Friday, August 28, 2020

Questions Mon31-Wed2

You don't have to answer my questions, if you have enough to say without them...  But I would like to know what you think. You can reply in the comments section below, or in your weekly essay. Get all your posts for each week in by Thursday midnight, but don't wait 'til the last minute... we need the benefit of your thoughts prior to class. You can always go back and edit earlier author posts, and add new comments as new thoughts arise.

And, I encourage everyone to suggest Discussion Questions of your own, so we can talk about what you want to talk about too.

W 2 - EE 5-6
LISTEN-Sustained (Wednesday @dawn)
  • Do you think there are inherent "limits to growth" that should constrain cultural and personal behaviors that cannot be sustained indefinitely? What present practices of your own and of our culture do you think unsustainable? 
  • Do you feel any obligation to "become the change you want to see in the world," to set sustainable examples for your peers and your children? Do you (for instance) drive a hybrid or e-vehicle? Do you have solar panels on your roof? Do you diligently recycle, consume "green" products, pay attention to your carbon footprint, etc.?
  • Do you think it's more, less, or as important to live sustainably yourself, as to exert and support activist pressure against fossil fuel companies and their investors, etc.?
  • Does Beckerman have a point, about some forms of "strong sustainability" being "morally repugnant"? 63
  • Are wind turbines like those on p. 68 "ugly," as some of their opponents charge?
  • How do you feel about the Trump administration's withdrawal from international climate agreements and general refusal to join cooperative global efforts to combat climate change?
  • Is it possible to be a good global citizen, when your own nation has withdrawn support from global cooperation with regard to the environment?
  • Is it possible to be a nationalist AND a good environmentalist?
  • Do you like the Ehrlichs' rivet analogy? 73
  • What do you think of the argument that human development often results in an increase in biodiversity, so we don't need to do anything else to promote it? 75
  • Does the Deep Ecology emphasis on a feeling of deep identity with, and relatedness to, all of nature, necessarily undermine "other kinds of motivation" for being environmentally aware? 78
  • Are you an Ecofeminist? (And can an Ecofeminist also be a Deep Ecologist?) 79
  • Is atomistic individualism a big problem in America? 82
  • Are you a Peter Singer fan? Do you support "animal liberation"? What does that mean to you? 83
  • Have you read Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemmaor his shorter essay "An Animal's Place"? (Or any of his other books, like Food Rules or How to Change Your Mind? Comments? Do you eat what you think you should? Do you feel bad about eating animals, processed "food" your grandmother wouldn't have recognized, or anything else?
  • Does Tennessee's Environmental Justice candidate for the U.S. Senate stand a chance against her Trump-endorsed opponent?
  • Are you partial to any of the four forms of Green opposition to growth? 88
  • Are you an active advocate (or passive practitioner) of walking, cycling, public transport, etc.?  
Following up discussion last week...
The Case for Not Being BornThe anti-natalist philosopher David Benatar argues that it would be better if no one had children ever again.

By Joshua Rothman

David Benatar may be the world’s most pessimistic philosopher. An “anti-natalist,” he believes that life is so bad, so painful, that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion. “While good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place,” he writes, in a 2006 book called “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.” In Benatar’s view, reproducing is intrinsically cruel and irresponsible—not just because a horrible fate can befall anyone, but because life itself is “permeated by badness.” In part for this reason, he thinks that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether.

For a work of academic philosophy, “Better Never to Have Been” has found an unusually wide audience. It has 3.9 stars on GoodReads, where one reviewer calls it “required reading for folks who believe that procreation is justified.” A few years ago, Nic Pizzolatto, the screenwriter behind “True Detective,” read the book and made Rust Cohle, Matthew McConaughey’s character, a nihilistic anti-natalist. (“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution,” Cohle says.) When Pizzolatto mentioned the book to the press, Benatar, who sees his own views as more thoughtful and humane than Cohle’s, emerged from an otherwise reclusive life to clarify them in interviews. Now he has published “The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions,” a refinement, expansion, and contextualization of his anti-natalist thinking. The book begins with an epigraph from T. S. Eliot’s “Four Quartets”—“Humankind cannot bear very much reality”—and promises to provide “grim” answers to questions such as “Do our lives have meaning?,” and “Would it be better if we could live forever?”

