© Joshua Stark 2015
First off, I must admit it -- I am a gun nut.
This may come as a surprise to many, many of my friends and colleagues, since I don't work in a field where guns get talked about much, I don't have a political affiliation where being a gun nut is held in high regard, and I don't often even pick up magazines or books anymore that refer to guns.
Contrary to what many may think -- and my birth certificate -- I'm also an 80 year-old man (on the inside), and so set in my ways, and I haven't kept up with all the newfangled gun stuff ("newfangled" probably being any caliber that came out after the .280). I am especially turned off by the latest fetish with the AR platforms -- maybe because I'm a bit of a gun snob (guns are metal and wood, not a bunch of plastic molding), maybe because I'm concerned about high-capacity magazines, and maybe because I'm turned off by the less-than-subtle racism, rampant indignant victim mentality, and rabid anti-American, pro-Confederacy bluster that all-too often comes along with it. Also, the .223 is a worthless cartridge for my uses (I don't seal hunt or varmint hunt).
flx1247rg
But, I do own a large number of guns. These include two deer rifles (one bolt-action .270, one lever-action 30-30), five shotguns (two side-by-side double barrels in 12 and 20 gauge, one over/under double barrel 12 gauge, one single-shot 20 gauge, and one pump-action 12 gauge), and one pistol (a single-action .22/.22 magnum).
To my liberal friends, this may be considered a not-so-small arsenal. To my conservative friends, it is dangerously lacking in anything appropriate for personal defense. To my gun-snob friends, the cache has no caché (apart from my not-quite-yet-functional 1887 Greener side-by-side, which would be given a slight nod).
Not one of my guns is available for home defense, should the need ever arise (pray God it doesn't). No, they are all locked in a safe -- unloaded, and separate from the ammunition. Instead, we have the standard strategically-placed Large Stick, various long knives, and a hatchet I'm sure I could find if I had the time to spring out of bed and dig through the backpacks. We also have a MagLite (not the mini version, mind you, but the full-on model made so popular by Ben Stiller in "Night at the Museum").
The purpose for my guns is that I hunt with them (except one). But I would be lying if I didn't say that I really, really like my guns.
To be completely honest, like most kids, I've liked guns ever since the first time I heard about them, and I have no idea when that happened. All I can say is, from the time I can remember, I was already fascinated by ballistics, the fit and finish of wood to metal, and the various capabilities, provenance and mystique of certain calibers, gauges and models.
This love didn't come from my family. My Dad only had one gun -- a Winchester model 20 single-shot 20 gauge that kicked like a 12. He'd hunted some when he was younger, but he wasn't a "hunter". He was (and remains) a working-class intellectual -- an English major mud-logger -- but the tomes filling his bookshelves are not Ruark nor Capstick. Hemingway, yes -- but moreso Shakespeare, Faulker, Vonnegut, Merton; treatises on religious philosophy and ethics, and the Great Works.
My interest in guns did come naturally, inextricably linked with my being completely head-over-heels in love with the Outdoors. We fished all the time, and I ran barefoot through miles of corn fields, ditches and levees. I read National Geographics, Field & Stream and Outdoor Life cover-to-cover, along with Olaus Murie's "Field Guide to North American Mammal Tracks". I watched for birds, and we bought a handheld spotlight and drove the empty levees in search of foxes, coyotes, skunks and other marshland denizens.
And I hunted. And hunted.
I also kept up with gun-tech. In high school, I did four years of rifle team, and earned my varsity block my Freshman year. I hung out with a couple of gun nuts, guys with modified Ruger 10/22's, guys shooting 22-250's and Thompson/Center pistols. I can still make a cop feel comfortable by rambling on about the good points of a .40 cal over a 9mm. Target practice and shooting clays is fun -- really fun!
But, I am torn today.
Yes, guns are just tools -- and tools have special purposes. Hammers
are really good at nailing; drills are really good at drilling. I think you know where this leads...
I see the horrific impacts of so many guns on streets, amid rampant poverty and powerlessness. I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to private ownership of any and every weapon (else we'd have to allow for nuclear armaments owned by private citizens), so I'm okay with drawing lines (though I don't know where those lines are). But, I also find myself cheering on the female Peshmerga Kurdish troops and women demonstrating empowered equality on U.N. missions in Africa. If I'm happy to see women empowered through being armed (and to be honest, in these cases being armed is a vital part of their empowerment), then why not my own sisters here at home?
I know that gun ownership carries with it a tremendous power and responsibility, and, as a leftist, I don't completely trust that power in the hands of government (especially where I see that government failing to protect many poor folks). As a Christian, however, I see the gun as a crutch and an obstacle to real power and transformation. I guess I'm torn like Hamlet, only I don't have to deal with it face-to-face like that poor bastard.
I don't have an answer to the violence of our society. I know fewer people would be harmed, physically, with fewer arms, but I don't see the disarming of American society going so well in reality. In the meantime, I see the weak preying on the weaker with arms, and I wonder how best we might protect them.
But when it comes to my own guns, it has little to do with ideas of protection. I enjoy guns like I enjoy knives and cast-iron pans, binoculars and bows. I like to look at the really nice ones, then, when I can afford one, I might pick up one of the cheaper ones.
Showing posts with label personal responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personal responsibility. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Trying again: Let's start with frankenfish and consumers' right to know
© 2012 Joshua Stark
According to some producers, wild salmon just don't grow fast enough. Oh sure, a Chinook salmon can reach 40+ pounds in two years, feeding for free and adding to the health of our lands and waters as it does, but this kind of willy-nilly public resource just doesn't cut it for those who wish to have complete control over their market. So in the name of profit, these folks have genetically engineered a species of salmon that grows over twice as fast as wild fish. Meant to be farmed in closed systems, these GE salmon will be fed by fishing for baitfish, presumably, and will not be allowed to enter our oceans, for fear that they will out-compete and destroy wild salmon. First, however, the producers of this fish must get past the FDA, which doesn't look like too big a hurdle.
While the FDA wrestles with the question of legalizing GE salmon for consumers, California is considering whether or not to require labels identifying such meat as GE in the marketplace. And while I might address the basic question of even allowing GE salmon at some future point, right now I want to address consumer knowledge in the marketplace.
This, of course, is a no-brainer outside of the halls of governance: Libertarians to Socialists agree that consumers have the right to know where and how their food comes to be. Even the opponents of the labeling bill (AB 88) couch their opposition in a manner that acknowledges some leeway in labeling requirements, arguing not that they shouldn't be labeled, per se, but that such requirements are the responsibility of the federal government, not the State.
In reality, the bill's opponents are concerned that if consumers know what they are buying, they will probably choose not to buy it (about 50% say they wouldn't). Really, consumer choice is the issue here, and California has every right to require labeling.
According to some producers, wild salmon just don't grow fast enough. Oh sure, a Chinook salmon can reach 40+ pounds in two years, feeding for free and adding to the health of our lands and waters as it does, but this kind of willy-nilly public resource just doesn't cut it for those who wish to have complete control over their market. So in the name of profit, these folks have genetically engineered a species of salmon that grows over twice as fast as wild fish. Meant to be farmed in closed systems, these GE salmon will be fed by fishing for baitfish, presumably, and will not be allowed to enter our oceans, for fear that they will out-compete and destroy wild salmon. First, however, the producers of this fish must get past the FDA, which doesn't look like too big a hurdle.
While the FDA wrestles with the question of legalizing GE salmon for consumers, California is considering whether or not to require labels identifying such meat as GE in the marketplace. And while I might address the basic question of even allowing GE salmon at some future point, right now I want to address consumer knowledge in the marketplace.
This, of course, is a no-brainer outside of the halls of governance: Libertarians to Socialists agree that consumers have the right to know where and how their food comes to be. Even the opponents of the labeling bill (AB 88) couch their opposition in a manner that acknowledges some leeway in labeling requirements, arguing not that they shouldn't be labeled, per se, but that such requirements are the responsibility of the federal government, not the State.
In reality, the bill's opponents are concerned that if consumers know what they are buying, they will probably choose not to buy it (about 50% say they wouldn't). Really, consumer choice is the issue here, and California has every right to require labeling.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
What is the California Delta to you?
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Dan Bacher has an update on Delta issues - noting that federal representatives of the Delta and North Coast recently met with the new Delta Czar, Jerry Meral. Their reason: To let him know that they have "grave concerns" (Mr. Bacher's language) about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. Add their voice to the many groups who've been involved for years fighting to make the Delta whole and healthy.
According to Mr. Bacher, the Reps.' concerns are over a peripheral canal. However, if you read the quotations, it sounds like those representatives are not as adamant about opposing a canal as is Mr. Bacher. This is too bad, and we constituents need to let them know that we want solid, explicit language opposing any conveyance around the Delta.
Make no mistake: Any peripheral canal would be an ecological compromise, at best; at worst, it would be an ecological and economic disaster for a fertile, diverse, unique region.
