Virtue: The Goodness beyond Crudeness

“Perceiving that one lives belongs among the things pleasant in themselves, for life is by nature a good thing, and to perceive the good present in oneself is pleasant… especially for those who are good, existing is good for them and pleasant, for in simultaneously perceiving what is good in itself, they feel pleasure.” (205)

Aristotle begins at an understanding that humans and nature have an inherent goodness: “good is that at which all things aim” (Aristotle 1). With regard to humanity, Aristotle determines that there are two actions that can be judged for their goodness, works and activities. He argues that works or rather intentions (1) are “naturally better” (1) than activities. Aristotle continues to dissect human works and actions into two categorical subsections that epitomize human intentions in a highly empirical way. He describes people as either pursuing passions or knowledge. The attainment of knowledge encompasses the fundamental goodness of humanity: “For to those of that sort, that as to those lacking self-restraint, knowledge is without benefit. But to those who fashion their longings in accord with reason and act accordingly, knowing about these things would be of great profit” (4). Under Aristotle’s definition knowledge and the desire for goodness through action are synonymous for happiness (5). However, this perception of happiness can be distorted.

As this course relates to the philosophy of nature, it is important to connect Aristotle’s ideals of human nature to our relationship with the environment.  The crude parts of humanity that seek pleasure above knowledge and goodness are more apt to exploit nature for personal gain and self-gratification: “the many and crudest seem to suppose, that the good and happiness are pleasure. And thus they cherish the life of enjoyment” (6). Yet for those people who desire knowledge and have a refined conviction for achieving good, qualities such as honor and virtue are more desirable than crude pleasures. A virtuous person looks for achievements beyond self-gratification and the physical realm. Therefore, they are more likely to value the environment in its natural goodness and not exploit its abundant pleasures and richness: “The blessed person… has no need for pleasure from without” (203). Aristotle supports the inherent goodness in simply living which he determines to be perception and thinking (204). He concludes that by saying that which is living is by nature good by the evidence that all people “long for it” (204). What’s more, the attainment of this goodness through knowledge, perception and thinking is what creates a separation between the pleasure-evoked and virtue-evoke lifestyles.

Discussion Questions: What merits goodness? How can a person achieve virtue? What activities and works identify a person who is good and virtuous? How can being good foster a relationship between humanity and nature that extends beyond pleasure?

Whales and Horses

Links to some choice whale articles: 

Watching Whales Watching Us

Whale's Grandeur and Grace, Up Close 

Sleeping Sperm Whales 

All the Pretty Horses Passage -

A Mexican veteran become chef talking to two young cowboys about horses:

"He spoke of his campaigns in the deserts of Mexico and he told them of horses killed under him and he said that the souls of horses mirror the souls of men more closely than men suppose and that horses also love war. Men say they only learn this but he said that no creature can learn that which his heart has no shape to hold. His own father said that no man who has not gone to war on horseback can ever truly understand the horse and he said that he supposed he wished that this were not so but that it was so.Lastly he said that he had seen the souls of horses and that it was a terrible thing to see. He said that it could be seen under certain circumstances attending the death of a horse because the horse shares a common soul and its separate life only forms it out of all horses and makes it mortal. He said that if a person understood the soul of the horse then he would understand all horses that ever were.

They sat smoking, watching the deepest embers of the fire where the red coals cracked and broke.

Y de los hombres? said John Grady.

The old man shaped his mouth how to answer. Finally he said that among men there was no such communion as among horses and the notion that men can be understood at all was probably an illusion. Rawlins asked him in his bad Spanish if there was a heaven for horses but he shook his head and said that a horse had no need of heaven. Finally John Grady asked him if it were not true that should all horses vanish from the face of the earth the soul of the horse would not also perish for there would be nothing out of which to replenish it but the old man only said that it was pointless to speak of there being no horses in the world for God would not permit such a thing."

The Communal Soul

     "...one must examine whether it is divisible or without parts, and whether all soul is of the same kind, or, if it is not of the same kind, whether should differ as forms of one general class... For those who now speak and inquire about the soul seem to consider only the human soul, but one must be on the lookout so that it does not escape notice whether there is one articulation of soul, just as of living thing, or a different one for each, as for horse, dog, human being, and god...
     "...if there are not many souls but parts of one soul, one must consider whether one ought to inquire first about the soul as a whole or about these parts..."

