of-life. We can rely on medicine or geoengineering to bail us out of the “bad diet” but is that sustainable? However we could take the rout e of geoengineering being a bridge between our bad life-style and our “good” life-style afterwards. After a quick search on Google, I found this quote from someone who has worked with people on changing their diets, “In 20 years of working with patients, I've found that people will commit to change only when their motivation outweighs the challenges,” (oprah.com). It seems that there is a consensus that mitigation is the best solution but a lack of sufficient reasons to make it a reality.

“Calculated moral failure”: Accounting for the moral failings of others

In his article, “Is ‘Arming the Future’ with Geoengineering Really the Lesser Evil?”, Stephen Gardiner foresees a ‘nightmare scenario’ in which people are forced to choose between a global catastrophe and ‘the lesser evil’ of geoengineered technology. As he discusses, there seems to be a kind of “calculated moral failure” or “moral schizophrenia” present in the idea of pursuing geoengineering research while so many better options for saving the planet from climate change are currently available to us. However, I think it should be noted that this moral failure is not that of an individual person, but of a group; there is a kind of ‘identity problem’ in his discussion of moral accountability. I think we should discuss the implications of this.

Consider how the advocates of geoengineering projects are not necessarily the same individuals responsible for excessive carbon emissions and for climate change. In this way, while the decision to begin geoengineering research in preparation for a future scenario where it might be necessary is a “calculated moral failure”, it is not necessarily the moral failure of the person doing the calculating. Instead, it might be calculated by geoengineers on behalf of the irresponsible citizens of the world. If the motivation to pursue geoengineering lies in the expectation of the continued moral failings of others, I think this is justified.

Of course, as Gardiner acknowledges, the options of reducing our carbon emissions and beginning geoengineering research are not mutually exclusive; while it is uncertain to what degree we should pursue each of these, we should probably do both. So, if we genuinely try to decrease our carbon emissions and at the same time begin geoengineering research, knowing it might necessary because of others’ failure to reduce their own emissions, this can hardly be thought of as a moral failure. Indeed, it might be said that we should try harder to get others to reduce emissions, but we will only achieve so much success at this, and at a certain point it becomes a better use of time to in some capacity pursue geoengineering.

Let’s reconsider who is morally at fault. So, while Gardiner considers the pursuit of geoengineering research to be the acknowledgement of a moral failure, we might respond by saying that if one does not advocate the taking of precautionary measures, keeping in mind the inevitable proportion of the population that does not adopt a more responsible lifestyle (such precautionary measures might be advocating geoengineering research), that is also a moral failure. Again, while beginning geoengineering research is acknowledging a moral failure, it is not necessarily our failure. Furthermore, we might actually be obligated to do such research.

Separator post

There is no blog due during Thanksgiving week!

The posts above concern the reading for Dec. 1 (Stephen Gardiner's "Geoengineering" piece).

William Baxer: People or Penguins

William Baxter is an anthropocentrist and with that I can agree with him. He believes that only humans hold intrinsic value and therefore everything else on this planet can only hold value if we assign it such. However, I believe that while he is correct in seeing humans as the self-centered creatures that they are he himself is overly self centered and projects his own biases onto his view. Non-human organisms can hold more value to humans than I believe he is willing to admit, I do not take him for an out-doorsy type of person. In that same light I think he is grossly underestimating the importance of a cleaner environment.

This piece is dated and so the environmental crisis that we are assuming in this class might not have been so easily assumed when he was writing. However, the pollution we have created has reached a point where is threatens us with major, life threatening issues. Our problems are way bigger than DDT and penguins. If we are to use his theory of working on the environmental crisis only enough to live comfortably I am not convinced that we will survive. He might argue that we will, each generation will survive by doing enough to keep the environment stable enough for human existence. But is this enough? The question has arisen of the extent of our responsibility to future generations. Do we owe prosperity anything?

I am not sure what Baxter’s answer here would be. Here we can see his theory of “trade-offs” becoming more complicated. “As a society we would be well advised to give up one washing machine if the resources that would have gone into that washing machine can yield greater human satisfaction when diverted into pollution control.” Would the “human satisfaction” of future generations be applicable? We can consider this through thinking first of people already in existence. I would love my children and want to do all I could to make the world livable for them; this could be minimalistic on my part. However, I also love my grandchildren, which would require a little more work to insure their safety and happiness. Yet, if I am concerned with their happiness, their “human satisfaction”, then I would want them to see their grandchildren living in a safe and healthy environment. Reaching this optimal level of pollution is not the answer because as self-centered a species we are we care about fellow human beings. It is for their sake that we should work for high standards of environmental improvement. However, I again agree with Baxter that we need to find figure out what we mean by this.