Benatar was born in South Africa in 1966. He is the head of the philosophy department at the University of Cape Town, where he also directs the university’s Bioethics Centre, which was founded by his father, Solomon Benatar, a global-health expert. (Benatar dedicated “Better Never to Have Been” “to my parents, even though they brought me into existence.”) Beyond these bare facts, little information about him is available online. There are no pictures of Benatar on the Internet; YouTube videos of his lectures consist only of PowerPoint slides. One video, titled “What Does David Benatar Look Like?,” zooms in on a grainy photograph taken from the back of a lecture hall until an arrow labelled “David Benatar” appears, indicating the abstract, pixellated head of a man in a baseball cap.

After finishing “The Human Predicament,” I wrote to Benatar to ask if we could meet. He readily agreed, then, after reading a few of my other pieces, followed up with a note. “I see that you aim to portray the person you interview, in addition to his or her work,” he wrote:
One pertinent fact about me is that I am a very private person who would be mortified to be written about in the kind of detail I’ve seen in the other interviews. I would thus decline to answer questions I would find too personal. (I would be similarly uncomfortable with a photograph of me being used.) I understand entirely if you would rather not proceed with the interview under these circumstances. If, however, you would be happy to conduct an interview that recognized this aspect of me, I would be delighted.
Undoubtedly, Benatar is a private person by nature. But his anonymity also serves a purpose: it prevents readers from psychologizing him and attributing his views to depression, trauma, or some other aspect of his personality. He wants his arguments to be confronted in themselves. “Sometimes people ask, ‘Do you have children?’ ” he told me later. (He speaks calmly and evenly, in a South African accent.) “And I say, ‘I don’t see why that’s relevant. If I do, I’m a hypocrite—but my arguments could still be right.’ ” When he told me that he’s had anti-natalist views since he was “very young,” I asked how young. “A child,” he said, after a pause. He smiled uncomfortably. This was exactly the kind of personal question he preferred not to answer... (continues)
==
M 31 - EE 3-4
LISTEN [But, CORRECTION re: William Blake--Bull Durham, not Field of Dreams]...Moving forward (my Monday dawn post)


  • Do you agree that when people say they don't care about the long-term future of humanity they're effectively declaring that their death obliterates the moral universe? (29)
  • Is Derek Parfit right, do we have future-related duties extending to whoever lives then? (32)
  • Do you personally have a harder time caring about your great-grandchildren (etc.) than your children and grandchildren? If so, do you see that as a deficiency, a failure of imagination, or just human nature?
  • What should we be doing to promote "widespread environmental education" (40) that we're not doing?
  • Is concern for theaters, museums, and libraries an environmental issue? (41)
  • Who should appoint an environmental ombudsman? (42) Should that individual be subject to executive dismissal, removal by plebiscite, or what other form of accountability?
  • Would anyone but a professional philosopher ever deny that "it must sometimes be possible for moral claims to be true or correct"? (44)
  • Do you imagine you'd support strong environmental protections if you were to participate in a Rawls-style deliberation behind a "veil of ignorance"? (46) Would most people?
  • Are Benhabib's criticisms of Rawls's approach as "disembedded and disembodied" fair and on target? (47)
  • How can a democracy increase the likelihood that virtuous people who were "well brought up" will succeed in attaining and effectively discharging positions of leadership? 
  • Is there any reason why a Kantian wouldn't also value the well-being of non-human animals? (52)
  • Are eco-pragmatists the best consequentialists? (55) Are they right to resist theorizing?
  • Add yours

21 comments:

  1. Is concern for theaters, museums, and libraries an environmental issue? (41)

    This is an interesting question. I guess if by environment we mean our surroundings, then yes. I remember going to Notre Dame in Paris a few years ago. It was absolutely beautiful, and I was blown away by how old everything was. The city of Paris, like many others in Europe, is full of preserved history, and I see a lot of value in it. I am grateful to the people who decided, in various countries and cultures, to preserve their history by protecting their art, tools, books, buildings, plays, etc. Not only is it fun for us to have a look back at another time, but it is also advantageous for us because we are able to understand the learnt lessons of those before us before we make the same mistakes.

    Although it isn’t the same, there are some parallels here to our discussion about the planet. I see value in preserving the beauty of the earth’s scenery and creatures we know today for future generations to enjoy. I also see value in protecting the resources that we currently rely on for them to make use of. Why would we care about passing down our legacy through preserving history but give no thought to the setting in which it takes place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your answer. Its very important to preserve the earths beauty and scenery . we should preserve the creatures and everything we know about them for future generations to learn about.