Aristotle, On the Soul, Book 1, Chapter 1

The central themes of these two books of Aristotle seem to be the definition of the soul itself and the examination of the soul as a presence in different creatures. In the very beginning of Book 1, Aristotle raises these questions in the above passage, asking which creatures possess souls and if these souls manifest themselves in different ways for each type of creature. He later maintains that each soul is made up of at least one potency, and that the souls of human beings have the highest number of these, above animals, plants, and elements. However, an interesting idea is presented in the above passage: Aristotle seems to imply that if all living things have the same articulation or type of soul, they make up "not many souls but parts of one soul".

These two different ideas of the soul in nature, whether it is different for all creatures or the same and therefore a communal soul, seem to recall the question we debated in the early weeks of this course: are we, as humans, a part of nature or separate from it? The idea that each creature has a different type of soul and that the soul is the strongest and most complex in humans seems to lead to the idea that humans are superior to the rest of the natural world and therefore have the ability, perhaps the right, to dominate it and use it for our own ends. However, the idea that all of the natural world shares the same soul is a voice for the conservation movement, suggesting that humanity has a duty to care for and preserve the natural world. If we lose it, we lose an intrinsic and vital part of our own soul and of ourselves. The fact that Aristotle eventually embraces the idea of multiple different souls could imply that he might also support human superiority and domination of nature.

The idea of nature itself having a soul is also a very spiritual thing. Most religions today believe that only humans have souls and, therefore, only they can pass into the next life. Aristotle's ideas of animals and plants having souls lends a sort of spirituality to the natural world, and is another reason to protect and value the natural world for more than just aesthetics. If we embrace modern ideas of the soul, then killing a wild animal or chopping down a tree is merely ending a lesser life, that of a wild beast; if we embrace Aristotle's doctrine, we murder another perceptive and valuable being.

Do you think the connection between the soul and the natural world is conducive to conservation, or does it only complicate this cause in the long run? Do we have a duty to protect the natural world because it may have a soul as well, or does the presence of a soul make a difference? What about the different ideas of the soul: does it matter if we believe that the natural world shares the same type of soul or that humans have a superior one?

Studying Nature

"Which of these is the one who studies nature? Is the one concerned with the material who ignores the meaning or the one concerned with the meaning alone?" (Aristotle ; Book I, chapter 2, page 51)

In this passage Aristotle is comparing two different ways in which people can study things. The first way he describes is more a more personal approach. By this I mean that the object being studied is studied from the personal perspective of the person examining it. The second way of studying something is from a more literal viewpoint, as in the person studying it is reflecting on what they see simply from an observational stand point.

One of the examples Aristotle gives of the difference between these two types of studying is a house. One person, he says, would describe a house as a shelter that provides protection and safety while another would simply describe it as a construction of lumber, stone, bricks, etc. The difference between these two ways of thinking is that the first person regards the house with more emotional meaning where they have associated the structure with personal feelings, memories, or experiences. In comparison to this, the second person sees the house as what it literally is.

I found this specific passage interesting because Aristotle asks the reader "which of these is the one who studies nature?" as if only one of the two ways of thinking can be correct. I feel that in subjects like that of nature, which are so loosely defined and can have so many meanings, one has to look at them from multiple viewpoints- both emotional and literal. For this reason I believe that both people can study nature equally as fully and effectively as the other since nature can be looked at from both an emotional and literal perspective.

What is nature? Or natural? In our society today the terms are used so frequently and to describe so many different things that I feel like the meaning is different for everyone. Is an "all natural" granola bar the same type of "natural" as a forest of hundred year old trees? I think a subject this complex needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives in order for us to ever truly understand it.

What's Your Purspose?

“All things that are by nature come about as they do either always or for the most part, but none of the things from fortune or chance do. For it does not seem to be from or by coincidence that it rains in winter... if then, it seems that something is is either by coincidence or for the sake of something, and if things by nature cannot be by either coincidence or chance, they would be for the sake of something. But surely such things are all by nature... Therefore, there is being-for-the-sake-of-something among things that happen by nature” (Aristotle 66).

