Aldo Leopold’s chapter on “Land Ethics” addresses the notion of humans’ blatant disregard to nature without the connection to economy and business. Ecological evolution simply extends the concept of ethics to land – soil, water, plants, and animals. This ideology changes humans’ conqueror role to one of membership. Farmers typically advocate governments to step up and call for environmental reform, without considering taking individual action. Their land can be environmentally sustainable; however, not without losing profit. Nature is examined through an economic lens to be considered valid. The land pyramid discusses how energy is absorbed via plants and travels up the consumer chain to animals and humans; therefore, the plants and animals keep the energy circuit open, and when humans alter this system, they disrupt unforeseen cycles. An article from BBC discusses the failure to protect farm wildlife. Taxpayers were expected to pay roughly four hundred and ninety euros a year toward farm subsidies; however, a recent study reveals that this plan has failed. It is estimated that over eighty percent of farms will be exempt from green measures. The study argues that the policy would make farms worse off, unless individual states took measures, because some states have transferred their funds away from this wildlife movement. The policy came under much scrutiny for their blanket policy across all of Europe. The article shows Leopold’s argument regarding land ethics. Nature is viewed through the economic lens, with some refusing to lose profit in exchange for sustainability. Large groups, in this case all of Europe, are expected to construct changes, but that typically fails without the individuals being on board with the plan. Leopold discusses the energy circuit, and the article does discuss the policy and how changes need to be made. Some advocate land ethics; however, the process to achieve sustainability needs to be met with disregard to economy.
In “Niger: Rights to Trees and Livelihoods in Niger” discusses how the lack of land use ended up affecting the people more than when they used the land. Under French rule if people owned trees on their property they were penalized, and so the people of Niger just stopped planting them. Farmers learned that it was easier to survive as a family if they focused on agriculture, instead of trees and vegetation. In the 1960’s droughts swept the nation and famine affected a lot of the people.
In the 1980’s things began to change, when NGOs “began promoting simple, low-cost soil and water conservation techniques combined with agroforestry. Around the same time, Niger’s government began to reassess its governance of rural land and natural resources.” With all the help from the government and NGOs, Niger has been able to reclaim five million hectares of land.
The chapter, “Land Ethics”, written by Aldo Leopold in his explanation of the ignorance of human beings in regards to the direct connection of nature to a nation’s economy. Leopold discusses how we as a people evolved from trying to control and force nature to conform to human society to becoming a part of nature and learning to cohabitate peacefully with the environment. For example forcing the canal through Panama to dictate water ways and to boost trade we have no realized the importance that the environment plays and that we need to make more environmentally conscience efforts. Even though we may lose immediate profits we will make them up in the long run due to the extension of useable resources. Leopold also argued the importance of the food chain and how the lowest plant organisms pay a role in the population of larger beings such as livestock and people. Harming the environment only ends up harming ourselves when the food chain is broken.
In the BBC article, “Tasmania’s giant ash trees may be the world’s tallest”, the author discusses the wide multitude of factors that play a part in the deforestation and production of lumber. The article begins by stating the facts of the variety of record breaking trees and the vast purposes they serve. Whether through the ecosystem they provide or the other various environmental purposes they serve. The article concludes with the identification of the dangers that these environmental wonders suffer from. The largest plight of the trees and all plant life is humans, and if continued the article estimates the widespread damage that could result effecting the entire world. Thus, the author pushes along with environmentalist around the world for environmental reforms to preserve and protect not only the environment but also the economy of countless nations and the health of the people around the world. It is almost impossible to fully realize the potential harm that could arise. And as stated by Leopold, environmentalism is only worried about when it effects other systems like economy and business.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141222-the-worlds-new-tallest-tree
In the article, “Sea Species, 1 in 4, at Risk of Extinction, New Study Finds”, Julie S discusses the rapid population depletion of marine species. The marine biome is threaten by overfishing, pollution, climate change and destruction of coral reefs. Since less marine species have been formally assessed for conservation status compared to land species, marine species remain at a higher risk of extinction.
In the reading, Aldo Leopold notes that land should be appreciated with intrinsic value. All members of the biotic community have intrinsic value. Therefore, if there is a disturbance with the predator and prey cycle, repercussions will occur. Instead of managing land for monetary profit, humans should treat the land with care as nature’s well-being will also impact human health.
Although the reading pertains to land conservation, Leopold’s philosophy can be applied to the article about marine life conservation. For example, the distinction between conservation efforts of land and marine species can be removed by Leopold’s notion of equal value amongst members of the biotic community. Marine species are equally as important as land species and should receive the same amount of conservation efforts. http://www.hngn.com/articles/65601/20150201/1-in-4-sea-species-at-risk-of-extinction-new-study-finds.htm
The main focus of today’s environmental legislation is that of the shallow ecological movement: as in we are only looking to create legislation that protects humanity from future resource depletion. Yet, this issue is creating a shadow over a much deeper ecological issue that threatens humanity as well as other species that inhabit the Earth along with us.
In an article by Justin Huggler he talks of how the removal of cedar and pine trees in Afghanistan has not only affected their economy, but also how it has affected their ecosystem. He speaks of how the once luscious environment has now become a “rocky dustbowl”. Thus, eliminating the ecosystem that once thrived. Even though the Afghan government has enacted legislation to protect the forests, it has done very little in preventing illegal timber smuggling. The problem starts with the incentive to steal. The black market for timber in these are flourishing, while pushing the ecosystem that once thrived to the brink of nonexistence. This article outlines the fact that the struggle for economic stability will almost always prevail when it comes to defending an ecosystem. It is a sad truth, but it is one that can be avoided if the focus of current legislation is placed on prevention entirely rather than limitation.
For this weeks discussion post, I found an article that made me think back to the two videos we saw in class comparing the PETA video with the African lion scene. We discussed in class how one of the videos with the African lions scene was a group of men from a tribe clearly hunting for what they needed to survive. In the PETA video it is more of a market for the meat and not the slaughterhouses don’t only just kill what they need.
In this article it talks about the illegal trade of Ivory in China and how this is risking the lives of elephants in Africa. It talks about how the Chinese government is doing everything they can to control this illegal trade but it has not been enough to stop the hunting and killing of elephants. There is more of a problem with the lack of attention from the African government and the Chinese government can only do so much. This reminded me of another way that human beings and being selfish and only thinking about themselves. If this continues African and Chinese officials say there could be an end to the entire elephant species.