Everybody rips on the Delta, but the Delta is California's crown jewel, the source of our very life: from its water, the foods that come from its amazing soil (with no need to go against gravity), and its unique habitats. From the way it is talked about in the news and in so many watercooler conversations, you would think that it is a festering sore on the face of the Earth, a cesspool of pollution, devastation and death just waiting for a catastrophe to rip it wide open and spread famine everywhere. But, we have made ugly in concept something that is beautiful in fact - even now - and we do it because we do not understand our physical connection to it.
You, who drink water in Los Angeles, water that is pumped hundreds of miles and over an entire mountain range, you are connected to the Delta: It infuses your cells, hydrates your body, helps fire your synapses.
You, who spray water to ever-saltier flats on the West Central Valley, you are connected to the Delta: It lines your pockets, pays your kids' tuitions, keeps your workers happy.
And we, throughout the world, who buy California produce, we are all connected to the Delta: It grows the largest agricultural industry on Earth, it builds our muscles and bones, forms our staffs of life, grows our children's eyes and brains. We sanctify it, pray over it, cook it up, add it to our very selves. We are made of the Delta.
And this is good.
But if we are to continue to benefit from it, then we must treat it right. Many billions of other lives depend on the Delta, too, and the Delta, as any ecosystem, depends upon those lives for its own health. There is no separation of a wetlands habitat from its water without loss and significant change, and we, as Americans, have taken on the responsibility of caring for those creatures we have harmed.
Mr. Bacher notes a sad new record set this year: more Sacramento splittail minnows were killed at the pumps this year than any other. Nine million little lives lost for the pumps, while more water was pumped than ever before.
All of this that is the Delta - the devastation as well as the vitality, goes into those things we put in our bodies to keep ourselves whole.
So next time you start to think about the Delta as a horrible place, just remember: The Delta is You.
Dan Bacher has an update on Delta issues - noting that federal representatives of the Delta and North Coast recently met with the new Delta Czar, Jerry Meral. Their reason: To let him know that they have "grave concerns" (Mr. Bacher's language) about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. Add their voice to the many groups who've been involved for years fighting to make the Delta whole and healthy.
According to Mr. Bacher, the Reps.' concerns are over a peripheral canal. However, if you read the quotations, it sounds like those representatives are not as adamant about opposing a canal as is Mr. Bacher. This is too bad, and we constituents need to let them know that we want solid, explicit language opposing any conveyance around the Delta.
Make no mistake: Any peripheral canal would be an ecological compromise, at best; at worst, it would be an ecological and economic disaster for a fertile, diverse, unique region.
Everybody rips on the Delta, but the Delta is California's crown jewel, the source of our very life: from its water, the foods that come from its amazing soil (with no need to go against gravity), and its unique habitats. From the way it is talked about in the news and in so many watercooler conversations, you would think that it is a festering sore on the face of the Earth, a cesspool of pollution, devastation and death just waiting for a catastrophe to rip it wide open and spread famine everywhere. But, we have made ugly in concept something that is beautiful in fact - even now - and we do it because we do not understand our physical connection to it.
You, who drink water in Los Angeles, water that is pumped hundreds of miles and over an entire mountain range, you are connected to the Delta: It infuses your cells, hydrates your body, helps fire your synapses.
You, who spray water to ever-saltier flats on the West Central Valley, you are connected to the Delta: It lines your pockets, pays your kids' tuitions, keeps your workers happy.
And we, throughout the world, who buy California produce, we are all connected to the Delta: It grows the largest agricultural industry on Earth, it builds our muscles and bones, forms our staffs of life, grows our children's eyes and brains. We sanctify it, pray over it, cook it up, add it to our very selves. We are made of the Delta.
And this is good.
But if we are to continue to benefit from it, then we must treat it right. Many billions of other lives depend on the Delta, too, and the Delta, as any ecosystem, depends upon those lives for its own health. There is no separation of a wetlands habitat from its water without loss and significant change, and we, as Americans, have taken on the responsibility of caring for those creatures we have harmed.
Mr. Bacher notes a sad new record set this year: more Sacramento splittail minnows were killed at the pumps this year than any other. Nine million little lives lost for the pumps, while more water was pumped than ever before.
All of this that is the Delta - the devastation as well as the vitality, goes into those things we put in our bodies to keep ourselves whole.
So next time you start to think about the Delta as a horrible place, just remember: The Delta is You.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Quick posts on federal and state politics
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Though not environmental (because he decided not to ever try to do anything about the environment any more, apparently), my comment on the President's speech is what it was last year:
I am very disappointed, just as I was with Bush, that the first words out of his mouth weren't, "we are a nation at war", followed by a good long talk about the killing and dying we demand of many of our young men and women and their families.
So please, all of you, whether you support or oppose our military actions overseas, please take a moment to let the President know that you want him to focus on the sacrifices he orders others to make in our names. Their blood is on all of us.
Now, a little note about Gov. Brown's proposed budget. Of course, just like his predecessor (we can't expect our different parties to actually govern differently, can we?), he's proposed cutting millions of dollars from our State Park system, which will end up closing some parks.
I'm still saddened by this, but at least we know that the majority of Californians didn't want to pay for it, anyway, and so voted down last year's proposition to get unlimited entry into parks by California cars for a once-per-year fee.
It's very difficult to come to the realization that your perspective is in such a small minority. Most Californians, and indeed most Americans, it would seem, have decided that their own, personal economy is more important.
And this from a man who was out of work (and looking) for nearly six months, the most in my entire working life. I still voted for that proposition while unemployed (which, for those who don't know, is defined as "no job, but actively seeking work").
Though not environmental (because he decided not to ever try to do anything about the environment any more, apparently), my comment on the President's speech is what it was last year:
I am very disappointed, just as I was with Bush, that the first words out of his mouth weren't, "we are a nation at war", followed by a good long talk about the killing and dying we demand of many of our young men and women and their families.
So please, all of you, whether you support or oppose our military actions overseas, please take a moment to let the President know that you want him to focus on the sacrifices he orders others to make in our names. Their blood is on all of us.
Now, a little note about Gov. Brown's proposed budget. Of course, just like his predecessor (we can't expect our different parties to actually govern differently, can we?), he's proposed cutting millions of dollars from our State Park system, which will end up closing some parks.
I'm still saddened by this, but at least we know that the majority of Californians didn't want to pay for it, anyway, and so voted down last year's proposition to get unlimited entry into parks by California cars for a once-per-year fee.
It's very difficult to come to the realization that your perspective is in such a small minority. Most Californians, and indeed most Americans, it would seem, have decided that their own, personal economy is more important.
And this from a man who was out of work (and looking) for nearly six months, the most in my entire working life. I still voted for that proposition while unemployed (which, for those who don't know, is defined as "no job, but actively seeking work").
Friday, June 18, 2010
Flat-out on the Ethics of Hunting, and Fair Chase in particular
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Quite a while back, a number of thoughtful hunters in the blogosphere started a round-robin sort of series of posts on the ethics of hunting, in particular over the concept known as fair chase. (Phillip at Hog Blog has a good compilation of the links.) Fair chase has an interesting history, in the United States becoming ingrained in the community as hunters both became less dependent upon killing for the table, and as technological gains substantially changed the nature of hunting.
flx1247rg
For those of you who don't hunt, fair chase is the idea that hunters should use equipment and techniques that limit their chances, in order to make the hunt more fair for prey. That description sounds weird, especially because we are talking life-and-death, so let's put it in context: Humans have devised many techniques to very efficiently take animals. When hunting was vital to peoples' food, hunters would drive large herds over cliffs, use fire to burn out places and drive animals, use bait to bring animals to places where they could be dispatched more easily, use traps, etc. As we grew more technologically advanced, and as economic systems encouraged larger and larger takings, acquiring wild meat became very easy - actually, too easy, and animal populations plummeted. Today, in the parts of the world where hunting is not vital to providing food, and where commercial hunting has been outlawed due to its tremendous impacts, hunters have often developed the concept of fair chase as a way to hone skills and to properly manage their impacts on animal populations.
Well, after having read blog posts and comments, I felt just about everything had been said, and didn't see much to contribute. And yet, I felt like there was a piece missing in the connection between fair chase as a personal choice and fair chase as an ethical concept. On a broader note, I truly believed that there was something to the ethics of hunting that needed to be said, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But the other day, Tovar's piece on his problems with Ortega y Gasset led me to a stronger connection to one idea about fair chase developing as a replacement for hunger as the impetus for improving one's skill. I had already believed this, but in contemplating the conversations related to Tovar's post, it dawned on me that this is a sufficient reason to consider fair chase an ethic rather than an aesthetic.
The betterment of skill is desired by a hunter, at least because of the improved results that come with skill, and oftentimes the desire to make quick, clean kills to minimize pain and other negative impacts on the prey and habitat. Improving one's skill, therefore, is a "good", both in the Aristotelian definition of the word and in the definition as described by many other ethical philosophies (e.g., Kantian, utilitarian, Judeo-Christian).
Hunting traditions place fine skill above almost anything else. An expensive gun may be envied, and nice clothes do sell, but real admiration and respect goes to the hunters who have honed their skills to a great degree. Tracking, understanding habitat, weather, and especially the spirit of the prey are most appreciated, as are a respect for and skill with one's equipment. The next time you get a chance, ask a hunter which he feels more admiration for, a man with a Kimber shotgun who hits 10 out of 25 clay pigeons, or a man with a Mossberg who can hit all of them, and I will 100% guarantee you how the hunter will answer. When hunger and the need to provide for family and community were lost from hunting, and when human ingenuity outpaced animals' abilities, fair chase became the impetus for honing one's skills and techniques.