In chapter 8, Aristotle explains what instances constitute chance and necessity. In the section I chose, Aristotle implies that all happenings in nature are out of necessity and not simply by chance, for each thing in nature has a purpose that the thing is acting toward. This is referred to as “being-for-the-sake-of-something.” This purpose can be exemplified by looking at our own teeth. Aristotle points out that our canines, used for ripping foods, and molars, which grind the food up, are not positioned the way they are by chance. The end toward which our teeth function would be to aid in digestion, and ensure efficient absorption of nutrients.

One issue that I think would complicate Aristotle's argument would be the instance of selective breeding by humans. Today, there is a wide variety of dog species, thanks to species adapting to different environments and to humans selecting new breeds. Most dogs in the wild are large and hardy; their teeth, for example, are structured to wolf down large portions of tough meat. Now think of the Yorkshire Terrier, Chihuahua, and Pomeranian. They would not survive alone in a wild environment without humans, but they don't need to. The purpose of these breeds is to satisfy the human convention of cuteness. Their short stature, button noses, etc. make these breeds extremely vulnerable to sickness and being attacked, but aren't dogs supposed to be built to hunt?

What do you think: do you consider man made concepts like “cuteness” a natural part of humans and nature? Or was is by chance that people took interest in making certain animals so cuddly?

Necessity of Nature, Aristotle

"with everything else, in whatever being-for-the-sake-of something is present, each thing is neither without things having necessity in their nature ,nor as a result of them other than as material, but for the sake of something"(chapter nine, Aristotle)

In chapter nine, Aristotle discusses necessity in nature. He argues that "the necessary" is present in nature just like it is in math. Nature is necessary for materials. It seems as though Aristotle says that nature's purpose is to serve humans. The example he gives is a saw. The saw needs iron for it to exist, but iron does not need the saw to exist. Without natural materials such as iron, the saw would not be useful for what it is. There are specific parts of nature that are necessary for us to make tools and shelter. It seems that he says the end or final purpose of nature is for it to be used by humans. Aristotle has a very pragmatic approach to nature, which has definitely influenced western ideals towards nature.

Sachs' Definition of Aristotelian Telos

This is the passage I read out in class today, for your further consideration. I think Sachs does a good job clarifying some of the most difficult concepts in Aristotle:   

End, or Telos: "The completion toward which anything tends, and for the sake of which it acts. In deliberate action it has the character of purpose, but in natural activity it refers to wholeness. Aristotle does not say that animals, plants, and the cosmos have purposes but that they are purposes, ends-in-themselves. Whether any of them is in another sense of the sake of anything outside itself is always treated as problematic in the theoretical works (Physics 194a, 34-36; Metaphysics 1072b, 1-3; De Anima 415b, 2-3), though Politics 1257a, 15-22, treats all other species as being for the sake of humans. As a settled opinion found throughout his writings, Aristotle’s “teleology” is nothing but his claim that all natural beings are self-maintaining wholes."

From the Glossary of Sach's translation of the Physics (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001, pp. 246-247). 

The Nature of Things According to Aristotle

“Now to some it seems that nature or the thinghood of things by nature is the first thing present in each which is unarranged as far as it itself is concerned; thus the nature of a bed would be wood and a statue, bronze. And Antiphon says that sign of this is that if someone were to bury a bed, and what rotted had the power to put up a sprout, it would not become a bed but wood, since what belongs to it by accident is the arrangement according to convention and art, while the thinghood of it is that which remains continuously even while it’s undergoing these things. ” (Aristotle 50).

            I believe that this passage from Aristotle’s Physics demonstrates well the beliefs of both Aristotle and his peers on the concept of nature. In this particular passage, Aristotle is responding to other’s belief that nature comprises of all things that come about naturally and without influence from other forces, such as humans, other than nature itself. Early in the chapter Aristotle does state that nature consists of animals, plants, and elements that are all their own source of motion or rest as well as growth. For him, nature is what makes up everything, the material, and the process that those things go through.

Some would argue that those things “touched” or manipulated should not considered natural, as they are manmade and not created solely by natural forces. Aristotle would say that even those manipulated things are also natural since the material itself, what makes that thing what it is, remains even when it is manipulated. While this concept might be confusing, Aristotle explains it well when he talks about the example of a bed in this passage. While the bed itself was not created by nature, the bed is still made up of wood and other “natural” materials; therefore, it would be wrong to consider items such as beds as being unnatural or artificial. I also think that Aristotle would argue that nature is a constantly evolving and changing and that it is only natural for materials to change, even if something else is the one manipulating the material. Meaning that man’s manipulation of its surroundings is a natural phenomenon.  Yet I still think that it is understandable that others see man-made things as artificial as those things, like beds and statues, were not its initial form or created by natural forces. Do you agree with Aristotle’s definition of nature? Comparing his view to other works we have read this semester, why exactly do we see things we manipulate as unnatural?