      Delete
  2. Do you imagine you'd support strong environmental protections if you were to participate in a Rawls-style deliberation behind a "veil of ignorance"? (46) Would most people?

    It is hard to tell because I can’t know what I would think once my identity and my experiences were stripped from me, but I would like to say yes for myself and most people. It is my guess that many of the reasons people are against certain environmental protections usually have to do with wanting to avoid specific personal sacrifices. It could be that people don’t want taxes to be raised, or perhaps they’re a CEO of a company that relies on factories to make their products and don’t want stricter regulations. I have never heard someone say they are against protecting the planet because they fundamentally don’t think it matters if living beings can no longer live on it one day. Although, I’m sure that is a view that some people have, I think most people would probably cringe at the idea of that outcome. That is just my guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Discussion Question:

    Assuming that we do have a moral obligation to protect the planet, what does it take to fulfill that obligation? Do you think altering one or two behaviors is enough, as an individual, to do your part? Or, does doing your part require that you examine and alter every behavior in order to have the least damaging impact on the environment?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Comment on DQ: Are eco-pragmatists the best consequentialists? Are they right to resist theorizing?

    I think I may be becoming a pluralist. I have always used the metaphor of putting things in boxes. It needed to be this or that; to go in this box or that box. And I needed to pick the right box to do anything. I don’t believe I ever even heard of pluralism. But now, when I think of moral evaluation of anything, I see no need, and maybe even an impediment, to picking one box. Don’t we have a better chance of making the right choice if we view the issue from different perspectives? If we look in all the boxes. I say, let’s evaluate each issue from a deontological perspective, a consequentialist perspective, a virtue ethics perspective, a feminist perspective, a conflict theory perspective, and other perspective, and make, in the end, an informed and morally justified choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good, another helpful metaphor to complement my "cherry-picking"... look in all the boxes. But sometimes we still have to think out of the box, reject all the usual box-solutions and improvise. That's pragmatic pluralism.

      Delete
  5. DQ: Are you an ecofeminist?

    I am an ecofeminist. I am a feminist in the sense that I believe that those of the female gender have a different moral perspective than males. Male (generally) have justice perspective, and see things against a standard of fairness, justice, and rights. Women (generally) have a care perspective, and their decision-making is relational; it perceives and responds to a perception of need. Because of this, which I appreciate, women make better leaders. They tend to exhibit empathy, compassion, and the ability to show support. Look at the success in dealing with the pandemic of Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand), Angela Merkel (Germany), and Erna Solberg (Norway). This relational basis for decision-making is a better approach to environmental issues. We do have a relationship with nature, and empathy for nature and humanity, as opposed to a testosterone fueled rights-based approach, is greatly needed in dealing with environmental problems. That is why I am an ecofeminist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just remember (as if we could forget, here in TN) that there will always be the Margaret Thatchers and Marsha Blackburns to muddy the generalizations. Maybe we'd be on safer ground to divvy people into Justice Seekers and Nurturers, without mapping those distinctions onto traditional gender designations. In fact, if we're committed to pluralism we'll resist just two broad types.

      That said, I'd sure like to see what the world would look like after being led for a few terms by progressive women.

      Delete
    2. Hello Ed,

      I know we already talked about this in the Zoom call, but I would like to add to your comment. I just talked about this with my roommates a couple days ago, that you can see differences between countries in which woman and man are head of government. I, even if I mind sound biased since I am German, really like Angela Merkel and the way she handles politics in uncertain situations like the pandemic. To me, woman have different approaches to crisis and I also think that their ego might not be in the way that much. (No offence to the men)
      As Dr. Oliver pointed out, there is also a different side we have seen on women, but I believe that had also something to do with the time they were ruling in. When Margaret Thatcher ruled from 1979-1990, it was not that common to have women ruling a country, which means that everything that could have been seen as weakness or being unfit to govern, could have been the end to her career. Of course, she already had a really hard personality, but I do believe that I have a point here. Angela Merkel has been our chancellor since 2005, which is an impressively long period of time. Especially, in the first decade of the century we did a lot of progress around the globe and that is also part of the reason why I think woman are becoming very successful with the way they think and handle their states. A lot of us, especially the younger generations want progress, fight for equal rights, want to be heard. As Ed said, women have a care perspective and they respond to need, which a lot of people hope for right now.