Many hunting traditions have strong codes of conduct, strong ethical traditions. In fact, skills that would be merely important in other endeavors, but not ethically so, reach the level of ethos in hunting because of the seriousness of the activity. In the past, hunger drove hunting, and good hunters were rewarded, but due to our social nature, everybody was rewarded by the good hunters, too. "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" provides one great example of this shared good through individual skill. In addition, a hunter could very well be successful today and horribly unsuccessful for the next few weeks, or even be wounded in the field. Because of these factors, magnanimity, humility, and respect for the environs are other ethical claims in which many hunters strongly believe. The vital need for success, the finality and emotional ambiguity involved in killing and death, the dangers involved in taking to the wilds after animals, and the necessary respect for and constant need to improve skills, all exemplify why hunting lives by an ethical code rather than just a series of preferences, and why the conversations around hunting are so passionate.
This digging deep into the human soul is actually why many are attracted to hunting, especially in our culture, where few things are left that have such depth and importance, or deal with such basic human needs and concerns with such seriousness and sincerity.
So, skill is not merely something that a person might or might not work to improve in hunting like it is, say, in basketball. A person may play pool occasionally, or go bowling without practice, but the person who claims to be a hunter without trying to improve their skills at the very least in preparation for the hunt commits an unethical act, as their actions will more likely result in no animal, or worse, a wounded animal, or even worse, a wounded person. A person dismissive of skillfulness in hunting crosses a line that doesn't exist in a pick-up basketball game or photography.
Without the vital need for sustenance, without the need to rely on others directly or supply food for neighbors and family, hunters still value skill beyond just a neat thing to acquire, and they have devised fair chase in consideration of conservation efforts, and in understanding the need to improve skills, both of which are ethical concerns. And since the reasons for fair chase are ethical reasons, the act of fair chase is an ethical concern, too.
Please weigh in - let me know what you think of the concept of fair chase, or of the ethics of hunting.
Quite a while back, a number of thoughtful hunters in the blogosphere started a round-robin sort of series of posts on the ethics of hunting, in particular over the concept known as fair chase. (Phillip at Hog Blog has a good compilation of the links.) Fair chase has an interesting history, in the United States becoming ingrained in the community as hunters both became less dependent upon killing for the table, and as technological gains substantially changed the nature of hunting.
flx1247rg
For those of you who don't hunt, fair chase is the idea that hunters should use equipment and techniques that limit their chances, in order to make the hunt more fair for prey. That description sounds weird, especially because we are talking life-and-death, so let's put it in context: Humans have devised many techniques to very efficiently take animals. When hunting was vital to peoples' food, hunters would drive large herds over cliffs, use fire to burn out places and drive animals, use bait to bring animals to places where they could be dispatched more easily, use traps, etc. As we grew more technologically advanced, and as economic systems encouraged larger and larger takings, acquiring wild meat became very easy - actually, too easy, and animal populations plummeted. Today, in the parts of the world where hunting is not vital to providing food, and where commercial hunting has been outlawed due to its tremendous impacts, hunters have often developed the concept of fair chase as a way to hone skills and to properly manage their impacts on animal populations.
Well, after having read blog posts and comments, I felt just about everything had been said, and didn't see much to contribute. And yet, I felt like there was a piece missing in the connection between fair chase as a personal choice and fair chase as an ethical concept. On a broader note, I truly believed that there was something to the ethics of hunting that needed to be said, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But the other day, Tovar's piece on his problems with Ortega y Gasset led me to a stronger connection to one idea about fair chase developing as a replacement for hunger as the impetus for improving one's skill. I had already believed this, but in contemplating the conversations related to Tovar's post, it dawned on me that this is a sufficient reason to consider fair chase an ethic rather than an aesthetic.
The betterment of skill is desired by a hunter, at least because of the improved results that come with skill, and oftentimes the desire to make quick, clean kills to minimize pain and other negative impacts on the prey and habitat. Improving one's skill, therefore, is a "good", both in the Aristotelian definition of the word and in the definition as described by many other ethical philosophies (e.g., Kantian, utilitarian, Judeo-Christian).
Hunting traditions place fine skill above almost anything else. An expensive gun may be envied, and nice clothes do sell, but real admiration and respect goes to the hunters who have honed their skills to a great degree. Tracking, understanding habitat, weather, and especially the spirit of the prey are most appreciated, as are a respect for and skill with one's equipment. The next time you get a chance, ask a hunter which he feels more admiration for, a man with a Kimber shotgun who hits 10 out of 25 clay pigeons, or a man with a Mossberg who can hit all of them, and I will 100% guarantee you how the hunter will answer. When hunger and the need to provide for family and community were lost from hunting, and when human ingenuity outpaced animals' abilities, fair chase became the impetus for honing one's skills and techniques.
Many hunting traditions have strong codes of conduct, strong ethical traditions. In fact, skills that would be merely important in other endeavors, but not ethically so, reach the level of ethos in hunting because of the seriousness of the activity. In the past, hunger drove hunting, and good hunters were rewarded, but due to our social nature, everybody was rewarded by the good hunters, too. "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" provides one great example of this shared good through individual skill. In addition, a hunter could very well be successful today and horribly unsuccessful for the next few weeks, or even be wounded in the field. Because of these factors, magnanimity, humility, and respect for the environs are other ethical claims in which many hunters strongly believe. The vital need for success, the finality and emotional ambiguity involved in killing and death, the dangers involved in taking to the wilds after animals, and the necessary respect for and constant need to improve skills, all exemplify why hunting lives by an ethical code rather than just a series of preferences, and why the conversations around hunting are so passionate.
This digging deep into the human soul is actually why many are attracted to hunting, especially in our culture, where few things are left that have such depth and importance, or deal with such basic human needs and concerns with such seriousness and sincerity.
So, skill is not merely something that a person might or might not work to improve in hunting like it is, say, in basketball. A person may play pool occasionally, or go bowling without practice, but the person who claims to be a hunter without trying to improve their skills at the very least in preparation for the hunt commits an unethical act, as their actions will more likely result in no animal, or worse, a wounded animal, or even worse, a wounded person. A person dismissive of skillfulness in hunting crosses a line that doesn't exist in a pick-up basketball game or photography.
Without the vital need for sustenance, without the need to rely on others directly or supply food for neighbors and family, hunters still value skill beyond just a neat thing to acquire, and they have devised fair chase in consideration of conservation efforts, and in understanding the need to improve skills, both of which are ethical concerns. And since the reasons for fair chase are ethical reasons, the act of fair chase is an ethical concern, too.
Please weigh in - let me know what you think of the concept of fair chase, or of the ethics of hunting.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Utilitarian Environmentalism?
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Should environmentalists embrace utilitarianism as an ethos, or are they barking up the wrong tree?
In my recent conversations on pollution, and population growth, I've noticed that many environmentalists claim utilitarianism as their ethical lodestone. Usually, I bite, and try to argue from within the confines of utilitarianism, but occasionally I question the premise. (For a good definition of utilitarianism, read this.)
flx1247rg
Utilitarianism is a 'consequentialist' ethic: The rightness or wrongness of an action depends only upon the consequences of the action. In utilitarianism, therefore, the only good thing is some form of happiness, or pain aversion, and actions are deemed ethical or unethical by how effectively they can maximize happiness and avoid pain. There are no inherently 'good' or 'bad' things, people or actions. Also, therefore, the only equality among people is coincidental to the level of happiness or aversion to pain that particular actions may have upon them.
Personally, I have trouble reconciling an environmentalist worldview with utilitarianism both in theory and in practice. For example, utilitarianism very easily supports the type of elitism that many people find unethical by requiring that smaller communities bear the burden of the pollution of larger communities, so long as the total good feelings win out. Also, a person has to really go through contortions to use utilitarianism for arguing against over-consumption, or to even think about waste as a problem.
But where utilitarianism makes its biggest flub in environmentalism is the fact that it gives no inherent value to the environment. To me, it seems reasonable that an "environmental" ethos values the environment as more than what it can provide to people.
Of course, it is up to today's philosophers to adhere to such strict codes as utilitarianism. This is ironic, because philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and usually wisdom teaches that such strict mathematical dogmas don't make it very far in this world. But for environmentalists, it may be a better idea to acknowledge belief in the environment as valuable in and of itself, in addition to what it provides for us. Utilitarianism can be a great decision-making tool at times and in particular ethical dilemmas. But, it is not an environmental ethos.
Should environmentalists embrace utilitarianism as an ethos, or are they barking up the wrong tree?
In my recent conversations on pollution, and population growth, I've noticed that many environmentalists claim utilitarianism as their ethical lodestone. Usually, I bite, and try to argue from within the confines of utilitarianism, but occasionally I question the premise. (For a good definition of utilitarianism, read this.)
flx1247rg
Utilitarianism is a 'consequentialist' ethic: The rightness or wrongness of an action depends only upon the consequences of the action. In utilitarianism, therefore, the only good thing is some form of happiness, or pain aversion, and actions are deemed ethical or unethical by how effectively they can maximize happiness and avoid pain. There are no inherently 'good' or 'bad' things, people or actions. Also, therefore, the only equality among people is coincidental to the level of happiness or aversion to pain that particular actions may have upon them.