Aristotle's Physics Book II. 1-3, Nature as a Force of Change

Nature as a Force of Change

"For each of these has in itself a source of motion and rest... but a bed or a cloak, or any other such kind of thing there is, in the respect in which it has happened upon each designation and to the extent that it is from art, has no innate impulse of change at all." (192b p. 49-50)

"And everything that has a nature is an independent thing, since it is something that underlies [and persists through change], and nature is always in an underlying thing." (192b p.49-50)

"For what is potentially flesh or bone does not yet have its own nature, until it takes on the look that is disclosed in speech, that by means of which we define when we say what flesh or bone is, and not until then is it by nature." (193b p. 50-1)
Source: Aristotle, Physics, trans. J. Sachs (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. P, 2001).

     Aristotle's conceives of nature as a type of causation that is characterized by motion and change and is not incidental. After giving a brief look at his own view of nature and stating that it is based on the way we commonly speak about things and our intuitions, he presents two other views and their ways of defining the nature of a thing. One view does this by a method known as reduction and claims that the essential nature of something is in the most basic substance or material that are the fundamental building blocks. Someone holding this view would define something like water by the parts that make it up - Hydrogen, electrons, quarks, etc. They would argue that water is not defined by its property to quench our thirst or how we think and talk about it. They might give an example to show this, such as the fact that sea water doesn't relieve our thirst but it is still water. Their essential point is that the materials define the principle nature that makes something that particular thing.
     The second view directly contests with the previous point and Aristotle is more sympathetic to this line of thinking. Aristotle supports this view by suggesting that things are defined by their actuality by giving the example of flesh and bone towards the end of chapter two.  Aristotle recognizes that both views are getting something right and we can see this in his own view that "nature is twofold, and is both form and material". He goes on to argue that when studying nature we must go about studying both form and material aspects, but we can see from his comments on Plato that he thinks we should only study form when it is in actuality and not when it is without substance because without the substance, their is no movement or change.

    While looking for a particular passage to blog about I noticed that the current approach we take to our interactions and relationship with nature is motivated by very different goals. Aristotle is concerned with knowing for the sake of knowing as opposed to ourselves who generally think we study nature because of its usefulness or because we want to find solutions to environmental issues. Should we go about studying nature in the same way as Aristotle or does our different goal change something? If thinking of nature as a force of underlying change and motion is correct, do our distinctions of 'natural species' vs 'invasive species' or a 'wilderness' vs. 'spoiled' still hold? It is hard to see how one could argue they are genuine when they collapse and are shown to be meaningless. What about Aristotle's arguments do we find convincing and sound? Is his appeal to the way in which we speak about things reasonable and does it provide justification for defining what is natural by the way we talk? Isn't this problematic since we use concepts to refer to different things and in more than one way? If Aristotle is correct in his criticisms of the materialist view, what accounts for the success of physics, chemistry, and other sciences that follow the reductive materialist methodology?

Natural Order on Earth and Above

"Yes, down like a lurid rainbow Zeus sends arching
down to mortal men from the high skies, a sign of war
or blizzard to freeze the summer's warmth and put a halt
to men's work on the face of the earth and harry flocks"

(Book XVII: lines 624-627)

They swept in like hounds that fling themselves
at a wounded boar before young hunters reach him,
darting in for a moment, keen to rip the boar apart
till he wheels at bay, ramping into the pack with all his power
and the hounds cringe and bolt and scatter left and right.

