Separator post

The posts above concern the reading for Nov. 10: pp. v-vii and 3-80 from the Singer and Mason book.

Rauch

Jonathan Rauch lists multiple examples of the benefits of GMOs and I must say I for the most part agree with him. I say for the most part because first and foremost the subject of food distribution will not be addressed by increased food production and a better environment. Unless there is massive development and regime changes around the world the starving in a good deal of cases will continue to starve, or at least not be able to take care of themselves. More food production does not solve the problem of world hunger; it only alleviates some of it. Something these authors in general have ignored is that all these problems take more than the use of an environmental (and occasionally economic) lens. Politics, exploitation, culture, and many other concepts cannot be ignored when talking about these different subjects.

Moving back to Rauch's piece however, there are a few other points he makes which he leaves himself a bit too open on. Regarding the problem of GMOs spreading and becoming invasive that is obviously a risk to consider. Rauch should instead point to examples of GMOs that have been used for over a decade now and have had no ill effects on the environment. Governments will (and do) regulate the usage of GMOs and I have a great deal of faith in science to be able to counter any possible 'invasive' plant they create. Technology and information is rapidly growing more and more. A little side note I was reading said that 4 billion gigs of information was generated last year, which is more than the last 5,000 years put together. Obviously an odd statistic to take seriously, but an interesting notion.

The other argument about the inability for people in the third world to properly use GMOs is also not very strong. Of course they cannot use more advanced forms of farming, but as time goes on, and these countries develop they will be able to. He says it will be hard to teach an 'Asian' (assuming he means East Asian) how to use a GMO, but earlier he says China has done an incredible job using GMOs already. There are a multitude of other arguments against GMOs I would love to get into, but alas short blog spaces.

Detrimental Effects of Ceasing Cattle-Raising: A Trade-Off I am Willing to Accept

Cody offers strong pressure against Tristram Coffin’s argument against cattle-raising. It is true that there are dozens other sources of methane emissions, many of them natural causes, from wetlands, wild animals and termites. However, much of his pressure centers on the high percentage of methane emissions termites supposedly emit. I am not very learned in this topic, but I was interested in learning more after reading Cody’s blog post. Searching online, I did find the numbers Cody spoke of, but I came across further research countering those numbers. Not wanting to risk explaining this incorrectly, I will directly quote the findings which state that “the earlier study [taking place in the 1980s] overestimated the amount of food consumed by termites each year and did not take into account methane absorption by the ground near their mounds, a fact discovered only during field experiments.” Moreover, their researchers determined the total amount of methane emissions by termites globally to be about 2% (12 x 1012) of the total emissions. This more recent study took place in the 1990s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n17_v137/ai_8988319/).

If true, it seems that these statistics weaken Cody’s argument against Coffin. However, I think it is important to note that Coffin’s argument does not necessarily rest on methane emissions alone. Rather, it is one of many examples of cattle-raising’s detrimental effects on both the environment and humans. Also included in his article were the significant amounts of water and fossil fuels consumed in producing livestock, the decreased animal and plant life associated with deforestation, and the decreased carrying capacity of the increasingly large deserts due to persistent cattle grazing. Just as important, if not more, is the grain wasted on producing livestock which could be used to feed millions of starving people around the world.

Cody does remind us that the environment can be affected detrimentally by natural and man-made sources alike. Regardless, I think it is important to focus on the larger picture of Coffin’s argument. Although reducing cattle-raising may cause some new detriment to our environment, these detrimental effects – at least those proposed by Cody – seem to pale in comparison to the tremendous good it would do for both humans and the environment.

Jonathan Rauch

In Jonathan Rauch’s article he argues that genetically modified foods are the answer to the starvation endemic that is plaguing the world. Only through genetically engineered food can nutrition be provided to save future generations from starvation. He concludes to say that within the next decade or so environmentalist will jump on the band wagon with regarding genetically modified foods as an important tool for future generations. Rauch’s idea is certainly a beneficial one to humanity, but sadly, it is regarded as bête noire to environmentalist groups. Additionally, it is difficult to have an appreciation for such food when you do not live in the country or farmland. Rauch does a good job of discussing the pros and cons both for humanity and the environment. As good as Rauch’s claim appears to be, none of it even touches on the fact that hunger is caused by our inability to hinder poverty and inequality. It is not that we are unable to produce enough food; it is that we produce too much food. Global overproduction is a leading cause of poverty and hunger, and inevitably death. I don’t think genetically engineered crops will help very much, because there are several other problems that need to be fixed first before we should consider a better way to grow more food in harmony with the environment.