Personally, I have trouble reconciling an environmentalist worldview with utilitarianism both in theory and in practice. For example, utilitarianism very easily supports the type of elitism that many people find unethical by requiring that smaller communities bear the burden of the pollution of larger communities, so long as the total good feelings win out. Also, a person has to really go through contortions to use utilitarianism for arguing against over-consumption, or to even think about waste as a problem.
But where utilitarianism makes its biggest flub in environmentalism is the fact that it gives no inherent value to the environment. To me, it seems reasonable that an "environmental" ethos values the environment as more than what it can provide to people.
Of course, it is up to today's philosophers to adhere to such strict codes as utilitarianism. This is ironic, because philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and usually wisdom teaches that such strict mathematical dogmas don't make it very far in this world. But for environmentalists, it may be a better idea to acknowledge belief in the environment as valuable in and of itself, in addition to what it provides for us. Utilitarianism can be a great decision-making tool at times and in particular ethical dilemmas. But, it is not an environmental ethos.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Internalizing externalities, cancer-causing pesticide edition
© 2010 Joshua Stark
The San José Mercury News reports on the probable use of methyl iodide in California.
"The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed registering methyl iodide as a pesticide in California to the dismay of scientists and environmental groups, who say it is so toxic that even chemists are reluctant to handle it."
Methyl Iodide was proposed and accepted by the US EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide in 2007. Methyl Bromide was phased out because of its damage to the ozone layer.
So, instead of using a pesticide that causes an externality to the atmosphere, we as people are about to switch to an agent that 'internalizes' that damage, so to speak.
This is also another example of a false choice. Where's the "none of the above" box to check?
If you are interested in weighing in on this issue, please make your voice heard at the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's public comment section. The article above has the address and email, or you can email:
mei_comments@cdpr.ca.gov
The San José Mercury News reports on the probable use of methyl iodide in California.
"The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed registering methyl iodide as a pesticide in California to the dismay of scientists and environmental groups, who say it is so toxic that even chemists are reluctant to handle it."
Methyl Iodide was proposed and accepted by the US EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide in 2007. Methyl Bromide was phased out because of its damage to the ozone layer.
So, instead of using a pesticide that causes an externality to the atmosphere, we as people are about to switch to an agent that 'internalizes' that damage, so to speak.
This is also another example of a false choice. Where's the "none of the above" box to check?
If you are interested in weighing in on this issue, please make your voice heard at the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's public comment section. The article above has the address and email, or you can email:
mei_comments@cdpr.ca.gov
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
James Cameron keeps bothering me...
© 2010 Joshua Stark
James Cameron obviously didn't read my last post about some environmental inconsistencies between his talk and his actions.
Yesterday, National Public Radio's 'All Things Considered' covered the concept of 'windowing' in the movie industry - where companies try to maximize profits from each medium their movie will hit - and did so by considering how Fox is working Avatar.
It's the last comment that deserves note on this blog:
"ULABY: In the case of "Avatar," the DVD coming out does not have a single extra - no commentary, no nothing. The studio wants fans to buy both this version and the fully-loaded DVD that comes out in gift-buying season in November."
That's right... Mr. Green, the man parading all over the World trying to save it, will manufacture his DVD in a way to cajole millions upon millions of people to buy the same thing twice.
He just proves my point, you can't sell conservation. I just wish he'd opted for the 'conservation' part of that equation, rather than the 'sell'.
James Cameron obviously didn't read my last post about some environmental inconsistencies between his talk and his actions.
Yesterday, National Public Radio's 'All Things Considered' covered the concept of 'windowing' in the movie industry - where companies try to maximize profits from each medium their movie will hit - and did so by considering how Fox is working Avatar.
It's the last comment that deserves note on this blog:
"ULABY: In the case of "Avatar," the DVD coming out does not have a single extra - no commentary, no nothing. The studio wants fans to buy both this version and the fully-loaded DVD that comes out in gift-buying season in November."
That's right... Mr. Green, the man parading all over the World trying to save it, will manufacture his DVD in a way to cajole millions upon millions of people to buy the same thing twice.
He just proves my point, you can't sell conservation. I just wish he'd opted for the 'conservation' part of that equation, rather than the 'sell'.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Save the Planet, have a baby.
© 2010 Joshua Stark
With some really good caveats, an author over at Grist makes the same mistake about overpopulation I and many others have made... well, ever since Malthus, I suppose. With good intentions (but a bad, bad history), many people (let's call them "scared folks") today argue that overpopulation is the single biggest cause of our environmental collapse, and I believe they are truly concerned about it (yet, fortunately, many of them do not take any serious steps to address the problem).
Their arguments usually start with the scary number of the moment - which right now is 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Then, they usually appeal to papers, scientists, and philosophers discussing the threat of an even greater population. Nowdays, the number used is over 9 billion by the back-half of this century. Then, they stop talking about population numbers, trends, or real-world ways that population growth is curbed (here is where my first frustration lies).
Instead, scared folks usually begin some good talk about consumption, but they cover it too lightly, especially since they left out some really important words about the long-term population trends of the world. They almost always mention that it would take ten Earths to live like a typical American, or that all humans right now emit x amount of carbon/year or are consuming one-third more than our Earth can sustain.
They usually end with a dire warning and an admonition of sorts.
To be fair, the Grist author had a slightly different take on the concept, and also wanted to use this as a way to tell folks who've decided not to have babies that they are okay, and they should be proud of who they are. I'm okay with that part. As for the worries about having children and the destruction of the planet, however, I am not.
I've blogged about this before here and here, and I'll say it again: There is no correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. In fact, countries with shrinking populations, with few exceptions, emit levels of magnitude more carbon both in total and per capita than countries with population growth.
So what are scared folks missing? Well, first they are missing the long-term population conversation. The U.N. projects a declining world population within 100 years, and considering the trends of the past 50 years, their level of projected decline is conservative.
Scared folks also avoid/don't know about factors that actually cause populations to slow growth or even decline. Two major factors correlate to slowing population growth: Women's education and infrastructure. (Funny, but merely telling people to have fewer kids actually induces them to have fewer kids.)
You see, in societies with little or no safety nets, family is the safety net. By increasing women's education (even through grade school), and by building and improving electrical grids, hospitals and roadways, you increase the wealth of a nation as well as its consistency and reliability. When that happens, people have reason to wait around a little longer, and have fewer children - because they don't need the safety of young marriage and many kids to make it to adulthood and provide for them in their old age.
Next, scared folks ignore/miss out on the real problem of human habitation on our planet: Consumption. Our current consumption patterns are unsustainable. Period. By focusing on the population number, however, rather than the consumption numbers, they miss the real solutions that currently exist (and they come across as incurably elitist). For example, two countries currently buck population decline's perverse inverse-proportion relationship to carbon emissions. Japan and Denmark maintain very low carbon emissions (and other pollutants) while maintaining a good lifestyle for their citizens and seeing populations decline.
Scared folks also do not consider the physicality of 9 billion people to the world. To get a better look at consumption patterns and the potential for dramatic improvement, consider this thought experiment:
At it's projected largest amount of 9 billion people, if every person were to be housed in the U.S., and each individual person were given 1/5th of an acre (twice the size of the property my family of three lives on with three ducks and a dog), we would still have five hundred million acres left over. Five hundred million acres is about 100 million acres more than we farm crops in the U.S. If the thought experiment is done with family units, the amount of left-over acreage multiplies four times.
And we are only the fourth largest country on Earth.
Now, I am not proposing everybody move here, okay? What I'm doing is giving perspective. There currently exists plankton blooms in single locations that are six times humanity's biomass.
Besides the silliness and ineffectiveness of inferring that people have fewer babies, and the lack of connection to the physical world's realities (complete with solutions for doing much better for our planet), scared folks join a group rife with racism and elitism. I'm sure the vast majority of folks scared about overpopulation aren't racists or even conscious elitists, but the simple fact is that A) brown folks' countries have the highest growth rates; and B) pollution (especially greenhouse gas pollution) is far and away the result of very wealthy regions with declining populations. By keeping their eyes on the population ball, they ignore the real problem of the world, and by ignoring the real problem of the world (overconsumption by wealthy regions and folks) they become de facto elitists.
They also miss out on the fact that babies actually save the world. From 1960 to 2000, the world's population doubled, from three to six billion people, and yet our air quality is far better than it was in 1960, and many pollutants we'd used daily are now gone forever. They are gone because people had kids. These kids both gave impetus for solving the great problems of the world, and actually helped solve them, when they grew up. (These kids pay into social security, too.)
Having kids isn't the big problem right now. The problem is consumption.
To help solve this problem, we should start with a chart of carbon emissions by economic quintile. I'm still looking for one.