(Book XVII: lines 816-820)

"Aeneas the son of Anchises flanking glorious Hector
Flying before them now like clouds or crows or starlings
screaming murder, seeing a falcon dive in for the kill,
the hawk that wings grim death at smaller birds"

(Book XVII: lines 845-848)

I chose to draw three quotes from Book XVII that I believe helps illustrate Homer's classical view of nature and man's role on earth. These three quotes are few of the many examples within The Iliad where there is a metaphor or parallel drawn between nature and the interactions amongst men. From the classical viewpoint of nature and man's role on earth; nature is a tangibly seen pure or perfect realm for men to mimic. Man's role on earth is not only to mimic nature because of it's pureness but also work with nature and to guide nature because human's view themselves as superior much like the Gods are over man. The second quote shows how men can fight over a corpse just as hounds will fight over a wounded boar and will continue to do so until a superior being steps in. Just how man can alter, inhibit, and/or incite the natural order between animals; God's have that kind of control over men. The other perfect or pure realm not seen is Olympus or the realm in which the Gods are placed. Like man's role to "work on the face of the earth"the God's have the same kind of control and/or authority over man in which they can cause either prosperity or destruction whenever they choose to do so (like seen in the first quote). Lastly, like in the natural realm on earth, men feel that they must mimic the contrast amongst species. Like how "the hawk that wing's grim death at smaller birds" in the third quote, there are superior birds of prey over others just how there should be superior men over others. Can you draw any corollaries between Homer's classical view of the natural order on earth and a modernistic approach that takes science into consideration? Do you think that Homer intended for men to be one with nature or do you agree in thinking that Homer believed in a natural realm on earth as an entity of its own that remains pure, distant from man?

Respect for Nature and "Wretched Men"

“…But standing clear of the fray Achilles’ horses wept

from the time they first had sensed their driver’s death,

brought down in the dust by man-killing Hector.

Diores’ rugged son Automedon did his best,

lashed them over and over with stinging whip—

coaxing them gently now, now shouting oath on oath.

But both balked at returning now to the ships

moored at the Hellespont’s far-reaching shore

or galloping back to fight beside the Argives.

Staunch as a pillar planted tall above a barrow,

standing sentry over some lord or lady’s grave-site,

so they stood, holding the blazoned chariot stock-still,

their heads trailing along the ground, warm tears flowing

down from their eyes to wet the earth… the horses mourned,

longing now for their driver, their luxurious manes soiled,

streaming down from the yoke-pads, down along the yoke.

     And Zeus pitied them, watching their tears flow.

He shook his head and addressed his own deep heart:

‘Poor creatures, why did we give you to King Peleus,

a mortal doomed to death…

you immortal beasts who never age or die?

So you could suffer the pains of wretched men?

There is nothing alive more agonized than man

of all that breathe and crawl across the earth.’”

(Iliad 17.493-516)

                I found this passage really interesting.  Books 17 and 18 of the Iliad are full of language invoking nature.  Homer often compares the strength and power of the warriors to that of lions and boars.  In reading this, it seemed to me that this classical view of nature was one of respect for its power.  Armies are as uncontrollable as fires, and they surge against one another like oceans.  This passage, though, added (for me) some depth to this respectful view of nature.  It makes it respect for nature in its innocence, as something better than humankind.  Nature is not just powerful and wild, it is also pure.  The warriors rage on against one another, but the horses stop to mourn the death of their rider.  To me, this makes the humans appear brutish and careless, and the horses hold a respect for life that the humans lack. 

              

             When Homer writes, “Their heads trailing along the ground, warm tears flowing down from their eyes to wet the earth,” he also seems to connect the horses again to earth, and thus to nature.  They are a part of something separate from humans.  What’s more, Zeus himself is moved by their emotion.  He calls the horses “immortal beasts who never age or die.”  Again, Homer seems to be separating the horses (or nature generally) from humans, about whom Zeus says, “’There is nothing alive more agonized than man of all that breathe and crawl across the earth’” (17.515).  It is a tragedy, he believes, that the horses should suffer the pains of men.

             

            Warriors aspire to possess the power of lions, perhaps not only because lions are incredibly strong, but also because lions are creatures viewed as somehow higher than humans.  Zeus feels sympathy for the horses that mourn Peleus, because he believes they should not have to suffer “’the pains of wretched men.’”  This is a profound kind of respect.  Yet men use horses as tools in battle.  What do you think Homer means by having Zeus express sympathy for the horses?  Is Zeus’ respect for the horses shared by the humans?  It seems that the men believe themselves to be forces of nature, yet Zeus, when speaking of the horses, seems to disagree and instead suggest that humans are something entirely different, something wretched.  What do you think our society's view of man's relationship with nature is?  Which opinion do you favor?

"Does Nature Have Moral Value?"

