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.

GMOs safe for consumption

JoAnn attacks GMOs because of the profound “unnatural” protein(s) which result from a vector implanting Bacillus thuringiensis DNA into a cash crop’s genome. When the host translates the DNA, this gene codes for a specific protein and then the gene is synthesized. JoAnn argues that this protein was not normally found in the food which we consumed throughout our evolutionary history and therefore is foreign. This could ultimately result in metabolic disturbances. The logical response to such a valid claim would most likely include data from which scientists have tested the effects of consuming these proteins. Unfortunately, it would be foolish to state that this protein is safe. The bottom line is that GMOs are fairly new, and long term effects like bioaccumulation and carcinogenic tissue development may require a longer time or higher concentrations to develop. On the contrary, bioaccumulation and carcinogenic materials are usually derived from long term exposure to poisons. Poisons are usually chemicals which block/hinder the active site of a protein or whose actions work to mutate a specific protein. Bioaccumulation results from an over-abundance of fat-soluble vitamins or lipophilic toxins; again, proteins are not included. Say I was willing to concede that the protein was toxic, it is still illogical to think that this protein will lead to potentially hazardous effects. Poisons and toxins have what is called a dosage effect. Usually higher level organisms, in this case humans, have a high tolerance for toxins, and if this protein is proved to be toxic given a high enough concentration, it is unlikely that we would be capable of obtaining this amount from eating an ear of corn. Silver, a molecular biologist, has stated that Bt corn contains this protein in concentrations measured at 0.3 parts per million, which would be too insufficient to trigger a toxilogical response. Undoubtedly, my competition may bring about snake venom as a very destructive form of protein. Upon a bite, a snake secretes digestive protein “enzymes” which are potent enough and in high enough concentration to kill up to 90 humans (data used from Taipan venom). Given a normal dose of 2 oz, the Taipan’s venom needs to be concentrated in the range of 10 ppm of digestive enzymes to kill a human. This is a magnitude of 3 greater than what is exhibited by Bt proteins. Also we shouldn’t forget that the proteins from Bt are consumed, not injected like snake venom is, which means that they must survive far worse climates before they are absorbed by the human body. Hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is found in the stomach, regularly breaks down proteins into polypeptides and amino acids. Since B. thuringiensis doesn’t live in acidic environments, it has no need to generate acid resistant proteins. So we expect Bt proteins to be degraded in much the same manner. Given these examples, I conclude that it is highly improbable that Bt corn will impact normal body functioning.

Choosing Veganism for your children

I have certain reservations about fully supporting parents choosing to raise their children as vegans. I have no problem with a vegan lifestyle. I fully support it for those that choose that lifestyle, knowing exactly what it means and entails. Something irks me about the fact that the children arent choosing to be vegans. They don't know what they are not choosing, and the standard diet that they are sacrificing. I am not saying that children wouldnt choose to be vegans, and if they did I say go them, but the parents just choose for them. As I write this I realize that I have said there is no problem with parents picking the standard diet for their children without the children knowingly choosing this diet. I have a cultural bias, stemming from the way it is done in my culture in the past and present. This happens in anthropology all the time as people of certain cultures try to learn about other cultures without a personal cultural bias, but it fails almost always to some degree because every person's culture is such a part of them that it becomes a mental barrier to not judging with bias. I realized, though, that my natural leaning towards the standard diet for children, until they choose a different one, originates from the fact that the standard diet has been working all this time in getting children to grow and reach adulthood. There's a security to the standard diet because of so many years of success, and there are still some doubts that the vegan diet may not be providing all the necessary nutrients kids needs, or at least not comfortably.
Children need more protein than adults, so a parent shouldn't pick a diet for thier child just because of personal beliefs or personal methods. I'm not saying that this is the only reason that Vegan parents choose vegan diets for their kids. I just worry that veganism may make it hard for a child to get all the protein they need. It's easier on the standard diet, most would say, because the vegan lifestyle requires avoidance of certain foods, and extra work to get the right foods.
One last thing that I feel is worth saying is that the extra effort needed to be a vegan and get vegan food means kids have to miss out on certain "fun times" of eating with their friends who are eating a standard diet. They can't eat the spaghetti and meatball dinner that the hosts mom made at the slumber party. This separation is the parents choice, not theirs. Like I said, though, I don't think this makes veganism wrong. I simply want to say that these are thoughts that go through my mind when I pause on the idea of vegan choosen diets for children.

Business as usual/vegan world: Combating the ‘all or nothing’ attitude

Often in class discussion, people have expressed concern over what Singer and Mason think is required of consumers, either because they are not convinced by their arguments, or because they believe that realizing such a state of affairs is not possible. Do the authors envision “a vegan world”? Having now finished the book, it seems that they do, but at the same time they don’t: many of their arguments lead to the conclusion that eating animal products is in most scenarios indefensible, but they also spend considerable time discussing ‘ethical meat consumption’. I will address the difficulties facing ‘conscientious omnivores’ in the world today, the nature of moral obligations, and the authors’ treatment of these issues. Upon considering these things, we can see that the authors are battling an ‘all or nothing’ attitude about food choices.

One of the most troubling issues addressed in this book is the lack of transparency in the food industry. Factory farms often make information relating to their methods of food production completely impossible to obtain. This may involve misrepresenting their products, whether it be through meaningless labels such as ‘farm fresh’, easily obtained and largely uninformative certifications such as ‘cage free’, or straightforward lies such as ‘fresh caught’ applying to farmed fish. Considering this, it may be more difficult to consistently find products that are truly sustainably produced and cruelty free than it is to find vegan products.

So, what should we do? If one is unconvinced that eating meat is wrong, but agrees with the authors’ other arguments, one is at least obligated to take on this daunting task of intensely researching all of their food purchases. This will be extremely challenging and time consuming and one might instead choose to simply eliminate animal products from their diet altogether. Making a related point, Singer and Mason write, “Since we are often tempted to take the easy way out, drawing a clear line against eating animal products may be the best way to ensure that one eats ethically—and sticks to it” (257). So, if you’re convinced by their arguments, you should become a vegan. If you’re convinced by most but not all of their arguments, you should still probably become a vegan.

However, Singer and Mason’s project is one of providing their readers with information and relevant arguments. Then, allowing for the possibility that some readers will remain unconvinced, they offer a variety of practical advice on how to choose food appropriately. This is why they write, “The choice is not between business as usual and a vegan world” (245).This misconception, which we might call an ‘all or nothing’ attitude, seems to be one of the greatest obstacles for convincing people to make ethical food choices. Of course, one should not feel that making an ethical mistake is the end of the world, even if it is done knowingly. The person who occasionally makes compromises is not a “moral monster”, but the person who attempts to justify moral apathy is truly doing something wrong. This is the attitude which the authors hope to battle against.

Quite rightly, the authors conclude their book with a discussion of what is to be expected of consumers and a reminder that “it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking that if you have ethical reasons for doing something, you have to do it all the time” (281). In light of the serious problem of the ‘all or nothing’ moral attitude, the authors’ rhetorical strategy (while not necessarily reflecting the demanding nature of moral obligations) seems to be a very good one. This rhetorical strategy is more instrumentally successful than the alternative of relentlessly supporting their more demanding argument that everyone should have a vegan diet. The larger argument in The Ethics of What We Eat, which I consider to be overwhelmingly successful, is the simple fact that “our food choices matter”.