In Naess’ article, he mentions a term I find to be very important to society. He calls it the Shallow Ecology movement, one of two main concepts that ecologists were backing. He defines it as the “fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” He also explains more in detail about it’s counterpart, “Deep ecology” but I feel that it is easier to support the shallow ecology movement, and poses an extremely important goal (particularly since it seems easier to solve, such as implementing social policies against pollution or monitoring renewable resources so that they aren’t over-extracted).
I have actually read a more recent article from thegaurdian about how Bejing’s mayor, Wang Anshun, was quoted saying that the city is unlivable. The article is called “Beijing smog makes city unliveable, says mayor” by Jonathan Kaiman. The article discusses the problem Bejing is currently facing because of the excessive amounts of pollution, and what they have done in 2014 in response to the problems, such as closing companies. Naess’ article made me think of this article because of how shallow ecology is about anti-pollution, which I feel is important problem to solve as soon as possible, and how the thegaurdian article is about a city that is experiencing such horrible situation. Overall, went with this article as an one example why I feel everyone in the world should work to stop pollution.
What of the concepts that is explored for today’s readings is focused on the aspect of “shallow ecology movement”. The concept is simple, the reasoning behind fighting pollution and finding alternative forms in regards to using resources all has to do with a very self-centered desire for the survival of our own species. Fundamentally, the only reason we are showing interest in our environment, its because we see the potential for harm to occur onto us. I find it very uneasy when it comes to this idea. If the potential for damage is not apparent, does that mean that people care less about their actions in regards to the environment.
In an article that I found, it discusses the possible contamination of one of the worlds largest freshwater lakes in the world, Lake Baijkal. It discusses how increase construction and mining are contributing to damage to the lake. However, as the article is discussed, they do not have enough research to substantiate the actual amount of damage that is occurring, so people continue about with their processes. This gave me a terrifying realization, too many times we see that in society we are completely reactive people. We face problems as they present themselves. This is what is currently being done with our environmental problems, we face them as they come. However, the problem is, one environmental problem leads to another since they are all connected. Most of the time, once we notice the problem, its already too late to do anything.
According to the Tanzanian government, tuskless elephants have a population that is currently growing disproportionately to that of elephants with tusks. This is due, some believe, to poachers attacking tusked elephants in order to take their ivory. This is related very much to the environment talk we’ve been discussing, involving humans and their role in affecting animals in the natural environment. In this case, we consider the fact that poachers value dead tusked elephants more than live ones. They also seem not to care at all for the tuskless elephant varieties, therefore they live on to reproduce in greater numbers than their tusked relatives. This leads to population differences that otherwise may not have existed sans-poachers.
In the article “Conservationist vs. chainsaws: the RSPB’s battle to save an Indonesian rainforest,” details the conflict between migrant farmers and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the Harapan Rainforest in Sumatra, Indonesia. The economic growth in Indonesia has increased competition for land. Farmers cut trees and set fires to clear up space for cash crops, such as palm and rice. The actions of the farmers have threatened the survival of the rainforest. Conservationist groups, such as the RSPB, are trying to not only save the rainforest but also the endangered species that benefit from the rainforest existence. The background of the conflict over the Harapan Rainforest reminds me of the third point of the Deep Ecology movement. In “The Shallow and the Deep Ecology Movement,” Arne Naess’s describes the third point of Deep Ecology is the principle of diversity and symbiosis. Naess asserts, “Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms. And the so-called struggle for life, and survival of the fittest, should be interpreted in the sense of ability to coexist and cooperate in complex relationships, rather than ability to kill, exploit and suppress. ‘Live and let live is more powerful ecological principle than “Either you or me’” (96). I think that bother sides of the conflict have a “either you or me” attitude. From the farmers perspective it’s either the survival or the rainforest or their livelihood. In contrast, From the RSPB perspective it’s either farmers destroying the rainforest or protecting the rainforest and endangered species. No of the groups appear to be trying to coexist and cooperate with one another. My personal opinion is mixed. I think that the migrant farmers need should be addressed. It is clear that without the land and the ability to grow crop it would be difficult for them to eat and provide for their families. On the other hand, I believe that the rainforest should be protected. In the forest, 30 Sumatran tigers reside there out of the 300 or so left in the wild and over 250 different bird species call the Harapan Rainforest home. In addition, I think my article and the third principle of the deep ecological movement are addresses the theme of human versus non-human. The world and its being can only thrive once humans are able to co-exist and cooperate with the non-human. I think it is a difficult but necessary task.
The BBC article I found outlines a solution addressing the cane toad problem in Australia. Cane toads, initially introduced to rid the nations crop fields of beetles, have become one of the most influential invasive species brought to light as they have no native predator and release a toxin that kills local animals. The article describes an effort to eradicate the invasive species by building toad-proof fences to keep the species away from water sources and pushing them to the arid regions and their impending doom. The article praises the new research and proposed solution as an environmental and ecological solution that will create great change, implying that it has significance rivaling that of the Deep Ecology Movement, but I think Arne Naess would disagree. Naess stresses that the Deep Ecology Movement focuses on all organisms as knots in the net of life and this is a view that researchers behind this solution, although they may try to convince you differently, do not hold. I think that Naess would characterize this movement as a Shallow Ecology movement, or a fight in which the central objective is the health or affluence of people in developed countries. Although the researchers do point out the harm these toads cause to those animals affected by their toxins, the article always comes back to the harm the toads cause to humans, societal productivity and keeping the toads away from man-made dams. Although this solution is a noble effort towards ecological protection, I believe Naess would agree with me in saying that is is merely an example of the Shallow Ecology Movement.
One point that caught my attention in reading the Arne Naess’ article is that organizations focus on “world pollution” but they fail to focus on specific regions that do not have the technology to help themselves with the the issue of pollution. After careful research I found information that correlates with this issue. One of the websites that ran into was the International Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention website. They keywords I was paying attention too were “global” or “international” to name a few, and that is exactly what I found. I have noticed that major corporations that want to do something about the environment are focusing on the bigger picture rather than trying to tackle the smaller issues within the big issue of pollution.
Sometimes, going for the bigger fish might have you over look important details. In this case, smaller regions are being neglected of care because big corporations are focusing on the prevention of pollution of the world instead of the smaller parts of the world that lack the technology or the funding for the prevention of pollution. In my opinion, helping out these regions first can be the first step to a cleaner earth. To put in perspective of trying to catch a drug dealer, you have to get the little fish and work your way up the chain until you get to the big fish.