While reading William Baxter’s piece “People or Penguins” I was really able to relate to what he was saying – not in the sense that I agreed with him, but in the sense that I feel like most people in today’s society would. He talks about how in order to properly deal with a problem you first must have a good general objective. Continuing on to explain that his main objective is to further humans, he claims that while benefits might also extend to animals through humans, animals do not have a right to be conserved in themselves. Admitting that his ideas are “undeniably selfish,” Baxter continues on to argue that animals and nature have no value in themselves, and so should thus not be taken into account when looking at human growth and development. I feel like a lot of Americans in particular would agree with his main idea in believing that humans are of the only importance in the world.
I however refuse to believe that animals and nature have no moral status and are simply at our disposal. Baxter blatantly refuses to believe that we should preserve the environment or its balance unless in doing so we benefit ourselves, and I disagree whole heartedly. I believe that it is our duty to try and help preserve the natural environments and animals around us, for they are just as much a part of this world as we are. While I do not think that we should put them at equal status or above ourselves, I think that they should be given some moral consideration. I do not think that cutting down trees for lodging is wrong per say, but that there is a balance between conservation and fulfilling basic human needs, and that we must strive to maintain this balance. Baxter claims that “there is no normative definition of clean air or pure water,” but I disagree again. Clean air and water is what the earth naturally does through its interconnected processes of life without the interference of man. I am not inferring that we should discontinue our use of the earth’s resources; I think that with all our innovations in technology we must aim to further push its limits and find new and more efficient ways of living, essentially decreasing the size of our human footprint.

Baxter: Heartless Monster or Pragmatist? (Probably a little of Both)

First let me say what I agree with in regard to Baxter’s article. He claims that environmental scientists and activists don’t have a clear objective when it comes to ecological problems – we want “clean air” and “clean water” and “lower pollution,” but it’s not clear what precisely the aim should be. Concreteness, I agree, has to be added to make a goal real. To solve any societal problem people need to know exactly what the goal should be and work logically and sequentially to reach that goal. Indeed, Baxter takes this point further and adds that, in reality, we need to reframe the pollution problem. We’re always going to have some level of pollution, and instead of demanding “no pollution” we should try to reach some “optimal state” of pollution – a stable and manageable level of pollution that can reasonably be achieved and maintained without devastating effects on the environment. Baxter is plainly a realist when it comes to ecological concerns. And while I realize he is talking theoretically, I do think, however, that he is guilty of his own criticism toward environmentalist: he should articulate more concretely (and empirically) what exactly this “optimal state” would look like, and how we could reasonably achieve it.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with Baxter’s attitude on species welfare. While I do believe – though I won’t argue it here – that value does come from humans (the anthropogenic view) I do not think that humans are the only creature which should have a moral status or should somehow be the ultimate measure of value in the universe (the anthropocentric view). He claims that real people, at some level, are really concerned with the safety of other species only insofar as they derive pleasure or some benefit from their existence and that “questions of ought” – that is, ethical questions – “are meaningless [when] applied to a non-human situation” (521). He defends this view by stating that before humans, there was no question whether plants might have been wrong for spreading across the earth and changing the composition of the atmosphere or whether rightness or wrongness even mattered when “the first amphibian…crawl[ed] up out of the primordial ooze” (521). This, to me, is a defense for the anthropogenic view, however, not the anthropocentric view. While I recognize I risk name-calling, I think when Baxter states “I have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake” he is really confusing his own self-centeredness with the view that all humans are interested in other species only instrumentally. The burden of proof should be on Baxter to show that even if we only cared about species by way of their instrumental value that that is a morally justified way to be in the world. Maybe we naturally view the planet that way, but that doesn’t mean it’s right or that we don’t need to change that perception. I would need to see more information In the end, these arguments (that non-human situations are morally meaningless and that humans are ultimately selfish and that we see other species only in terms of their possible instrumental value) require better defense.

Links between Bradford and Baxter

Bradform makes many claims about the evils of capitalism which I can accept, however I am unsatisfied with his solution to the problem. To me it seems that capitalism does generate tragedies and perhaps in many ways it pressures people to do such things in order to lower cost. In my opinion it seems that capitalism can be used both for good and bad, however the stress on increasing profits set by capitalism seems to invite the abuse of people. Where Bradford fails to convince me is with the idea that we should simply reject capitalism and revert to an older way of living. To me it seems impossible to do so at this point, and it seems questionable as to whether it would even be desirable. While the villages may be more ecologically friendly older societies were often less tolerant and less educated. I also don’t understand what exactly he intends to have replace capitalism, and to me I feel that people will still be abused though perhaps not by the wastes of large processing plants.
Baxter also seems to address the issue in some ways by showing that there is a trade-off between pollution and what we gain from it. This seems to allow the idea that while there may be too much pollution; we do not have to return all the way to surviving by subsistence farming. I do wonder whether Baxter is right about using resources always creating pollution. I would largely agree it is common for this to be true in a capitalist society but I am not sure that it is always true. For example I would find it hard to believe that walking through a natural environ and picking wild berries or another natural product and then using it yourself would be pollution. I mean it would be possible to do so in an ecologically unfriendly way but I believe it could also be done in a nonpolluting and eco-friendly way. However this is outside of any capitalist system, though to be it does seem to be an example of when resource use does not lead to pollution. Personally I would agree that we should try to pollute less though perhaps not make a radical shift back to subsistence farming. To me it seems like we need to decide how much value a human has and how protected they should be from such an industrial-capitalist society. To me it seems we often pick wealth over preserving or bettering human life.