      To conclude, I might not go as far to say that I am a ecofeminist, but I definitely see the differences in leadership and I definitely see the benefits in women in charge.

      Delete
  6. What should we be doing to promote "widespread environmental education" (40) that we're not doing?

    I think the first thing, that is always really important when talking about issues not everyone agrees on/is aware of or just does not care about, is to have the facts straight and to not be afraid to speak up. As we can see on the example of Greta Thunberg, it does not take a whole lot to be noticed and to make an impact. She knows what she is talking about, she has an agenda and she is not afraid to talk to people (especially when they are part of the United Nations).
    To promote environmental education, I think another thing is teamwork and getting connected. Just like every other topic or issue, most people will not do anything because they think one person cannot make an impact. If we focus more on starting communities and spread our knowledge and our facts to other people as a group, we can be a lot more successful.
    Another aspect is the difference between younger and older generations. Gen Z and Millennials use the Internet and Social Media more efficient and more frequently than their parents might. If we want to spread environmental education, it cannot be limited to that medium and we have to find other ways to keep everyone informed. Of course, Communication, Conversation and Dialogue is the really active part, but there also needs to be more coverage in Newspapers and Media Channels. Especially, in the United States the media might sometimes be seen as a political tool and therefore kind of controversial, which is why I started with the aspect of having the facts straight and using these facts as the only form of persuasion in this. In the case of Climate Change these facts could be the air pollution, the melting Arctic Ice, the Sea Level Rise or the statistics about how our annual temperatures have changed in the past century.
    I believe that we are doing a little bit of everything to promote widespread environmental education, but there needs to be a combined, bigger effort with the goal to reach almost everyone. If that happens, there is a way better chance of governments changing policies and even more pressure from Inter-governmental Organizations on specific countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Education is significant in every area of life. It could be said though that education on what we're doing to the environment we live in is at the top of the list. I like the idea of addressing controversial issues head on and trying to come to a more concrete understanding on environmental topics. As you mentioned, social media is prevalent among the mid and young generations. However, it would not be a good source to educate everyone because not everyone, especially the elderly, use it. On another note, I think it wouldn't be the best source of informing the public because we are constantly being told to not believe everything we read on the internet.

      Delete
  7. DQ: Are wind turbines "ugly"?

    I'd argue that wind turbines, while not being inherently aesthetically appealing, are much more pleasing to the eye than alternative sources of energy such as fracking or leaky oil pipelines. The key difference between wind turbines and other forms of energy is the demographic they affect. Whereas people affected by contaminated water from fracking or living under the haze of smog-emitting coal factories (which are undeniably ugly circumstances) are generally on the lower end of the economic spectrum, those making the most ruckus about wind turbines (most of them offshore, where the wind whips the strongest) are rich folks who are upset primarily with their oceanside views being spoiled. This reflects the luxury of some to not have to confront the mechanisms that make modern life run.

    A similar disconnect is reflected throughout all industrialized processes such as factory farming. This leads to a sort of cognitive dissonance that does not bode well for analyzing practices through an ethical lens.. leading to rather selfish people in some cases.

    Bonus reading: This debacle over a single, buried cable along affluent beach has delayed the progress of an offshore wind farm. https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/02/18/in-ritzy-east-hampton-the-biggest-hurdle-to-offshore-wind-is-a-single-cable-1261760
    Study suggests painting one turbine blade black reduces bird death by 70% https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53909825

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally see your point when you are talking about rich folks complaining about their oceanside views.
      For me, the benefits of wind turbines definitely outweigh the aesthetics. When it comes to environment and alternative energy, I think we have to be able to adjust and be able to compromise. Putting wind turbines in the ocean, is the most efficient way to make them as profitable as possible. That is still a way better location, then in someone's backyard.
      I believe that we will never find a particular pretty way to make energy and also not a way that everyone agrees with, but when is that ever the case?
      I think in some cases, we need to put the aesthetics aside and put the environment and how we can help it, on the top of our priority list.

