You Can Make a Difference...Here's How

I've been thinking about our conversation last week about what each individual must do to fulfill his or her moral obligation to save the planet. While I agree that one person can't slow the effects of climate change completely on their own, I do think that there is a lot one person can do to make a difference. Much of this comes from voting for politicians who are in favor of environment-friendly legislation. But, our influence on the government goes beyond simply voting. 

Our congressional leaders are supposed to represent us, their constituents. But too often, senators and representatives seem to have other interests in mind as they vote for or against certain bills. This isn't okay. So, we have to hold them accountable. One way to do this is by calling and emailing our leaders in favor of specific legislation or issues we want them to support. I know this may sound like wishful thinking, but it really does work. Every week, congressional staffers tally up the number of calls/emails they receive per issue/bill. This tallied up sheet is shown to the congressional leader in order to see what their constituents care about. The purpose of this is to help guide how the leader will vote in the future. Since so few people actually call their leaders every week, you have a real shot at shifting those tallies around in your favor. Fortunately, it's really easy to do. It takes less than 30 seconds to call and all you have to say is that you are a constituent in (your city) and you want Sen. Alexander (for example) to support (insert legislation aimed at fighting climate change). That's it. 

You can also set up a meeting with a congressional leader or one of their staffers. I did this not too long ago about a separate issue (we had to do it over the phone instead of in-person due to COVID-19). It is really empowering as a citizen to have 10-15 minutes to make a case for something you believe in. Setting up a meeting shows that you really care about the issue you're asking them to support. Doing so also gives you the opportunity to tailor your argument to the person you are speaking with. It can help to demonstrate how a bill may positively impact Tennessee, or provide a list of local businesses that are in favor of protecting the environment too.

You can browse current legislation here to see what your leaders are sponsoring/cosponsoring already.

It can definitely feel like the system we have is completely broken, but I think that it is important to not give up just yet. Doing all of this may seem like harassment, but listening to and meeting with constituents is a major part of our congressional leaders' jobs. Let's not allow them to forget it. 

---

Weekly Summary:

Sep 7: Wrote This Blog!

Sep 9: Comment on " Is nature sacred?"

Sep 10: Comment on "An Economic Solution to Hand-wringing and Disingenuous Politicians"

Grand Total: 15 points

Week Three Essay – Spinoza’s God, the Milesians, and the Connection of All Things

In Dr. Oliver’s Atheism and Philosophy class I made a video presentation on Spinoza’s God. The name comes from Albert Einstein, who, when asked if he believed in God, replied “I believe in Spinoza’s God.” For the record, so do I. The God of Spinoza is nature, alone. There is no supernatural. There is no creator. The universe is but one substance, which is infinite and indivisible. All that we see in the physical world is simply a modification of that one substance, and mode of expression of it. We and the trees and the birds and the bees and the streams and the rocks are all a part of this One. We are a part of nature, of God, not apart from it, and share a connection with all things.  (If you’d like to see my presentation, you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npSgQPq5Nfw)

“God” is an ambiguous term, which we by necessity define for ourselves. We (many of us) personalize our god, as a way of relating to Him or Her. We think of Him or Her as wanting something for us, of wanting us to behave in a certain way. So, as a believer in Spinoza’s God, I ask, what does She want of me? What She wants is for me to live in harmony with nature. That’s how to live a good life, and find blessedness, the peace that passes all understanding, shalom, Islam, nirvana. She wants me to use my intellect to understand the world; to accept the causal mechanisms of nature, and act in accordance with them. Reason, rational thought, will provide me with clear and distinct answers to my questions about life.

Acting in accordance with nature can be restated as God’s purpose for mankind. We all see our god differently, but all gods require harmony with nature for the peace they promise. Living in harmony with nature is what the gods demand.

In Ancient Philosophy class, we are studying the Milesians, the first philosophers; Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. The conception of an Absolute principle of unity in the universe, which is deeper than any of the special forms of existence, was the earliest form of Greek philosophy. It began with the search for what was abiding in the flux of things. What is the source, the first principle, of all things? What is the permanent reality which underlies the diversity and change of the visible world around us? The Milesians had different answers, but they all shared the belief that all things, men and birds and trees and rocks, have a common element. One way to make sense of the world is to see it as having a common underlying reality – a connection between all things.

Reading chapter seven, I can’t help but feel that appreciating nature, and protecting and preserving it, requires, if not a religious conception, a mythological one. I love the quote from Black Elk (p. 105). “We should understand well that all things are the work of the Great Spirit. We should know that He is within all things: the trees, the grasses, the rivers, the mountains, ….” Thales, based on Greek mythology, supposedly said that "all things are full of gods." Myths convey ultimate truths.

Weekly Participation Summary

09/07 This weekly essay post

09/07 Comment on Levi’s essay on stewardship

09/08 Comment on Heather’s Post – You Can Make a Difference

09/09 Comment on Kathryn’s Post “An Economic Solution …”

09/10 Comment on How Wm James Can Save Your Life

Week Three Point Total – 5

Three Week Cumulative Point Total - 15 

Tweet by Phil Oliver on Twitter

	Phil Oliver ⁦‪@OSOPHER‬⁩ Purple Martins' majesty. "...this rescue operation mimics the long relationship between human beings and purple martins themselves: Even as we are responsible for the birds' troubles, we are also responsible for their survival." ⁦‪@MargaretRenkl‬⁩ nytimes.com/2020/09/07/opi…   9/7/20, 7:38 AM

Download the Twitter app

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

To Steward, or Not to Steward...