Baxter sets the bar too low

William Baxter addresses pollution from a human centered viewpoint in his essay. As he says, he has “no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake.” Though I think he is wrong in not valuing the penguin for their own sake, I will not focus on that here. He lays out four “criteria” that he uses to solve “problems of human organization” and he then gives six reasons why the four criteria are a good starting point. I disagree with one of his criteria and with a few of the reasons that follow. Baxter’s fourth criterion says that a person should always be able to “improve his share of satisfactions” and all people should receive some part of the wealth so that they do not become so poor that they cannot improve themselves on their own. He also states that keeping the poor at this viable level may be achieved through redistribution of wealth. I agree with this second part of the criterion, but I think the two parts are at odds with each other. The first part says that a person should always have reason to and should always be capable of obtaining or consuming more, whether it be money, food, resources, etc but the second part puts some limit on this through concerns for the well-being of other humans. Why should this endeavor to obtain and consume more goods not be limited by other things? Even if Baxter could not be convinced that animals are intrinsically valuable, there is something morally wrong with destroying animal populations and the environment for our own selfish, unnecessary consumption.
Moving on from the criteria, Baxter says that they are the only sound starting point for six reasons. The first of the six claims that it is the only view that coincides with the way most people think and act. I think that moral goals should not be relaxed just because most people are not meeting them. That’s like saying it’s ok to set a lower moral standard for rapists because it corresponds to reality. We should in no way relax moral expectations to cater to their twisted behavior. The second supporting point says that these criteria do not advocate for destruction of nature because man needs nature in the long run. However, current events prove otherwise. Corporations, in their unending endeavor to maximize profit, use and abuse nature with total disregard for how their actions harm nature and other, typically poor, people. His third point says that what is good for humans is often good for nature. But I disagree with this. What humans view as a good thing is often detrimental for nature. Humans view eating a lot of food as a good thing, but the food industry is creating huge problems. In factory farming animals are treated horribly and forests and ecosystems are destroyed to make way for even more factory farms and for more plant-food to feed the animals. Overall, Baxter’s fourth criterion is contradictory and about half of the support he presents for the criteria is wrong.

Subsistence living the only way?

How many of us benefit from the gains make available by industrialization and technological advancement? It seems that our everyday lives are so filled with them we do not stop to think specifically about the means by which they become available to us, or more importantly, what costs do they have? In Bradford's piece "We All Live in Bhopal" he outlines what he feels are extremely important points about industrialization and the problems is causes for people around the world.

The first point that I thought was intriguing was the idea of third world countries and their inability to afford both safety measures to deal with hazardous contaminates used in their fledgling industrialization. It immediatly made me question not whether or not these chemicals should be used by them, but rather, if we are in the situation as a supplier don't we have a higher obligation to see that they are used effectively and safely? I felt that Bradford went straight to the solution of removing all chemical production. While this is a possible solution, I do not think it has the practicality necessary to become a legitimate solution.

Moving on, Bradford comes to the same conclusion when speaking about non-subsistence living. He believes that industrial civilization, or as he refers to it, an "exterminist" system, is the result of corporate "greed, plunder, salvery..." and that the only way out of it is back to subsistence living. While I understand the correlation between industrialization and widespread chemical use, I cannot submit to the claim that is a contentious decision of the factory owners or government to allow for such things. Or to the short-sighted claim that the only way to counter these problems is to go back to a subsistence living. Technology is a mighty tool, one that is in need of responsible use. Just because chemical production has negative aspects does not mean it is bad; rather it requires greater focus on safety and proper usage. Outright reversion to "village life" is not something that is practical, while it may be effective. Responsible handling of chemicals, of all technologies that produce pollution, can result in perfectly safe technologies. In developing countries, aid should be given by nations that have cut their pollution quantities in the mindset that it will be beneficial to all. As dicussed in the earlier piece by French, one nation's pollution does not only affect that localized area, but has far-reaching consequences.