In the meantime, just remember that babies can save the world. I know my talking about it won't make people have babies, just as scared folks won't really put a dent in people choosing to not have babies, but don't fear them as a group. As individuals, however...
With some really good caveats, an author over at Grist makes the same mistake about overpopulation I and many others have made... well, ever since Malthus, I suppose. With good intentions (but a bad, bad history), many people (let's call them "scared folks") today argue that overpopulation is the single biggest cause of our environmental collapse, and I believe they are truly concerned about it (yet, fortunately, many of them do not take any serious steps to address the problem).
Their arguments usually start with the scary number of the moment - which right now is 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Then, they usually appeal to papers, scientists, and philosophers discussing the threat of an even greater population. Nowdays, the number used is over 9 billion by the back-half of this century. Then, they stop talking about population numbers, trends, or real-world ways that population growth is curbed (here is where my first frustration lies).
Instead, scared folks usually begin some good talk about consumption, but they cover it too lightly, especially since they left out some really important words about the long-term population trends of the world. They almost always mention that it would take ten Earths to live like a typical American, or that all humans right now emit x amount of carbon/year or are consuming one-third more than our Earth can sustain.
They usually end with a dire warning and an admonition of sorts.
To be fair, the Grist author had a slightly different take on the concept, and also wanted to use this as a way to tell folks who've decided not to have babies that they are okay, and they should be proud of who they are. I'm okay with that part. As for the worries about having children and the destruction of the planet, however, I am not.
I've blogged about this before here and here, and I'll say it again: There is no correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. In fact, countries with shrinking populations, with few exceptions, emit levels of magnitude more carbon both in total and per capita than countries with population growth.
So what are scared folks missing? Well, first they are missing the long-term population conversation. The U.N. projects a declining world population within 100 years, and considering the trends of the past 50 years, their level of projected decline is conservative.
Scared folks also avoid/don't know about factors that actually cause populations to slow growth or even decline. Two major factors correlate to slowing population growth: Women's education and infrastructure. (Funny, but merely telling people to have fewer kids actually induces them to have fewer kids.)
You see, in societies with little or no safety nets, family is the safety net. By increasing women's education (even through grade school), and by building and improving electrical grids, hospitals and roadways, you increase the wealth of a nation as well as its consistency and reliability. When that happens, people have reason to wait around a little longer, and have fewer children - because they don't need the safety of young marriage and many kids to make it to adulthood and provide for them in their old age.
Next, scared folks ignore/miss out on the real problem of human habitation on our planet: Consumption. Our current consumption patterns are unsustainable. Period. By focusing on the population number, however, rather than the consumption numbers, they miss the real solutions that currently exist (and they come across as incurably elitist). For example, two countries currently buck population decline's perverse inverse-proportion relationship to carbon emissions. Japan and Denmark maintain very low carbon emissions (and other pollutants) while maintaining a good lifestyle for their citizens and seeing populations decline.
Scared folks also do not consider the physicality of 9 billion people to the world. To get a better look at consumption patterns and the potential for dramatic improvement, consider this thought experiment:
At it's projected largest amount of 9 billion people, if every person were to be housed in the U.S., and each individual person were given 1/5th of an acre (twice the size of the property my family of three lives on with three ducks and a dog), we would still have five hundred million acres left over. Five hundred million acres is about 100 million acres more than we farm crops in the U.S. If the thought experiment is done with family units, the amount of left-over acreage multiplies four times.
And we are only the fourth largest country on Earth.
Now, I am not proposing everybody move here, okay? What I'm doing is giving perspective. There currently exists plankton blooms in single locations that are six times humanity's biomass.
Besides the silliness and ineffectiveness of inferring that people have fewer babies, and the lack of connection to the physical world's realities (complete with solutions for doing much better for our planet), scared folks join a group rife with racism and elitism. I'm sure the vast majority of folks scared about overpopulation aren't racists or even conscious elitists, but the simple fact is that A) brown folks' countries have the highest growth rates; and B) pollution (especially greenhouse gas pollution) is far and away the result of very wealthy regions with declining populations. By keeping their eyes on the population ball, they ignore the real problem of the world, and by ignoring the real problem of the world (overconsumption by wealthy regions and folks) they become de facto elitists.
They also miss out on the fact that babies actually save the world. From 1960 to 2000, the world's population doubled, from three to six billion people, and yet our air quality is far better than it was in 1960, and many pollutants we'd used daily are now gone forever. They are gone because people had kids. These kids both gave impetus for solving the great problems of the world, and actually helped solve them, when they grew up. (These kids pay into social security, too.)
Having kids isn't the big problem right now. The problem is consumption.
To help solve this problem, we should start with a chart of carbon emissions by economic quintile. I'm still looking for one.
In the meantime, just remember that babies can save the world. I know my talking about it won't make people have babies, just as scared folks won't really put a dent in people choosing to not have babies, but don't fear them as a group. As individuals, however...
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Uh-oh... buying green makes you an evil, lying, cheating, thief (behavioral economics edition)
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Via Env-Econ., a paper on consumers' choices and subsequent impacts on their moral decisions.
For those who aren't so familiar with the field, behavioral economics is exactly what it sounds like: Studies on folks' economic behaviors. It is a very interesting field, and my favorite radio show, Marketplace, usually has a weekly segment about it.
This research indicates that students who participated in a lab experiment, after being merely shown "green" products, were less inclined to do bad things to others (lie, cheat, and steal, basically). However, if they purchased these products, students became much more likely to do bad things to others.
You really have to read the study to get the whole idea, but it is fascinating. These researchers were trying to identify yet another place where humans (it is believed) give themselves a kind of moral credit from one behavior, and then spend it on another (even similar) behavior. My take is a little different - I believe that humans take their moral action to make themselves feel superior to others, and then are able to treat the other inferior individuals in a worse fashion. But, I'm no psychologist.
Either way, it opens up a new notion about using moral grounds to get people to buy green... maybe.
On a related note, I guess when you are around me, you should probably keep a tight grip on your wallet.
Via Env-Econ., a paper on consumers' choices and subsequent impacts on their moral decisions.
For those who aren't so familiar with the field, behavioral economics is exactly what it sounds like: Studies on folks' economic behaviors. It is a very interesting field, and my favorite radio show, Marketplace, usually has a weekly segment about it.
This research indicates that students who participated in a lab experiment, after being merely shown "green" products, were less inclined to do bad things to others (lie, cheat, and steal, basically). However, if they purchased these products, students became much more likely to do bad things to others.
You really have to read the study to get the whole idea, but it is fascinating. These researchers were trying to identify yet another place where humans (it is believed) give themselves a kind of moral credit from one behavior, and then spend it on another (even similar) behavior. My take is a little different - I believe that humans take their moral action to make themselves feel superior to others, and then are able to treat the other inferior individuals in a worse fashion. But, I'm no psychologist.
Either way, it opens up a new notion about using moral grounds to get people to buy green... maybe.
On a related note, I guess when you are around me, you should probably keep a tight grip on your wallet.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Jamie Oliver's newest TV show - I'm impressed.
© 2010 Joshua Stark
My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.
Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating. And relevant to this blog.
Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va. showed to Mr. Oliver. But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.
The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture. My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world. When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet. Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves.
I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.
For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here. And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.
My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.
Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating. And relevant to this blog.
Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va. showed to Mr. Oliver. But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.
The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture. My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world. When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet. Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves.
I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.
For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here. And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sushi restaurant serving whale meat in Los Angeles is closing
© 2010 Joshua Stark
I'm sorry you missed out on the Sei whale special, but if you didn't get down there for it, the L.A. Times reports that you are too late.
flx1247rg
This is just another example of the truth of the world, that we do need laws to protect the environment, even when we think that the laws are superfluous due to public pressure.
A few years ago, I was privileged to sit in on a discussion about access on our public lands. The forum, organized by the National Park Service, housed a fine number of some of very thoughtful land managers, rangers, and professors concerned with the subject, and much of the conversation was wonderful and enlightening.
One professor, however, did stray into unfortunate territory on the topic of how to increase lackluster visitation. He said, effectively, that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts on the resource.
This is a comforting fallacy, but devastating in its falsehood.
I stood up and immediately commented that these resources are always going to be "used" for one thing or another. There are companies who would be more than happy to log protected sequoias (just like they are logging unprotected ones), or mine El Capitan. It sounds preposterous, but if folks will sell and eat endangered whales in downtown Los Angeles, then know for certain that nothing in this world is safe unless we declare it so and protect it.
Remember, there are people in this world who buy and sell people. What is a mountain top to them? What is a bird?
The only counter to these ills is to declare things protected and valuable in and of themselves. And the only way to get people to agree to that is to let them experience the beauty and awe of these places.
Experience. That means access.
At the same conference, I heard a story about a person wanting to keep Yosemite Valley completely pristine, arguing to seriously restrict access to it. She argued, "how will we create the next John Muirs of the world?" if Yosemite Valley weren't pristine?
She had forgotten that John Muir was made precisely by being in Yosemite Valley. If he hadn't had those experiences, there would have been no Muir in the sense that she knows him.
She had also forgotten that John Muir spent thousands of hours in Yosemite Valley... logging it.