I was inspired by Dr. Oliver's DQ: "Is there a better concept or term than 'stewardship,' that still conveys the fundamental point of humans' responsibility for their actions that impinge upon or impair the Earth's capacity to sustain itself as a healthy and habitable planet for our form of life and others?"  I started to write a comment response, but I quickly realized that I apparently had a lot to say on the topic, hence, this essay.

 
White Mountain National Park, NH

I come from Christian upbringing and this concept of god-given stewardship is very much entrenched in those circles.  Typically, proponents of the stewardship point to Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:4-20 which states that god specifically made humans to rule the over the natural kingdom.  The etymological origin of the term "stewardship" comes from a civil office in medieval Europe.  Essentially a king or lord would entrust the day-to-day affairs of their land to a steward (for fans of Game of Thrones, the rank of steward is the rough equivalent to the Hand of the King).  The steward was responsible for ruling the lands.  If the region fell on hard times or was mismanaged, the steward would be held responsible to his liege lord.  From this context, it is not hard to see how religious tones would be added to the concept of "stewardship."  E.g. a liege lord (god) entrusted his realm (nature) to an the care of an individual (humanity). 

Stewardship broadly defined means "the conducting, supervising, or managing of something, especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care" (Merriam Webster).  Despite the association with religion, I don't know if there is a better concept for describing our relationship with mother nature.  We have a symbiotic relationship with nature, and we must take care of the world around us.

I guess one could characterize the concept of stewardship as anthropocentric (we should take good care of the earth otherwise climate change will screw us over).  However, if I may offer an example: I have a cat. I feed her and change the litter.  Not because she will chauffeur me around, nor will she make life easier--if anything, her presence is more irritating than useful! She sheds everywhere, is always underfoot, and enjoys taking a nap on my keyboard while I am trying to work on homework.  Yet, I still feed her and change the litter.  Why? Because she has been entrusted to my care.  God did not order me to change the litter, I do it because I am in a position where her well-being depends upon my actions.

There is an underlying tone of obligation embedded within the word "stewardship."  Additionally, there is a sense a altruism as well.  Refer back to the roots of "stewardship."  If a steward managed the realm well, he was honored--but the weregeld still went to the lord.  It didn't matter how much crops the steward gathered or the amount of taxes he collected, he did not profit personally from his actions.  He is obligated to care for his responsibilities because the nature of his position, not because he had a vested interest.

Nature is remarkably resilient, it can take care of itself relatively well.  However, human activity is efficient at being highly destructive.  For example, it is estimated in 2019 that a soccer field sized plot of forest was destroyed every second.*  Resilient as nature is, it cannot compete with that.  We have a unique position.  We have the ability to change our behavior and eliminate/minimize destructive behavior.  Maybe individuals don't personally have a vested interest in a healthy environment, but the well-being of nature still depends upon their actions.  

In conclusion, I feel as though stewardship is honestly one the best terms we can use to describe our relationship to nature.  Granted, it has a mystical quality/justification baked into it, but it encapsulates the idea that humanity is obligated to care for the environment for altruistic reason. 

*https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/agriculture-drove-recent-record-breaking-tree-cover-loss

Weekly activity:

-Wrote essay

-Commented on Ed's post about late-stage capitalism

-Commented on Tyler Brook's post about marine preservation

-Commented on Tanner Provencher's post about religion and environmental passivity

Questions Sep 9

EE 7-8. Zooming at 2:30 pm (Provost and Dean constitute a majority of two.)

• Is there a better concept or term than "stewardship," that still conveys the fundamental point of humans' responsibility for their actions that impinge upon or impair the Earth's capacity to sustain itself as a healthy and habitable planet for our form of life and others?
• Is stewardship "liable to ignore social and international justice"? (99) Why?
• Have western forms of religion in fact fostered anthropocentrism, a domineering approach to the rest of nature (the "dominion")? Does Matthew 6: 26-9 and Romans 8: 21-2 really get Christianity off the hook? 93
• Is western religion earth-centric? ##
• Do Zen Buddhism and St. Francis offer suitable remedies to human exploitation and degradation of nature?
• Is nature God's creation, or is God nature's? 93
• Is "completing the creator's work" (94) a plausible conception of human responsibility, if in fact the creator is the Judeo-Christian omni-being possessing all power, knowledge, wisdom, and goodness? (Or is it akin to how my Dad the Vet let me assist him in surgery, as a child: "You can hold the tail.")
• Is nature sacred? (94) **
• What does it mean to say that philosophy "has outlived its social origins"?  96
• Does pantheism "add value" to nature? 
• Is ubuntu the right eco-philosophy for our time? 104
• Are you disappointed to have Chief Seattle debunked? 
• Is Black Elks "harmony" still available to us? 105
• $$ What do you think of E.O. Wilson's appeal to fundamentalists? Is religion in America now hopelessly politicized?
• Why are so few of our leaders willing to make the "strong ethical case for vigorous and concerted action to mitigate climate change"? 107
• Do you think the average American understands that we have already spent more than our share of "humanity's carbon budget"? 111
• Are you struck, as I am, by the extraordinary nature of Robin Attfield's appeal to American readers?: "American readers are encouraged to use their voices (and if necessary their votes)..." 114
• Are you confident that alternate energy generation of renewable energy will scale up quickly enough to make a difference? Or that appropriate fuel efficiency standards on automobiles will be imposed in the years just ahad? Do you expect to drive an e-vehicle soon?
• Do you think Deep Ecologists,ecofeminists, Greens et al will unite effectively in pursuit of environmental and social justice>