Future in Frakenfood

Rauch's essay on the topic of looking to biotechnology to increase agricultural efficiency raises eyebrows yet also raises hopes. He notes that hardships we have gone through, the mistakes we have made with agriculture...yet he also points our attention towards a better future with the use of genetic modification (of at least crops most popular/relied on).
Pointing out our inevitable problems we will face with increased populations (of people and their pets), Rauch seems to have provided a substantial reason for supporting "Frankenfood" production. With decreased/ eliminated tillage and a transgenic crop, we will be able to double/triple food production to meet the demands of our every-growing populations. Less pesticides, herbicides, tilling, and major machinery use will no doubt prove to be positive changes for our environment...but what is not clear enough are the costs to the genetic modification that leads to these decreases.
Rauch acknowledges the concerns people have and the uncertainty that comes along with such transgenic products, but does not seem to delve deep enough into this potentially dark and dangerous reality.
I understand the great potential within biotech but do not believe that means we should immediately dive into this revolution and only answer the problems that arise as they come. This may be a situation where being safer than sorry should be applied. Perhaps limitations, such as those prescribed by the Sierra Club, are too restraining in our hopes to increase agricultural production, but it makes sense to err more on the cautious side when dealing with genetic manipulations between different organisms. The risks are outrageously unpredictable! For instance, perhaps for the first decade crop yields increase significantly, people and pets are fed, and all are happy. Who's to say genetic mutations won't lead to extremely resistant weeds in cross breeding. Maybe a crop (that isn't necessarily a native species for the area where it is farmed) begins to take over adjacent land, crowding out natives, and changing the chemistry, dynamics, and ecosystem roles and ties for plants and animals. Now the plants that were designed to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, etc. cannot be controlled even by us. Also, just as we have seen (and still do) the relationship between viruses and hosts...antibiotics and pathogens, we may experience a situation where insects and other plants become more and more resistant. Our super genetic modification may lead to the selection for a super genetic mutation in a pest.
Rauch may have plenty of support and examples for his position, but may not have enough to suppress the doubt for risky outcomes and change the minds of millions.

Patience is a Virtue

In Rauch’s article he argues favorably for biotech and genetically modified plants. When you read all of his reasons why we should use them it seems easy to be swayed by the information he is giving you. All the problems of the world, it seems, will be solved by these genetically modified crops. We will be able to use fields that we had ruined in the past and better use the fields that we are using now. This will in turn make sure we won’t waste more land by not reusing over ploughed land. Pollution, due to run off and pesticides, will be all but illuminated and the food crisis will be a thing of the past. Third world countries will be able to use this technology to farm land that was once unfarmable and feed their people.

However, while Rauch brings some objections into the light he does little in the way of addressing them. These plants could possibly pollinate surrounding plants and we do not know what the dangers of these situations will be. He tries to address it by saying, “Those risks are real enough that even most biotech enthusiasts-including Dennis Avery, for example-favor some government regulation of genetic crops” (478). While the government may be able to monitor the first set of plants they will not be able to account for mutations and so constant observation will be needed to insure that the original, ‘safe’ plant is not lost. This will make the plant all the more expensive.

This is also a huge concern that he merely mentions as a side note and then continues talking about other things, but I believe needs to be considered seriously, the capitalistic way these plants will be used. The research to make them cost money, to change your farm to use them costs money, the time to learn about them and to implement them will cost farmers money. How is it then that these will be able to be used in third world farms? He never answers this. Also, suppose we found a way for people to do this cost effectively. Farmers will fire workers, because these plants are so easy to maintain. These displaced workers might start their own farms on lands that we are trying to save with these plants in the first place.

The major issue with this situation is that there is no time for patience. Rauch addresses this pressure because this could be the answer to our crisis and we need and answer now. Also, to make money this needs to happen quickly so that we are the first to perfect it. Capitalism is also not likely to take the safer, less profitable route. But patience is needed to make sure that we are not endangering the environment further down the line by using these plants in our haste to try and fix things now.

Finding a Middle Ground

Michael Allen Fox’s article “Vegetarianism and Treading Lightly on the Earth” is compelling to me in that he isn’t concerned with defending an animal’s right to life – an argument I’ve grown tired of hearing repeated – but rather with the meat consumer’s effects on the environment overall. In particular, I completely agree with his view that people in contemporary society engage in the “construction of selfhood by means of consumer choices” and that overall we ignore the consequences of those choices not only in regard to animal rights but in relation to their environmental impact (497). It’s not that I don’t think that animals have certain rights (indeed, I would argue that factory farming treats animals in morally impermissible ways) but rather that the rights of animals pale in comparison to the immense resource depletion and destruction that a meat-centric diet produce. The destruction of rainforests, rivers, and fisheries is a serious concern that I think is directly related to our food preferences and we should start seeing the consequences of consumer choices as the real problem and not simply the lives of animals as the only morally important issue.