pollution's a problem...and baxter's a jerk

I understand Baxter's point about trade-offs between pollution and resource use...but, the fact that the trade-off is strictly focused upon what humans are experiencing and what aspects of the environment directly benefit or harm us is a narrow and obviously anthropocentric view-point I have many problems with.
Firstly, his criteria for his "human organization" problem-solving tactics are selfish (see #2), species biased (see #3), and nearing the line of tragedy of commons situations (see #4), although he claims to avoid this with redistribution. Also, it's great he is able to throw his view out there ("my observations about environmental problems will be people-oriented, as are my criteria" [pg. 520]), but his support for this "attitude" is not so great. To say that no massive destruction of plants and animals would occur since there is human dependence upon them (leading to preservation) is basically a lie. Look at all of the species that have disappeared, are endangered, or threatened because of us. And to what degree of our reliance is enough for proper preservation? Is fauna and flora not directly relied upon not worthy of existence?
In addition, his claim that what is good for humans is basically good for other living creatures too is weak. And what is his definition of "good", the basic elements required to live? Even when looking at just humans...what's good for an infant and what's good for an adult are not always the same. He is making unfounded generalizations.
Another one I have a problem with is his notion that "agricultural use of DDT must stop at once because it is harmful to penguins" (pg. 521) is an extreme assertion. Doesn't he realize how narrow-sighted he sounds? Firstly, penguins are not the only species experiencing the ill effects of DDT; and secondly, their situation can serve as an example of what various effects could occur with multiple life-forms...if it can harm them, why not humans too? It'd be in our interest to turn to a safer product.
For his fifth argument (for his "attitude") he inquires the amount each type of species would count if included in our social organization and if/how people will be their proxies, for "self-appointment does not seem workable to [him]" (pg. 521). Well, Baxter seemed to have no trouble at all in appointing the human race to speak for and make choices affecting all of these species.
Baxter's rejection of the proposition" 'to preserve the environment' unless the reason for doing so...is the benefit of man" (pg. 521) seems odd on account of our environment is where we live, what we rely on for survival. Is he secretly aware of another planet currently full of endless resources for us? How does keeping this planet healthy not benefit mankind?
To his issue with the lowering levels of pollution (bottom of pg. 521)...it will not necessarily lead to lower levels of food, shelter, education, and music...but perhaps different variations of these means (and others) of human satisfaction. He loves painting as drastic a picture as the extreme conservationists.
Lastly, is the cost of putting in labor, and skill, and money, and time into one project (pollution control) and not being able to use those resources in another type ("building hospitals, fishing rods, schools, electric can openers"). He should also consider the costs that accumulate when not controlling pollution such as various medical expenses, deaths, filtering/cleaning smaller and smaller (and increasingly more expensive) amounts of water, and increased land-use, fertilizers, and farm equipment required for degraded farm lands to keep producing goods.

I agree whole-heartedly with William Baxter’s observation, stating that our objective should not be a state of pureness, an environment free of pollution, but a world with an optimal state (lowered) pollution. In this sense he recognizes that such environmental concerns such as pollution can never be perfectly handled, but instead their detrimental effects minimized. Hilary French, on the other hand, criticizes the fact that current solutions to pollution only replace one problem with a new one, instead of resolving the crux of the issue. While I commend her for searching for a more meaningful solution to pollution, to some extent I think we must realize that most solutions for pollution –as well as most difficult decisions in life - do involve trading one problem for a lesser one. I suppose this view is utilitarian in nature, in that, though perfection may be unattainable, we strive to maximize the good and reduce the bad (pollution). Consider Baxter’s example involving the building of a dam. Whereas French may perhaps focus on the monetary cost of the dam as well as its effects on the environment, Baxter urges us to reflect on the resources which would be used in the dam’s creation. That the labor, materials, and capital goods necessary to build a dam take away the opportunity for these resources to be used for the benefit of building hospitals, schools, or even can openers must be taken into account. Perhaps considering the resources taken into account or the fact that we cannot reach a state of ecological perfection, our environmental decisions will be no different. Nevertheless, it is vital for these things to be considered in the formulation of environmental regulations. To do otherwise would be short-sighted.

