Why to Preserve the Environment

    Many times, I have heard people talking about the importance of protecting the environment for the sake of preserving human life. It’s true. If we aren’t careful about our environmental impact, we will destroy our surroundings in such a way that they will be unable to support us any longer. Humans will die. I remember our Transcendentalist unit in eleventh grade English class; we were studying Emerson and Thoreau, and one of the students interpreted a poem as being about the resilience of nature. She said that, even if humans die off, something will survive and continue to live in the new environment that has no humans. These beings will continue to evolve and adapt, and the environment around them will also evolve and adapt after humans have stopped abusing it. And eventually, the environment will thrive, although it will be completely different from before. In this way, nature will survive. Nature will always survive. When people say they want to “save the planet” or “preserve the environment,” they generally mean they want to preserve the environment that supports human life. And many people think they shouldn’t bother trying because, by the time the environment won’t support them, they will be dead as well as many future generations.
    It seems to me that there are two common opinions on this issue: that it is necessary to protect the environment for the sake of humanity, and that it is unnecessary to worry about the environment because humans will kill themselves off but the environment will continue to exist. I agree that it is a solace to know that the environment will adapt despite our abuse of it, but for me the main issue is not necessarily preserving the environment for human habitation. Humans made foolish choices that brought them to this predicament. If they are going to die because they disrespected their environment, then it is their fault. But we should try to stop damaging the environment for its own sake. Not for the sake of it’s future, because it will have a future no matter what. But in order to stop us from inflicting pain on the creatures who can feel it. When we pollute ecosystems, animals suffer greatly. And when certain species go extinct because of it, their unique value will be lost forever.
    In one of my other classes, we recently read one philosopher’s opinion on environmental problems: that we are obligated to preserve the environment for the sake of future generations of humans, and not for the sake of the environment itself. We considered this scenario: what if humans were all going to die, and there would soon be no more human race? This philosopher would say that we could just do whatever we wanted to the planet and use all the resources. According to him, the earth is meaningless except to serve us. I completely disagree. Although, sadly, many people do think that the earth does have this one purpose. When preserving the environment, it is important to remember why it is we are preserving it. Any of these reasons is valid, but the reason will change the details in what we do, such as whether to protect one innocent life or sacrifice it.

ECHO and Inherent Value of Animals

Today was my first day as an Animal Care volunteer at the ECHO Center in Burlington. ECHO’s mission is “to educate and delight people about the Ecology, Culture, History, and Opportunity for stewardship of the Lake Champlain Basin.” ECHO is filled with exhibits featuring frogs, turtles, fish, and more, as well as interactive simulations of different aspects of the lake. During my interview for the position, I was asked what I thought of animals in captivity. I replied that it makes me sad to see them trapped like that, but that I understand the importance of it, especially for endangered species. My interviewer said that, at ECHO, they try to give the animals the best possible quality of life, and that it is very important for people to have access to these animals so that they can form attachments to them. The goal is to educate people about the fragile ecosystems here so that we know exactly what we are harming. The word “ecosystem” may not mean much, to many people. But that fascinating little salamander or that huge snapping turtle can attract attention much better than the concept of an ecosystem.
ECHO tries to be as environmentally friendly as it can. But it still uses a lot of resources with all the electricity and water required to maintain these animal enclosures. The environmental impact must be huge. I believe that it is completely worth it, though. When I was in middle school, I went to the ECHO Center several times on field trips for science classes. I was exposed to incredible animals that I had never seen before. I was excited to learn more and to take part in the effort to conserve these species. When people find a motivation to care about the environment, they make a conscious effort to reduce their environmental impact and also start educating others about the importance of conservation. It’s a giant ripple effect. When one person becomes a vegetarian and explains to their friends and family that the meat industry has a huge environmental impact and causes terrible suffering for animals, those friends and family might start to eat less meat or even consider becoming vegetarian themselves. They might not. But some do. As we have heard quoted in class many times, “No man is an island.” This is true of our negative effect on the environment - littering, using resources, and all the other harmful things we do cannot stay restricted to ourselves. It effects the ecosystems around us and hurts more beings than we can imagine. But this is also a positive thing. When we reach out to others and educate them about why they should care and what they should do, it will have an effect as well. We don’t have to make a huge deal of it. We don’t have to wear signs around our neck that say, “Fossil fuels are destroying the o-zone - bike or walk, don’t drive!” or “I’m a vegan - ask me why!” It’s the simple, every day steps we take that people notice. They may not seem to have an effect, but they will. And actively educating those willing to learn about the environment can have huge impacts. Who knows how many kids have been inspired to become marine biologists because of ECHO and places like it?
Regardless of whether snapping turtles have rights or not, they aren’t going to be very happy cooped up in a tank. But by taking the time to show it to others and make them excited about just how interesting and unique it is is giving it more value than by simply leaving it alone and ignoring whether it’s endangered or not. Because by educating others, we are trying to ensure a better future for its entire species. We are giving it inherent value, making it something that deserves to be treated well and thrive.