• 10## See Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (based on his 1985 Gifford Lectures in Scotland, echoing William James's Gifford Lectures of the early 20th century which became The Varieties of Religious Experience. Sagan: “we have a theology that is Earth-centered and involves a tiny piece of space, and when we step back, when we attain a broader cosmic perspective, some of it seems very small in scale. And in fact a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe.”

** I recommend The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough... and, a propos nature and the sacred, I also recommend Cousin Mary's poem:

“You do not have to be good. You do not have to walk on your kneesfor a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.You only have to let the soft animal of your bodylove what it loves. Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.Meanwhile the world goes on.Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rainare moving across the landscapes,over the prairies and the deep trees,the mountains and the rivers.Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,are heading home again.Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,the world offers itself to your imagination,calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting—over and over announcing your placein the family of things. -Mary Oliver

==
 $$  The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth
by Edward O. Wilson

We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend. First of all, we grew up in the same faith. Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that if we met and spoke privately of our deepest beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill. I write to you now for your counsel and help. Let us see if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in order to deal with the real world we share. I suggest that we set aside our differences in order to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature is a universal value. It doesn't rise from nor does it promote any religious or ideological dogma. Rather, it serves without discrimination the interests of all humanity.

Pastor, we need your help. The Creation—living Nature—is in deep trouble.

• “Human nature is deeper and broader than the artificial contrivance of any existing culture.”
• “We need freedom to roam across land owned by no one but protected by all, whose unchanging horizon is the same that bounded the world of our millennial ancestors.”
• “There is no solution available, I assure you, to save Earth's biodiversity other than the preservation of natural environments in reserves large enough to maintain wild populations sustainably. Only Nature can serve as the planetary ark.”
• “Science has become the most democratic of all human endeavors. It is neither religion nor ideology. It makes no claims beyond what can be sensed in the real world. It generates knowledge in the most productive and unifying manner contrived in history, and it serves humanity without obeisance to any particular tribal deity.”

E.O Wilson discusses The Future of Life...

New Zoom start-time...

Like most of you, I also like the 3 pm start. But...

since most of you also indicate your flexibility, and since at least one of us does have a conflict, and since the Provost and Dean have issued complaints about time-shifted classes not being strictly synchronous with the original schedule...

starting Wednesday we'll begin at 2:30 (Zoom wouldn't let me enter 2:20) and end (officially) by 3:45.

Thanks,

jpo

Happy Labor Day!

Environmental Ethics: Questions Mon31-Wed2

DQ-Are you an active advocate (or passive practitioner) of walking, cycling, public transport, etc.? 





I am a very active advocate of walking and cycling. I always try to at least ride my bike in a park or in my neighborhood once a week.  I believe that walking and cycling activity can lower motor vehicle transportation pollution .If we all as a society would learn to ride bikes down the street in order to get something to eat or from the store or just riding down the street instead of getting into a motor vehicle, we would reduce environmental pollution .

Environmental Ethics: Questions Mon31-Wed2

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



I  believe we need to implement environmental education as early as pre school.  we should. incorporate it  in our lesson plans and explain how the environments works and how it operates. As Robin Attfield stated "Appreciation and love of nature are much more likely to be fostered through frequent outdoor visits to parks and wild habitats than through lessons restricted in classrooms." I completely agree .  students should learn about the environment outside in the environment. rt it reading about the environment is important but you would have a better appreciation and Understanding of it just by being outside amongst it all.

Environmental Ethics: Questions Mon31-Wed2

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



I  believe we need to implement environmental education as early as pre school.  we should. incorporate it  in our lesson plans and explain how the environments works and how it operates. As Robin Attfield stated "Appreciation and love of nature are much more likely to be fostered through frequent outdoor visits to parks and wild habitats than through lessons restricted in classrooms." I completely agree .  students should learn about the environment outside in the environment. rt it reading about the environment is important but you would have a better appreciation and Understanding of it just by being outside amongst it all.

Environmental Ethics: Questions Mon31-Wed2

Is concern for theaters, museums, and libraries an environmental issue? 41





I would definitely say that theaters , museums and libraries would play a preservation role on future generations to come.  History needs to be preserved and taken care of in order for  History to be preserved.   The Environment can control the  preservation Books  and artifacts by slowing down the deterioration speed. We need to give a better understanding and appreciation of the value of these institutions so that they can continue to give us what we need.