      Delete
    2. I completely agree that the benefits of wind power definitely out weigh the aesthetics. If I remember correctly, wind power also faces opposition (in the Midwest) not just towards the aesthetics of turbines, but to the massive transmission lines required.
      Apparently, because the turbines are located in such remote areas of western Kansas, its hard to get the energy to where it is needed in population centers back east with the present electrical grid, which is something I hadn't ever considered. Offshore turbines might in fact make more sense, if the wealthy can find a way to live with the view.
      Transcript of the story I heard this from
      https://www.npr.org/2016/01/26/464399996/transmitting-wind-power-to-potential-customers-is-a-quixotic-challenge

      Delete
    3. I would have to agree that wind turbines are much more pleasing to the eye than other energy sources! They look much cleaner. But I think my perspective on the environment and the benefit they provide creeps into my opinion though. I think most people would agree a persons attributes can make them more likeable, even past their looks. Similar to that concept, I believe the benefits to a wind turbine can make it more appealing to use as an energy source even though it's not 100% ideal for aesthetics. Additionally, I really think some people find them beautiful to look at. I have seen many default home screen options and things like that be wind turbines in a field with a beautiful sunset.

      Delete
  8. DQ: Are you partial to any of the four forms of Green opposition to growth?

    Yes, I agree with the notion of rejecting the GDP as the primary indicator of the success of a nation. Jason Hickel summarizes the GDP's stunning lack of consideration for the environment in his book "The Divide":
    GDP was intended to be a war-time measure, which is why it is so single-minded — almost even violent. It tallies up all money-based activity, but it doesn’t care whether that activity is useful or destructive. If you cut down a forest and sell the timber, GDP goes up. If you strip a mountain range to mine for coal, GDP goes up. If you extend the working day and push back the retirement age, GDP goes up. But GDP includes no cost accounting. It does not measure the cost of losing the forest as a sinkhole for carbon dioxide, or the loss of the mountain range as a home for endangered species, or the toll that too much work takes on people’s bodies and minds and relationships. And not only does it leave out what is bad, it also leaves out much of what is good — for it does not count useful activities that are not monetized. If you grow your own food, clean your own house or take care of your aging parents, GDP says nothing, for these activities don’t involve transacting money. It only counts if you buy these services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..he also advocates for a process called 'degrowth', which I agree with.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point, GDP is a residual holdover of wartime that's long since outlived its utility. Gross Domestic Happiness may not be the best alternative, but something's got to measure the virtuous and public-spirited acts of civic responsibility and environmental conscientiousness that contribute to a society's real and enduring wealth.

      Delete
  9. DQ:"Is Derek Parfit right, do we have future-related duties extending to whoever lives then?"

    I feel like it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to argue against our having responsibilities and duties to those who come after us, because to do so would look past and deny the impact of the actions of people throughout history who have worked to make the world a better place. When people have fought injustice, such as slavery, women's suffrage, or the current issue of police brutality and racism, they take up that fight not just to benefit those who are currently suffering but to prevent the future suffering of those who come after.
    Even though American society is far from perfect, it is drastically better than it was 100 years ago. For instance, we all were granted a childhood, instead of having to work in mines or dangerous factories, due to the child labor laws (children in other countries aren't as lucky). To say we don't have future duties to those who live after is to say that we didn't need the sacrifices of those who came before us. It feels selfish and short-sighted and takes so much for granted. We have all benefited from the actions of those in the past, and now it is our responsibility to do what we can for those who come after.

    Weekly
    9/3 Weekly Essay (This)

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you think it's more, less, or as important to live sustainably yourself, as to exert and support activist pressure against fossil fuel companies and their investors, etc.? EE 5-6
    Honestly, I feel that it is more important to live sustainably yourself. This is because if everyone were to do that, it would be more beneficial than trying to combat a multibillion-dollar industry. Activist pressures can be impactful, but it takes a lot of money, time, power, and effort to get there. With people having full time careers, personal obligations, etc., it can be difficult to get an activist organization off the ground. Funding for advertisements and research can also be a burden. While it happens every day, and a lot of good comes from them, I think it is more productive to drain the companies of customers than try to fight them on what they’re doing. IF we were to take steps each day to drive less, carpool, etc. fossil fuel companies and their investors would dwindle because their customer base is not as demanding for their product.
    Another example is to use less electricity: turning off lights, not leaving the air conditioner/heater on 24/7 and not running the washer and dryer as much are all little ways that add up to using less natural gas. If 70% of just Americans were to take these small improvements, it would probably make more of an impact on fossil fuel companies and their investors than activist pressure. This in turn would provide a relief on Earth and its environment. This is just my personal view on how living sustainably yourself can be more productive compared to activist organizations.
    This post - 3
    Reply to Carolin - 1
    Reply to Kathryn - 1

    Total: 10

    ReplyDelete