I do have one challenge to Fox’s argument that I think is worth considering. Fox begins by talking about the health of a vegetarian diet and then goes on to defend the view that a vegetarian or vegan diet would also prevent ecological destruction because it bypasses the taxing production and rearing methods that the meat industry uses. But, why is it necessary to create a black or white dichotomy between eating meat and being a vegetarian? I hold the view that eating meat itself isn’t a morally wrong act (we don’t get angry at a tiger when it hunts) but rather that the way we eat meat is morally wrong. It’s our methods that are impermissible, inhumane, and environmentally irresponsible and that advocating vegetarianism is sidestepping an attitude that maybe we should consider changing rather than simply avoiding in general (in fact, people are always going to use animals for food and so it’s our responsibility to not romanticize about a world completely free of meat consumption where this attitude won’t exist). Wouldn’t it be better rather than trying to convert large masses of people to vegetarianism (a goal that seems naïve in my opinion) to consider lessening the demand for meat products while at the same time appealing to government bodies to regulate and improve our current production methods? I think it’s a better option to educate people to not rely heavily on meat and then reform the production and consumption process to become more sustainable rather than trying to defend the view that vegetarianism is the only responsible path to helping the ecological crisis. I think extreme views or dogmatism of any kind are generally misguided and that we should seek a sustainable middle ground.

precautionary principle flawed

The topic of genetically modified foods is a very important and controversial discussion within the environmental realm. Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. There are many benefits to GM foods such as the fact that animals can engineered for leaner meat, plants engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, and bacteria engineered to produce drugs for livestock. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price and a product with a potential for greater benefit.
However, there are some concerns with GM foods. There are some safety concerns of the following: the direct health effects, the drift to cause increased allergenicity, nutritional effects associated with genetic modification and any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion. Some of the environmental effects include the potentially detrimental effect on greater resistant insects, the new plant pathogens, decrease in plant biodiversity and wildlife and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations.
Jonathan Rauch calls upon the Precautionary Principal in terms of food ethics. However, I have some reservations with this argument .The Precautionary Principle has been proposed as a guiding principle that states that when an “activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." So therefore, in the face of scientific uncertainty, its better be safe than sorry or to look before you can leap.
However, the precautionary principle is flawed because it automatically leads to unwise decisions and unclear actions. I feel as though the precautionary principle can be used to support any position or its opposite, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses. The precautionary principle ignores the risks of not introducing the new technology of genetically modified foods, which could end up being even more severe than the risks of GM foods themselves. While I do feel that a risk assessment is necessary, I do not think that the precautionary principle gives enough thought to this assessment. The precautionary principle seems to be only half of an assessment or the risk half--and is therefore incapable of assessing the true strengths or weakness of GM foods.
I am not claiming that GM crops will end hunger. However, I do think that it could be a short term fix that needs to be taken to ensure that the hungry people now get food. So I would argue that using the precautionary principle here is not an appropriate step and cannot be used to support only one position. I think that using that argument limits Rauch’s essay in that we could use it in a way that says that not using GM foods could be detrimental in terms of not feeding hungry people. This could provide increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are easier to grow and bring higher yields that could feed the millions of people that are suffering from malnutrition. In different parts of the world, this could save millions of lives and needed economic benefits. Which side do we take? Take precaution in environmental and health impacts of altering genes? Or take precaution in not feeding people who we could potentially help? Therefore, the precautionary principle is flawed in that it could go either way and this argument hurts Rauch’s essay.

Frankenfood has Potential, but Isn't Ideal

In his piece "Can Frankenfood Save The Planet," Jon Rauch makes the argument that genetically modified food has the potential to be embraced by environmentalists and societies around the world as the future of agriculture, that can sustain ballooning populations. I must agree with his first point, that agriculture inevitably affects the environment. We have known throughout our history as agricultural beings. In general, I think his piece makes really good points. I think that if it comes down to the desperate situation where we don't have enough food to go around (something I don't really buy: we have enough food, we're just not sharing it globally) to support the world's population, genetically engineered agriculture may be the way to go. As it stands, however, I think that there are objections which should compel us to resist embracing it as the next best thing to happen to humanity since fire.