Acknowledging the Crisis

 When discussing environmental education, I do agree with Attfield that it is for future generations to decide whether or not they want to protect the environment and practice more sustainable processes, but that should not stop us from educating current and future generations. When I look back on what I learned in school when talking about the environment, there is not much that comes to mind. Yes we acknowledged Earth Day and one year my school sent me home with a little tree to plant, but other than that we did not actually talk about the current position our environment is in. We need to start introducing this topic in schools so that future generations can begin forming their opinions on this topic, but that starts with the government taking action. The government has such a big impact on our education system, so if even our own president ignores the facts about what is really happening, then we are screwed.

As soon as Trump was placed in the office, he signed Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” From the beginning he has made known his view on environmental regulations, so it was no surprise when he withdrew us from the Paris Agreement and then continued to have the audacity to propose a 26% budget cut of the EPA which would in return cut around 50 different programs within the EPA. Yes, I am thankful that legislature has the final say, but this administration is incredibly greedy so of course we are going to see the impact of that (i.e. exploitation.) Trumps overall obsession with “winning” causes him to take unnecessary measures. Our withdrawal from the international climate agreements is just going to continue to divide us.

Lastly, I do believe that it is possible to be a good global citizen, even if our own nation stays playing games. However,I also believe that we must be aware of how much of an impact our government does have on this topic. Yes there are things we can all do to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly, but until we get out from under this capitalist society of ours, there is kind of a cap on things we can do. The environmental crisis is a global crisis and being a good global citizen means being aware of others and acknowledging that you, for the most part, have an impact on what happens to this tiny blue dot of ours.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/03/2017-02451/reducing-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/482352-trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-epa-environmental-programs 

Weekly Participation 8/31-9/4: 

• Posted this essay

• Commented on Patrick’s post

• Commented on Tanner’s post

Preservation

 

When talking about Sustainability usually think of green technologies such recycling, wind power, or solar panels because most people only think about Sustainability in terms of the environment.  Which are good goals to help future generations, unfortunately not a lot is said about helping the current and near future generations like the poverty or helping end world hunger.  According to our book the UN tried to tackle this issue in 2015 which took many different forms, one of which was trying to tackle poverty by addressing what they thought of as gender inequality.  I personally think that by ending the Oligarchies that we have in certain industries that we could decrease poverty in the United States.  For instance, if the United States ended the Oligarchy in the Entertainment industry not only would they create new jobs which would increase wealth, but it would also force companies to lower in order to stay competitive.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

Another concern that I have is ecological preservation, which I think our national parks services are doing a good job at, but unfortunately not a lot is said about Marine conservation.  This is quickly evident when you think about the BP oil spill in 2010 and how even now marine life is still being harmed 10 years later according to National Geographic.  Also, even I was not enthused when President Trump rolled back the safety regulations that Obama put in place to make sure another Deepwater Horizon happens again.  Another thing is how the news media reports it or certain history books do not mention things like the Ixtoc oil spill that happens in the 80’s that severely damaged the ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico just like Deepwater Horizon.

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/pollution/oil-spills/ixtoc-i-oil-well/

Why Individual Efforts Should Not Be Our Focus

     Of course it is difficult to know that the country you live in has taken steps in the active deterioration of our planet. With Trump’s withdrawal from international climate agreements, the people of this nation are left feeling the responsibility on their individual shoulders. But can we ourselves be good global citizens? We definitely can try. It becomes complicated, though, when the structure of our society is rooted in practices that hold interest in other areas. I am under the belief that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. This notion is often used in explaining labor exploitation,but  it absolutely applies to the environment too. When you throw away trash into the recycling bin in a cafeteria, it’s not unlikely that the trash will be disposed of in a landfill still. When buying produce at a supermarket, unnecessary plastic bags and other packaging leads to more waste. When tap water across the country is unsafe to drink, we turn to mass produced water bottles. There is no winning.

Now, I am by no means against practices that are more eco friendly. Shopping sustainably, recycling, etc. are all practices that can and will help the world and the inhabitants of it. The help is minute, unfortunately. Since 1988, the vast majority, 70% to be specific, of pollutants and CO2 emissions have been produced by 100 companies alone. So, if every individual committed to living entirely eco friendly lives, it would still not be enough to even begin the slowing of climate change. I believe that we can all be “good global citizens” technically, but that conversation is almost useless due to the amount of control these companies have over us as a whole. The only way to actually make direct effect on what we have caused to this world, is to bite down where it starts. We will not change the world by recycling. This can only be solved through the abolition of the capitalist state. Until the structure of our society has its interests aligned with the environment rather than profits, there is no saving this planet and those on it.

More Capitalism

 Tweet yesterday from Robert Reich

America's richest 1 percent now own half the value of the U.S. stock market. The richest 10 percent own 92 percent.

So when Trump says the stock market is the economy, know who he's really talking about. 