In my article “Sperm Whales target fishing boats for an easy meal” the author describes the growing concern of the fisherman to the likes of the sperm whale. Fisherman out in the ocean have been using hook and line techniques to catch fish like black cod up to 5 miles away. Recently they have been reporting “premeditated” attacks on their fish by the sperm whale in the ocean. Researchers have concluded that the sperm whale knows exactly what it is doing and finds it easier to take their fish then to swim down to the bottom to get their own.
This relates to the article by how Naess says that everything is a big net in life and this shows that a nonhuman species is starting to rely on humans for their survival. Much like the video we watched in class where the hunters in Africa steal the kill away from the lions arguing that “they need to share” it can be argued that it should not be a one way street and that the sperm whale is using the same tactics. Instead the fisherman are trying to do anything possible to keep the sperm whales away from them. I think this is a very poor decision and could be argued as very hypocritical of the human species.
In a Canadian province of British Columbia there was a spill of mining waste. The spill has caused for governmental inspections of mining projects. Fortunately, with these investigations, they have found a breach within the Imperial Metal’s Mount Polley mine. There was panel appointed to help construct a zone. This article reminded me of Bill Neidjie’s Gagudju Man. There was section called Land where he talked about how “Our story is in the land’ and a section called Environment where he spoke about how trees grow and grow and when you cut it down it pumps the life away.
I saw a slight comparison between the two articles. In Canada, they are mining in an area and now the area is fighting back and in Gagudju Man, he is talking about how the environment and earth is here to help us and we should treat it with respect. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/30/dam-in-british-columbia-failed-because-of-glacier.html
So I currently read an article about a over abundance of Cane Toads causing some forms of disturbances new dams in Australia. Officials say the toads are poisonous and are causing death and injury to other animals (mostly livestock). The dams were emplaced to provide an nonstop abundance of water for the animals in the dry arid places. So Australia decided to put up fences around the dams to stop the frogs in their tracks and cause them to die because the toads are drawn to water and need it for their survival like every other creature. Yes the Toads are an invasive species and they were brought to Australia in 1938 from South America. This article reminded me of our discussion in class about animal rights. Isn’t it inhumane that Australia is going to put up fences and basically cause the frogs to dehydrate and die? They say they have tried every option to eradicate the toads… I don’t know how much of this is true but ill have to do more research. This reminds me a lot of “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson because the U.S. Government didn’t try using other means of eradication they just used chemical warfare which had great side effects on the people and eco systems. I’m not saying that the toads should be left alone but why not true try and import a natural predator of the frogs or attempt a more safe and destructive eradication then causing them to die from heat exhaustion. I know in “Gagudju Man” he talks a lot about how the environment is basically here to protect and help us with life. Also that we should protect the environment and its creatures for the betterment of ourselves and others lives. I’m not insisting that eradication of a invasive pest is wrong but why not do it a little smarter is all I’m asking.
In an article from The Guardian, Calla Wahlquist describes a new bait designed by the West Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife to eradicate large feral cat populations in hopes of recovering fifty-three threatened species indigenous to Western Australia. The feral cats have been especially difficult to trap and kill due to their exceptionally discriminating palates. The new bait is an irresistible sausage prepared with kangaroo mince, chicken fat, and flavor enhancer accompanied by a generous sodium fluracetate drizzle. This dish is believed to be both delicious as well as deadly. While the chefs and scientists at The West Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife believe this discovery to be a scientific breakthrough, the World League for the Protection of Animals believes the bait should be banned. There is significant concern that cats who eat the tasty bait may experience a strenuous 21 to 44 hours before eventually dying a painful and agonizing death.
Tom Regan employs an animal rights concept that believes all creature have a natural right to life and all others are “obliged to intervene to secure it.” Plumwood argues that this concept gives humans the obligation to intervene in every way possible to ensure the safety of all animals. The article about the Australian feral cats presents a dilemma similar to the wolf vs. sheep example Plumwood presents. Should humans intervene to protect a sheep from an attacking wolf? Regan suggests that because the wolf isn’t a “moral agent” it is unable to knowingly violate the rights of the helpless sheep. Plumwood argues against this point of view by replacing the sheep with an infant. The wolf is still not a “moral agent,” but there is little doubt that intervention to protect the baby is necessary. In the Australia example, the feral cats may have an intrinsic right to flourish even if it means the demise of multiple local creatures. Do feral cats have less “moral agent” and, therefore, less right to life than the bilby, numbat, potoroo, woylie, or brush-tailed bettong? I believe Tom Regan would say “yes” and argue against intervention, while Val Plumwood would argue the opposite.
I found an article that in my opinion ties many of our discussions up as a whole. The article learning to live together from bcc changed my perspective of how we as humans go through our daily life. In one of our readings it discusses the complexity of an ecosystem. I think about how we as humans have control of our daily lives and how we can easily tend to our needs along with desires; many living organism do not have that opportunity. I also realized that our customs and traditional way of living have effected other living things around us, yet we are so consumed and indulged with little issues. Before it is too late we need to get our priorities together. When we alter things there are other living organisms that suffer. Learning how to live together also makes me reflect on the video that was watch in class with the people in Africa. When changing thing we put those people as well as other living organisms in a bind and they have no choice but to go in to defense mode to survive. We have to take responsibility for the consequences that are occurring in so many places.
The article I chose this week is about the cane toad: a menace of a frog who was initially brought to Australia to eradicate the beetle population. Since their arrival, they have multiplied and traveled, and, since they have no natural predators, their numbers are only projected to continue growing. The idea of the article is that people want to eradicate the cane toad population, and it describes a new technique the people have found in order to do so. That is, the people plan on putting special fences around major dams that will allow the frogs in, but won’t allow them out. The dams are built as a source of drinking water for livestock, but are a magnet for the cane toad. Researchers say that in the unfenced dams that were used as controls in their studies, there were ten to one hundred times more cane toads.
The article makes me think about our discussion with professor Taubert- specifically, whether or not it is ethical to kill these frogs in mass because they are ‘menacing’. If we consider the arguments of Peter Singer in relation to this situation, it’s clear that the answer is a resounding “no”. Singer would comment that the well-being of these creatures has to be given the equal amount of consideration that we would give to our dogs, or even our own family members, because a creature’s level of intelligence doesn’t determine how many rights they should be granted.