Pollution Reduction and Human Happiness are not Mutually Exclusive

In the article “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”, William F. Baxter argues that producing pollution is an inevitable result of consuming resources- something which we as humans must do in order to survive and be happy. Although it is the case that in order to use resources, we must produce a certain amount of waste and thus impact our surrounding environment to a certain extent, we certainly don’t need to be polluting as much as we currently do, and it would greatly benefit humankind if we polluted less.
The toxic chemicals that enter the environment through runoff as a result of agricultural activities and that contribute to health problems among humans (as well as other species) do not need to be used (at least in the proportions they are used on conventional farms), as evidenced by the success of organic farm industries. In addition, pollution emitted from factory farms could be reduced simply by implementing regulations mandating farm operators to regularly clean up animal wastes and provide healthier environments for the animals to be raised in. Reducing pollution in ways such as this would allow more humans—such as those who live in close proximity to factory farm facilities—to live healthier lives, something that Baxter would agree would be a good thing.
Moreover, we wouldn’t have to give up any of our happiness or current quality of life if these changes were to take place; rather, our quality of life would increase. If all produce was produced organically and if all factory farms were operated in a clean and safe manner, smaller yields of produce and meat may be produced than those that currently are, but I think that the long-term health benefits received by humankind (from being provided with healthier, chemical-free foods and air with less pollution) would far outweigh these minor sacrifices and may reduce some individuals’ need for extensive medical care. Furthermore, if all industries followed the same regulations, the issues of cutting costs and competition among industries would not be exacerbated, because all industries would have the same restrictions imposed upon them.

All three articles relating to pollution brought up some interesting and in some cases alarming facts and ideas. The first piece by Hilary French made me realize that although we have taken pollution into consideration as a potential problem, few have failed to realize all of the detrimental affects it is having on humans as well as other organisms. We keep trying to fix the problem of pollution by fixing the effects of pollution such as trying to lessen the toxins in the air by burning more energy efficient fuels rather than trying to use less fossil fuels all together. We are constantly treating the symptoms of the problem rather than tackling the much greater threat: the disease itself. Right now, pollution is not creating large enough waves to be overtly detected and it is relatively easy to ignore or forget about. The problem with ignoring the minor issues or only treating the issues as they arise is that eventually the problem will become so great that it will be virtually impossible to rectify the problem. So much pollution will have built up in the air that the damage will be irreversible and the effects will be catastrophic. Pollution is like an infection. If we choose to ignore the minor symptoms of the disease and simply dismiss them as little problems, those symptoms will continue to worsen as the infection progresses. When the symptoms finally become extreme enough to be a real threat, it will be too late. The infection will have affected everything and sepsis will result. We need to treat the problem of pollution now while it is still small enough that the effects can be rectified and changes can be made to better the situation.

I'm not sure we could be friends, Baxter.

In his piece, Baxter argues that any sort of environmental remediation should be enacted after a thorough analysis of the trade-offs to human satisfaction that it will inevitably cause. I have two primary objections to his entire thought process. First, I believe he makes a mistake in only seeing things (specifically animals, plants, ecosystems) in terms of their instrumental value to human beings. He does not allow for the notion that some members of our planet besides us may have intrinsic value. (I will not elaborate too much on this: we've spent considerable time discussing it.) Besides this fundamental difference between us, I would also argue against Baxter on the grounds that even if things only had value in terms of their instrumental value to people, he does not understand fully the instrumental value some things may offer.

I thought of the concept of biophilia, which seems to argue that humans have an evolutionarily programmed interest in the well-being of non-human members of our Earth community. We derive pleasure from seeing megafauna in the wild; we make scientific breakthroughs with the fluids of rare plants. He uses the example of DDT, which he sees as having benefits for humans but negative consequences for other species. I would have to argue that DDT also has negative affects for humans: if we did not outlaw it based on its affect on animals, it could have accumulated in the biosphere to the point where it infiltrated our own fat cells. The penguins were an indicator of the bad affects of a generally toxic substance. (Even though this is my argument against his example, it strikes me as a flaw in his piece that he goes on to argue "what is good for humans is, in many respects, good for penguins and pine trees..." - without acknowledging his own example of DDT, good for humans, as an exception, since even he acknowledged it as being bad for animals.)

In his conclusion, Baxter claims that controlling pollution is costly, but I would argue (and I believe Hilary French would agree) that the best means of controlling pollution are avoidance techniques. (It might actually save money to prevent pollution.) The expected "cost" that many corporate think tanks assign to pollution control is really only in terms of lost profit, which is only a marker of money. (Baxter and I agree, at least, on the irrelevance of money.) There wouldn't be any additional use of resources to prevent pollution. Even if the lost profit happened, it might actually serve Baxter's goal of minimal sharing of wealth, as a means of redistribution, since large corporations that have an unbalanced amount of money anyway would be the ones losing out.