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 2, 2020

It is worth considering that when we talk about the stock market, it is not just the fat cats that have an interest in its performance. 32% of Americans have a 401(k), including, as of 2018, 58 million American workers. Generally 401(k)s and social security are the only sources of worker’s retirement income. In recent years, there has been a shift from traditional pension plans for workers, which provide a defined benefit for retirees, to defined contribution plans, where the employer makes a contribution to an employee’s 401(k). I oversaw such a shift for the City of Shelbyville. Employee’s retirement plan had been 2% of their average compensation; it was changed to a 7% employer contribution to their 401(k). Basically, the shift limits the employer’s retirement funding requirement to a fixed amount, and tells the employees to hope for the best - you're on your own. Thus, in addition to the top 1%, all these workers have an interest in an increasing stock market value.

I highly recommend Robert Reich’s movie ‘Inequality For All’ to everyone. You can see a crappy copied version on YouTube (look for “full movie”), or get the DVD from Netflix. On a personal note, in the early 80s I worked at the Federal Trade Commission when Bob did; not with him, but I knew him through elevator conversations.

 

 

Long-termism, Anti-natalism, Religion Oh My

 

Long-termism is the notion that we are not only responsible to help the current generation, but we are also responsible to make sure that those positive impacts last long into the future. Upon reading the question, “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?”  I was interested to understand the intentionality of the people saying they “don’t care about a long term future.” I agree with the statement above for, what I believe to be, obvious reasons: If I have kids I want them to have better lives, living conditions, government, etc. However, I did not always think this way.  From class discussions and life experiences I have brainstormed over two thoughts. 1. Antinatalism effectively concurs with long-termism and 2.Religion directly contradicts long-termism.  

Anti-natalism has been a somewhat often talked about subject during class times and I believe it effectively concurs with long-termism. The view in anti-natalism is that life is inherently bad and immoral. It states that more bad than good comes from it, therefore, it would be better to remain in a state of neutrality and unknowingness by never being born. An antinatalist’s true goal is to rid the world from unethical, immoral, and inherently bad lives. Which would, in turn, create a better world without humans messing everything up.  Is this not a long-termist idea?  The world would undoubtedly be better suited for a healthy life without the human parasite destroying it from the inside. Do you believe that life and people are inherently bad?  If so, do you also agree that not having children would effectively promise a better life for them because of the fact that no bad could happen to them?

I mentioned above I did not always agree with the question posed by Dr. Oliver. I was raised in a very conservative Church of Christ in Smyrna, TN.  When people in this community were faced with questions like this one they were content believing that nothing they do could have a real effect on human kind. Instead, God has a plan and this plan will occur whether you care about the long term of humanity or not. Karl Marx refers to religion as “the opium of the people”. It keeps the proletariat happy when there is really nothing to be happy about in life to make sure they do not rise up and create a better life for themselves. Do you believe that religion is effectively keeping communities happy and ignorant during a human caused environmental crisis?

"Pyramid of Capitalist System", issued by Nedeljkovich, Brashick and Kuharich, Cleveland: The International Publishing Co., 1911.

For the history majors in this class....I believe that this critique of capitalism published in 1911 effectively shows the place of religion in a capitalist economy. 

Your Reasons for Fighting Climate Change Don't Have to Be Big

            Growing up in northern Virginia, fall was breathtakingly beautiful. The leaves in my area changed to the most vibrant reds, oranges, and yellows. Being an October baby and a lover of the holidays, fall is by far my favorite season. Between halloween, pumpkin pie, and the comfortable cool weather, it is the perfect time of year in my eyes. 

You can imagine my dismay last year when we still had 90 degree weather during the first week of October. I was deeply disturbed, as I was ready to begin wearing boots, scarves, and cardigans. I remember thinking to myself, “I hope this is just a fluke.” As we gear up for the upcoming fall season, I am crossing my fingers for it to begin cooling down sooner rather than later. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one worried about our particularly warm start to fall 2019. "Is Climate Change Ruining Fall" is an article written last September by the Harvard Magazine. Below is a quotation from Dr. Elizabeth Wolkovich, a professor of Forest & Conservation Sciences at the University of British Columbia, that has me a bit worried about the future of fall leaves: 

“Certainly we know fall is getting later with climate change,” Wolkovich explains. During periods when “it’s super hot and you’re not getting cold nighttime temperatures, we expect that that makes the chlorophyll not break down as well. And if the chlorophyll is not breaking down, you’re not going to see the other amazing colors...and then the horror is that if the leaves are still brown or green, and you start to have wind or rain, you’ll lose the leaves before you even have fall color, or you just won’t have good color because the chlorophyll will never fully break down.”

To me, fall is just not fall without the leaves changing color. The colorful leaves are both gorgeous and nostalgic to me. Now, I do believe in fighting climate change for other reasons too. I want future generations of humans and animals to inherit a habitable planet. That's a big deal! But I think that it is important to not only talk about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change, but also the effects it may have on the “little” things that make our planet feel like home. Doing so may be a good way to help some people feel more personally connected to these issues, and who knows, maybe more people will join the fight.

WEEKLY SCORECARD: 

Aug 31—Comment on “Questions Mon31-Wed2”

Aug 31—Comment on “Questions Mon31-Wed2”

Aug 31—Posted a Discussion Question on “Questions Mon31-Wed2”

Sep 2  —Posted this essay!

Moral Universe

 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?