First, I would argue that genetically modified food may in fact be very different from other foods. This relates to the "conventional" (industrial/high-input) agriculture vs. organic agriculture debate. It has been found that food grown organically has higher nutritional value than food grown "conventionally." I believe that the food created through genetic modification may in fact turn out to be very different from the food to which we are accustomed, which means we wouldn't be substituting our production methods, but instead re-designing our diets. Second, I would argue that genetically engineering crops to be able to grow in polluted or otherwise non-ideal conditions (such as salinized soil) is a technological fix that allows for us to ignore the roots of the pollution in the first place. If we can get away with destroying land because Monsanto will make some corn that can grow there anyway, we have no incentive to not destroy the land in the first place. Third, I don't believe that GMOs will feed the planet. Rauch seems to want to address this, but doesn't fully articulate it. He acknowledges that the incentives for created GMOs are purely economic, and that farmers in areas of the world who most desperately need food most likely cannot cough up the cash to warrant the research creating these GMOs would take. Inequitable food distribution will only be worsened by the universal application of more technology to agriculture, because those with the money to support biotech already have access to food.

Lastly, this is not a personal objection I really have, but I think someone might bring up: GMOs may allow us to manipulate natural limits to growth that would prevent our population from exploding and thus are unethical because they create the potential for even more overpopulation.

Rauch puts forth a number of the different positive and negative possibilities on the topic of genetic modification to crops. I felt that he did not cover all the possible aspects of the genetic modification argument, but did attempt to outline exactly why we need them for continued survival. I believe that he is right in his avocation of genetic modification of crops.

The main point that solidifies Rauch’s idea is the fact that throughout human history, scientific breakthroughs have allowed agriculture to progress; cultivating more from less and using different techniques to get the most out of croplands. Genetic modification is one of those scientific breakthroughs that should allow us a race to make the most of our agricultural lands. The positive effects of this include increased agricultural yields per acre, decreased need for pesticides and herbicides, and no need for tilling or other agricultural tactics that cause environmental damage. Also, Rauch establishes the idea that genetically modified crops would be able to not only exist in areas that current crops cannot live in, but actually change the makeup of the land. He uses the example of tomatoes that have been engineered to have a high tolerance to salt. Not only that, but these plants can absorb and store some of the salt in the ground to make the land more agricultural-friendly. These are all extremely enticing possibilities for the use of genetically modified crops.

On the flipside, the Rauch outlines many of the negative consequences of the GM crops. The most pressing issue that I felt he addressed only slightly was the problem with implementation of the GM crops. As with many new technologies, most notably “hybrid vehicles”, just because they exist and are effective does not mean that people everywhere will either choose to use them or even have access to the. New technologies require a great deal of money to implement; not only to start with, but also when you consider all of the capital already in place that would have to be retired to make room for the new. Just because something is good for the environment, does not mean it is immediately good for individuals. It is a difficult subject considering there are problems not only with the GM crops themselves, but the task of implementing them into widespread use is a daunting one at best. It seems that the issue is much more extensive than just what Rauch outlines, but nonetheless I believe he does a moderate job of explaining the overall gist of the issue.

Neutral Science

I am not sure I understand Mae-Wan Ho’s distinction between bad science and good science. To me it appears that there should only be science because all science should be is simple observations leading to an understanding of our surroundings everything is just applied to science. I’m not sure that I would agree that such observations are good or bad, however if you fail to be objective in obtaining data than I would think that you had failed to have performed a scientific experiment at all. Sometimes an observation can be used towards evil ends such as the ability to split an atom or perhaps much of genetics but that does not much such observations should be ignored or not pursued; that would not be science at all. Science needs to attempt to observe as much as possible; if such observations can lead to horrors than we should realize that as a people and deal with such things accordingly. In my personal opinion an observation in and of itself does not have moral value, however what can be done with that knowledge most definitely does. Just because we are seemingly incapable of making responsible decisions about what to do with the knowledge gained from science does not mean that the science is necessarily “bad science”. I would agree that big business can take advantage of science and harness it for commercial benefit but I would still say that has more to do with the application of observations. It is true that the observations are now being guided(which in some ways does not sound like a very scientific approach) however the observations if unmanipulated should still be neutral, it is the application by big business that may create ethical dilemmas.

The Lesser of Two Evils

Genetic engineering is an extremely controversial subject. There are definite pros and cons to producing genetically modified organisms. Johnathan Rauch holds the belief that, despite the potential cons genetic engineering may present, it will be the strategy that will eventually save us from starvation and repair the environment. He poses compelling reasons for why genetic modification is beneficial to not only humans, but also the environment and other organisms that that inhabit the earth. Rauch gives examples such as how creating Round up ready soybeans and other plants that do not require the soil to be tilled to grow saves the soil from destruction. Such a practice allows the natural underground ecosystem to be restored to land that was once not able to be used due to destruction caused by farming. Creating plants that produce their own pesticides that are only harmful to insects that eat them reduces the amount of harmful pesticides used, which would eventually harm other organisms by being washed into waterways or absorbed into the soil. The major benefit as far as humans are concerned is that genetically engineering food sources likely has the ability to feed many more people on the planet as the production of these plants is greater.