“Ecology: Protect the Deep Sea” by Edward Barbier details the current process of human exploitation of the oceans. Barbier emphasizes how our extraction of gas and other resources is destroying the biodiversity of the underwater ecosystem, and that we need to utilize “maximum deep-sea biodiversity conservation” in order to protect the natural processes of the ecosystem. Although I can agree that it is an important issue, I question the motivation for returning seas to their original vitality solely because we believe there is usefulness in doing so. Although I agree that biodiversity is necessary, I would like to critique the absence of emotion and land ethic within Barbier’s strategy.
This article relates to Plumwood’s critiques in “Feminism and the Mastery of Nature”. It calls for restorative processes because there is usefulness in maintaining the eco-system, but it fails to mention how people might also consider conservation because of their responsibility to care for nature. As described by Plumwood, the lack of virtue-based values, as seen in this article, is a major flaw in intellectual theory. Two emotions that I feel we could transfer to this situation in order to improve it are sensitivity and empathy. Although Plumwood denounces the Expansionist Account of Deep Ecology which supports empathy—I believe it would give people a deeper understanding of the human ethics behind exploiting and destroying the seas. If we could begin to see ourselves as extensions of nature (to an extent) and as part of a greater system—then maybe we could begin to identify with the life forms we currently exploit and learn to treat them with more respect and sensitivity.
I agree biodiversity conservation is beneficial because it works towards sustaining the environment and the natural order of things; however, I also think it is important to recognize that this theory extends our notions of human superiority. I believe we can further critique this theory on the same basis that Plumwood critiques Tom Regan for his “right holding” perspective. Who gave humans the right to both destroy, and then re-exert control over nature to make it more useful to us? Our failure to extend land ethic (extending moral values to other life forms such as water, plants, and animals) is merely reinforcing the duality between nature and humans and further exacerbating underlying problems of environmental degradation. Perhaps we should adopt the perspective of the “Gagudju Man” Bill Neidjie, and learn to coexist and protect the vitality of the earth, versus exploiting it to the brink of destruction and then worrying about how we can fix the problem in the aftermath.
In the article, “Department of Ecology Wants Feedback About Low Carbon Fuels”, corporately by the Associated Press, the question is brought up about the public opinion about a controversial law that seeks to be enacted that aims to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. overtime. So far, according to the article, Republican lawmakers and business owners are not happy with the proposal and do not believe that it will benefit the American citizens because a low carbon fuel standard would possibly drive up the cost of fuel.
In relation to “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement” by Arne Naess, this article points out how rather than looking out for our environment and sustaining life on earn, human and non-human, the general population and wealthier elites prefer to do only what is sufficient for the well being of the human population. At the moment, there will be opposition to the development of a low-carbon emission fuel but there will be some business geniuses who will who the new fuel as a business venture rather than a burden as the initiative is viewed as today. This has been the continuous pattern with human consumption. Once a business markets the more beneficial alternatives, they will develop a new market and the rest of the population will follow suit because it will offer a financial benefit to business owners as we saw with the development of hybrid automobiles.
I found the article “Sperm whales target fishing boats for an easy meal” by Zoe Gough to be incredibly ironic and the perfect article to report on regarding the videos we watched in class on Monday. The article focuses on trying to understand the sperm whales in order to uncover ways to stop them from following fishing vessels for their dinner.
Gough refers to the whales trailing the fishing boats and eating the prey from the lines as a ‘premeditated crime’, but is it not exactly what the men in the video was watched on Monday did? They stalked the lion, then took the prey that the lion had already caught as their own. The whales are doing the same thing to humans that the humans did to the lions.
I think Leopold in particular would see the irony in this situation. Leopold theorizes that people evolved from their inherent need to control nature and this is a perfect example of how bad that need for control is. The moment an animal who is lower in the food chain starts to out smart us humans in the same way we have out smarted them, an alarm is raised and studies are funded in order to figure out how to put the animals back in their place.
One of our readings for this week, more specifically, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,” by Arne Naess brings up one of the most dangerous problems caused to the environment by humans, the pollution of the Seas. The article I’m going to use to illustrate this this week is “Nearly 3000 Birds Die from Chemical spill in English Channel.” The title doesn’t leave much to the imagination, simply from the title of this article it is obvious both why this is an example of pollution by humans, and why pollution by humans is a huge problem. The reason this pollution is so dangerous is because of how little we actually understand about the Oceans. If this many birds are dying due to just one incident of human pollution the effect on the animals that live in water must be simply immeasurable.
Matthew Gittsman’s “More big businesses push for stricter environment regulations” in The Guardian details the push by big businesses to have government make more regulations for the betterment of the environment. As the article sates, many argue that these big companies are only doing so in order to increase their own profit. But the opposite seems to be true as many of the companies are now looking into the future and how they can contribute. One case in particular is the Sustainable Development goals, a summit in September.
This coincides very much with Arne Naess argument in “The Shallow and Deep, Long Range Ecology Movement.” Here he states that there are two very different ecological movements, the Shallow and the Deep. The moves that big businesses are trying to make correlate more to the Shallow. This is to say that this is “a fight against pollution and resource depletion. With the central objective of the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. “
Based on this week’s reading Naess’ article he defines the “fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. This article made me thing about how important it is that as educated people we should protect the Earth for ourselves as well as the people of developing countries. The article I chose this weekend was, “We’re Destroying the Planet in Ways That Are Even Worse than Global Warming.” The article described humans as “eating away our own life support systems” by degrading land and freshwater systems. It also ties back into the idea that the most dangerous problems caused to the environment by humans, the pollution of the seas.
After our discussion in class on how humans are interacting with nature and the animals that have established their homes. In an article from the BBC titled “Town Rabbits Downsize,” A study from the University of Frankfurt has found that rabbits in Europe’s countryside have been downsizing their burrows. They found that rather than having multiple entrances they have downsized to having as little as possible, especially in cities they have found that the rabbit population has dispersed itself to where pairs of rabbits can be found in individual burrows rather than having large populations in large burrows. The article hints to lack of vegetation and space for the rabbits to populate. Humans have destroyed these animals environment and populations.