        I have always wondered how so many people can lack empathy and understanding when it comes to social and  moral issues, but then i stumbled upon solipsism. Before i even knew what solipsism was i had observed that many people lack the skills to see past themselves and put themselves in another's perspective. Essentially what they can not see does not exist to them. I don't mean this in a literal sense, of course they know other people exist and they are aware of what goes on in the world to an extent. The problem arises when you challenge them to put themselves in the shoes of someone less fortunate than themselves. Maybe it is a lack of imagination that does not allow them to see the suffering of others. I think it is more likely that they are too greedy and selfish to imagine anyone but themselves. I do agree that when people say they don't care about our species future that they are essentially ending all moral discussion with their passing. It is no surprise to me that so many people hold this view, we are discussing the lives of future human beings when there are people in our country who don't even see members of their own species as human or deserving of life. Of course these types of people would not care about future generations, they hardly care about their own neighbors. So when i say people only believe in what is right in front of them, what i am really saying is human beings only care about what is affecting them directly and what is in their immediate sphere of influence. How can racism exist if it doesn't affect me? How can people be starving when I have had access to food my whole life? These are the types of questions I imagine many Americans ask themselves subconsciously, which leads me to the question. Why should I care about climate change when I am not the one who is going to suffer the consequences? This sort of privileged and selfish mindset is what has gotten us into the almost irreversible catastrophe we are facing today. People never had to face the consequences of their actions so they now believe there are none. We know this is not the case and there will be many who suffer needlessly because of the greed displayed by so many people across the world who refuse to look beyond themselves. 

Up@dawn

The video version of my Up@dawn (jposopher.blogspot.com) blog posts this week, so far...

Tweet from 350 dot org (@350)

350 dot org (@350) tweeted at 8:00 PM on Tue, Sep 01, 2020: On Aug 16, Death Valley saw possibly the hottest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth. The next 10 days were some of the most extreme our planet has seen. The climate system is fueled by heat, and global warming has been cranking up the dial. https://t.co/6uihvGdkDA (https://twitter.com/350/status/1300961647549468672?s=02) Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download?s=13

"The Last Songs of Gaia"

LISTEN On BBC Radio 4:

In the last year, the scale of the climate and wildlife crises has been laid bare by scientists around the globe. A frightening number of species are falling silent as a result. How are the world’s musicians, sound artists and poets responding?

The series concludes with the biggest leap - into the scarcely imaginable soundworld of pondweed, ants and the interior of tree trunks. If we could get inside these soundscapes, how might our perspective on the world change?

Verity Sharp listens to how the sounds of ants on the Amazon forest floor are transformed into music for drum ensemble, and considers whether we could ever grow to love the sound of pondweed photosynthesising. The symbolism of trees makes them easier to connect with and we hear tales of spirits and persecution in southern Mexico, as well as folk music inspired by threatened wildflowers much closer to home.

Thank You Betty Mae

I said in my introduction that one of the best parts of going back to college is engaging in discussions with my young classmates. I was challenged by one young lady last semester on whether I, as a Boomer, learned anything from young people. (She introduced me to Lizzo.) Well, I do, and here is a case in point. Betty Mae has introduced me to the term (and movement) “late stage capitalism.” Now, I should know this. I have been a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement since 2011. I am disturbed by all of the excesses of our culture today, such as those given as examples of the absurdities of late stage capitalism. But I know more today as a result of a Google search of the term. And I have found a great source for memes on Reddit, r/LateStageCapitalism. So, thank you Betty Mae for this introduction, and for making a connection between late stage capitalism and environmental ethics, and thank you (and others) for your enthusiasm for a better world.

“Late capitalism” (or Spätkapitalismus for Carolin), in its current usage, is a catchall phrase for the indignities and absurdities of our contemporary economy, with its yawning inequality and super-powered corporations and shrinking middle class. (From “Why the Phrase ‘Late Capitalism’ is Suddenly Everywhere”,  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-capitalism/524943/ ). Capitalism, by its very nature, is exploitive. Nobody showed that better than Karl Marx. Socialism was born in worker demands for a more fair arrangement with capitalist industrialists. That battle continues. What is so appalling is the vast disparity in income and wealth between the top 1% and the remaining 99%, and the frivolous ways that wealth is used. Income inequality is killing the American Dream. As of the end of June, since the start of the pandemic, collective U.S. billionaire wealth surged by more than $584 billion, while $6.5 trillion in household wealth disappeared. Jeff Bezos’s wealth went from $113 billion to $157 billion, and Betty Mae and her friends are figuring out a way to get free food to people in need. The rich get richer, meanwhile some Walmart workers's income is so low they get assistance from taxpayer funded programs. Consider how this American capitalism works: The Walton family net worth is around $196 billion. The lower the average wage for Walmart workers, the higher the profits for Walmart, the higher the stock price goes, and the richer the Waltons become. But we taxpayers have to subsidize the low wages. How is that fair? I mean, after your first billion, do you really need more?