All of these examples make genetically modified organisms seem like our magical cure for many of the problems in the world. Rauch does a good job in pointing out that it is not a cure only one of several treatments that should be used together to correct the problems. He addresses some problems that may arise from the production of genetically modified organisms such as the creation of "superweeds" that can grow in any environment and will out compete any natural plants. What Rauch fails to address is some of the greater costs that may arise from genetic engineering. Mae-Wan Ho addresses the major concern that genetic engineering can lead to the accidental creation of new strains of bacteria that are antibiotic resistant. If this occurs with a particular pathogen and we cannot treat it, it is possible it could wipe out a large portion of the human race and we would be left defenseless.

We know very little about what introducing foreign genes into the genome of an organism does to that organism, which is a problem in itself, but we do know that the occurrence horizontal gene transfer, "the transfer of genes to unrelated species" (489)does increase in organisms that have been genetically altered. This could have horrifying side effects not only for humans, but for entire ecosystems. It is a case of the lesser of two evils. If we do not use genetic engineering people may starve if we cannot utilise other ways to increase food production. However, if we do continue to use genetically modified organisms we may breed a pathogen that could decimate most of the human race. It is wise to postpone using genetically modified organisms until we are certain that they do not have the potential to do more harm than good.

Cows or humans whos the bigger environmental burden?

Tristram Coffin makes validated claims on the environmental impact associated with raising extensive amounts of cattle, but are his environmental claims alone enough to battle the beef industry and win? Coffin wants cattle to cease being consumed, but many of the points that Coffin makes are only attacks on the industrial management of cattle. For example, Coffin states that over grazing and overuse of the land has led to desertification and deforestation. He goes on to state that the main cause of desertification is “overgrazing of livestock, over cultivation of land, improper irrigation techniques, deforestation.” Every one of these resulted from land mismanagement by the human race. Humans control the number of cattle in a given space, so they regulate herd density and ultimately the amount of land being grazed.
Coffin faults cows for their methane emissions. Cows, like other animals, including humans, have digestive byproducts of methane gas. The story is much the same for termites. Termites are responsible for at least 1/5 of the biomass on this planet. Estimates state that Termites contribute just as much, if not more, methane to the environment as cattle; 1.5 x 1014 grams (1.5 Million tons) or 30% of total atmospheric methane. Let us look at the world in the absence of human farming. We will call it planet Y. The earth is covered in forests and diversity in the animal kingdom is high. Trees are constantly falling and new are growing. Animals are eating their bounty and living without the fear of humans. Here we have a dense forest which is covering at least half of the deserts and farmlands of our current planet. Since these forests cover about 1.5 times as much land as current forests do, 1.5 times more wood and plant biomass must be decomposed. Thus, the termite population is also 1.5 times as large as planet Earth’s termite population. Termites, therefore, are responsible for releasing up to 45% of total atmospheric composition. Also, planet Y has many more animals (as a result from absence of deforestation and desertification) and, as was noted before, these animals will also have an atmospheric methane contribution. The contribution may be small on an individual level, but may account for a great deal when amassed. Here we arrive at a very low estimate that 20% contribution of atmospheric methane comes from extra termites (15%) and extra animals (5%). On planet earth, cattle account for this missing 20% methane that is seen on planet Y. Therefore, the niche which cattle now occupy was the niche which once belonged to the termites and animals that humans have already removed from the planet through deforestation and desertification. Who is the bigger burden; the humans allowing all the above to go with minimal check or the cows who only do what is needed to survive?

A future of genetically engineered food

Rauch impressed me with his theories on the benefits of genetically engineered food and he presented some compelling examples to back up this theory. The problem is, no matter how many benifits this method offers, I can't help but fear the consequences that loom over us if we do adopt this genetical engineering. Rauch, in his listing of consequences, does not mention the threats they could pose to human health. He discusses them as possible environmental nuisances and the possible introduction of superweeds or other invasive types in the wild. He fails to discuss the antibiotic resistance they may carry, or their ability to break down our defense mechanisms, or anything like that. Isn't it humans that we are ultimately looking out for?
He admits that genitical engineering is a band aid and not a magic bullet. This portion confuses me because it could make people really sick, and mess with our internal structure to such a degree that we would never be the same. I can't see how he can push for something that would not be a long term solution at the risk of human health.
I also feel the need to ask something about this method. If our problems originated from a straying from the natural way of doing things (hunter gatherer), aka the starting of agriculture, then doesnt it ring a little bell that it might be a bad idea to stray even further from the natural way, by completely controlling the growth and production of food? What if this takes us so far from the "natural way" that there is no recovery or returning to a way that worked for so long?
I like the idea of the Precautionary Principle, i guess. If its going to happen, then at least "prove" that its benign. I even would take the "no-till without biotech" approach even though Roach appeared to dismiss it as too expensive. If we can find money for genetical engineering, then we can find it for that, rite?
Near the end he uses the Chesapeake Bay watershed success story to come at environmentalists for putting off the use of genetical engineering out of fear, and basically says "all that good would be undone if we did it your way". To this I must ask him if he is so sure that every case would be successful. ok thats lovely, it worked, but that doesnt ensure anything for the future of genetic engineering.