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Aldo Leopold’s chapter on “Land Ethics” addresses the notion of humans’ blatant disregard to nature without the connection to economy and business. Ecological evolution simply extends the concept of ethics to land – soil, water, plants, and animals. This ideology changes humans’ conqueror role to one of membership. Farmers typically advocate governments to step up and call for environmental reform, without considering taking individual action. Their land can be environmentally sustainable; however, not without losing profit. Nature is examined through an economic lens to be considered valid. The land pyramid discusses how energy is absorbed via plants and travels up the consumer chain to animals and humans; therefore, the plants and animals keep the energy circuit open, and when humans alter this system, they disrupt unforeseen cycles. An article from BBC discusses the failure to protect farm wildlife. Taxpayers were expected to pay roughly four hundred and ninety euros a year toward farm subsidies; however, a recent study reveals that this plan has failed. It is estimated that over eighty percent of farms will be exempt from green measures. The study argues that the policy would make farms worse off, unless individual states took measures, because some states have transferred their funds away from this wildlife movement. The policy came under much scrutiny for their blanket policy across all of Europe. The article shows Leopold’s argument regarding land ethics. Nature is viewed through the economic lens, with some refusing to lose profit in exchange for sustainability. Large groups, in this case all of Europe, are expected to construct changes, but that typically fails without the individuals being on board with the plan. Leopold discusses the energy circuit, and the article does discuss the policy and how changes need to be made. Some advocate land ethics; however, the process to achieve sustainability needs to be met with disregard to economy.
http://www.school-of-sustainability.com/farm-wildlife-protection-plan-fails-from-bbc/
In “Niger: Rights to Trees and Livelihoods in Niger” discusses how the lack of land use ended up affecting the people more than when they used the land. Under French rule if people owned trees on their property they were penalized, and so the people of Niger just stopped planting them. Farmers learned that it was easier to survive as a family if they focused on agriculture, instead of trees and vegetation. In the 1960’s droughts swept the nation and famine affected a lot of the people.
In the 1980’s things began to change, when NGOs “began promoting simple, low-cost soil and water conservation techniques combined with agroforestry. Around the same time, Niger’s government began to reassess its governance of rural land and natural resources.” With all the help from the government and NGOs, Niger has been able to reclaim five million hectares of land.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201501131594.html
The chapter, “Land Ethics”, written by Aldo Leopold in his explanation of the ignorance of human beings in regards to the direct connection of nature to a nation’s economy. Leopold discusses how we as a people evolved from trying to control and force nature to conform to human society to becoming a part of nature and learning to cohabitate peacefully with the environment. For example forcing the canal through Panama to dictate water ways and to boost trade we have no realized the importance that the environment plays and that we need to make more environmentally conscience efforts. Even though we may lose immediate profits we will make them up in the long run due to the extension of useable resources. Leopold also argued the importance of the food chain and how the lowest plant organisms pay a role in the population of larger beings such as livestock and people. Harming the environment only ends up harming ourselves when the food chain is broken.
In the BBC article, “Tasmania’s giant ash trees may be the world’s tallest”, the author discusses the wide multitude of factors that play a part in the deforestation and production of lumber. The article begins by stating the facts of the variety of record breaking trees and the vast purposes they serve. Whether through the ecosystem they provide or the other various environmental purposes they serve. The article concludes with the identification of the dangers that these environmental wonders suffer from. The largest plight of the trees and all plant life is humans, and if continued the article estimates the widespread damage that could result effecting the entire world. Thus, the author pushes along with environmentalist around the world for environmental reforms to preserve and protect not only the environment but also the economy of countless nations and the health of the people around the world. It is almost impossible to fully realize the potential harm that could arise. And as stated by Leopold, environmentalism is only worried about when it effects other systems like economy and business.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141222-the-worlds-new-tallest-tree
In the article, “Sea Species, 1 in 4, at Risk of Extinction, New Study Finds”, Julie S discusses the rapid population depletion of marine species. The marine biome is threaten by overfishing, pollution, climate change and destruction of coral reefs. Since less marine species have been formally assessed for conservation status compared to land species, marine species remain at a higher risk of extinction.
In the reading, Aldo Leopold notes that land should be appreciated with intrinsic value. All members of the biotic community have intrinsic value. Therefore, if there is a disturbance with the predator and prey cycle, repercussions will occur. Instead of managing land for monetary profit, humans should treat the land with care as nature’s well-being will also impact human health.
Although the reading pertains to land conservation, Leopold’s philosophy can be applied to the article about marine life conservation. For example, the distinction between conservation efforts of land and marine species can be removed by Leopold’s notion of equal value amongst members of the biotic community. Marine species are equally as important as land species and should receive the same amount of conservation efforts.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/65601/20150201/1-in-4-sea-species-at-risk-of-extinction-new-study-finds.htm
The main focus of today’s environmental legislation is that of the shallow ecological movement: as in we are only looking to create legislation that protects humanity from future resource depletion. Yet, this issue is creating a shadow over a much deeper ecological issue that threatens humanity as well as other species that inhabit the Earth along with us.
In an article by Justin Huggler he talks of how the removal of cedar and pine trees in Afghanistan has not only affected their economy, but also how it has affected their ecosystem. He speaks of how the once luscious environment has now become a “rocky dustbowl”. Thus, eliminating the ecosystem that once thrived. Even though the Afghan government has enacted legislation to protect the forests, it has done very little in preventing illegal timber smuggling. The problem starts with the incentive to steal. The black market for timber in these are flourishing, while pushing the ecosystem that once thrived to the brink of nonexistence. This article outlines the fact that the struggle for economic stability will almost always prevail when it comes to defending an ecosystem. It is a sad truth, but it is one that can be avoided if the focus of current legislation is placed on prevention entirely rather than limitation.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=4H5V-4F10-014V-R057&csi=8200&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true
For this weeks discussion post, I found an article that made me think back to the two videos we saw in class comparing the PETA video with the African lion scene. We discussed in class how one of the videos with the African lions scene was a group of men from a tribe clearly hunting for what they needed to survive. In the PETA video it is more of a market for the meat and not the slaughterhouses don’t only just kill what they need.
In this article it talks about the illegal trade of Ivory in China and how this is risking the lives of elephants in Africa. It talks about how the Chinese government is doing everything they can to control this illegal trade but it has not been enough to stop the hunting and killing of elephants. There is more of a problem with the lack of attention from the African government and the Chinese government can only do so much. This reminded me of another way that human beings and being selfish and only thinking about themselves. If this continues African and Chinese officials say there could be an end to the entire elephant species.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201412150571.html
In Naess’ article, he mentions a term I find to be very important to society. He calls it the Shallow Ecology movement, one of two main concepts that ecologists were backing. He defines it as the “fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” He also explains more in detail about it’s counterpart, “Deep ecology” but I feel that it is easier to support the shallow ecology movement, and poses an extremely important goal (particularly since it seems easier to solve, such as implementing social policies against pollution or monitoring renewable resources so that they aren’t over-extracted).