John Rawls held that while social and economic inequalities can be just, they must be available to all and such inequalities must be to the advantage of everyone. Economic inequalities are only justified with the least advantaged member of society in nonetheless better off than he/she would be under alternative arrangements. Only if a rising tide carries all boats upward can economic inequalities be allowed for in a just society.  That ain’t the case here today. Betty Mae is right, things need to change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zZPqar34w&feature=emb_logo

 

 Week Two participation:

This post

Comment on DQ are you an ecofeminist? 09/01

Comment on DQ are eco-pragmatists the best consequentialists? 09/01

 

 

 

John Post

John gave me my first footnote citation, in his book "Faces of Existence"... He was a kind man, and a humane philosopher. https://t.co/uOPyLWJzU6

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) August 31, 2020

"Hawk. Lizard. Mole. Human"

Because William Blake was right: Every living thing is holy.

...How lucky I am to live in a home with windows. Against all odds — the encroachments of construction companies and lawn services and exterminators — these windows still open onto a world that stubbornly insists on remaining wild. I love the bluebirds, and I also love the fierce hawk who reminds me that the peace of the backyard is only a fiction. I love the lizard who looks so much like a snake, and I also love the snake who would eat her if it could.

And my friend the mole, oh how I love my old friend the mole. In these days that grow ever darker as fears gather and autumn comes on, I remember again and again how much we all share with this soft, solitary creature trundling through invisible tunnels in the dark, hungry and blind but working so hard to move forward all the same. Margaret Renkl, nyt

Environmental Ethics: Blog Post 1: Introduction

Environmental Ethics: Blog Post 1: Introduction: Hey!! My Name is Markham Overton. I am a transfer student from Tennessee State University.   Im from Nashville Tennessee and I'm a History Major. To be honest the reason I choose this course was out of curiosity. The title of this  course seemed interesting. I've  taken a medical ethics course but I've never heard of environmental ethics before . As.  far. as the. environment goes I feel that the environment is what fuels our existence as a species.  We need the environment to stay healthy in order for us as human beings to survive.  Its like a domino effect , if we tear down and pollute the environment we as humans will have a poor quality of life to look forward to. Im really looking forward to learning more and understanding different aspects of peoples perspectives on  Environmental issues.

A Tale of Two Books - A Critique of Anthropocentric Environmentalism

Going through this weeks reading, I was struck Rolston's argument that environmentalism preservation had an intrinsic value.  Most of the circles I run in tend to view environmentalism through the lens of stewardship (a moderate anthropocentric view).  While I don't have a hard firm understanding on the boundaries of moral standing in regards to ecosystems and wildlife, I do believe that maintaining the world around us is intrinsically valuable.  To argue that we (as humans) ought to preserve nature to simply milk more resources from nature seems (to me) to be remarkably arrogant and self-centered.  

The best way I can illustrate why I find the anthropocentric  view distasteful on a personal level is best illustrated by comparing two of my favorite books from my childhood: Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen and My Side of the Mountain, by Jean Craighead George.  In Hatchet, the protagonist is an airplane that crashes into the Canadian wilderness.  He has to survive until rescue arrives.  Comparatively, in My Side of the Mountain, the protagonist runs away from the city to live in the Catskill mountains on New York.   Both books discuss and explore the beauty of nature, but through different lenses.  Hatchet is a story of man overcoming nature, while Mountain is a story of man living in harmony with nature. Both characters recognize that nature is harsh, but in Hatchet, nature is a puzzle to beat like a level in a Bear Grylls video game, while in Mountain, nature is seen as beautiful and worth enjoying as-is despite the difficulties.  

A anthropocentric approach to environmentalism feels very much like the protagonist's approach to nature in Hatchet. Nature and man have a rivalry-like relationship--butting heads in a mutually beneficial fashion.  However, the character in Hatchet is seeking to escape the wild and return to the comfort of civilization.  There is this underlying assumption throughout the book that civilization is better than the wild beauty of nature.  The protagonist simply sees nature as means to an end, that is, means to leave the wilderness behind.

Therein lies my issue with this mindset: this world is our home.  There is no escaping earth (space colonies aside).  I'm not whitewashing life here on earth; there are environmental disasters we must address as well as natural calamities that wreck havoc.  In My Side of the Mountain, the protagonist must learn how to cope with the harsh realities of foraging and northern winters, but he does so by joining the circle of life--not beating it.  

“See that falcon? Hear those white-throated sparrows? Smell that skunk? Well, the falcon takes the sky, the white-throated sparrow takes the low bushes, the skunk takes the earth...I take the woods.”

-Jean Craighead George, My Side of the Mountain  

P.S. I know it seems like I am highly critical of Hatchet, but the book is a Newberry Honor winning book, and I highly recommend both Hatchet and My Side of the Mountain, they were both childhood favorites of mine.