Appreciation of Nature

In my class, Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Environment, we discussed a reading about Heidegger and his ideas. He believed that technology put us into a “calculative mindset” that causes us to think excessively about the future and constantly plan for improvement. But when people plan on ways to improve environmental problems, they are using that calculative way of thinking that caused the problems in the first place. For example, people created cars and planes to travel faster and improve the method of travel. When people plan on ways to improve transportation in terms of environmental impact, they are using the same mindset that people used when creating cars in the first place. Heidegger thinks it’s important to use a reflective, meditative mindset that is focused on simply being and appreciating instead of improving. He thinks that people need to remember how to appreciate simple pleasures that are not efficient: walking for the sake of enjoying nature, talking with friends, drinking wine. This takes us away from a calculative mindset and slows down the negative effects of excessive technology use and creation. I think he has a point, but making an effort to convince people of the important of a reflective mindset is, in essence, using a calculative mindset. If we are doomed to use a calculative mindset because of the way we were raised with so much technology, perhaps we can recognize this and use it to change things for the better instead of the worse.
    This reminded me of what we are studying in our class. If we were to stop focusing so much on having everything better, we might be able to realize what is really important. If everyone took a daily slow walk through the woods to appreciate birdsong and the general beauty of nature, we might not be so quick to dismiss nature and cut down fields to make room for parking lots. We might not be so eager to kill more and more animals for food and make more efficient slaughter houses. If we appreciated animals for their inherent value, we might not have thousands of them trapped in one building where they live horrible lives before they die. I think, instead of debating the philosophical reasons for animals to have inherent value, it is also important to reflect on nature’s importance so that we can understand it for ourselves instead of just guessing about it. 

Wrongness of Animal Research

    The issue of animal research has frequently come up in our readings lately. Cohen claims not only that it isn’t wrong to harm animals for the good of humans, but that it is morally right to do so. He writes that it may hurt the animals, but it will save us pain, so it is worth it. Our interests trump whatever rights they may have. I agree that the use of animals in medical research has accomplished much, but I think he has gone overboard when he says it is morally right to use animals this way. He writes that humans’ interests are so important that it would be wrong to not use animals. But when he writes about all the pain that humans go through and how important it is to avoid it, it seems to me that he is getting defensive. Whenever anyone writes about how very important this research is, they just sound like they are grasping at the best excuses so that they don’t seem like bad people for approving of research that causes great pain and death to these animals. I cannot believe that using animals this way is morally right. This research is hurting animals, and that is the basic truth of it. When is it morally acceptable to hurt something? When it is going to hurt you? I would say so. When it is a danger to your health, such as a diseased rat living in your backyard? Probably. When it is inconveniencing you, such as ants in a house? Probably not. When you can benefit from its pain? Again, probably not. If you are not in danger from an animal, and you make it feel pain, you are doing wrong. But just because it’s wrong, that doesn’t mean it isn’t justified. The end results of animal research are immensely beneficial to humans. It does good, but it can’t possibly be good in and of itself. To me, it is wrong, but we should still do it. I think Cohen and others with the same stance need to admit that it is wrong to use animals this way, but that wrong actions can be justified. We humans are being so selfish, but if we realize this, we will be more careful when doing these experiments, and more grateful for the results. We will appreciate the medicine we get as a result, and we will feel grateful to the animals who died for us. We won’t stop doing wrong, but it is a small step to acknowledge our wrongness and therefore appreciate what we have more.

