JJ's Journey to the Down and Dirty

JJ Monro's attempt to decipher environmental academia. 

[foxofdeers]

Welcome! 

Possessed by Nature #lotsofleaves #handraking

[foxofdeers]

Final Thoughts: My Worldview as an Environmental Stakeholder

As the semester closes, I know have the opportunity to reflect on the ethical worldviews of we have analyzed throughout this course. Where the first half of the semester dealt with anthropocentric worldviews (planetary management and stewardship), this second have has evaluated with worldviews that fall under the non-anthropocentric worldview of earth wisdom. I find the latter much for relatable to my own beliefs.

These 'beliefs' of mine have partially been built prior to this semester, but many of them I have inherited through three of my courses this semester, this one included. I was also taking a sociology/theology course, called Religion and Social Change with Dr. Bush, and an anthropology course, called Environment and Human Survival with Dr. Gilbert. All three courses have become interdisciplinary, and a lot of topics that have been covered in this course have overlapped in the other two.

The three worldviews that I really feel intrinsically connected to are ecotheology, Taylor's hierarchical biocentrism, and Callicott's land ethic.

I often stand conflicted as to whether to give moral standing to abiotic constituents. I think it poses problems not to, because when they do not have moral standing, we as humans are often less likely to respect these aspects of the environment. Rocks/sentiment/minerals are all extremely important, especially when it comes to the biological aspects of metabolism and chemical cycles. Yet, its really difficult to justify 'moral standing' of nonliving aspects of the environment, because they simply do not experience 'life'.  Although I have yet to completely grasp the answer to this problem, I think merging both Callicott's (and Leapold's) respect for these abiotic aspects and there roles in the complex relationships with biotic organisms, but in retrospect, when it comes for life, the lives of the biotic creatures are more important the abiotic.

The reason I like Callicott and Taylor is because I think they nicely construct a systemic way to analyze case studies that give all biotic organisms a fair standing. Instead of consistently comparing organisms' sentience to humans, Taylor explains that the complexity of each organism is important to analyze on its own. For example, Michael Pollen points out in his essay The Intelligent Plant that plants do not have brains or a heart, because having a brain or a heart would not be beneficial for them. Instead they have constructed a different type of nervous system that allows them to sense the environment in 15 different ways. Just because they do not have a brain and heart does not necessarily mean that they have less value than humans. In order to avoid anthropocentric thinking, we must stop comparing the sentience of animals, plant life, and microorganisms to our human species, and instead look from a broader perspective and the intricate complexity exhibited by each organism. From here, we can then complete a more objective evaluation of the best way to preserve biodiversity and what is best for all involved parties. Both environmentalists offer a detailed evaluation of how nonhuman life can override human life, and Taylor specifically outlines the hierarchy in the animal kingdom, where wildlife has a higher moral value than domestic animals because they rely less on other species, specifically humans.

I will end on my discussion and newfound passion for ecotheology, and my adoration for Dr. Mary Evelyn Tucker. One of the hardest things for me being a science major and a theology minor is understanding the complex relationship between science and spirituality. How can I believe in the creation story of Christianity, yet also believe in the big bang theory? How can I believe that there is another power other than that of objective reason? Journey of the Universe offers a nice explanation, basically suggesting that 'all the stars aligned' so perfectly for the creation of life on Earth that another power could be responsible for this 'perfection'. I like the idea of this. But then we look at White's essay that says that until we change our anthropocentric Christian beliefs, we will never solve our environmental problems, which I find interesting, but quite depressing. But then, out of the darkness comes Mary Evelyn Tucker! She offers an explanation that attempts to tackle all my unanswered questions and concerns. She argues that we must USE religion in order to provide solutions to our environmental problems. Its very much a top-down approach where we must reevaluate our spiritual worldviews (religion) in order to better approach ecological problems. This often lies in the idea of human domination of nature, which according to Tucker should not be the case. If we can get more people to reevaluate the moral codes and adopt a less anthropocentric worldviews through spirituality, or ecological crisis will be mitigated. We will reach a much broader audience and we will also have a deeper, more meaningful spiritual connection to the land on Earth, which will hopefully help us to find salvation into the afterlife.

For my sociology class, I wrote an essay called Greening God: The Relation of Ancient Texts to Human Experiences in Modern Cultures. It is here that I evaluated how we can make our religious texts more ecologically friendly without misinterpretation. This process helped me to evaluate how Tucker's ecotheological theory could be applicable, and furthered my appreciation for her and her theory, because it has truly helped to merge so many of my fields of interest this semester, making them more cohesive in clear.

In conclusion, Van Buren's environmental ethics and policy course, as greatly enhanced my knowledge of environmentalism as a whole and has sparked new interests and opened new avenues of academia for myself. It was really fun to evaluate the environment large scale in a policy, compared to most environmental science applications, which are often microbiological and much smaller scale. All in all: thank you!