A couple of nights ago the Memphis sky was incredible at sunset. The natural human reaction was to remark on its beauty--the aesthetic value of the pinks, oranges, and bright whites of the incredible sunset were gorgeous; and, to some students and Memphians, even worthy of Instagram. This occurrence is a prime example of humans attempting to mold natural phenomena into something that they are capable of understanding on a personal level. And, as King mentions in "How to Construe Nature," the aesthetic value of nature was particularly highlighted in the Romantic and Picturesque art movements. 

However, Nature is deeper than any commodity. People defend nature because it does have value, therefore defending it against exploitation. But as defining nature as something having aesthetic value, we are stripping it of its moral value. Therefore, how do we give nature meaning, and how do we define it? King says, "The moral status of Nature is determined by the contexts within which non-human entities are incorporated into human cultural understanding"(352). As humans we desperately try to understand overwhelming, powerful entities such as Nature by examining our relationship with said entity. Although Nature is a non-human entity like King suggests, it is essential to the human method of processing power on such a large scale to be able to think of nature in human terms.

Humans understand social and economical value. People are willing to pay steep prices in order to spend a leisure filled weekend in the comforting arms of nature. It has become a commodity. An ethical relationship has yet to be formed. A weekend away may be seen as an opportunity to become better acquainted with nature's majesty, however, it often becomes "a passive appreciation of the spectacle, which one buys" (356).  Nature has become a social phenomenon, and appreciating nature has become a fad of sorts. This example accentuates the fact that nature is something that surpasses human understanding.

As humans we are earthly beings and unable to comprehend fully the meaning and role of nature, and therefore must identify it by how we associate with it and how it affects us. However, nature is non-human and cannot have human attributes--including human moral value. We can project spiritual meaning onto nature as an attempt to file it into our minds as a religious substitute, but what if it can't have human attributes? How can you put value on something that you're so disconnected from? We can define what it means to be human, but nature seems so different.  Ultimately, we are need to successfully define our relationship with nature before we can attempt to preserve it...or promote our personal connections with nature on Instagram.

Humans Ignorant to their Surroundings?

Humans Ignorant to their Surroundings?

            David Abram gives somewhat of a pessimistic view of humans as he analyzes human behavior compared to that of salmons. One passage from his writing “Reciprocity” that warrants further discussion says, “It seemed so similar to… so much like, like… well, YES! Of course, so much like us, us humans!- our own species, Homo sapiens, steadily multiplying and proliferating these last several centuries without much noticing anything else, seemingly deaf and blind to the presence of all other species with whom we share this wild world”(p.78).

            This statement above shows the complexity of Abram’s thoughts. On one hand I kind of agree with him but on the other hand I cannot agree with him. He claims that humans are just like salmons and we are oblivious to our surroundings but is that really true? He claims that humans have always been oblivious to other species since our creation and that needs to change. The other part of me does agree with him because humans do not care about anybody but ourselves and will do anything to advance our own species at the cost of other species.

            The main problem I have with this statement is that Abram is saying that all humans are oblivious to the other species around them but that is not true. Majority of the society of people are ignorant to their surroundings but there are people who care about the environment and the species that live within it such as the Green Party in the United States or the Native Americans who came to understand the true value and appreciation of the buffaloes in the 1800s.  The Native Americans are a good example to use because they understood the true value of nature and grew to appreciate it. The Native Americans never tried to harm the environment at all because they saw that all species are on this world with a purpose.

            Now Abram is correct in his thought that many of the humans on this Earth are oblivious to their surroundings because humans constantly destroy the environment around them. For example, the Amazon Rain Forest is home to thousands and thousands of wild species but this rain forest is slowing dwindling due to the rapid human population growth in Brazil. People in Brazil need a place to live so they are cutting the forest down to build houses but at the same time destroying one of the most important forests in the world. Humans do not care for the environment like they should and it will come to harm them just like how Global Warming is a major issue today. Everything in nature has a purpose on this Earth so there is no need to destroy it but rather humans should learn to accept it. Humans are growing at record pace but there is way to live amongst the other species of this Earth without destroying them.

            Finally, I leave this question for you guys to ponder on. What kind of an event needs to happen for humans to appreciate the environment around them and not to harm it anymore or are humans truly that ignorant and will never learn from their mistakes?

Technology as Savior? & Nature in Your Life

Jared Diamond ends on a positive note in his writing "The Ends of the World as We Know Them", stating that "To save ourselves, we don't need new technology: we just need the political will to face up to our problems of population and the environment" (412).