Is world-wide vegetarianism possible?

I think both pieces by Coffin and Fox had wonderful, interesting, and motivating ideas. I never knew half of the impact cattle-grazing and the meat industry had on the environment. I knew most of the conditions of the cattle or other animals may not be top notch, but I didn’t realize the horrible impact the meat industry, and the meat eaters themselves, are having on the environment. What I found most moving was the fact that half of the world’s grain is fed to livestock, while millions of Americans go hungry. Also, the amount of grain that is grown to be fed to animals could feed over 400 million vegetarian humans for a whole year! What I find most interesting is that these facts are so unknown to the population. Although I found these facts moving, and certainly important, I do not see this information making any kind of significant impact on the ways of the people throughout the world, for two reasons: (1) no one really knows all of these facts, and (2) the small number that do, either don’t care enough to change, or if they do change, don’t make enough of a difference to matter. By this I mean that, if I let my father and brothers read this article, they would say, “that’s horrible.” Then go make a steak dinner. They wouldn’t change their ways simply because the grain that was fed to that cow, could have fed many more humans. And although I find this incredibly interesting and I do care, I am probably still going to eat my turkey sandwich.
Therefore, I propose that although the information giving, and calling on people to change their eating patterns may influence some (very few) people to change, I think in order to make an impact that’s worth while there needs to be major changes in regulations and laws. For this reason, I don’t see it working. Unless the government forbade any meat to be sold in supermarkets, enough people are not going to become vegetarians. They simply will not change, unless they are motivated enough by society, or unless they are forced to by the government. And frankly, there is too much money in the meat industry for the government to enforce vegetarianism on all of America. So therefore, if it is up to our own individual choice to become a vegetarian, even given all of the wonderful reasons presented in these two pieces, sadly,I don’t see it ever happening.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Nov. 5 by Rauch, Ho, Coffin, and Fox.

Engle has a Large Install Base

I am in support of Engle’s argument because it has an established base of supporters and is relatively easy in execution. Affluent people as a whole are morally obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering if doing so is relatively effortless and painless. Through this logic, Engel provides a strong foundation for the normalization of giving aid to poor countries and converting to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Through the manipulation of a pre-existing set of morals, Engle is able to mobilize or an entire group of people. He is preaching to a choir of people who by virtue of their morals, and the assumption that moral consistency is desirable, will follow his lead.


It is difficult to argue on the side of an extra latte, or a 1% decrease from your overall income if it will save a few lives. As an increased incentive for sustained charity, Engle actively decries that the person who gives should do so when it is basically effortless and does not decrease “noticeably” from their standard of living. While someone may be tempted to give all they can and save as many lives as possible, it is better in the long run if people all give a little over a long period of time. This will cause a substantial decrease in the starvation of poor people. His evidence concerning the ease of a vegetarian diet and the waste of grain-fed livestock overpowers the argument of taste, smell, and most importantly, tradition. All that the ethic needs to work is a person’s moral compass working in just the right way and an understanding of the broad nature of their morals in a global scale.