[foxofdeers]

Practicum Essay: Experiencing Fordham Through the Lens of Deep Ecology

As a city whose population accounts for 2.7% of the United States population (Bloomberg 2007: 23), the population of NYC poses great problems those other less populated ecosystems. For example, mass transit uses the highest gasoline consumption out of any city in the nation. Since 2007, the rate at which NYC consumes gasoline is the same rate as the national average was in the 1920s.  Concentrated pollution, especially is less socioeconomic parts of NYC, including the Bronx, is also a huge concern that encompasses our discussions on environmental justice ethics. Including, but not limited to one the of the case studies I evaluated in my presentation on the waste transfer stations on "the upper east side", when really this site is much closer to Harlem. In turn, because of the larger population density, NYC produces much pollution per square mile, which means that greater policy and sustainability is necessary in order to preserve the city.

The Goals of plaNYC, as outlined from this diagram on their website. 

Since 2007, Mayor Bloomberg generated PlaNYC, in an effort to up the anti our NYC's sustainability in the face of these growing environmental problems. According to PlaNYC's website, "New York City's sustainability agenda prepares our city for a changing climate, a growing population, aging infrastructure, and an evolving economy with increasing inequality. In order to ensure quality of life for generations of New Yorkers to come, PlaNYC programs help create housing for a growing population, provide clean and reliable energy, and improve transit capacity". One of PlaNYC's largest projects is ensuring that all New Yorkers live within a 10 minute walking distance of a park by the year 2030. To do this, they are transforming underutilized plots of land into public spaces, like playgrounds and parks.

In the past seven years, this aspect of Bloomberg's proposal has been quite successful. Over 109 acres of parkland has preserved and transformed into green spaces by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the hope is for this number to continue to grow.

Although not necessarily a public space, St. Rose's garden at Fordham University in 2012, chose to follow the current trend in NYC and transform an underutilized plot of land on campus into a community garden and organic food co-op for Fordham students and staff.

St. Rose's Garden viewed from the rooftop of the Fordham parking garage.

I originally started volunteering at St. Rose’s because my best friend, Emma, took me along to a meeting spring of my freshman year. As a freshman and sophomore, I had the privilege of working under Jason Aloisio, PhD student in Biological Sciences, who founded St. Rose's garden along with Elizabeth Anderson. Together, they implemented St. Rose's garden in April of 2012, when they cleared a plot of land on the edge of campus, behind the Ram Van office, and installed 8 raised beds and filled them organically-rich soil. The intended purpose was to provide an outdoor classroom, laboratory, and social space for Fordham students. I feel like St. Rose's Garden continues to meet these original principles.

Last Cabbage of the Season!

Since spring of 2012, the beds continue to be used to grow vegetables (and some fruits!) for students to harvest and implement into their diets. The opportunity to experience farm-to-table, and understand the processes by which our food grows and where it comes from. This year we grew several varieties of tomatoes, asparagus, mint, carabano peppers, basil, collard greens, carrots, beets, lettuce, several varieties of kale, and some melons and cabbage. Where our variety increased, our crop yield was not as substantial as years passed, but this could in part be due to the added variety. Some new items, like the melons and cabbage, were not as successful as others, like the beets, carrots, and tomatoes. The lucky student volunteers, who participate in garden up-keep, get a share of the crop yield, and the same goes for additional food from the CSA.

Farm to table: Garden Club Thanksgiving (minus the bacon and the cookies!)

The Family. 

As the communications manager, I have the role of providing outreach through the use of social media, to get more members of our Fordham community involved, and to encourage community supported agriculture and sustainability. After reading our College Sustainability Report Card I am really surprised to see that in student involvement, we were graded with a C. Because the survey was performed in 2011, before St. Rose's was founded, student involvement has hopefully increased, but still a large percentage of the Fordham student body does not get involved in campus and city sustainability and I hope that I can provide more students the opportunity to get their hands a little dirty. By advertising opportunities and providing fun programs, outreach and involvement will increase. Although I have not been meticulously recording my hours, I have been working ~2-3 hours per week since I arrived at school in late August (17 weeks).

~2.5hrs * 17 weeks=42.5 hours of practicum service

These last few weeks of the semester have required less work to be done, so we have been spending less time in the garden and more time planning our hoop houses and bed arrangements for next semester.

St. Rose's is winterized! A first attempt to garden year round. 

We currently have installed one hoop house in an effort to grow vegetables through the winter. Root vegetables will probably be the most successful, as they will be growing underneath the warm soil, but currently we are attempting to grow broccoli.One problem we are running into is how to keep this space heated at night. During the day, sunlight seems to be generating a significant amount of heat, which is trapped inside the tarp, but at night we are afraid this heat is lost and the plants are freezing, preventing growth.

Broccoli Seedlings being planted. So far they are still alive!

At one of our most recent meetings, we each planted some leftover seeds from last season, and took them how with us. After lots of love many member's baby seedlings have begun to sprout and members have been planting them in the hoop houses in hopes they will continue to thrive!