While I agree with his statement, I am wary of his optimism because of the trends we have seen since this piece was published in 2010. America's, and the world's, overarching response to climate change has been to seek technological solutions. We are pursuing alternative fuels and investing millions in biofuel research; fuel cells have been tested; solar panels have been improved upon as well as wind turbines. Diamond says that we do not need these inventions to save ourselves from extinction, but it seems as if the public at large has blindly put their faith in science to solve the new problems we have created.

We, as Americans, love our freedoms. And that includes the freedom to consume as much as we want and produce as much as we want, even pollution. There are been attempts to persuade Americans to turn off their lights, save electricity, move into cities, change their lifestyles to have less of an impact upon the earth. However, we stubbornly cling to our lifestyles. This is not wrong, it is obviously in human nature as seen in the examples Diamond gives of those cultures who failed to adapt. However, it is detrimental. It seems, again, that we are turning heavily to technology, trying to lazily buy our way out of our problems, instead of make lifestyle changes.

Humans on earth are more easily connected now than ever. Which is great in some aspects (providing information and examples of distant, collapsed cultures) but it means that our impacts are no longer local but global. As a whole, our race, as McKibben points out, has been able to alter the ecosystem and climate. Instead of "stabbing a man [the earth] with toothpicks" we can not "alter the power of the sun... change the patterns of moisture and dryness... breed deserts" (48). Some nations are adapting and achieving set goals at reducing their carbon footprint and investing in renewable energy, but we can see a sort of tragedy of the commons occurring. The countries, such as the U.S. and China, who do not want to curb pollution or consumption are taking advantage of the lack of international controls and are hurting the atmosphere irreparably. We can see these trends in the failed Kyoto Protocol and the more recent meetings in Buenos Aires.

To return to Diamond's quote, I would ask: Do we, as Americans, think that our nation will have the "political will" to enforce changes in behavior instead of simply relying on technology? Or will we try and invent our way out until it is too late? Is Diamond wrong, and can we solve global warming with new inventions (such as pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the atmosphere)?

________

Lastly, a question stemming more out of my own curiosity and relating to the McKibben reading that people can post about... is there a place, a park, or a natural landmark that you personally visited and it now no longer exists or has been drastically changed? McKibben says there is no more existing wilderness so what is a meaningful place to you that you have seen thus destroyed by man- OR alternatively, one that remains pristine.

Slivers of Hope: A Rejection of Insulation and Faith in Capitalism

The most extreme outcomes feared by those concerned with the present environmental crisis is a collapse of society in a similar vein to the historical collapses of Mayans and the Polynesiasns on Pitcairn and the Henderson Islands discussed by Jared Diamond in his article "The Ends of the World As We Know Them."Of course those concerned with today's environmental crisis fear an eventual collapse on a global scale. As Diamond points out "globalization now means that any society's problems have the potential to affect everyone else" (Diamond 410). Some of the environmental problems we face today like climate change, oil dependence, lack of water, etc., may not only have the potential to "affect everyone else" but it could go so far as to lead to a global historical collapse. This is an extreme possibility that we are all familiar with but because we are so globalized and advanced the problems we face are also more global and the resulting consequences perhaps far more reaching than the environmental problems of past individual societies because we now live in a global society.

Of the historical collapses that Diamond mentions our potential plight seems most similar to the Mayans. Like the Mayans we inhabit a "lush environment" and have had problems in properly addressing the environmental problems we face unlike the 17th century Tokugawa shoguns in Japan, for example (Diamond 410). Diamond also worries that the United States has a problem of the elites being insulated from the environmental dangers facing the lower classes, which he states also contributed to the Mayan collapse.

Diamond draws hope about the future of society in that our problems are our own doing and solving them would require taking environmental problems seriously. Of course, making society as a whole and the political world actually take the environment seriously is a problem in itself.

I would like to venture two things: that the insulation he describes in the US doesn't solely apply to the elites within American society and also that capitalism itself can or could be the mechanism for adequately addressing today's environmental problems.

