Here is a very interesting exchange about practical ethics and animal agriculture from the website, Eating Liberally. It features our contributing author Karin Lauria.
cheers, Bill
William Lynn :: Dec.27.2007 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics :: Comments Off
Last Wednesday I received five emails from different people telling me about a hot new Internet movie called “The Story of Stuff.” Everyone claimed that this movie is a short, funny, easy-to-understand, and compelling look at why environmentalists need to work with other social change constituencies to fundamentally transform the world’s economic system in a more just, democratic, and sustainable direction. I showed this 20 minute film to students in my Patterns of Environmental Activism course the next day–and was amazed at the intensity of their positive responses to it. It sparked a lot of aha moments and brought so much of our work this semester into sharper focus.
This movie essentially makes a great case that it is no longer sufficient-as John Muir once suggested-that environmentalists just work hard to protect public lands from industrial or agricultural encroachment and leave the rest of our political economy unanalyzed and unchanged. That is “old school” environmental thinking and we clearly need “new school” sustainability thinking about transforming the materials economy if we are to make meaningful change in the 21st century–a change process that public interest advocates and grassroots organizers need to help drive and direct.
Interested? Please go to the “The Story of Stuff” website, where you can download the film and find additional information on the six major themes addressed in the film (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, waste disposal, and alternatives). Also, check out this article about “The Story of Stuff” by Multinational Monitor editor Robert Weissman.
I agree with Weissman that this film is a great example of using new media to provide solid political education that can reach a lot of people–besides all of us who already see ourselves as social change activists.
Steve Chase :: Dec.11.2007 :: Environmental Studies :: Comments Off
On December 2, The New York Times ran an op-ed entitled “Giving You Christmas When You Want It” by Simon Doonan, creative director of Barneys New York.
I sent a letter to the editor in response, which the Times published today. You can read it here (see the first of the two letters):
“The True Meaning of Christmas”
Note, I’m a frequent letter to the editor writer. My reasons are as follows:
Happy Holidays,
Karin
Karin Lauria :: Dec.09.2007 :: Ethics, Religion :: 2 Comments »
Marc Bekoff has another book out!
Marc Bekoff, 2007, Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect, Shambhala Publications.
The book description from Amazon.com is below.
‘Animal behaviorist and biologist Bekoff follows his most recent in-depth work, The Emotional Life of Animals, with another well-written, more generalist argument for responsible behavior toward animals of all kinds. A revised and updated edition of his 2000 Strolling with Our Kin, an introduction for young readers to ethical issues relating to the use of animals, the writing still feels aimed at younger readers, but the new elements include an excellent review of current debates regarding animal sentience, animal relocation efforts and medical school dissection and vivisection.
….
Nonhuman animals have many of the same feelings we do. They get hurt, they suffer, they are happy, and they take care of each other. Marc Bekoff, a renowned biologist specializing in animal minds and emotions, guides readers from high school age up-including older adults who want a basic introduction to the topic-in looking at scientific research, philosophical ideas, and humane values that argue for the ethical and compassionate treatment of animals. Citing the latest scientific studies and tackling controversies with conviction, he zeroes in on the important questions, inviting reader participation with “thought experiments” and ideas for action. Among the questions considered: Are some species more valuable or more important than others? Do some animals feel pain and suffering and not others? Do animals feel emotions? Should endangered animals be reintroduced to places where they originally lived? Should animals be kept in captivity? Are there alternatives to using animals for food, clothing, cosmetic testing, and dissection in the science classroom? What can we learn by imagining what it feels like to be a dog or a cat or a mouse or an ant? What can we do to make a difference in animals’ quality of life? Bekoff urges us not only to understand and protect animals-especially those whose help we want for our research and other human needs-but to love and respect them as our fellow beings on this planet that we all want to share in peace’.
cheers, Bill
William Lynn :: Dec.03.2007 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Ethics :: Comments Off
This essay is a continuation of three prior posts:
Genes, Genesis and God: Introduction
Genes, Genesis and God: Natural Genesis
Genes, Genesis and God: Cultural Genesis, Part I
As discussed in my last post, Holmes Rolston agrees with the consensus among evolutionary scientists that human behavior is genetically based. However, he rejects the suggestion that we are genetically determined to, above all, “selfishly” seek survival or reproduction. Instead, our innate mental flexibility enables us to transcend our biological propensities toward the creation of cumulative transmissible cultures.
According to Rolston, human cultural behaviors far exceed the boundaries of individual self-interests or family ties. Reductionist explanations of religion, for example, which maintain that it is rooted in genetic selfishness, do not hold up under scrutiny. A direct correlation does not exist between religion and fertility rates.
First, quantitative studies have examined religions known to be reproductively successful (it’s hard to study a religion that no longer exists). Second, cultural reproductive strategies differ (in some cultures, for example, having fewer children increases the chance of their survival). Third, religion crosses over genetic, tribal, cultural, political, religious, and geographical boundaries. Nor does it make sense to argue that religion is merely a means of coping with a cruel, hard world. Religions uphold certain ideals: love, justice, and compassion for all. Those rooted in fantasy do not last for long, nor do they offer survival value.1
The universal religions have managed to persist because they say something true about the world. Rolston argues that their truth lay in detecting the sacred in the world, which is real and necessary for living well. Successful religions must speak universally to the “common condition of humankind,†and offer a path to redemption to heal its brokenness (345).2 A paradigm of selfishness cannot explain this. A paradigm of sharing can.
Neither can science be so easily explained in terms of survival advantages. First, there is no correlation between science and genetic fertility (i.e., scientists do not decide to have children because they are scientists). Second, although science does offer survival advantages to society by way of sharing the value of its discoveries, scientific work far exceeds what is necessary. The human mind allows us to imagine and create instruments for accessing phenomena beyond our native range and which do not necessarily offer any immediate survival benefits. Rationality, writes Rolston:
“works for building microscopes…decoding atoms and quarks,…for solving equations that run time backward to the big bang and then philosophizing about cosmology, for postulating and trying to simulate the chemical origin of life in the ancient seas†(205).
Science, like religion, is a cultural phenomenon that arises out of and transcends evolutionary history. As Rolston puts it: “Science is both evolution becoming conscious of itself and evolution transcending itself†(211).
Human culture represents consciousness that has broken free of genetic determinism. We can no longer interpret the world as if this exodus from nature never happened, although this is certainly the view of scientists who believe that science provides the ultimate explanation for all cultural and natural phenomena. The consequences of this mistake are the misvaluing and degradation of nature, and the under appreciation of cultural geniuses such as religion.
Are there opportunities for discussion in which science and religion can develop a more respectful relationship, one that is true to the Earth story as Rolston tells it? (My next essay will explore this question.)
Notes
1. Rolston writes that if the survival value of religion lay in its power to create pleasant fantasies, then we would have to view science as a “disabling mechanism†that “triggers our extinction†(342).
2. Rolston also argues that even if religion were primarily about coping with the hardships, it does not logically follow that religion is not true. For a worldview to allow one to function effectively in the world, it usually needs to have some correspondence with reality (336-37).
Works cited
Rolston III, Holmes. Genes, Genesis and God. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.
Photo: “Red Road, Red Spirit Woman,” Pamela Yates, copyright Pamela Yates, www.pamelayates.com
Karin Lauria :: Dec.01.2007 :: Animal Studies, Environmental Studies, Religion :: Comments Off