In addition, we are hoping to secure speakers and Fordham professionals to come in and talk about their specialties, which will provide an opportunity for students learn and engage in the garden come the winter months. We are continuing to grow our compost for winter, and Danielle has been able to work with Rodrigues’s coffee house on campus to get their used coffee grinds for the compost. SODEXO, unlike years past, has been very unhelpful, and refuse to work with us. Hopefully, the compost will decompose enough for us to use it come the springtime.

The compost looking yummy per usual. If I were a worm, this would be heaven. 

In all, St. Rose's has allowed me to apply my knowledge from my sociology classes and environmental science class to be a better environmental citizen.

For the final part of my practicum essay I will perform a case study on St. Rose's using the deep ecology worldview.  To do so I will use Naess' principles outlines in his essay The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movement.

The first principle requires us to evaluate whether St. Rose's is preserving biodiversity. Are coexisting and complex relationships preserved and supported through this project? Although we are not preserving, per say, the whole original space, as we have built beds and other infrastructure, I do believe that preservation of natural environmental relationships are supported. Birds constantly occupy the space, and pollination by insects obviously occurs, which is how our plants have grown successfully. The worms and decomposers occupy the compost and the soils in our beds, and sightings of rodents and rabbits have been common. The ecosystem seems to be thriving, although I do not have a comparison of what the ecosystem looked like before the plot was occupied by St. Rose's...

The next contention for evaluation reviews the exploitation of class. Because membership is limited to only the Fordham community, one could argue this project is class limited, as other citizens of the Bronx community are refused access to our garden. It is hard to tell whether or not an anti class posture is violated by the garden, but we have made a large effort to allow groups to use our space. Whether is be other students from local high schools, or women from the women's shelter, we try to have programs for the community beyond our gates, but this still poses limitations on our membership, as they are not members, but just guests it seems....

The next principle, is similar to that of the first, are we reducing pollution, yet increasing a problem of a new kind? it seems this is not the case. Not only are we recycling our food scraps (via the compost), which produces no problems except for rodent invasion. We are also growing our own food thereby decreasing carbon emission due to food transportation, and because we do not use pesticides, we have little to no ecological footprint.

Next we must evaluate whether or not we are posing different disturbances to the environment that we did not previously consider. The original production and building of the garden in 2012 could have definitely posed disturbance on the original community, especially where the planting beds were installed. But overall, the occupiers of the original space had the potential to return to their original habitat after the two-week installation. So because the disturbance was only temporary, and minimally evasive, I do not think that any disturbances occur now, besides increases treading of humans over the land.

And the final contention of the evaluation asks us to identify the local autonomy and decentralization of the project on the community in which it is installed. Many times, Naess explains, local interests are dropped for the bigger interests. Due to the fact that St. Rose's is so small scale, this principle is irrelevant.

From this evaluation, it seems that St. Rose's poses limited disturbance and risk to the environment in which it occupies. The only principle that it violates is the exploitation of class, as St. Rose's does not allow membership from the full Bronx community; you must pay tuition or teach at the university to become a member, which is quite limiting to many persons. It would be very difficult to try to fix this problem without violating our contract with the university as a club. A potential compromise could be to host more local events, where we offer our community space to be used for different programs open to the public.

In conclusion, St. Rose's provides a space that "advocates the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, and advocacy for a radical restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas" (Wikipedia), and ultimately betters our community, especially for the members that participate.

                                             Works Cited

Bloomberg, Michael. "Inventory of New York City Green House Gas Emissions." PlaNYC (2007): n. pag. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/ccp_report041007.pdf>.

https://www.facebook.com/StRosesGarden?ref=br_tf>>

 << http://fordhamsustainability.wordpress.com/st-roses-csa/>>

 <<http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/html/sustainability/sustainability.shtml>>

 << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology>>

 Naess, Arne. "The Shallow and the Deep, Long‐range Ecology Movement. A Summary∗." Inquiry 16.1-4 (1973): 95-100. Web.

[foxofdeers]

I Am an Environmentalist and a Feminist, But Not an Ecofeminist

Ecofeminism highlights the historical connection between the exploitation and domination of both women and nature. These two, seemingly unrelated topics both share a similar history of repression in patriarchal societies, according to ecofeminists.

Karen Warren is a famous ecofeminist. A professor of philosophy, she calls herself a 'street philosopher', because in addition to teaching at universities, she also teaches philosophy publicly in an effort to reach a larger demographic. She eloquently summarizes her worldview in her essay The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism: "I conclude that any feminist theory and any environmental ethic which fails to take seriously the twin and interconnected dominations of women and nature is at best incomplete and at worst, inadequate".

What does this mean? Similar to that of ecological theology, ecofeminism believes that in order to solve our environmental problems, we must address our gender inequalities. Where I understand the connection, I feel this theory is more forced than that of ecotheology, which has a significant about of empirical data, found in religious texts, including the Bible. Ecofeminism, on the other hand does not have as significant evidence of this sort, and instead relies on this forced metaphor of the earth being a woman who is 'raped and pillaged'. The problem I see is that ecofeminism is drawing the connection that woman is more important/valuable than man because she is more connected to nature, which I think further exacerbates the rift between man and woman, and misses the mark on gender equality. In addition, I find it difficult to envision this idea that once we 'solve' gender equality we will be on a better path to solve environmental problems. I think the two ideologies are linked, but I do not think that they are as closely connected as ecofeminism makes them out to be.