Diamond uses the wealthy in gated communities as being insulated from environmental problems and thus losing the motivation to support more sustainable practices. I don't really think that's a legitimate contributing factor for our current state. Firstly, some of the biggest benefactors and proponents of environmental reform are those who are part of America's wealthy elite. Secondly, I think the belief that elite wealthy Americans are insulated from the worst realities of current environmental problems applies more to America as a whole than to just a particular sector of the American class system. America itself has been relatively insulated from the worst environmental problems in terms of real mass famine, ecosystem failure, or societal collapse. I think that as a whole we are, however, beginning to realize these dangers and slowly beginning to take environmental problems seriously. The question with that, however, remains whether are we too late to adequately remedy the situation or are we changing fast enough to remedy the situation if we are not already too late.

As for my second venture, I think that capitalism and the free market will eventually play an increasing role in addressing the environmental crisis. Capitalism and the free market want never-ending growth; therefore, once they realize on a systemic level that the environmental crisis is going to be eventually become a barrier to growth and perhaps even the end of all potential growth then the market could adapt itself to adequately fix the problems. So far, though, we have seen governmental regulation have to force the free market to do so but I maintain some hope that we will see the marriage of capitalism and regulation for the end purpose of making sure the environmental crisis will not lead to an eventual historical collapse.

Footage of Eruption

Here are a couple links to footage of the eruption at Heimaey, Iceland:

This one contains some footage of the pumping:

Making Impossible Decisions

In almost any contest, everything that happens affects everything that happens thereafter.  A free throw missed in the third quarter does not make a difference in a one-point game.  Even in something as primal as a volcanic eruption, the component of human interference could apparently enter the narrative and, in complex and unpredictable geometries, alter the shape of succeeding events.  After the human contribution passed a level higher than trifling, the evolution of the new landscape could in no pure sense be natural.  The event had lost its status as a simple act of God.  In making war with nature, there was a risk of loss in winning.  (McPhee, 143)

After both the narrow saving of the harbor and the halting of Flakkarinn, a new fissure broke open and a new pounding catastrophe—the City Flow—was upon Heimaey.  Here the author suggests the responsibility of humans in the event, since they indisputably affected how the volcano affected the town.  This new stream of lava that would hit the city was probably headed that way due to the “water-hardened zone” (McPhee 142) created by the people themselves.  McPhee is saying that once these Icelanders decided to take up arms against the lava, they took responsibility for any of their future failures.  But this idea ignores our situation that Professor Field mentioned on Friday: the situation of being stuck making some sort of judgment about what to do with our natural world since we constantly find that we do have some sort of influence in it, whether we consider that influence to be natural or artificial.  As an Existentialist, Sartre has stated “I can always choose, but I must also realize that, if I decide not to choose, that still constitutes a choice” (44*).  In this sense, even “letting nature take its course” (McPhee 147) would only be intervening in precious nature in a different kind of way—by consciously not intervening when there is the potential of doing so.

This claim—that what eventually happened in Heimaey was in some sense brought on by the people themselves—implies that human actions are distinctly separate from nature and that they only affect nature insofar as they “[pass] a level higher than trifling,” a somewhat ironic statement since the only measurers of ‘how trifling’ something is are humans themselves.  So not only are we forced to choose how to enact (or not enact) change on our planet, but we are even forced to choose some sort of definition of “nature” and “natural” so long as we use such concepts to attempt to halt lava or to let it go on flowing.

If our definition of “nature” and “natural” is decided by humans themselves and not dictated by “nature,” then how should we define it?  Should we look out for our own human needs?  Does “nature” have needs?  Should we see human acts and acts of “nature” as separate?

*Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Ed. John Kulka. Trans. Carol Macomber. New Haven: Yale UP, 2007. Print.

Welcome!

Welcome to the blog for "Political Philosophy of Nature and the Environment." The purpose of this blog is twofold: to provide some discussion material for our class meetings, and to provide a forum for continued discussion outside of class. If you are new to blogging, it would be good to read over A Blogger's Code of Ethics and Weblog Ethics, both of which offer valuable insights on how to monitor your participation in blog conversations. Also, please have a look at the blog grading rubric (see link to the right) so that you know how I will be evaluating blog participation.

I'll have the reading/blogging schedule updated for tomorrow's class.

The blog is also an easy way for us to share occasional online resources - so if you come across something that strikes you as especially relevant to our course, please feel free to share the information here. In that vein, here is a piece from this summer that links our two pieces for tomorrow really nicely. And here the accompanying interview with Emma Marris:

Looking forward to the semester,
LKF