I have actually read a more recent article from thegaurdian about how Bejing’s mayor, Wang Anshun, was quoted saying that the city is unlivable. The article is called “Beijing smog makes city unliveable, says mayor” by Jonathan Kaiman. The article discusses the problem Bejing is currently facing because of the excessive amounts of pollution, and what they have done in 2014 in response to the problems, such as closing companies. Naess’ article made me think of this article because of how shallow ecology is about anti-pollution, which I feel is important problem to solve as soon as possible, and how the thegaurdian article is about a city that is experiencing such horrible situation. Overall, went with this article as an one example why I feel everyone in the world should work to stop pollution.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/beijing-smog-unliveable-mayor-wang-anshun-china
What of the concepts that is explored for today’s readings is focused on the aspect of “shallow ecology movement”. The concept is simple, the reasoning behind fighting pollution and finding alternative forms in regards to using resources all has to do with a very self-centered desire for the survival of our own species. Fundamentally, the only reason we are showing interest in our environment, its because we see the potential for harm to occur onto us. I find it very uneasy when it comes to this idea. If the potential for damage is not apparent, does that mean that people care less about their actions in regards to the environment.
In an article that I found, it discusses the possible contamination of one of the worlds largest freshwater lakes in the world, Lake Baijkal. It discusses how increase construction and mining are contributing to damage to the lake. However, as the article is discussed, they do not have enough research to substantiate the actual amount of damage that is occurring, so people continue about with their processes. This gave me a terrifying realization, too many times we see that in society we are completely reactive people. We face problems as they present themselves. This is what is currently being done with our environmental problems, we face them as they come. However, the problem is, one environmental problem leads to another since they are all connected. Most of the time, once we notice the problem, its already too late to do anything.
http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/21/world-s-largest-freshwater-lake-lake-baikal-under-threat/
According to the Tanzanian government, tuskless elephants have a population that is currently growing disproportionately to that of elephants with tusks. This is due, some believe, to poachers attacking tusked elephants in order to take their ivory. This is related very much to the environment talk we’ve been discussing, involving humans and their role in affecting animals in the natural environment. In this case, we consider the fact that poachers value dead tusked elephants more than live ones. They also seem not to care at all for the tuskless elephant varieties, therefore they live on to reproduce in greater numbers than their tusked relatives. This leads to population differences that otherwise may not have existed sans-poachers.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201501280875.html
In the article “Conservationist vs. chainsaws: the RSPB’s battle to save an Indonesian rainforest,” details the conflict between migrant farmers and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the Harapan Rainforest in Sumatra, Indonesia. The economic growth in Indonesia has increased competition for land. Farmers cut trees and set fires to clear up space for cash crops, such as palm and rice. The actions of the farmers have threatened the survival of the rainforest. Conservationist groups, such as the RSPB, are trying to not only save the rainforest but also the endangered species that benefit from the rainforest existence. The background of the conflict over the Harapan Rainforest reminds me of the third point of the Deep Ecology movement. In “The Shallow and the Deep Ecology Movement,” Arne Naess’s describes the third point of Deep Ecology is the principle of diversity and symbiosis. Naess asserts, “Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms. And the so-called struggle for life, and survival of the fittest, should be interpreted in the sense of ability to coexist and cooperate in complex relationships, rather than ability to kill, exploit and suppress. ‘Live and let live is more powerful ecological principle than “Either you or me’” (96). I think that bother sides of the conflict have a “either you or me” attitude. From the farmers perspective it’s either the survival or the rainforest or their livelihood. In contrast, From the RSPB perspective it’s either farmers destroying the rainforest or protecting the rainforest and endangered species. No of the groups appear to be trying to coexist and cooperate with one another. My personal opinion is mixed. I think that the migrant farmers need should be addressed. It is clear that without the land and the ability to grow crop it would be difficult for them to eat and provide for their families. On the other hand, I believe that the rainforest should be protected. In the forest, 30 Sumatran tigers reside there out of the 300 or so left in the wild and over 250 different bird species call the Harapan Rainforest home. In addition, I think my article and the third principle of the deep ecological movement are addresses the theme of human versus non-human. The world and its being can only thrive once humans are able to co-exist and cooperate with the non-human. I think it is a difficult but necessary task.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/03/conservationists-v-chainsaws-the-rspbs-battle-to-save-an-indonesian-rainforest
The BBC article I found outlines a solution addressing the cane toad problem in Australia. Cane toads, initially introduced to rid the nations crop fields of beetles, have become one of the most influential invasive species brought to light as they have no native predator and release a toxin that kills local animals. The article describes an effort to eradicate the invasive species by building toad-proof fences to keep the species away from water sources and pushing them to the arid regions and their impending doom. The article praises the new research and proposed solution as an environmental and ecological solution that will create great change, implying that it has significance rivaling that of the Deep Ecology Movement, but I think Arne Naess would disagree. Naess stresses that the Deep Ecology Movement focuses on all organisms as knots in the net of life and this is a view that researchers behind this solution, although they may try to convince you differently, do not hold. I think that Naess would characterize this movement as a Shallow Ecology movement, or a fight in which the central objective is the health or affluence of people in developed countries. Although the researchers do point out the harm these toads cause to those animals affected by their toxins, the article always comes back to the harm the toads cause to humans, societal productivity and keeping the toads away from man-made dams. Although this solution is a noble effort towards ecological protection, I believe Naess would agree with me in saying that is is merely an example of the Shallow Ecology Movement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31123945
One point that caught my attention in reading the Arne Naess’ article is that organizations focus on “world pollution” but they fail to focus on specific regions that do not have the technology to help themselves with the the issue of pollution. After careful research I found information that correlates with this issue. One of the websites that ran into was the International Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention website. They keywords I was paying attention too were “global” or “international” to name a few, and that is exactly what I found. I have noticed that major corporations that want to do something about the environment are focusing on the bigger picture rather than trying to tackle the smaller issues within the big issue of pollution.
Sometimes, going for the bigger fish might have you over look important details. In this case, smaller regions are being neglected of care because big corporations are focusing on the prevention of pollution of the world instead of the smaller parts of the world that lack the technology or the funding for the prevention of pollution. In my opinion, helping out these regions first can be the first step to a cleaner earth. To put in perspective of trying to catch a drug dealer, you have to get the little fish and work your way up the chain until you get to the big fish.