changing perceptions

A belief exists that there is an injustice in that poorer countries because they feel the costs of pollution and they don’t have the financial resources to combat those issues. It is shown in the first reading that poorer developing world countries can reduce pollution with help from government aid but also a lot of it from them which shows strength. Countries like the United States, Western European nations and Japan have all made significant strides in reducing the carbons emissions from their nations; nations in Eastern Europe and places such as India haven’t been able to do so. This is because they don’t have the money, and resources to organize environmental efforts. An example of that would be the lack of emissions standards that allow big corporations to pollute; there were no emission standards in India when the Bhopal disaster occurred. Developing nations are in some ways puppets to larger corporations because they are what employs people and driving the industrialized economy’s; saying no to them would be like cutting an umbilical cord. Some nations have used ways to reduce pollution without spending a lot of money. In Mexico City, the President of Mexico ordered to shut down oil refineries on the outskirts of the city. Driving will be restricted on certain days; this method is innovative in that it requires little capital to implement it. Another city in a developing country is Cubatao in Brazil, which reduced its total emissions by close to 3/4ths in 5 years. This shows that developing countries can help reduce pollution and even though they are receiving help, a lot of it is from them, and that shows they have some legs to stand on. With collaboration from developed nations and strong leadership, it is possible to change the negative effects of pollution in developing countries.

"Getting rid" of the chemical factories is not the answer.

In Bradford’s piece, I agree that there are problems that comes along with the industrialized communities we live in, mostly due to the waste that results from these industries. Specifically, the chemicals and poisons from this waste that we get exposed to, and which cause serious dangers for our health. However I do not see how we could ever possibly “do away” with the entire “chemical way of life” that we have developed, which Bradford calls for us to do at the end of his piece. The industrial revolution was a major milestone for America, and although some, probably including Bradford, would say that it was a bad milestone, some view it as improvement. I realize that without it, we would never have developed certain health care advances and medicines or construction products, home furnishings, paper, paints, electronics (like your trusty cell phone or microwave), and some foods. All produced by these horrible chemical factories. Although, I think with anything, too much of something is never good. I think these factories, although important to our lives, due to all of the products they produce that we use every day of our lives, there definitely needs to be tighter, healthier, more environmentally friendly ways to dispose of the waste they also produce; because, the sickness that these wastes cause is undeniable. However, I think the call to “throw off this way of life” and to say that the “chemical factories must go” is too drastic. They do have some purpose and although probably corrupt, illegal, and currently causing health and environmental issues, they have a purpose and I feel we do need the products they make. Therefore, I think there needs to be better regulations and laws to monitor the disposal of their wastes. Which bring me to my next point; I realized that this paper was written in 1985, and most of the circumstances that were described, although compelling, seemed out of date, and it made the article not hold as much weight for me. For all I know, the situations could be worse now, some 24 years later, or they could have improved. That is the point, I don’t know and I would like to know what the circumstances are today. Are there more regulations on chemical waste disposal? Are there more consequences for illegal activity? Are we still where we were in 1985, or have things gotten worse? All I know is every time the Limerick chemical plant’s sirens go off, I want to hold my breath. Not really sure why, maybe because I think they are leaking chemicals into the air that will give my future children birth defects, and for all I know this could be true. Or those sirens could be a simple test. But if I KNEW that the government had particular laws against the release of harmful toxins in the Limerick chemical plant, I could breathe easy. I guess I just need more information.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Nov. 19 by French, Bradford, and Baxter.

Thoughts

I have two arguments for the third part of our reading assignment

1. The authors have a general argument for buying locally versus buying globally… if you’re not eating locally you’re wrong. The authors believe that purchasing locally is better, overall, for the environment. It cuts down on extra costs such as shipping and extra fuels being burnt, etc. However, my argument right back at the authors would be: how can be so sure that organic farmers uphold the standards that are posted on the USDA network, not to mention these regulations are very loose? Additionally, although local may seem to be friendly to the environment, it can be quite the opposite when it comes to organic fertilizers. There are over 500 different types of fertilizers; anything from crab meal made from Blue Crabs to Bat guano. However, when people purchase these organic things their actions have a consequence on crab populations and biodiversity. For instance; crab meal is made from crushed up shells that are left over from the crab industries. The way these industries go about harvesting these crabs can be detrimental to their populations. Using the Chesapeake Bay for an example has one third of the nation’s crab population. However, since the 1990s, blue crab catches have significantly dropped by 70%. To break it down even further, between 1968 and 2005, commercial crab harvest from the Chesapeake averaged about 73 million pounds annually. That is a lot of crab. Overharvesting these crab populations can have reprocautions in the food chain. Furthermore, harvesting bat guano is detrimental to the caves in which the guano is collected. Let’s take a cave in Jamaica for example. The destruction of Jamaican caves is due to human visitation through mining the guano. Additionally, rich deposits of bat guano act as food for several invertebrates that dwell at the bottom of these caves.