Of course we need to manage access in a way that minimizes the negative impacts of our presence while enhancing our positive impacts, but if we don't get folks into these places, they won't care about them.
And when that happens, the whale-eaters move in.
I'm sorry you missed out on the Sei whale special, but if you didn't get down there for it, the L.A. Times reports that you are too late.
flx1247rg
This is just another example of the truth of the world, that we do need laws to protect the environment, even when we think that the laws are superfluous due to public pressure.
A few years ago, I was privileged to sit in on a discussion about access on our public lands. The forum, organized by the National Park Service, housed a fine number of some of very thoughtful land managers, rangers, and professors concerned with the subject, and much of the conversation was wonderful and enlightening.
One professor, however, did stray into unfortunate territory on the topic of how to increase lackluster visitation. He said, effectively, that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts on the resource.
This is a comforting fallacy, but devastating in its falsehood.
I stood up and immediately commented that these resources are always going to be "used" for one thing or another. There are companies who would be more than happy to log protected sequoias (just like they are logging unprotected ones), or mine El Capitan. It sounds preposterous, but if folks will sell and eat endangered whales in downtown Los Angeles, then know for certain that nothing in this world is safe unless we declare it so and protect it.
Remember, there are people in this world who buy and sell people. What is a mountain top to them? What is a bird?
The only counter to these ills is to declare things protected and valuable in and of themselves. And the only way to get people to agree to that is to let them experience the beauty and awe of these places.
Experience. That means access.
At the same conference, I heard a story about a person wanting to keep Yosemite Valley completely pristine, arguing to seriously restrict access to it. She argued, "how will we create the next John Muirs of the world?" if Yosemite Valley weren't pristine?
She had forgotten that John Muir was made precisely by being in Yosemite Valley. If he hadn't had those experiences, there would have been no Muir in the sense that she knows him.
She had also forgotten that John Muir spent thousands of hours in Yosemite Valley... logging it.
Of course we need to manage access in a way that minimizes the negative impacts of our presence while enhancing our positive impacts, but if we don't get folks into these places, they won't care about them.
And when that happens, the whale-eaters move in.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A Cheap Shot at 'Avatar', but I just have to...
© 2010 Joshua Stark
While checking my email today, I noticed a little news blip, something about James Cameron claiming that the production company for Avatar - 20th Century Fox - had first been concerned about the movie's theme being too environmentalist. Cameron claims that he pushed back, they backed down, and the movie was made as he wanted it.
flx1247rg
I would have let this pass, and just thought it some blustering and a way to get more media attention for his movie, except something happened to me a couple of weeks back that made this more than just a passing thought:
While walking through the parking lot of a neighborhood gigantic store, I picked up a piece of litter to throw away, and chuckled to myself at its origin. It was a small, clear plastic bag printed with the words, "Na'vi Dire Horse".
Obviously, this was an inner wrapper, once containing one of Mr. Cameron's "green" warrior's steeds, now blowing across the parking lot and headed, eventually, for the Yolo Bypass and Sacramento Delta.
I'm a big fan of toys, and I was going to let this slide. But, reading about Mr. Cameron's claim to defend his movie's green message, and then to see the money he and 20th Century Fox will make on the merchandising, I'm left a little perturbed.
This was a perfect opportunity for Mr. Cameron to help usher in a new, green production era. For example, he could have used manufacturing facilities close to the markets for the toys, or he could have insisted on 100% biodegradable materials, or perhaps make them all from 100% recycled materials. The COOLEST would have been 100% plastic from the Pacific Trash Vortex, where most of them will end up.
Wanting to see the calculations on this marketing scheme's greenhouse gas emissions, and hoping to find some articles shaming Mr. Cameron, et. al., for this anti-environmentalism, I googled the potential controversy, but found nothing.
So, here's one: Shame on you, Mr. Cameron and 20th Century Fox, for making a fun, if shallow, movie, marketing it as an environmental message, and then helping to trash the environment a little more, when you could have walked your talk.
While checking my email today, I noticed a little news blip, something about James Cameron claiming that the production company for Avatar - 20th Century Fox - had first been concerned about the movie's theme being too environmentalist. Cameron claims that he pushed back, they backed down, and the movie was made as he wanted it.
flx1247rg
I would have let this pass, and just thought it some blustering and a way to get more media attention for his movie, except something happened to me a couple of weeks back that made this more than just a passing thought:
While walking through the parking lot of a neighborhood gigantic store, I picked up a piece of litter to throw away, and chuckled to myself at its origin. It was a small, clear plastic bag printed with the words, "Na'vi Dire Horse".
Obviously, this was an inner wrapper, once containing one of Mr. Cameron's "green" warrior's steeds, now blowing across the parking lot and headed, eventually, for the Yolo Bypass and Sacramento Delta.
I'm a big fan of toys, and I was going to let this slide. But, reading about Mr. Cameron's claim to defend his movie's green message, and then to see the money he and 20th Century Fox will make on the merchandising, I'm left a little perturbed.
This was a perfect opportunity for Mr. Cameron to help usher in a new, green production era. For example, he could have used manufacturing facilities close to the markets for the toys, or he could have insisted on 100% biodegradable materials, or perhaps make them all from 100% recycled materials. The COOLEST would have been 100% plastic from the Pacific Trash Vortex, where most of them will end up.
Wanting to see the calculations on this marketing scheme's greenhouse gas emissions, and hoping to find some articles shaming Mr. Cameron, et. al., for this anti-environmentalism, I googled the potential controversy, but found nothing.
So, here's one: Shame on you, Mr. Cameron and 20th Century Fox, for making a fun, if shallow, movie, marketing it as an environmental message, and then helping to trash the environment a little more, when you could have walked your talk.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
On the President's Speech
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Sometimes, a person just has to step back and explain a concept that may be basic to a particular field of study, but which is not generally understood by the general public, mostly because they don't need/want to take a moment to think about it. That's alright, and my barking up this tree probably further explains the lack of regular commentary here at Ethics & the Environment. Perhaps I should, instead, use Field & Stream's latest attempt to drum up internet readership (NorCal Cazadora explains).
flx1247rg
Last night, I listened to the President's State of the Union speech, and he uttered the one phrase that drives the economist in me so completely batty that it usually leaves me sputtering, gesturing at the medium (the radio in this case), and getting all crazy-eyed, lip-pursed, and white-knuckled.
He said that the federal government needs to rein in spending during these tough economic times because, because, that's what a family does.
It drives me batty; so batty, in fact, that I'm taking a bit of space out of my blog to explain just how ridiculous that claim is.
The short version: Is a family's spending responsible for the safety of our Nation? Is it responsible for the Nation's financial stability? Can it move literally hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few weeks or months? Can it make trade agreements? Can it order the printing of additional money, or determine the interest rates it is going to pay? I could go on and on.
The longer version (but still short): This oversimplification of our Nation's responsibilities dumbs down the conversation about government to a simple, and overly economic, look at our country. It pretends that the Nation just goes out and buys Tide with Bleach normally, but should settle for the generic brand right now. You know, just in case it loses its job.
Meanwhile, many people are investing. Because, in addition to it being a stupid analogy, it isn't even necessarily good advice for families to behave that way during bad economic times. Individual decisions need to be based on microeconomic factors. For example, should gun stores have been stocking up on ammunition and guns in late 2007 & early 2008? Yes, because they sold a lot of guns and ammunition in 2008-2009. Safe manufacturers, seeing the slide in the economy, should have put in more orders early on, too. More generally, what happened to the adage: Buy low, sell high?
Which brings me to my last point: If a family had as much spending power and clout as the US Government, it sure as heck wouldn't be tightening its belt right now; it would be buying up all kinds of businesses, and proudly crowing about it at the golf course. In a few years, it would rake in even more money.
Does this mean I believe the feds should buy up every company? No, it means I think the analogy is stupid. It caters to a feeling rather than an understanding, and it leads to bad decisions.
I would also like to point out two things: We are at War, and the President needs to speak to this issue first and foremost, until we are out of War. It always disgusts me when the President (and the current one and the previous one were both very, very bad at this) talks about the economy first. The economy is tough, yes (believe me, I know it), but it is not tougher than ordering young men and women to kill and die for you. Even if you pretend it is.
Second, I only caught one little blip about the environment, and it was only about climate change. Nothing on other protections, nothing about ag., nothing about water or air quality. Just a little blip on climate change, that he wants something done.
I always worry when an administration says that they want just something done, because from the efforts of our current governor, who knows what that will be?
So please, Mr. President, do some serious economic re-thinking. And make the War first every time, before every speech, because every day, your young soldiers kill and die for you, by your orders.
Sometimes, a person just has to step back and explain a concept that may be basic to a particular field of study, but which is not generally understood by the general public, mostly because they don't need/want to take a moment to think about it. That's alright, and my barking up this tree probably further explains the lack of regular commentary here at Ethics & the Environment. Perhaps I should, instead, use Field & Stream's latest attempt to drum up internet readership (NorCal Cazadora explains).
flx1247rg
Last night, I listened to the President's State of the Union speech, and he uttered the one phrase that drives the economist in me so completely batty that it usually leaves me sputtering, gesturing at the medium (the radio in this case), and getting all crazy-eyed, lip-pursed, and white-knuckled.