In my article “Sperm Whales target fishing boats for an easy meal” the author describes the growing concern of the fisherman to the likes of the sperm whale. Fisherman out in the ocean have been using hook and line techniques to catch fish like black cod up to 5 miles away. Recently they have been reporting “premeditated” attacks on their fish by the sperm whale in the ocean. Researchers have concluded that the sperm whale knows exactly what it is doing and finds it easier to take their fish then to swim down to the bottom to get their own.
This relates to the article by how Naess says that everything is a big net in life and this shows that a nonhuman species is starting to rely on humans for their survival. Much like the video we watched in class where the hunters in Africa steal the kill away from the lions arguing that “they need to share” it can be argued that it should not be a one way street and that the sperm whale is using the same tactics. Instead the fisherman are trying to do anything possible to keep the sperm whales away from them. I think this is a very poor decision and could be argued as very hypocritical of the human species.
In a Canadian province of British Columbia there was a spill of mining waste. The spill has caused for governmental inspections of mining projects. Fortunately, with these investigations, they have found a breach within the Imperial Metal’s Mount Polley mine. There was panel appointed to help construct a zone. This article reminded me of Bill Neidjie’s Gagudju Man. There was section called Land where he talked about how “Our story is in the land’ and a section called Environment where he spoke about how trees grow and grow and when you cut it down it pumps the life away.
I saw a slight comparison between the two articles. In Canada, they are mining in an area and now the area is fighting back and in Gagudju Man, he is talking about how the environment and earth is here to help us and we should treat it with respect.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/30/dam-in-british-columbia-failed-because-of-glacier.html
So I currently read an article about a over abundance of Cane Toads causing some forms of disturbances new dams in Australia. Officials say the toads are poisonous and are causing death and injury to other animals (mostly livestock). The dams were emplaced to provide an nonstop abundance of water for the animals in the dry arid places. So Australia decided to put up fences around the dams to stop the frogs in their tracks and cause them to die because the toads are drawn to water and need it for their survival like every other creature. Yes the Toads are an invasive species and they were brought to Australia in 1938 from South America. This article reminded me of our discussion in class about animal rights. Isn’t it inhumane that Australia is going to put up fences and basically cause the frogs to dehydrate and die? They say they have tried every option to eradicate the toads… I don’t know how much of this is true but ill have to do more research. This reminds me a lot of “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson because the U.S. Government didn’t try using other means of eradication they just used chemical warfare which had great side effects on the people and eco systems. I’m not saying that the toads should be left alone but why not true try and import a natural predator of the frogs or attempt a more safe and destructive eradication then causing them to die from heat exhaustion. I know in “Gagudju Man” he talks a lot about how the environment is basically here to protect and help us with life. Also that we should protect the environment and its creatures for the betterment of ourselves and others lives. I’m not insisting that eradication of a invasive pest is wrong but why not do it a little smarter is all I’m asking.
Here is the link for the article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31123945
In an article from The Guardian, Calla Wahlquist describes a new bait designed by the West Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife to eradicate large feral cat populations in hopes of recovering fifty-three threatened species indigenous to Western Australia. The feral cats have been especially difficult to trap and kill due to their exceptionally discriminating palates. The new bait is an irresistible sausage prepared with kangaroo mince, chicken fat, and flavor enhancer accompanied by a generous sodium fluracetate drizzle. This dish is believed to be both delicious as well as deadly. While the chefs and scientists at The West Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife believe this discovery to be a scientific breakthrough, the World League for the Protection of Animals believes the bait should be banned. There is significant concern that cats who eat the tasty bait may experience a strenuous 21 to 44 hours before eventually dying a painful and agonizing death.
Tom Regan employs an animal rights concept that believes all creature have a natural right to life and all others are “obliged to intervene to secure it.” Plumwood argues that this concept gives humans the obligation to intervene in every way possible to ensure the safety of all animals. The article about the Australian feral cats presents a dilemma similar to the wolf vs. sheep example Plumwood presents. Should humans intervene to protect a sheep from an attacking wolf? Regan suggests that because the wolf isn’t a “moral agent” it is unable to knowingly violate the rights of the helpless sheep. Plumwood argues against this point of view by replacing the sheep with an infant. The wolf is still not a “moral agent,” but there is little doubt that intervention to protect the baby is necessary. In the Australia example, the feral cats may have an intrinsic right to flourish even if it means the demise of multiple local creatures. Do feral cats have less “moral agent” and, therefore, less right to life than the bilby, numbat, potoroo, woylie, or brush-tailed bettong? I believe Tom Regan would say “yes” and argue against intervention, while Val Plumwood would argue the opposite.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/30/new-baits-that-appeal-to-feral-cats-could-aid-recovery-of-threatened-species
I found an article that in my opinion ties many of our discussions up as a whole. The article learning to live together from bcc changed my perspective of how we as humans go through our daily life. In one of our readings it discusses the complexity of an ecosystem. I think about how we as humans have control of our daily lives and how we can easily tend to our needs along with desires; many living organism do not have that opportunity. I also realized that our customs and traditional way of living have effected other living things around us, yet we are so consumed and indulged with little issues. Before it is too late we need to get our priorities together. When we alter things there are other living organisms that suffer. Learning how to live together also makes me reflect on the video that was watch in class with the people in Africa. When changing thing we put those people as well as other living organisms in a bind and they have no choice but to go in to defense mode to survive. We have to take responsibility for the consequences that are occurring in so many places.
The article I chose this week is about the cane toad: a menace of a frog who was initially brought to Australia to eradicate the beetle population. Since their arrival, they have multiplied and traveled, and, since they have no natural predators, their numbers are only projected to continue growing. The idea of the article is that people want to eradicate the cane toad population, and it describes a new technique the people have found in order to do so. That is, the people plan on putting special fences around major dams that will allow the frogs in, but won’t allow them out. The dams are built as a source of drinking water for livestock, but are a magnet for the cane toad. Researchers say that in the unfenced dams that were used as controls in their studies, there were ten to one hundred times more cane toads.
