Chap+2+Environmental+Ethics

Here are the much awaited discussion questions for Chapter 2: Please respond to three of the first six questions and then answer 7&8. Remember to take turns going first on these questions and reply to each other.

1. "The problem of managing those interactions however, has been transformed today by unprecedented increases in the rate, scale, and complexity of the interactions." This is a quote from page 15 of the text. Try to in your own words to explain what is meant by this sentence. Give a couple examples.

The quote is referring to the history of human interactions with the environment. It is saying that dealing with these interactions has become much more difficult to do because of how they occur more often, and when they occur they are very complicated and difficult to deal with because of their huge consequences. An example is waste from nuclear power. Storing that waste is hugely difficult because it remains radioactive for thousands if not millions of years. Humans can ether not use nuclear power, which is much more efficient than other power sources, or they have to find a way to manage the waste. Another example is the oil leak in the gulf. The oil being drilled sprang a leak and fixing it is hugely complicated because it's all submerged. The oil leak has caused huge environmental damage. This quote, like pink said, refers to how humans have changed the environment. This increasing complexity of interactions refers to how human needs have grown throughout the century. Way, way back in time, humans only needed food and water (which was readily available by hunting and gathering) and the simplest form of a living environment (say, in caves or something). Over time, human beings' own curiosity and ability developed new 'wants', which then became needs. We wanted a quicker way of transport = trains and cars. Cars became accessible through mass production, which used up so many resources. We then NEED cars because they're affordable = burning fuels, and cause development of new roads which cause damage to the environment.

2. Discuss some of the issues that arise when what is ethically good for the environment comes in conflict with what is good for people.

When environmental ethics clash with what is good for humans, people become very divided. While everybody wants the human race to thrive and be healthy, some people have personal morals regarding how much we can take from the environment without giving back. When people destroy a natural area to construct a convenient road, they are making things easier for people and simultaneously creating jobs. However, they are also annihilating an entire ecosystem. It is a question of personal morals because it is a tricky give-and-take relationship. There are no clear guidelines, so people can completely disagree on what's "right" and what is "wrong." I read in a recent article that we are entering a new era, the Anthropocene. This term pretty much sums up what is happening on in the world: humans have had a significant, irreversible impact on the environment (this could have started as early as the Industrial Revolution). Like what purple said, we humans must face a difficult choice when we need to change the ecosystem so we can extract some kind of valuable resource from it. It's definitely tough to balance this "seesaw".

3. Discuss the protection of Smith Bog from all three philosophical approaches to environmental ethics.

4. What examples can you think of where corporations are going after "green dollars"? This isn't an answer (kind of the opposite) but an interesting POV: http://thesoapgroup.com/culture/preachygreen-- click on the tabs on the right for videos- they're kinda funny SOAP stands for Sustainable Organization Advocacy Partners, and the purpose of the organization is to inform and encourage consumers to make sustainable and economical decisions, and to, in turn, encourage corporations to become more sustainable .

5. What do you think will be the long term economic fall out for BP in terms of the oil spill in the Gulf Oil Spill? The oil spill in the Gulf will certainly haunt BP for a long time. I saw a couple of ads on TV a few months ago that tried to polish BP's image in terms of the clean-up efforts, and their goals for the 'rehabilitation' of the Gulf Coast. From what I heard, there is a law that puts a cap on BP's spending for the oil clean up at $75 million (Oil Pollution Act of 1990), and the federal gov't will take it from there. I fear that this is going to happen, though it is in BP's interest to take full-responsibility for it which should clean up their image. Not only will this oil spill cause irreparable damage on BP's image and the environment, jobs and real estate around the area will be damaged as well. If there aren't any fishermen working, a large part of the economy in the Gulf will be cut. Real estate comes to mind because of the oil that will be washing up on shore. Who would want to purchase homes near this area if this is what they're going to see everyday? The economic fall out will not only be seen in BP, but also in the Gulf Coast states.

6. What responsibility, if any, do we all share in terms of the oil spill? Though I strongly believe that BP and friends are at fault for this incident, the gravity of the situation represents our society's dependence on oil, and other natural resources. It should prove to be a big wake up call to many citizens. In a sense, our consumer lifestyles caused the spill. If we weren't so desperate for oil, countries wouldn't be drilling in volatile situations.

7. Go to a couple of the sites below an complete of the quizzes to determine your foot print and then share the information. Comment on what information you found and its implications.

http://www.myfootprint.org/ [] http://www.earthday.net/footprint/ Yikes! This is the result I got when I took the earthday quiz. It seems that my lifestyle is focused on services, in fact more than half is for energy alone. It's really eye-opening for me to know this, because I didn't realize I use up so much electricity, and energy sources in general. So, a lot of acres would need to be used for energy purposes. If everyone lived like me, we would need 3.8 Earths to provide enough resources to sustain the population. Too bad we only got one (kidding!).

8. Reread the case study of early philosophers of nature. Is the environmental crisis in certain respects a problem in politics? Does philosophy have a role to play in solving this problem? Should scientist, business owners, and politicians study environmental ethics? What role do you see environmental ethics playing in your life?

The environmental crisis is absolutely political. Politics is the science of leadership, and our leaders are the ones who must act in order to conserve the environment. The question of who should study environmental science depends on which individual interacts with the environment or which controls the interaction. Political leaders can over see the actions of business owners and scientists but if the leaders have no power over what they do then the individuals should study it. Each person who makes a decision regarding the environment should know the consequences. Philosophy matters more when there are more individuals making choices. One leader can have one philosophy and make all of his decisions based on it, many people with many philosophies have a greater chance of being greedy, uncaring and destructive towards the environment.