He said that the federal government needs to rein in spending during these tough economic times because, because, that's what a family does.
It drives me batty; so batty, in fact, that I'm taking a bit of space out of my blog to explain just how ridiculous that claim is.
The short version: Is a family's spending responsible for the safety of our Nation? Is it responsible for the Nation's financial stability? Can it move literally hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few weeks or months? Can it make trade agreements? Can it order the printing of additional money, or determine the interest rates it is going to pay? I could go on and on.
The longer version (but still short): This oversimplification of our Nation's responsibilities dumbs down the conversation about government to a simple, and overly economic, look at our country. It pretends that the Nation just goes out and buys Tide with Bleach normally, but should settle for the generic brand right now. You know, just in case it loses its job.
Meanwhile, many people are investing. Because, in addition to it being a stupid analogy, it isn't even necessarily good advice for families to behave that way during bad economic times. Individual decisions need to be based on microeconomic factors. For example, should gun stores have been stocking up on ammunition and guns in late 2007 & early 2008? Yes, because they sold a lot of guns and ammunition in 2008-2009. Safe manufacturers, seeing the slide in the economy, should have put in more orders early on, too. More generally, what happened to the adage: Buy low, sell high?
Which brings me to my last point: If a family had as much spending power and clout as the US Government, it sure as heck wouldn't be tightening its belt right now; it would be buying up all kinds of businesses, and proudly crowing about it at the golf course. In a few years, it would rake in even more money.
Does this mean I believe the feds should buy up every company? No, it means I think the analogy is stupid. It caters to a feeling rather than an understanding, and it leads to bad decisions.
I would also like to point out two things: We are at War, and the President needs to speak to this issue first and foremost, until we are out of War. It always disgusts me when the President (and the current one and the previous one were both very, very bad at this) talks about the economy first. The economy is tough, yes (believe me, I know it), but it is not tougher than ordering young men and women to kill and die for you. Even if you pretend it is.
Second, I only caught one little blip about the environment, and it was only about climate change. Nothing on other protections, nothing about ag., nothing about water or air quality. Just a little blip on climate change, that he wants something done.
I always worry when an administration says that they want just something done, because from the efforts of our current governor, who knows what that will be?
So please, Mr. President, do some serious economic re-thinking. And make the War first every time, before every speech, because every day, your young soldiers kill and die for you, by your orders.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Outdoor mentoring
Just a quick link to a website I found this morning, Outdoor Mentors, Inc. I don't really know anything about them, but their site says that they team up with Big Brothers, Big Sisters to provide mentoring for at-risk youth in a number of outdoor activities. It was started by the Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks, but now includes 11 states. Unfortunately, California isn't one of those states, but if you are interested in seeing it here, or something like it, check out their website and then send me comments. Also, if you know of a program like that here in Northern California, definitely shoot me a comment. I'd love to plug it, and help out.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Calling out a disgusting comment, and then talking ethics
There exist many great websites about the outdoors. My interests and questions have led me to a number of hunting-related sites, where I find lively forums (fora?) filled with interested and interesting folks, most of whom are very mannerly and helpful. My tastes being more eclectic, I usually find myself in forums related to traditional archery (recurves, longbows, and selfbows) or subgauge shotguns (I shoot a 20 guage). However, two recurring themes stand out in these forums that I want to address - one directly related to hunting, but the other possibly a shared trait in other forums.
The first is the disgusting term, "sss" popping up with alarming frequency every time somebody talks about predators, in particular mountain lions in California. "sss" stands for, "shoot, shovel, shut up", which the person is suggesting someone do when they find a mountain lion. Currently, mounain lion hunting is illegal in California, and many hunters are upset about it, so when somebody posts a topic saying, "hey, I got a great picture of a mountain lion while deer hunting", somebody inevitably posts just those three letters in response. But, regardless of a person's position on this law, suggesting to another that they willingly break it in a web forum is inappropriate, ill-mannered, and unethical.
I have written a short piece alluding to laws and ethics on this blog; if you care to read it click here. I stopped visiting a couple of forums because of the prevalence of this practice, and I encourage hunters everywhere to consider, at least, the implications of suggesting illegal activity to someone who may be a minor and/or get caught in the act and pay a large fine or do jail time. In a future entry I'll attempt to cover the argument in the conservation community over the role of predators in our dramatically altered ecosystems, but for now I'm just going to stay on solid ground and condemn "sss" as a practice, and especially as a suggestion on web forums.
Considering this activity, and considering that the person receiving such "advice" may be a fifteen year-old with no other hunting role models, I'd like to consider ethical advice on forums in general. Of course, I love conversations about ethics (hence the blog). And very frequently people give their ethical views on many topics in the forums I frequent. Ideas like appropriate shooting distances, the nature of hunting preserves, and crossbows during archery season are all very important ethical topics about which many people disagree.
However, when somebody asks to hear others' ethics on a topic, even in the most mundane and calm way, the response is most frequently a defensive claim that ethics is personal, and people should stay out of folks' business. This claim then quickly gets caught up in other peoples' attempts to answer the question, and the ensuing conversation can get nasty. Two ideas come to mind when I come across these conversations: 1) Any of these people could be a child, and many reading it probably are; & 2) Do the people telling the questioner to butt out understand that they are making an ethical claim? The second bears explaining:
Statements with 'should' or 'ought' are ethical claims, in that they tell someone how to act. Telling a person that they should not interfere in anothers' ethical decisions is an ethical statement. The fact that this form of mannerly behavior is so deeply ingrained in our libertarianism does not separate it from ethics, it just makes it a predominant ethical claim, and one, therefore, easier to claim in public.
Granted, this ethical claim has helped make for an amazing, dynamic, diverse and wealthy country, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with our 1st Amendment rights. However, using it as a cudgel to bludgeon others' speech has its problems, not the least of which being the spirit of the 1st Amendment. In the context of web forums, I have a suggestion:
Remember that one of your readers is twelve years old, or fifteen, and forming their first views on hunting (or whatever your topic may be). Include in your description the idea that a person's ethics are individual and are to be respected, if you believe it. But, also include your ethics about hunting tactics, laws, and the like. If it were just you and this kid out in the field, would you do any less? Don't shortchange others' of your ethical perspective. You don't have to preach, though sometimes it'll sound preachy (I know), but in the end, the people who read it will take what they will.
Sure, this last advice is an ethical claim, but, as I'm not bound by relativism, I'm okay with that.
The first is the disgusting term, "sss" popping up with alarming frequency every time somebody talks about predators, in particular mountain lions in California. "sss" stands for, "shoot, shovel, shut up", which the person is suggesting someone do when they find a mountain lion. Currently, mounain lion hunting is illegal in California, and many hunters are upset about it, so when somebody posts a topic saying, "hey, I got a great picture of a mountain lion while deer hunting", somebody inevitably posts just those three letters in response. But, regardless of a person's position on this law, suggesting to another that they willingly break it in a web forum is inappropriate, ill-mannered, and unethical.
I have written a short piece alluding to laws and ethics on this blog; if you care to read it click here. I stopped visiting a couple of forums because of the prevalence of this practice, and I encourage hunters everywhere to consider, at least, the implications of suggesting illegal activity to someone who may be a minor and/or get caught in the act and pay a large fine or do jail time. In a future entry I'll attempt to cover the argument in the conservation community over the role of predators in our dramatically altered ecosystems, but for now I'm just going to stay on solid ground and condemn "sss" as a practice, and especially as a suggestion on web forums.
Considering this activity, and considering that the person receiving such "advice" may be a fifteen year-old with no other hunting role models, I'd like to consider ethical advice on forums in general. Of course, I love conversations about ethics (hence the blog). And very frequently people give their ethical views on many topics in the forums I frequent. Ideas like appropriate shooting distances, the nature of hunting preserves, and crossbows during archery season are all very important ethical topics about which many people disagree.
However, when somebody asks to hear others' ethics on a topic, even in the most mundane and calm way, the response is most frequently a defensive claim that ethics is personal, and people should stay out of folks' business. This claim then quickly gets caught up in other peoples' attempts to answer the question, and the ensuing conversation can get nasty. Two ideas come to mind when I come across these conversations: 1) Any of these people could be a child, and many reading it probably are; & 2) Do the people telling the questioner to butt out understand that they are making an ethical claim? The second bears explaining:
Statements with 'should' or 'ought' are ethical claims, in that they tell someone how to act. Telling a person that they should not interfere in anothers' ethical decisions is an ethical statement. The fact that this form of mannerly behavior is so deeply ingrained in our libertarianism does not separate it from ethics, it just makes it a predominant ethical claim, and one, therefore, easier to claim in public.
Granted, this ethical claim has helped make for an amazing, dynamic, diverse and wealthy country, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with our 1st Amendment rights. However, using it as a cudgel to bludgeon others' speech has its problems, not the least of which being the spirit of the 1st Amendment. In the context of web forums, I have a suggestion:
Remember that one of your readers is twelve years old, or fifteen, and forming their first views on hunting (or whatever your topic may be). Include in your description the idea that a person's ethics are individual and are to be respected, if you believe it. But, also include your ethics about hunting tactics, laws, and the like. If it were just you and this kid out in the field, would you do any less? Don't shortchange others' of your ethical perspective. You don't have to preach, though sometimes it'll sound preachy (I know), but in the end, the people who read it will take what they will.