That being said I do think that women health faces the burden of environmental stresses than men, not because they are 'more connected to nature', but because the effects of nature on the female body are less researched than that of the male body. Catherine Turney, a sociologist explains how the male body is considered the 'normal body', meaning when we think of the human body we think of a males over a females. So when it comes to scientific testing, instead of testing both the male and female body, we often test on the male. Because of this, the side effects of medications/therapies/etc. on women can be unknown, and therefore women are more at risk. Turney questions what society would look like if the 'norm' body were in fact the female body, instead of the man's. For me the solution to such problem is that there is no 'norm body', but in fact there are two 'norm bodies', which must include both genders.

We may think that Turney's theory no longer applies to our 21st century world, but it most definitely is in hidden ways.  In her latest TED talk, Julia Mason explains how women are more threatened by climate change than men because our bodies respond differently to heat. Where this is a very simplistic example, we must also realize how available information like the above is. Do most people know about this differentiation? I would argue probably not. A more complex example is that of the pink ribbon movement, which is this trend that companies, especially those who have products that contain paraben, have been using in order to gain (back) more female consumers. Testing was shown that paraben act like a synthetic estrogen, causing serious health effects on women, including cancer of the breasts, and female reproductive organs. Parabens have minimal effects on men, in comparison. Once this research came out, companies were in a scramble to cover their asses, yet instead of removing the parabens from their bottles, they donated just enough money to have the rights to the 'pink ribbon' and use it as a way to subvert our attention, making us think that their products were safe for women, when in reality they are still just as harmful. Would companies still be using parabens in their products is they were more harmful to the male body? How are we neglecting the health of 50% of our population? What would it look like if the female body was the 'norm' body, would this problem have greater significance then?

In conclusion, this environmental problem is very similar the social justice theory and environmental racism, more than it is related to ecological theology. Where women are the minority, yet we represent 1/2 of the human population. Women are more likely to face the environmental burdens not because they are closer to nature like ecofeminism argues, but because they problems are under-research and/or ignored. But again, like when we discussed the social justice theory, the only species we have discussed are human beings. How do we address gender inequalities in other animal species? Do chickens respond differently to environmental stresses than roosters? If so, how can we promote gender equality for all animal species? Is this something that the biocentric worldview must address? I would argue, yes.

[foxofdeers]

Does 'Green Energy' Really Exist: The Answer Lie Deeper than the Surface

Arne Naess was an important inspirational and intellectual philosopher within the environmental movement who coined the phrase deep ecology.

He suggested that the "environmental crisis of the 21st century has arisen due to certain unspoken philosophical presuppositions and attitudes with modern western developed societies which remain unacknowledged". What does this all mean exactly? Basically that western development failed to acknowledge the full scope and implications of societal change, especially related to our environmental surroundings, and our dependence on this 'complex web of relationships' and the 'value of biological diversity' that we were destroying. A true understanding for nature has been lost, as the natural environment has become main-made. Therefore he decided that ecology was divided into two categories: deep and shallow ecology.

Shallow ecology was the fight against pollution and resource depletion, where the general objective is to protect the health and affluence of people in developed countries. Comaratively, Naess defines deep ecology as the 'relational-total field image' that focuses on the deeper concerns about principles of diversity, complexity, autonomy, decentralization, symbiosis, egalitarianism, and classlessness. He full heartedly believes that there is a deep pleasure and satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life, which in our current western society is left unacknowledged.

My case study for my presentation was the mining of rare earth minerals that are used for the engines of hybrid cars and for the magnets in wind turbines. While most think that these technologies are more environmentally friendly, than the alternatives, this may not necessarily be true, but instead an economic hoax. Sure when you purchase the hybrid vehicle, you are using less gas, and this may be more economically efficient for the consumer and ecologically efficient when it comes to carbon emissions while driving, but is the manufacturing process more harmful than these benefits? Considering the minimal available information on the mining of these rare earth metals in China, I would agree not. But from a deep ecological perspective, there is much more wrong with this environmental problem than just this idea of pollution. When we evaluate this case study against Naess' principles outline in his essay The Shallow and the Dee, Long Range Ecology Movement, we can clearly see the greater problems.

The first topic of concern is are we preserving diversity? Well we cannot really answer this question with the information provided by these mining companies online. The questions we need to ask is have we done the research necessary to evaluate the effects of rare earth refining pollution on Mongolia? And what are the effects of this type of mining on the land, itself? The answer appears to be no. Strike number one.

Next, we look at the anti class posture. Is there an exploitation of class? This can be distinguished, according to Naess, by looking to see if the exploiter is living differently than theose humans being exploited. This situation seems to be happening, because the farmers are living very differently than those who are consuming and using these technologies. Strike number two.