Lifeboat Ethics Deflated

Hardin argues that we are morally obligated to refrain from aiding the poor, and I believe his arguments to be unsuccessful. He states that the more idealistic view grants people inalienable rights, while failing to bring matching responsibilities into consideration. I do not believe that taking an approach more idealistic than his necessarily means that rights are to be given without responsibilities, and I do not see that he thoroughly develops this argument. It could be that all individuals are born with certain rights; however, when one’s basic needs, for instance, enough food to survive and function at a reasonable level, are not met, one’s primary responsibility is to satisfy that basic need and ensure survival. Only once one’s basic needs are met do other responsibilities emerge, and if these basic needs are met, those responsibilities may be fulfilled. Only once the poor receive proper aid will they be able to take on higher-order responsibilities. Hardin also asserts that in the lifeboat, those with consciences would give up their seats to others, and that kind of conscience would be eliminated from the lifeboat—it would purify itself, and the lifeboat ethic would live on. This logic is overly simplified; the human conscience is persistent, and there would always be someone, or a part of someone on the lifeboat in favor of aiding the others in some way. The lifeboat ethic could never survive the conscience of the average person, not to mention that Hardin’s ethic, to survive or to be effective, must also consider it a moral duty to throw anyone helping the others off of the lifeboat. Hardin believes that the poor reproduce too frequently for the lifeboat to support them; if however, they were to be properly helped, and given more than simply food, for example, better education and health care, then their social condition would improve and reproduction rates would become comparable to those of Americans. The better off people are, the lower their birth rates become. According to Hardin, each organization ought to be responsible only for itself; if one suffers, it is because it is poorly managed, and it ought to learn from experience how to manage itself. This callous opinion does not take into account that some people or nations are downtrodden because richer ones have made them that way. In addition, some circumstances are beyond a person’s control, and once met with an unfavorable conditions, a helping hand may be required if that person is to live at an adequate level, let alone conduct proper management. How could one possibly plan to provide for the future if supplies are so scarce that people cannot be provided for in the present? Countries, I believe, would not be satisfied to just take the charity given by the food bank whenever it became necessary, and to take no proactive measures to better their unfortunate situations. Unless countries would be content to live near, or at the level of destitution, the food bank would not generally be in danger of misuse. Hardin’s idea of the population escalator also seems to me to ignore alternatives. If aid were to be given in such a way that reproduction rates decreased, the population escalator would not run in the way that Hardin suggests. Given that the improvement of social conditions reduces birth rates, if the aid improved social conditions, the population would be better controlled. Hardin also argues that “Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations” (449). If, however, real aid is to be given to those in need, it should encompass a number of areas of need, not just one. If food is given to the hungry, that just touches the tip of the iceberg. Why are they hungry? That is the real question that needs to be addressed. If the social conditions of the needy improve, they can begin to look past the present and into the future, and plan for their subsequent generations, while if they do not, such planning is unlikely, and subsequent generations will suffer. It would be better to give people the means to plan for their own future, and to employ better solutions to overpopulation and resource depletion than death. In addition, Hardin needs to provide arguments as to why the future generations deserve more consideration than those presently alive.

Selfish Ethics

In his essay “Lifeboat Ethics”, Garrett Hardin claims that it is our moral duty to refrain from aiding the poor (i.e., by providing them with food and other resources necessary for their survival) because it would cause the human population of the world to increase beyond the Earth’s carrying capacity (if we haven’t already exceeded it), lead to further environmental degradation, and decrease the quality of life of both posterity and certain people who are currently living- namely, wealthy people. Hardin argues that food and other resources that we could potentially give to poor people in need are “surplus” materials that should be used as a “safety factor”, or be put aside for our own peoples’ use if and when we need it.
Hardin doesn’t acknowledge in his essay the fact that affluent nations (such as the U.S.) are the most responsible out of all of the world’s nations for our current ecological crisis because of the amount of resources we consume and the magnitude of waste we produce. We have also established environmentally-destructive factories/facilities in other, poorer nations (since it’s cheaper than building them in our own country) that cause damage only we can be blamed for.
Therefore, ecological damage should not be blamed primarily on the poor because of their high and increasing populations; we should take responsibility for the damage we have caused and the inequity that currently exists in the world, in part by aiding people in poor countries whose survival is at stake. Moreover, it would be possible for us to allocate a portion of our nation’s wealth to other, poorer countries that are in greater need of resources than we are.
Nations should not be compared to lifeboats, because we wouldn’t need to sacrifice our own survival or well-being if we were to aid the poor in Third World countries; it is possible to achieve a more equal distribution of wealth across the globe. There is enough food being produced on Earth right now to satisfy the nutritional needs of all human beings, but rather than distributing it equally, Hardin would prefer to keep things as they are in order to ensure that future generations (namely, future generations of Americans) will have the resources they need to survive. I find it interesting that Hardin seems to care more about future generations- people who do not yet exist- than about currently living individuals who are suffering from starvation and disease.