This Week's activity:

- Wrote essay

- Commented on Ed's post

- Added additional DQ's

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 Dilemma, or 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

Blog Post 1: Introduction

Hi there! My name is Savana Mezquiriz. I am a senior at MTSU majoring in philosophy and minoring in psychology and sociology. I am also apart of the Honors College and am currently finishing up my thesis. For this project, I decided to research child custody laws in Tennessee, deontological theories philosophers presented hundreds of years ago, and how they are intertwined with each other. I am 21 years old, grew up in Bell Buckle, Tennessee, and live a pretty easy going life for the most part. I got married in August of 2019 and we just bought a house in Shelbyville, Tennessee. It is about 35-40 minutes south of Murfreesboro. I plan to use my degree to go to law school. I work for a small law firm in Shelbyville, Rambo and Trott. I have been there for going on 3 years so I am learning the ropes and what to expect once I graduate with my JD. I would like to be an in-house attorney for a company somewhere close to where I live. As far as why I took this course, my main focus within philosophy is ethics. It is what I find most interesting and applicable to my future career. I have no idea what in-house company I will be offered to work for and would like to apply ethics to as many areas as possible.  I not only want to focus on ethics but think about environmental rights and wrongs we as humans are taking part in. I am excited about all we will learn and the critical thinking it will provide us in our daily choices that affect Earth. 

Five Etiquette Tips for the Zoom Classroom*

The provost sent this. "Clothing is NOT optional." To quote my colleague, "WHAT???? Umm... I have not run into that one on a Zoom call, but I guess I have another 14 weeks." Let's not  run into it, either.

I do have a tip to add: if you've turned off your video, please turn it on whenever you speak. Disembodied voices on Zoom are disconcerting. jpo


While classroom etiquette in a face-to-face environment is second nature to us, the Zoom classroom is a bit different. Here are a few tips to make both students and faculty more comfortable.

Be aware of your location

Where are you participating in your Zoom? Consider what viewers can see. Might things located near you – people, piles of laundry, pictures, etc. -- distract others in the class? Try to find a space with few distractions. While your bedroom may be the only quiet location, consider placing your device on a side table or desk, and sit up as you would in a classroom rather than lounging on the bed. Virtual backgrounds may seem to be a solution, but they slow down connection speeds and tend to make hands, ears, and hair disappear when you move.

Use Mute early and often

The microphone setting is in the bottom left corner of your Zoom screen when you enter each meeting. If it is not automatically enabled, please mute yourself when you aren’t speaking. This allows for greater ease of conversation by both faculty and students and blocks out other background noises such as children, pets, etc.

Raise your hand or wait to speak

In a face-to-face class, we customarily raise our hand to speak. You should do the same in a Zoom classroom to prevent talking over others. Physically raising your hand works in smaller courses where everyone fits on the gallery view. In the Participants pop-up (click Participants on the bottom of your Zoom screen), students can click Raise Hand to indicate that they have a question.

Be respectful

Think about facial expressions, tone, and words when communicating on Zoom, just as you would in a face-to-face course. Discussions and debates are encouraged, but they should be done respectfully and with an awareness of diversity and inclusivity.

Clothing is NOT optional

Clothes should be worn at all times. (Everyone can see everyone else!) It’s considered to be best practice to dress and to clean up appropriately for a Zoom class, as you would if the class were face-to- face.

* With thanks to the DePaul University College of Education

Some good news

	Bill McKibben ⁦‪@billmckibben‬⁩ On a hard day, some good news: Researchers painted one blade of a wind turbine black, and it cut bird deaths 70% (and raptor deaths to zero). (h/t ⁦‪@mzjacobson‬⁩) onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…   8/26/20, 12:34 PM

Week One Essay - Shooting Turtles

 

A few thoughts on chapters one and two of the short introduction and Dr. Oliver’s post on How the World Thinks. First of all, I am very much into the idea of applied philosophy (p. 4). In our world today it is difficult to reach a shared understanding of problems and solutions because we all live in our own righteous bubble. I confess that I just don’t want (usually) to talk with people that hold views different from mine. I am into confirmation bias. Philosophy can help us with that. For example, Spinoza, as you will see, has made a great impact my own appreciation of environmental matters, and a joint discussion of Spinoza, regardless of whether you are an anthropocentrist or biocentrist or have no position at all, will profit everyone. Spinoza and Plato can help us deal with this crisis. I hope that in this class some of you do have different views from us tree huggers. “Amicable conversation” with people holding views different from mine, is what, I have found, makes college fun and profitable.

Secondly, I think that having an understanding of the concepts of nature, moral standing, and value discussed in chapter two are critical to having a discussion of the ethics, or the morality, of actions affecting the environment. I read every day something about the effects of climate change (in the Guardian this morning, this article: Unless We Change Course, the US Agricultural System Could Collapse). I suspect that most people reading those articles think about the science of the causes and effects, but not about the morality of the actions that led to the causes.

Here is a confession. I remember as a boy, probably in the 10 to 12 range, sitting on the porch of my grandfather’s lake house, high above the lake, and shooting swimming turtles with a pellet gun. I’m not proud of this, more ashamed really. I could never ever do that today. Why not? Because I have come to believe that I have a relationship with nature, and that those turtles have moral value. I believe that I am a part of nature, that the turtle and I have a kinship. Now, of course, there are many people out there who don’t make this connection. They see themselves as apart from nature.  Maybe some of you shoot turtles for fun, and think that people like me are just wimps. But whether we see ourselves as apart from nature or a part of nature, we both benefit from discussing the morality of whatever we are talking about.

Week One activity:

Wed. 8/26, this post

Thur 8/27 Reply to Levi DQ re: value of environmental preservation

Thur 8/27 Comment on DQ re: "true self"