After that, Naess questions whether this 'reduction of pollution increases problems of a new kind'? We think as consumers that 'green energy' is green, when really it seems that this is not the case. Which is worse? Well, there is again not sufficient evidence to distinguish this, but the actual mining of rare metals in order to minimize transportation pollution and energy use IS in fact causing problems of a new kind that have to deal with the area in which they are mining. So I would consider this strike number three.

The next point that we must evaluate is has the complexity been preserved? Have we determined if the disturbances from the mining have impacted the complex interactions exhibited by the full ecosystem? What are the effects of the plant species around the mining field? How about the animals? There seems to be very minimal research. And I would argue that this complexity has failed to be acknowledged. If baseball had four strikes, this would be strike number four.

And the final point has to do with local autonomy and decentralization. Naess explains that many times local interests are dropped for the bigger interest, as is the case with this particular case study. The people and environment of Mongolia, where the most rare earth mineral mining takes place, is really hurting. The farmers no longer have drinkable water sources, and land can no longer be farmed due to all the environmental pollutants. Strike number five.

From that critical evaluation, we can see very little can be found on this topic about the environment, which is concerning because it makes us think that perhaps the government is not disclosing this information for a reason. How can we practice biotic egalitarianism and self-realization, while still using these technologies? Do the benefits outweigh the environmental costs? And which has the smaller ecological footprint: a hybrid car made with rare earth metals? Or a regular, American, car that runs on gasoline? Is there a cleaner refining process that is more expensive? 

It seems like all of these questions have minimal or incomplete answers, which makes it really difficult to decide, where we go from hear. Can we morally use these technologies? Isn't it our responsibility as environmental citizens to do something about this? Can we do something about this? All these questions pose great difficulty, but this is the RIGHT way to approach these sorts of problems. We must be critical and skeptical, and we seem, as a western society, to be writing off these problems for our own economic gains than deeply acknowledge the serious consequence of our actions that are approaching. 

[foxofdeers]

Petri's latest interview. 

#ducks can talk

[foxofdeers]

TBT. MIssing summer with these chicks. 

[foxofdeers]

Who Killed Whom?

Big History, according to Wikipedia, "is the academic discipline which examines history from the big bang theory to the present. It is a multidisciplinary approach based on combining science and the humanities, human existence in a bigger picture". Brian Swimme and Mary Evelyn Tucker bring this theory to life in the film Journey of the Universe.

I originally watched this film with two of my friends, who both consider themselves conservative republicans (one of which rejects the idea of global warming). They both thought this viewing would be a laughing fest and a joke, but it actually turned out to be a more meaningful. My roommate, Moon, expressed in a bit of sarcasm and surprise her experience: "It was the most psychedelic experience of my current life form manifestation. It was more focused on spiritually than expected. I thought it was going to be more like your traditional documentary-style experience.”

I would agree with her, unlike other scientifically based creation stories, Journey of the Universe evaluates just how profound and perfect the creation of our universe really is. Every single element aligned so perfectly to create just the right environment for such form of life to exist. Quite literally "all the stars aligned", and it is honestly incredible that we even exist. That is something we fail to reflect on most days.

The movie was a bit heavy on the metaphors and a bit forced at times, I did find the movie quite reflective. How is it that as the sun is increasingly getting hotter and hotter, Earth is capable of maintaining a stable temperature range that then falls in the very narrow band in which life can exist?

The other idea that was so fascinating was this idea of 'life learns'. Swimme explains that life remembers paths by storing information in DNA molecules. The power of memory is stored in each molecule, and this allows life to learn and develop. Life can now build upon itself, rather from starting from scratch each time. Life is now simply condensed into number and pattern, where DNA holds the connection between life and pattern, and therefore it holds the essence of life. In conclusion, life has learned to learn. Honestly incredible.

So how does this relate to a class of environmental ethic and policy? Well this very much promotes biocentrism. When proportioned, as we saw in a previous youtube clip on youtube, into a 24-hour scope, and we realize that human existence occurred basically in the last 5 or so minutes of the whole entire 24 hour period, it makes us realize how insignificant we really are. Perhaps insignificant is not the best word, we are important, but in the context of all life forms, we realize that for a very long period of time, humans did not exist, for a large portion of time animals did not exist, and before the plants didn't either. It really took an overwhelming amount of effort and 'stars aligning' to produce such an incredible universe, and basically right as humans step foot, we begin destruction. We are destroying this profound sacred universe, which was so intricately created out of sheer luck, and our destruction could never be undone, because we can never recreate the Earth. It is a miracle that life and Earth looks the way it does today. Is the Earth meant for life with humans? If the Earth is such a powerful, stable force will Earth kill us, or are we a 'super species' and we kill Earth?

[foxofdeers]

#drinkresponsibly 

[foxofdeers]

PRIME REAL ESTATE: 

The latest home addition on my family's chicken coop. All the proud work of my dad. He had a little help installing the roof. 