The article makes me think about our discussion with professor Taubert- specifically, whether or not it is ethical to kill these frogs in mass because they are ‘menacing’. If we consider the arguments of Peter Singer in relation to this situation, it’s clear that the answer is a resounding “no”. Singer would comment that the well-being of these creatures has to be given the equal amount of consideration that we would give to our dogs, or even our own family members, because a creature’s level of intelligence doesn’t determine how many rights they should be granted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31123945
“Ecology: Protect the Deep Sea” by Edward Barbier details the current process of human exploitation of the oceans. Barbier emphasizes how our extraction of gas and other resources is destroying the biodiversity of the underwater ecosystem, and that we need to utilize “maximum deep-sea biodiversity conservation” in order to protect the natural processes of the ecosystem. Although I can agree that it is an important issue, I question the motivation for returning seas to their original vitality solely because we believe there is usefulness in doing so. Although I agree that biodiversity is necessary, I would like to critique the absence of emotion and land ethic within Barbier’s strategy.
This article relates to Plumwood’s critiques in “Feminism and the Mastery of Nature”. It calls for restorative processes because there is usefulness in maintaining the eco-system, but it fails to mention how people might also consider conservation because of their responsibility to care for nature. As described by Plumwood, the lack of virtue-based values, as seen in this article, is a major flaw in intellectual theory. Two emotions that I feel we could transfer to this situation in order to improve it are sensitivity and empathy. Although Plumwood denounces the Expansionist Account of Deep Ecology which supports empathy—I believe it would give people a deeper understanding of the human ethics behind exploiting and destroying the seas. If we could begin to see ourselves as extensions of nature (to an extent) and as part of a greater system—then maybe we could begin to identify with the life forms we currently exploit and learn to treat them with more respect and sensitivity.
I agree biodiversity conservation is beneficial because it works towards sustaining the environment and the natural order of things; however, I also think it is important to recognize that this theory extends our notions of human superiority. I believe we can further critique this theory on the same basis that Plumwood critiques Tom Regan for his “right holding” perspective. Who gave humans the right to both destroy, and then re-exert control over nature to make it more useful to us? Our failure to extend land ethic (extending moral values to other life forms such as water, plants, and animals) is merely reinforcing the duality between nature and humans and further exacerbating underlying problems of environmental degradation. Perhaps we should adopt the perspective of the “Gagudju Man” Bill Neidjie, and learn to coexist and protect the vitality of the earth, versus exploiting it to the brink of destruction and then worrying about how we can fix the problem in the aftermath.
Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. .
In the article, “Department of Ecology Wants Feedback About Low Carbon Fuels”, corporately by the Associated Press, the question is brought up about the public opinion about a controversial law that seeks to be enacted that aims to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. overtime. So far, according to the article, Republican lawmakers and business owners are not happy with the proposal and do not believe that it will benefit the American citizens because a low carbon fuel standard would possibly drive up the cost of fuel.
In relation to “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement” by Arne Naess, this article points out how rather than looking out for our environment and sustaining life on earn, human and non-human, the general population and wealthier elites prefer to do only what is sufficient for the well being of the human population. At the moment, there will be opposition to the development of a low-carbon emission fuel but there will be some business geniuses who will who the new fuel as a business venture rather than a burden as the initiative is viewed as today. This has been the continuous pattern with human consumption. Once a business markets the more beneficial alternatives, they will develop a new market and the rest of the population will follow suit because it will offer a financial benefit to business owners as we saw with the development of hybrid automobiles.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/02/04/department-of-ecology-wants-feedback-about-low-carbon-fuels/
I found the article “Sperm whales target fishing boats for an easy meal” by Zoe Gough to be incredibly ironic and the perfect article to report on regarding the videos we watched in class on Monday. The article focuses on trying to understand the sperm whales in order to uncover ways to stop them from following fishing vessels for their dinner.
Gough refers to the whales trailing the fishing boats and eating the prey from the lines as a ‘premeditated crime’, but is it not exactly what the men in the video was watched on Monday did? They stalked the lion, then took the prey that the lion had already caught as their own. The whales are doing the same thing to humans that the humans did to the lions.
I think Leopold in particular would see the irony in this situation. Leopold theorizes that people evolved from their inherent need to control nature and this is a perfect example of how bad that need for control is. The moment an animal who is lower in the food chain starts to out smart us humans in the same way we have out smarted them, an alarm is raised and studies are funded in order to figure out how to put the animals back in their place.
One of our readings for this week, more specifically, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,” by Arne Naess brings up one of the most dangerous problems caused to the environment by humans, the pollution of the Seas. The article I’m going to use to illustrate this this week is “Nearly 3000 Birds Die from Chemical spill in English Channel.” The title doesn’t leave much to the imagination, simply from the title of this article it is obvious both why this is an example of pollution by humans, and why pollution by humans is a huge problem. The reason this pollution is so dangerous is because of how little we actually understand about the Oceans. If this many birds are dying due to just one incident of human pollution the effect on the animals that live in water must be simply immeasurable.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/03/birds-die-chemical-spill
Matthew Gittsman’s “More big businesses push for stricter environment regulations” in The Guardian details the push by big businesses to have government make more regulations for the betterment of the environment. As the article sates, many argue that these big companies are only doing so in order to increase their own profit. But the opposite seems to be true as many of the companies are now looking into the future and how they can contribute. One case in particular is the Sustainable Development goals, a summit in September.
This coincides very much with Arne Naess argument in “The Shallow and Deep, Long Range Ecology Movement.” Here he states that there are two very different ecological movements, the Shallow and the Deep. The moves that big businesses are trying to make correlate more to the Shallow. This is to say that this is “a fight against pollution and resource depletion. With the central objective of the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. “
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/04/business-manifesto-sustainability-guidelines-climate-policy
Based on this week’s reading Naess’ article he defines the “fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. This article made me thing about how important it is that as educated people we should protect the Earth for ourselves as well as the people of developing countries. The article I chose this weekend was, “We’re Destroying the Planet in Ways That Are Even Worse than Global Warming.” The article described humans as “eating away our own life support systems” by degrading land and freshwater systems. It also ties back into the idea that the most dangerous problems caused to the environment by humans, the pollution of the seas.
After our discussion in class on how humans are interacting with nature and the animals that have established their homes. In an article from the BBC titled “Town Rabbits Downsize,” A study from the University of Frankfurt has found that rabbits in Europe’s countryside have been downsizing their burrows. They found that rather than having multiple entrances they have downsized to having as little as possible, especially in cities they have found that the rabbit population has dispersed itself to where pairs of rabbits can be found in individual burrows rather than having large populations in large burrows. The article hints to lack of vegetation and space for the rabbits to populate. Humans have destroyed these animals environment and populations.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150203-town-rabbits-downsize-homes