Garrett Hardin offers an alternative to the “Spaceship Earth” theory with a “Life Boat Earth” theory. His argument relies on the notion that unalienable rights do not apply to the ethics of population growth or third world hunger. In effect one does not deserve the right to consume food unless they pay for it in some way. His argument up to this point is sound but one large caveat emerges as the argument continues. Hardin says in relation to this lifeboat theory “First we must acknowledge that each lifeboat is effectively limited in capacity.” While this remains true to a certain extent Hardin does not recognize that while the carrying capacity does not change, he does not say once throughout the whole article the word sustainability. He makes it seem that our food production is finite. I disagree with this claim in so far as he does not offer an alternative to simply shutting out the poor countries from reaping out benefits. We have the ability to produce more food than we are, but in today’s economy we are apt to produce food a greater cost the environment than we did before the industrial revolution. Why does he not leave room for technological advances or social trends changing within the framework of American food production?
In light of the recent trends to make everything we do “sustainable” I wonder where is this argument in Hardins piece. I understand this was written in the mid seventies however it does not excuse this oversight. In his book The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan notes that America can produce food at more sustainable level than it is today. We use to get two calories of food energy for every one calorie of fossil fuel energy we put into our agriculture. Now we get one calorie of food energy out of ten calories of fossil fuel energy spent on out agricultural and food needs. Polla further notes that the average item of food in your super market as traveled fifteen hundred miles, and on top of that we eat ten percent of the fossil fuel energy we use in this country. All of these statistics show us that our food source is not being kept healthy. Pollan offers empirical data to suggest that as a nation we are begging to realizing that sustainability is a necessity to our future ability to eat. Citing data such as the large growth of Whole Foods and the twice as many farmers markets around today than there were twenty years ago, it seems that our nation is able and willing to make the necessary changes. This data suggests that if one of the most consumer based societies can begin the make incremental changes, than why can’t other poorer nations. Hardin may say to this claim that those nations don’t have the resources we have he would be right. However in writing the starving people of these nations off as dead he condemns to death. As we move towards sustainability in America, we can control what we eat and what we export. If we are more conscious of what is on our tables it could result in being able to send food technologies places that don’t have any food on their table.
Hardin does say that simply feeding people does not improve their condition it just masks it for a while. The whole Bible story about giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish is precisely the issue of starvation in third world countries. Hardin recognizes this but still seems to suggest that richer nations should leave those poor naves to figure it out for themselves. I would like to think since we have enough food and plenty of leisure time we should be the ones helping these poorer nations, while being very careful not to support them. Hardin and I would both agree that richer nations cannot be a crutch to the starving population of the world. I however take a nations carrying capacity to be in its own hands to a certain extent. We can help to improve our carrying capacity in terms of food and also help other poorer nations to do just the same thing.

“Don’t freak out, Garrett”: The possibility for decreasing birth rates with aid

Garrett Hardin advocates “[governing] our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat”. He believes that by switching to systems of private ownership we will avoid the creation of a “commons” which will inevitably lead to high birth rates in developing countries. He argues that we should instead follow “natural population cycles”, withhold aid, and let populations balance themselves. While this may be a possible way to achieve sustainable populations, and he is right about certain dangers of giving aid to developing countries, I take this to be an extreme course of action. Murdoch and Oaten argue that aid, when distributed appropriately, is capable of solving the problem of growing birth rates. While this will face its own difficulties, I take it to be the more appropriate course of action.

Once again, Hardin’s view is that if we give aid to developing countries (or food directly, in the case of the World Food Bank) populations in these countries will increase. Murdoch and Oaten argue that if we give aid and ensure that it is going to the poorest people in these same developing countries, (the majority), this will actually help decrease birth rates. We could do this by making “health, education and jobs more broadly available to lower income groups in poor countries”, thereby “[contributing] significantly toward the motivation for smaller families that is the prerequisite of major reduction in birth rates” (456). It is towards this goal that we should “increase nonmilitary foreign aid, and…give it in ways, and to governments, that will deliver it to the poorest people and will improve their access to national economic institutions” (457). That is to say, aid could be distributed in such a way that would lead to decreased birth rates.

It is true that appropriately distributing aid and changing institutions responsible for this will be difficult. The authors acknowledge this. So, if we give aid to the wrong people, it might not be used in ways that necessarily decrease birth rates, but might instead be making the situation worse; aid could result in something resembling Hardin’s “ratchet effect”. Indeed, Hardin has helped us to see that aid is not necessarily helpful - not in the short term, the long term, for those countries or for the global community. We concede that when improperly distributed, aid might very well lead to higher birth rates. So, while we must proceed cautiously in our distribution of aid (to whom we give it and when), we must proceed nonetheless.

What is called for then is distribution of aid in proportion to how it will be used. Of course, this is more easily said than done, but I do not think that we should expect failure in our attempts. While it will be difficult to achieve, the course of action argued for by Murdoch and Oaten does seem possible. I close with what I consider to be a reason for optimism. As can be seen in the argument of Murdoch and Oaten, in certain ways we are responsible for institutional structures relating to birth rate policies in developing countries. Consider our support of “pro-Western” regimes abroad, more or less regardless of the policies they possess on issues of birth rate. In this way, we are responsible for current policies in these developing countries, and should be capable of implementing structures that would distribute aid appropriately. Considering this, it seems that we are more capable of affecting institutional structures than we may have previously thought ourselves to be.