[foxofdeers]

Environmental Crisis Will Be Unresolved Until We Change our Religion

I constantly find conflict with my belief in God and my belief in science. Whether it is related towards medicine, the environment, creation, etc., often viewpoints converge and leave me in a state of confusion and reevaluation of my beliefs, and a failure to attempt to identify, which one is more 'correct'. It was not until this semester that I have discovered eco-theology and even thought that such distinct academic disciplines can fit together. Where Lynn White almost makes me feel like there is no way I can be Catholic and have a biocentric appreciation of nature, I realize, through Pope John Paul II's  speech on World Peace Day of 1990 that the creation story is accommodating to my biocentric environmental beliefs.

The question that continues to pop up in my mind is when does 'interpretation' go beyond interpretation and instead result in misrepresentation of church teachings? Technically, in Catholic faith interpretation is against the religion, but living through the literal interpretation of a text written several centuries ago does not have much purpose if culture is rapidly changing. Similar to the Vatican's approach to the environmentalism, other current social issues are also being addressed including marriage rights. Is this allowed? I believe so. Again, if culture is constantly changing, and religion is part of culture, we need room for interpretation in order to figure out how to act in specific situations because it is not explicitly outlined in the Bible.

Right now we are in an ecological crisis, which means we "need a shift in consciousness to a mindset of a new sensibility of ecological cultures", according to Mary Evelyn Tucker. There is nothing in the book of Genesis that explains climate change. Just because there are no teachings regarding climate change, does not give me reason to believe that climate change doesn't exist. What we can do is apply the relevant teachings found in the Bible, to our current actions to find solution. Mary Evelyn Tucker eloquently examines this problem in a speech she gave at Yale University in February of 2012.

She suggests that we must bring forward a "retrieval of teachings of these traditions, a reexamination of them in modern circumstance, and a reconstruction of them in light of what we are facing today". In terms, of ecology she realizes that the Millennial generation is constantly bombarded with sadder, bad news than any other generation. We are at the edge of despair as the extinction of life form and life form systems die out at rates well exceeding the formation of new species. It is at this point in our anthropocentric era that the extinction of our own life, the extinction of human species is not out of reach. She suggests that the only way to make a difference is to 'ignite ourselves' using human energy, and to 'plant seeds of change in the heart of academia'. She concludes with this question that resonates with me completely: "How can we light up the next generation [the millenials] that goes beyond legal sensibility and failed politics? How do we ignite a sensibility that renews the face of the Earth?" And I will end with the question, what would us millennials use with this new face of sensibility? Is this really going to produce the radical change that we need in order to limit man-induced changes, or is this going to continue to only be motivational for a small portion of human beings, while the remaining majority continues to destroy the earth? Simply put, how effective will 'imposing sensibility' be and will it create real change?

[foxofdeers]

Can We Love and Protect Something We Don't Know?

In class, we watched the screening of Call of Life: Making the Mass Extinction. The culminating message of the movie shows that "if current trends continue, scientists warn that within a few decades at least half of all plant and animals species on earth will disappear forever".  This loss of biodiversity lie in the fact that was have lost touch with the environment in which we live. For this blog post today I will evaluate two of my favorite quotes from the film and evaluate their applicability to our society, and my personal worldview.

"This is a crisis not only in nature, but also in human nature, a crisis more threatening than anything than anything human beings have ever face before"

The following quotation is referring to the mass distinction and loss of biodiversity due to full-fledged industrialization and carelessness. The problem of fact, though, is not that we are harming the environment in terms of just other species, but we are also injuring our own population. Biodiversity is essential of our own existence. 'Own' not meaning this generation or the next, but 'own' referring to the future of the human species.

From the viewpoint of the species that were lost, E.O Wilson eloquently explains that "species are living, breathing items of nature. We lose a bit of our collective soul when we drive species (and their entire lineages with them), prematurely and in large numbers, to oblivion".

"We don't defend the place we live because we don't live there."

When referring to the 'place', this quotation is referring to the land, the environment, and the ecosystem around us. For example, I live in the Bronx. My 'place' is not my house that I rent with all my friends, or Pugsley's Pizza across the street, or our cement patio out back. Our 'place' is what has been untouched and preserved. Perhaps it is the two trees that seemed to have made it through the paving of our driveway and the building of our house, the squirrels that leap from our windowsills, and the birds that use the back of our house for wind protection. 

What is happening now, is that many are no longer connected to the ecosystems around them. For example, if a plot of fertile land was to be built on, perhaps neighbors would be more frustrated by the noise of the construction machinery than the actual loss of biodiversity in their neighborhood. Because connection has been lost to the land, the environment has less 'pull' and less support. Is it possible to build back this empathy for nature? Is it impossible because there is hardly any 'untouched' nature for anyone to experience? Is this another effect of biophilia? Can we combat this by exposing more people, especially in urban areas, to nature, and specifically the nature in their own environment, to help to build an intrinsic empathy for other life forms? 