2. My other argument lies with the misquoted press woman, Lindsay Allen, on page 225. She ran an experiment with Kenyan children given additional-animal based foods. Although she is trying to improve and help their diets, I find that studying these effects on children and using the kids as experimental projects is wrongfully using them and it is a moral issue. I could similarly tie this back to the ‘golden rice’ experiment (pg. 214). Produced decided to lace corn, which is a staple food for nourishment, with beta-corotene. Although this could very well have been a wonderful product for third world countries suffering from a majority of the population being malnourished, I tend to wonder how many patents it had to go through. I still do not think they have reached the final product because I have yet to hear about it on a global scale. Therefore, just as experimenting kids was a moral issue, I believe spending millions of dollars on a useless product is a moral issue as well. The product process is draining to public resourced and distracts us from a sustainable agriculture that can produce real solutions to world hunger and malnutrition.

Singer and Mason make a few points near the end of their book I would like to call into view. To begin with they mention Pollan and a few other authors and their idea behind a happy life equaling okay. Singer and Mason offer a weak rebuttal to the argument that "eating meat from farms that give pigs good lives cannot be bad for pigs, since if no one at meat, these pigs wouldn't exist". The only counter they have is that Pollan feels a level of discomfort coming to this conclusion. They say that since this is 'essentially' a utilitarian view it is bad because utilitarians can also justify killing retarded orphans. How the fact that utilitarians can also justify killing retarded orphans makes this other 'essentially' utilitarian view bad is a bit foggy. Perhaps using a word other than 'essentially' and making the connection here would further strengthen their argument.

Another issue I have is in regards to the conclusion on killing creatures without the potential to become as intelligent/rational/etc. as humans. If someone believes this is okay, that a retarded human incapable of developing like other humans do is allowed to be killed, Singer and Mason seem to have no real response. They talk about how this is not an impregnable defense, but it is still a defense they do not completely bring down. When Scruton talks about human beings being fulfilled by their aspirations and achievements he lacks another point that would help refute Singer and Mason's response that Scruton must support killed retarded people. Human beings are also fulfilled based on relations, even with retarded people, where as animals are not. Their offspring will even be eaten/abandoned if found to be retarded. Humans on the other hand will have emotional damage due to attachments we can forms with them, which as we all know can lead to physical damage (emotional to physical that is).

In the end I'm a little fuzzy on all this myself, and I've mostly raised more questions than answered any.

Eating Animals

Singer and Mason outline several arguments that have been proposed to justify the killing of animals for food. I do not believe that these arguments adequately defend the position that killing animals for our consumption is permissible. Singer and Mason have thoroughly outlined in their book the reasons why eating meat is wasteful and unnecessary. People may be just as healthy, if not more so, and just as well, if not better, nourished, by abstaining from the consumption of animals. If eating meat is unnecessary for human survival or wellbeing, then there is no need to take part in it. Perhaps there exists a farm where a cow lives a happy life. To kill her for food would cut short her life, rob her of her natural life cycle and years of continued happiness, and prevent her from experiencing the full series of life stages. Were this cow allowed a full life, killing her for food would still be wrong. The cow is a sentient teleological center of life, and her being a teleological center of life entitles her to moral consideration and entails that one should not end her natural tendency towards life needlessly, and her being a higher-order creature capable of feeling pain entails that one should not cause her pain unnecessarily. To kill the cow would be to risk inflicting pain on her, and would thwart her tendency towards life, and would therefore be morally wrong. Unless one would be willing to end the life of one’s aging pet dog or cat to use the body for food, or perhaps more controversially, to kill one’s senile grandparent to feed on the body, I do not see how it is acceptable to kill even a cow at the end of its life for the purpose of obtaining food. Animals are not simply things for us to use. I might not object to the eating of meat if the animal died of natural causes, but then I might question the health of the meat, and, at any rate, I doubt that its taste would be particularly appealing; there also seems to me to be something dirty or disrespectful about this. There is then the argument that eating the cow from the farm that gave it a good life cannot be bad for the cow, since if no one ate meat, the cow would not exist. I would, however, argue that the existence of a great number of cows, even with happy lives, is worse than fewer cows existing who are not killed for human consumption. If no one ate meat, the cows that did exist would live natural lives not cut short by slaughter. I would argue that, while it would be wrong to bring a miserable being into existence, it would be neither good nor bad to bring a happy being into existence. It seems that turning misery to happiness, or spreading happiness among the already existing would increase the quality of their lives and would be good; however, I do not see that simply adding to the quantity of the happy, rather than bettering the lives of those already existing who are not happy, would be either good or bad. It could not be wronging the potential creature to deny him a life, even if it would be happy; the act of denial would be neutral, because it would neither increase nor decrease the happiness of those in existence. I do not think that the argument that it is best for the animals to be killed and eaten, because if they were not they would not exist at all, is an effective argument.