The Biblical Excuse for Speciesism

    Years ago, my religious cousin said, “‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’ See? God hates vegetarians.” He was young at the time, so I have no idea if he was joking or if he actually interpreted the verse that way. Either way, it is a perfect example of how people often abuse the bible and find a meaning in it that might not be true. That entire verse is, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” The bible is often used as an excuse for misguided speciesism.
    Some bible verses seem to convey a message of speciesism very clearly:

     “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” - Matthew 6:26

     “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” - Genesis 9:3

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” - Genesis 1:26

    These verses, along with several others, give people an excuse to say that God meant for humans to be in charge of animals. According to the bible, we have been given “dominion” over all the other animals. We are “better” than them. Countless times, I have heard people use this as their reason to not feel guilty about animal abuse. They say that there’s no reason to consider vegetarianism and that factory farming is perfectly acceptable because God gave us the animals to do whatever we want with them.
    And yet, they fail to acknowledge many other verses which demand respect for animals:

    “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” - Luke 12:6

    “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?” - Job 35:11

    “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?” - 1 Corinthians 9:9

    According to the bible, God created all the animals and the entire earth before he made humans. It seems as though, even if he did give us dominion over the animals, we were meant to take care of them and respect them. We were given stewardship of the land, which doesn’t mean just owning it. It means caring for it and guarding it. We weren’t given just a privilege; we were given a responsibility. I imagine that God would be furious that we allow the cruelties of factory farming to exist. His intricate creation, the earth, is being degraded and dirtied more and more every day. We pollute it and pretend that the only consequence is that someday it will be uninhabitable for humans. But the earth itself has worth. There is so much of it that we do not yet understand, and, if we keep abusing it, never will. God took much more time creating the rest of the earth than he did creating humans. Even if humans are special, that doesn’t give us the right to torture animals in factory farms or use them for petty research experiments. We are all God’s creations and therefore we all have the right to be respected and live natural lives.

Meat and Sustainability

    My favorite musical theatre show is Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street. The plot revolves around a man who takes on a new identity and tries to murder the judge who transported him on false charges and raped his wife many years ago. Along the way, someone from his past recognizes him, and Sweeney kills him to avoid being blackmailed. He and his partner in crime, Mrs. Lovett, must then decide what to do with the body. Sweeney says he will bury it somewhere when it is dark. Mrs. Lovett has a better idea. She begins singing:

Seems a downright shame.
Seems an awful waste.
Such a nice plump frame,
what’s his name has - had - has!
Nor it can’t be traced.
Business needs a lift,
debts to be erased.
Think of it as thrift,
as a gift,
if you get my drift.
I mean,
with the price of meat,
what it is,
when you get it,
if you get it...