[foxofdeers]

Biocentrism: Why Can’t Humans and Nonhumans exist side-by-side?

Biocentrism is a field of environmental ethics theorized by Paul Taylor. According to Van Buren, Taylor “extends them to the notion of a moral community that covers the whole community of life on the planet (biotic community), each of whose members is to be respected as an end in itself.” Similar to deep ecology, Biocentrism is an "ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things. It stands in contrast to anthropocentrism which centers on the value of humans." (Wikipedia). There is a strong belief in promoting biodiversity, animal rights, and environmental protection.

Biocentrism often evaluates moral dilemmas between human rights that conflict with the wellbeing of nonhumans using the competing claims and priority principles outlined by Taylor. 

When evaluating a specific human practice the idea of cost is often evaluated. What is the cost of the projected from in terms of human benefits for the preservation of wildlife. Cost refers to monetary value, as well as the physical, psychological burden imposed on the specific species or environment. Is the human-imposed action 'worth the costs'. Often the humans are unwilling to pay the price of preservation. For example, if a group of people decided to plow up a prairie to plant wheat and corn. In accordance with human morality, this practice is ok. There is nothing technically ‘wrong’ with it, in terms of an anthropocentric viewpoint. But a potentially large price may be paid by nature for human rights, which could be direct and irreversible. But anthrocpocentrics might say, 'why should the good of humans be sacrificed? And Taylor would argue 'because humans are members of a community of life along with all other species, and on equal terms".  

In the face of full-blown industrialization, this problem is exacerbated. We now have the biggest extreme/dilemma between humans and nature because destruction of nature can now occur on a very large scale. The “Entire biological and physical composition of our planet is profoundly effected and “The more we take for ourselves, the less there will be for other species”.

According to Taylor, under industrialization we no longer have a well-ordered moral universe, run by humans as moral agents.

But if we believe in respect for nature and respect of human values we have a few competing problems. We ha a duty not to harm or interfere with the life community of wild plants and animals, but we also believe it is our duty to provide humans with freedom, wellbeing, and autonomy. It is really difficult to meet both “duties” or “claims because we cannot just give moral override to human claims.A systemic methods needed to evaluate the specific dilemma, and it must embody the concept of fairness.

The Principles include…

Self-defense

Proportionality

Minimum Wrong

Distributive Justice

Restitutive Justice

Although this system emphasizes all the fair principles of evaluating an human vs. environmental dilemma, Taylor warns this will not provide a ‘neat’ solution to any problem. It simply helps to lay out and weigh out both sides.

The first step to a biocentric attitude is ‘the attitude of respect for nature with an inner change in our moral beliefs or commitments’. We need to move from an anthropocentric worldview to a biocentric one. To do so humans must change their moral orientation. Emancipation from the way we look at nonhumans in our contemporary culture. Where this may be a lot of work, Taylor argues it is not impossible.

Michael Pollen in The Intelligent Plant, explains a similar viewpoint to that of Taylor. He uses The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins to support this. In 1973, Tompkins claimed  plants were sentient beings that experienced feelings and could hear conversation and have responses/emotions to music. He did so by attaching a polygraph to a plant, when lit of fire, a surge in energy, which Cleve Baxter (polygraph expert from the C.I.A.) interpreted as stress.

Baxter observed the following from the experiment…

“He claimed that plants reacted to the thoughts (good or ill) of humans in close proximity and, in the case of humans familiar to them, over a great distance. In one experiment designed to test plant memory, Backster found that a plant that had witnessed the murder (by stomping) of another plant could pick out the killer from a lineup of six suspects, registering a surge of electrical activity when the murderer was brought before it. Backster’s plants also displayed a strong aversion to interspecies violence. Some had a stressful response when an egg was cracked in their presence, or when live shrimp were dropped into boiling water, an experiment that Backster wrote up for the International Journal of Parapsychology, in 1968.”

 His experimental data could not be produced; therefore his hypothesis cannot be supported. In 2006, Pollens points out that a new field of study called plant neurobiology was acknowledged in response to scientists having seen signs of plant responses to environmental variables, and have observed chemical and electrical responses that parallel that of the human nervous system. According to Pollen, “They also noted that neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate have been found in plants, though their role remains unclear.".

There are two sides to this new field. The proponents believe that is imperative the way we stop treating plants as passive objects. Whereas the disbelievers feel that this is all pseudoscience and quack because they claim that the plant system is nowhere near homologous to the human nervous system. There are not even neurons or synapses. They argue that “Plant intelligence is a foolish distraction”.  

What Pollen concludes, though, is that either way plants are their own exquisite beings. Similar Taylor's worldview, Pollen argues that you don’t have to be like humans to deserve respect. Why do we consistently have to make these parallels [to human beings] to make them greater moral participants? Plants have spectacular qualities that make them unique from all species of life. First off they have 15 senses. They can create these “scalable networks of self-maintaining, self-operating, and self-repairing units”, and they don’t have brains, because a brain would not be useful for them.