Softer Food Ethic Also Promotes Critical Thinking

I agree with Singer and Mason’s argument for a food ethic that is not fanatical because of my experience with ethical eating. The concept of fulfilling every ethical responsibility is daunting, and that is before you compound that difficulty with hunger. One avoids the ethical problems involving meat consumption only to find ethics in concern to the environment, people, and again animals. I think that Singer and Mason’s addition of context-sensitivity softens their ethic and makes it easier to accomplish. I think that an interesting part of this ethic is the emphasis on personal curiosity. The consumer must engage with the food they eat instead of submissively accepting it as an end-in-itself.

As a result of this curiosity, I attempted to research the “ethical nature” of two companies after a visit to a grocery store. The benefit of labels is that it distinguishes if big companies are potentially unethical even though it doesn’t legitimately denote ethicality to the labeled. The “Darling Clementines” that are manufactured by Sun Pacific are not organic or free trade . . . but they are not animal flesh either. The Sun Pacific website promoted the taste of its products and their efficiency of production, but I could not find what chemicals they use when farming. I do not think that they are the most ethical choice, but at the time I did not see any organic Clementines. I also tried researching “Sun Chips” and found some articles about the branding of certain foods as green foods. All in all, I can understand where curiosity and work meet in the process of becoming an ethical consumer. Singer and Mason’s book would be very useful for wading through the information acquired from such searches.

history shows capitalism wins over ethics...

Singer and Mason look at different eating habits for three different families: a typical standard Walmart buying American family, a local organic family and a vegan family in conservative area. For Singer and Mason, the vegan diet seems to be by far the healthiest, most sustainable and therefore most ethical way of eating.

However, Singer and Mason argue the point that the industrial and capitalistic driven food system can be transformed by our individual consumptive choices. Therefore, with this belief, factory farming will then become obsolete if more and more people refrain from purchasing those factory farmed foods.

But, as they both point out, while organic food has become more visible so has "corporate organic companies,” such as Horizon. These companies are providing healthier and more environmentally sustainable food and are therefore more ethical. Thus factory farming in the traditional sense could become obsolete.

However, these companies are then subject (especially as more and more people jump on the organic bandwagon) to the same drive of necessity as every other capitalistic company. By this I mean that these “corporate organics” will have to constantly drive down production costs in order to remain competitive, which is exactly what the “free market” demands. With that said it seems almost inevitable that our capitalistic economy will takeover most organic production; thus, most likely leading to the destruction of the principles of community building, social justice and respect. The “free market” and capitalism are strong forces that compel many companies to become competitive and then succumb to the pressures of cutting costs. What does this cost cutting affect? Who does this cost cutting affect? Workers? The environment? Animals?

What’s to say that organic food production won’t become what our factory farming became in 25 years? Why wouldn’t they try to remain competitive and cut costs? There is always going to be that constant tension between making a profit in a capitalistic economy and ethics in production and history has shown us that the economy has won.

In the section “Eating Meat: The Best Defense”, the authors consider, as the title suggests, the best argument for human consumption of meat. In their efforts, they cite Michael Pollan’s article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. In the article Pollan contends that domestication was an evolutionary process and therefore morally acceptable. Pollan says “Domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own.” The authors than quickly tear Pollan’s argument apart. Specifically they target his contention that the species discovered some benefit from becoming domesticated. While Pollan’s prose may not make the most sound argument, but a simple augmentation to it may make it a bit stronger. It maybe should have read “Domestication happened when a small handful of species, through Darwinian evolution found that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own.” This is obviously not as nice a piece of prose as the original statement, but never the less it says what I think Pollan was intending to say.
The authors take their argument further in relation to the farming techniques and ethical implications that eating meat drag along with it. In their “Drawing Conclusions” section, the authors make some conclusions that don’t really seem to follow their arguments. They go from an environmentally conscious argument for not eating meat to the unethical treatment even the well treated animal’s experience and than finally arrive at the psychological problems even the conscientious meat eaters must experience. I will concede that the environmental argument is sound, and should cause people to reduce the amount of meat they consume. Their argument for the unethical treatment of the Polyface Farm animals seems to be stretching the limits on what they demand of animal treatment. Polyface seems to be doing a fair job of treating the animals well, despite what the authors have said. The farm is doing almost all it can to make life for these animals “good.” They are doing such a good job that they receive accolades from well known news papers. Yet the authors attempt to put down the efforts as insufficient. I think the authors needed to give a bit more praise for this farm having an ethical standard that is self imposed. Lastly, their argument regarding the psychological temptations that even conscientious meat eaters face seems to be pretentious. They say that since meat eaters face temptation to take the easy way out by eating animals that were treated poorly, it is likely they will do it. As a result the line is “fuzzy” in what is humane enough to eat. While they are correct about the line being fuzzy, they will only alienate meat eaters by saying they have little or no control over what they eat. To be frank, the authors come off as stuck up, not to mention morally and ethically superior due to their ability to walk such a hard line.