    Mrs. Lovett is, of course, suggesting that they use the body as meat in her meat pie shop. Which is exactly what they do. For the majority of the second act, Sweeney, a barber, slits the throats of men who simply wanted a shave, and Mrs. Lovett uses their flesh for her now-successful business.
    Sweeney Todd is a very dark, twisted show and is by no means a model of ideal business strategies. Obviously, we find it wrong to eat other humans. Even in nature, many species refuse to eat their own kind. There is something natural inside of us that says it’s wrong. But what if that weren’t the case? What if we didn’t find it wrong? Think of how sustainable that would be!
    In my opinion, overpopulation is the cause of the majority of our environmental and social problems. There are so many of us that, in order to support us all, we have to use destructive practices like factory farming. We have to mass-produce vegetables and fruits, spraying them all with toxic pesticides. Who does the manual labor, picking these vegetables and managing and slaughtering these animals? Only the people willing to do such an undesirable job - migrant workers. The managers don’t respect their rights, so they are treated horribly and forced to work around all the fatally dangerous pesticides. The chemicals run off into fields and rivers, destroying fragile ecosystems. There are so many of us, using resources and cutting down trees and putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere. When we reproduce at such a high rate, there is no doubt that we are destroying the earth and creating a series of social injustices. If there were less of us, we could use less resources and start moving towards a sustainable way of living. But there are just so many of us that it is just impossible to feed all of us sustainably.
    Why shouldn’t we use human meat? Yes, there is something naturally wrong about it, but our society is so corrupt in the first place that we might as well do something wrong that brings about good results. I’m not saying we should ignore the interests of dead people and eat their bodies. But what if some of us decided that we wanted our deaths to be as sustainable as possible? We already harvest the organs of dead people who indicated that they wanted their organs to be donated. What if some people wanted to be eaten after they died? Not necessarily by humans. Naturally, many species do not eat their own kind, and we are one of those species. Is it wrong for another species to eat us, then? I think Cora’s Diamond’s argument should be a little more specific. She writes that, if it’s true that something has interests if and only if it can suffer, then amputated limbs and dead people don’t have interests and can be eaten. Then she writes that it is wrong to eat dead people and amputated limbs. I’m skeptical, though, of the use of moral judgements in logical arguments. “Because it’s wrong” is never a strong argument. I think this part of the argument should be “We consider it wrong to eat amputated limbs and dead people.” Then, the conclusion should be that we should also consider it wrong to eat the dead bodies of animals. It’s only fair. Of course, I think the flaw of that argument is that other animals who won’t eat their own kind do eat other animals. The distinction is that we shouldn’t say we can eat other animals and not other humans because we are humans and it’s just wrong to eat humans because we’re better than other animals. If anything, we should say that we can eat other animals and not humans because we are humans and nature tells us that we should not eat from our own species. But there’s nothing wrong with another species eating us. We’re just lucky because we happen to have no predators, except for perhaps crocodiles and large cats that would eat us if we were foolish enough to enter their territory. For the purposes of sustainability, why shouldn’t we feed our dead bodies to animals who will eat them? Or maybe grind it up and put it into dog food? It’s unnatural, people would say. But we’re unnatural. Our whole civilization is unnatural. The goal used to be survival, now it’s happiness. We use technology and medicine to prolong our lives and alter our bodies considerably. We are so separated from nature and the rest of the animals in the world that we don’t call ourselves animals anymore. We say we’re better because we can think in terms of morality. Then let’s put that morality into practice. If we don’t live natural lives, then we don’t get to do what is “natural” - eating other animals. Because we know the huge environmental impact factory farming has, as well as the immense suffering it inflicts on the animals, we should stop doing it. Some people say that being human means that they get to be in charge of animals and they have the right to treat them however they want. That is clearly an abuse of our intelligence and ability to reason morally. Fairness and sustainability should be a moral priority because it will prevent us from inflicting pain and destruction.
    So, if we think it’s okay to kill animals for food, so be it. Our supposed morality should tell us that it is wrong to kill animals cruelly and abuse them in life, at the very least. Yet we still use these practices. We say we’re better because we have morals, but we ignore those morals and abuse everything around us. If we’re going to ignore these morals in such a huge way, why should we consider ourselves better than other animals? We don’t deserve this life-preserving technology. We should have to live in the wild just like the rest of the animal kingdom. If what makes us different is something that we don’t practice, then we really are no different.

Emerson and Nature

Ralph Waldo Emerson, a widely known writer from the Transcendentalist movement, wrote extensively about nature. One of his poems, The Rhodora, examines the purpose for beauty in nature:

On being asked, whence is the flower.

    In May, when sea-winds pierced our solitudes,
    I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods,
    Spreading its leafless blooms in a damp nook,
    To please the desert and the sluggish brook.
    The purple petals fallen in the pool
    Made the black water with their beauty gay;
    Here might the red-bird come his plumes to cool,
    And court the flower that cheapens his array.
    Rhodora! if the sages ask thee why
    This charm is wasted on the earth and sky,
    Tell them, dear, that, if eyes were made for seeing,
    Then beauty is its own excuse for Being;
    Why thou wert there, O rival of the rose!
    I never thought to ask; I never knew;
    But in my simple ignorance suppose
    The self-same power that brought me there, brought you.