In conclusion, both Taylor and Pollen agree that the extension of status of moral objects from human beings to all living things in nature. Although, Pollen argues that instead of constantly comparing other species, in his case plants, to humans, we should simply appreciate the intrinsic, individual and profound qualities they possess, and treat nature with respect. 

[foxofdeers]

SISTER LOVE. Julia (my sister) and our little sister, Petri, share a snuggle. 

[foxofdeers]

Moral Standing Of Animals from a Biocentric Perspective

A movement very much associated with wilderness, Leopold's land ethic is difficult to apply to our most overwhelming environmental problem, global climate change. And this is precisely where Calicott swoops in and says "no fear. All we need is a few modifications for the land ethic to be applicable to urban life". So what are those modifications, you ask?....

Leopold's maxim was the promote the greatest integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Calicott preserves this maxim, and provides two additional contentions that can override Leopold's maxim.

            1. Humankind’s economic self-interest and use of nature in accord                   with above principles.

            2. “Love” of nature, and esthetic admiration and appreciation of it.

Basically what Callicot is suggesting is to put greater precedence on the biotic community over the traditional concerns for individuals. Its Leopold's land ethic, with a hierarchical system that allows for decisions to be weighed based on "the moral worth of individuals is relative, to be assessed in accordance with the particular relationship of each to the collective entity which Leopold calls 'land'" (180).

He puts together strong reformist policies that question what is ecologically important? What is going to serve the whole ecological community? In conclusion, Callicot understands there are two views to understanding the complexity of moral standing of animals: environmentalism and animal rights.

Personally, I think I am in favor of the environmentalism viewpoint. Sure, I am completely against the abuse of animals by the food industry, for hunting, entertainment, clothing, etc., but I feel like when considered under the umbrella of environmentalism, the issue of moral standing of animals is cohesive. Its not just animals I wish to extend moral standing to, but also plants and microranisms. These expansion of moral standing does not fit under the headline of animal rights, and therefore I find it less relatable to my own worldview. Ultimately, environmentalist are sympathetic to animal rights and in support of animal rights, but they argue the focus needs to be on environmentalism. Why? Because I would argue 'the whole' of the ecosystem is more important than the individual parts. And different values should be assigned to different invidual members of the land community relative to their role in the ecosystem. For example, one of aspects I find most interesting about Callicot's ethic is his belief that wild animals have greater value than domestic. He promotes the membership of animals in the land community and evaluates conditions from the perspective of the whole ecosystem and the system of interactions. He concluded that domesticated animals are not that important to the ecological community, because they rely on humans. It also concludes that we should not liberate these animals because that would not only be damaging to the animals, themselves, but also to the wild ecosystem.

In conclusion, where animals rights is more anthropocentric and tends to form protection of domestication and the relation of animals to humans, I feel like we need to approach the issue of animal rights from Callicot's perspective, which is for the benefit of the full land community, ie. a biocentric worldview. 

[foxofdeers]

The Girls Getting Ready for Bed. 

#sweetdreams

[foxofdeers]

How to Prioritize...Who Should Die First

Donald VanDeVeer argues that humans are quite a violent species. Ever since modern times, human beings have become dominant. The reason for this domination is due to the fact that the human population exploded and we have taken over much of the land on earth and consumed so much that we crowd out other animal species. There is no longer a place for them left to go, we have pushed them into such small areas, and we ultimately caused an irreversible amount of harm.

We have literally caused an insurmountable amount of suffering on these animals species and have driven them to extinction. The World Wildlife fund predicts that we have lost 50% of wildlife in the past 50 years, and the use of domestication 'to lock 'em up', is not beneficial for the animals, but it is a procedure meant for us, whether is be for food or entertainment.

This worldview explains VanDerVeer's introduction, which talks about 'axe-murdering' in a very gory description, and relates those animals being murdered to our meat consumption. His worldviews is very much inspired by Singer's "Animal Liberation" text. It explains that it shook him from his "dogmatic slumbers".

The six arguments of Singer are that  all or virtually all human beings are sentient creatures (1), many animals are sentient creatures (2),  moral agents have a duty not to cause suffering to sentient creatures (3),  so, moral agents have a duty to refrain from causing suffering to (sentient) humans and (sentient) animals (4), the interests of all sentient creatures (in not suffering) must be given equal consideration (5), so, the imposition of suffering on animals (an overriding of the duty mentioned in [4]) would have to be justified by ground of the same moral weight as those which would be necessary to justify the imposition of suffering on humans (6).

The most important aspect of VanderVeer's worldview is its application to current events. He uses a two factor approach, whereby he determines the moral relevance and the kind of interests that are in conflict. He literally looks at what kind of interests are conflicting? and The degree of sentience of the two conflicting parties. In some situations, VanderVeer argues that human sentience may be less than another animal.

In everyday life, intuitively, we already take into account these two factors. My problem with this evaluation method is that, sure, animals have moral standings, but even a peripheral human need can override it.  How do we show that one type of animal's life is less worthy than anothers?