Sure, this last advice is an ethical claim, but, as I'm not bound by relativism, I'm okay with that.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Hunting this weekend
Well, I'm off for the wilds of the Sierra Nevada foothills, bowhunting after the elusive mule deer. As my Dad said, "it's no worse than growing corn."
I hunt with a recurve bow made by AIM/Samick. You may see the brand at the Olympics, but only if you spend 30 minutes delving into the bowels of the NBC website. If you do, check them out, because it is one of the most dramatic competitions you will see.
Anyway, my bow isn't of the caliber of the olympic ones, but it has given me the chance to take a deer for the first time in my life, two years ago. I switched to a recurve, and became a better hunter, because I slowed waaaay down, and listened more, and tried to hide myself much, much more. As I've said, I've since taken my first deer, and I've also seen the largest buck of my life, a moving, powerful experience that I'm sure to write about in the future.
I generally hunt with wooden arrows, cut-on-contact broadheads, and no sights. I hunt with a 25 pace shot restriction. For those of you who are interested in hunting, but have a problem with firearms, I recommend two things: 1) Go out shooting, with guns, with a person who has experience and also is nice enough to treat your unease with respect (I'll go, just ask); 2) go to a good archery shop (Jerry's Archery in Stockton and Wilderness Archery in Rocklin are two great ones) and ask to shoot a 30 lb. draw recurve or longbow at their range. Stay away from compound bows at first, unless you want to spend near to a grand and enjoy really techy gadgets. You can't hunt with a 30 lb. draw, but it will give you a good idea of the feel for a bow. If you like it, then shoot it for a few weeks, to build your back muscles (don't pull with your arms, but by squeezing your shoulder blades together), and then get a 45-55 lb. draw recurve or longbow. Shoot a few to get a feel for the one you like.
You can always ask questions here, or give comments on the nature of hunting and bowhunting.
I hunt with a recurve bow made by AIM/Samick. You may see the brand at the Olympics, but only if you spend 30 minutes delving into the bowels of the NBC website. If you do, check them out, because it is one of the most dramatic competitions you will see.
Anyway, my bow isn't of the caliber of the olympic ones, but it has given me the chance to take a deer for the first time in my life, two years ago. I switched to a recurve, and became a better hunter, because I slowed waaaay down, and listened more, and tried to hide myself much, much more. As I've said, I've since taken my first deer, and I've also seen the largest buck of my life, a moving, powerful experience that I'm sure to write about in the future.
I generally hunt with wooden arrows, cut-on-contact broadheads, and no sights. I hunt with a 25 pace shot restriction. For those of you who are interested in hunting, but have a problem with firearms, I recommend two things: 1) Go out shooting, with guns, with a person who has experience and also is nice enough to treat your unease with respect (I'll go, just ask); 2) go to a good archery shop (Jerry's Archery in Stockton and Wilderness Archery in Rocklin are two great ones) and ask to shoot a 30 lb. draw recurve or longbow at their range. Stay away from compound bows at first, unless you want to spend near to a grand and enjoy really techy gadgets. You can't hunt with a 30 lb. draw, but it will give you a good idea of the feel for a bow. If you like it, then shoot it for a few weeks, to build your back muscles (don't pull with your arms, but by squeezing your shoulder blades together), and then get a 45-55 lb. draw recurve or longbow. Shoot a few to get a feel for the one you like.
You can always ask questions here, or give comments on the nature of hunting and bowhunting.
Monday, April 21, 2008
On ethics, and why we should teach kids outdoors
At times, a person can become jaded, believing that public pleas for individual self-restraint and responsibility are akin to yelling into the hurricane. And people all too often choose to act in manners which harm others. James Madison's Federalist Paper #51, ("if men were angels...") goes to the heart of the beauty and difficulty of government arising out of libertarian foundations of utter equality and therefore democratic rule, and this is especially appropriate as one reads into "government" the idea of governing as limiting.
Madison's concern was with the excesses of government arising out of human flaws, while trying to convince a skeptical audience of its need. However, there exists in a democratic republic the temptation, over time, to abrogate our responsibilities to a few representatives. Add to this our conception of the letter of the law (that if the law doesn't say we can't, then we can), and people begin to equate the law with ethics. Throw us into a gigantic, overpowering free market that encourages excess, and, as players in a system where a small group is thought to make the ethical decisions for everybody, most come to believe that they are always to try to acquire as much as absolutely possible, even if this means bending the spirit of the law.
But ethics are inherently personal, individual decisions in the moment, far more often than codified laws. In the US, for the most part, laws are created as ways to keep people from occasional lapses in personal judgment. We come to general consensus about the direction of the law through democratic representation, arising out of some social agreements of right and wrong. But when people are not directly involved in these decisions, we tend to reverse the concepts and place the law as the ethical limit, rather than ethics determining the nature and extent of laws. This is true with people in general, and especially true with children, who do not have the authority to exercise their own rights.
But exercising ethical decisions is powerful. People take an honest look at their responsibility, and understand their power, when they have an ethical choice unbounded by the law or other people's perceptions of them. Too infrequently in our daily lives are we given opportunities for true, immediate ethical decisions; most are made for us. Outdoor experiences, however, often provide chances for real ethical decisions, because they give us a place where our actions have repercussions, and they are real, physical decisions in the moment.
Outdoor experiences cut to the heart of ethical conduct at the personal level. Environmental laws exist, of course, but since the reason for getting into the outdoors for many people includes a measure of solitude and quiet, law enforcement is greatly diminished. Oftentimes, people come upon ethical decisions while hiking, camping, and fishing. Damaging trails by cutting up switchbacks, taking threatened or endangered plant species, or feeding the animals are all decisions with an ethical bent, and the right decisions often require a sensitivity to a place, not just a love for the environment. Hunting is a particularly amazing activity with regards to the number and depth of ethical decisions that must be decided by the individual, while no one else is looking.
For those unfamiliar with hunting, and for those who believe the act of hunting is inherently unethical, this last comment may sound absurd. I'll address those reactions in future posts, but for now, (and especially for those of you who hunt) I want to use this idea simply as a suggestion for teaching ethics. Take a kid to the outdoors, teach them to be stewards of a place, not just of the "environment". Teach them the value and power of particular animals and plants, not just of "nature". And teach them that they have tremendous power and responsibility as humans. But don't always tell them, or these decisions become as rote as the letter of the law. Ethics are dead if they are not lived, personal experiences.
Madison's concern was with the excesses of government arising out of human flaws, while trying to convince a skeptical audience of its need. However, there exists in a democratic republic the temptation, over time, to abrogate our responsibilities to a few representatives. Add to this our conception of the letter of the law (that if the law doesn't say we can't, then we can), and people begin to equate the law with ethics. Throw us into a gigantic, overpowering free market that encourages excess, and, as players in a system where a small group is thought to make the ethical decisions for everybody, most come to believe that they are always to try to acquire as much as absolutely possible, even if this means bending the spirit of the law.
But ethics are inherently personal, individual decisions in the moment, far more often than codified laws. In the US, for the most part, laws are created as ways to keep people from occasional lapses in personal judgment. We come to general consensus about the direction of the law through democratic representation, arising out of some social agreements of right and wrong. But when people are not directly involved in these decisions, we tend to reverse the concepts and place the law as the ethical limit, rather than ethics determining the nature and extent of laws. This is true with people in general, and especially true with children, who do not have the authority to exercise their own rights.
But exercising ethical decisions is powerful. People take an honest look at their responsibility, and understand their power, when they have an ethical choice unbounded by the law or other people's perceptions of them. Too infrequently in our daily lives are we given opportunities for true, immediate ethical decisions; most are made for us. Outdoor experiences, however, often provide chances for real ethical decisions, because they give us a place where our actions have repercussions, and they are real, physical decisions in the moment.
Outdoor experiences cut to the heart of ethical conduct at the personal level. Environmental laws exist, of course, but since the reason for getting into the outdoors for many people includes a measure of solitude and quiet, law enforcement is greatly diminished. Oftentimes, people come upon ethical decisions while hiking, camping, and fishing. Damaging trails by cutting up switchbacks, taking threatened or endangered plant species, or feeding the animals are all decisions with an ethical bent, and the right decisions often require a sensitivity to a place, not just a love for the environment. Hunting is a particularly amazing activity with regards to the number and depth of ethical decisions that must be decided by the individual, while no one else is looking.
For those unfamiliar with hunting, and for those who believe the act of hunting is inherently unethical, this last comment may sound absurd. I'll address those reactions in future posts, but for now, (and especially for those of you who hunt) I want to use this idea simply as a suggestion for teaching ethics. Take a kid to the outdoors, teach them to be stewards of a place, not just of the "environment". Teach them the value and power of particular animals and plants, not just of "nature". And teach them that they have tremendous power and responsibility as humans. But don't always tell them, or these decisions become as rote as the letter of the law. Ethics are dead if they are not lived, personal experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)