The narrator is questioning why such a beautiful flower is “wasted on the earth and sky” where no one can see it. The brook is “desert” - there are no eyes there to appreciate the beauty. So what is the point of the rhodora, or any other beautiful thing in nature, if not to be seen by something? He then writes that “beauty is its own excuse for Being.” He capitalizes “Being” because he is making the existence of beauty and nature sacred. He decides that God put humans and the rest of nature here on earth for the same reason. The poem suggests that the reason is that everything in nature has its own worth in and of itself; it is beautiful and good without needing anything to approve of it.
    Another of Emerson’s poems that deals with nature is Each and All.

Little thinks, in the field, yon red-cloaked clown,
Of thee from the hill-top looking down;
The heifer that lows in the upland farm,
Far-heard, lows not thine ear to charm;
The sexton, tolling his bell at noon,
Deems not that great Napoleon
Stops his horse, and lists with delight,
Whilst his files sweep round yon Alpine height;
Nor knowest thou what argument
Thy life to thy neighbor's creed has lent.
All are needed by each one;
Nothing is fair or good alone.
I thought the sparrow's note from heaven,
Singing at dawn on the alder bough;
I brought him home, in his nest, at even;
He sings the song, but it pleases not now,
For I did not bring home the river and sky; —
He sang to my ear, — they sang to my eye.
The delicate shells lay on the shore;
The bubbles of the latest wave
Fresh pearls to their enamel gave;
And the bellowing of the savage sea
Greeted their safe escape to me.
I wiped away the weeds and foam,
I fetched my sea-born treasures home;
But the poor, unsightly, noisome things
Had left their beauty on the shore,
With the sun, and the sand, and the wild uproar.
The lover watched his graceful maid,
As 'mid the virgin train she stayed,
Nor knew her beauty's best attire
Was woven still by the snow-white choir.
At last she came to his hermitage,
Like the bird from the woodlands to the cage; —
The gay enchantment was undone,
A gentle wife, but fairy none.
Then I said, "I covet truth;
Beauty is unripe childhood's cheat;
I leave it behind with the games of youth:" —
As I spoke, beneath my feet
The ground-pine curled its pretty wreath,
Running over the club-moss burrs;
I inhaled the violet's breath;
Around me stood the oaks and firs;
Pine-cones and acorns lay on the ground;
Over me soared the eternal sky,
Full of light and of deity;
Again I saw, again I heard,
The rolling river, the morning bird; —
Beauty through my senses stole;
I yielded myself to the perfect whole.

The poem describes various aspects of nature - the cow that moos for its own reasons, not for anyone else’s pleasure. The narrator adores a sparrow’s song and brings the bird home and puts it in a cage. But its beauty is not the same in the woods; the whole thing is necessary, bird song and trees and sky and everything else. He describes the way pieces of nature cannot exist completely by themselves because they are so integrated with one another. He then writes about the intoxicating beauty of nature, but in a long list because it is the whole thing that is truly beautiful. he then “yielded himself to the perfect whole.” Yielded because people so often try to control nature when it is something that needs to be appreciated and respected, not taken advantage of.  The perfect whole because nature is perfect when it is together and in harmony. When it is disrupted, it is less than what it is in its rightful place.
    These poems still ring true for many. Although today’s society takes advantages of animals in many ways, refusing to respect them in their rightful place in nature. Emerson would not approve of the ways animals are treated today. The Rhodora emphasizes the beauty of each individual thing in nature, but Each and All enforces the importance of the connection everything has to everything else. When we subject animals to the cruelty they experience in factory farms, we are treating them as though they do not have worth in and of themselves. We are just treating them as things we can use to satisfy our desires. When we take them out of nature, we are disrupting the connection nature has, and we are making them seem less beautiful and worthwhile than they really are. A bird in the wild is free and happy and majestic. A bird trapped in a factory farm, barely alive and in constant pain, looks ugly and horrifying. Of course we don’t see the beauty in these animals because we treat them as things. We make them ugly. No wonder people have no problem killing these animals. If we all took time to consider nature in its proper place, we might not abuse them so much.