After learning about the different perspectives on anti-extinction technology last week, we will focus on Canada’s environmental rights debate this week. Although there is still academic disagreement on whether environmental rights are a basic human right or a fundamental constitutional right, an increasing number of countries are incorporating environmental rights into their constitutional texts.

There are now many voices arguing that Canada should also actively incorporate environmental rights into its constitution. David Boyd critics that Canada’s environmental problems have caused many health consequences for Canadians. Using Norway as an example, David counters voices that question whether the inclusion of environmental rights in the constitution will make a real difference. In fact, Norway has recognized the people’s right to the environment in its constitution since 1992, and the strong environmental laws based on the constitution have generated good economic and ecological benefits for the country. He pointed out that the move to constitutionalize environmental rights would not undermine national unity but rather contribute to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. 

Emmett Macfarlane holds a different opinion on this. He agreed that Canada has substantial environmental issues that need to be addressed, but enshrining environmental rights in the constitution may not be an appropriate solution at this time. He notes that “entrenching rights effectively transfers the decision-making authority to the courts.” However, it is questionable “whether judges have either the legitimacy or the competence to delve into the relevant policy issues. “It would be very challenging to add a broad right to a healthy environment to the charter because it requires substantial provincial consent. He believes that the key to solving environmental problems lies in the effective realization of governments’ political commitment to environmental policies.

As a fundamental law, the constitution provides the legal basis for the state’s activities and citizens. I believe that incorporating environmental rights into the constitution is the only way to improve the environmental legal system. In the context of the environmental crisis, environmental rights have become the premise and basis for the existence of the right to life, the right to development, and other human rights. Environmental pollution and destruction can seriously undermine or threaten existing human rights, and if environmental rights, which are the foundation of all basic human rights, are not brought into constitutional focus, other human rights will be left unprotected. Take the “Flammable water” case as an example. While there is no conclusive evidence linking groundwater contamination to hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry, even with evidence, it is difficult for victims to win lawsuits against energy giants. Without the support of environmental rights, the best possible outcome would be a large payout, but the oil industry would not stop using this technology, which can be very profitable. 

Aldo Leopold, a representative of the ecocentrists, proposed an idea with many similarities with environmental rights. Recognizing the value of the environment and the land itself and actively protecting the stability and prosperity of the environment as a whole is beneficial to human well-being and other members of the eco-community.

In conclusion, I believe that the Canadian Constitution should recognize the environmental rights of its citizens. As living creatures, humans cannot survive without clean water, atmosphere, soil, and other environmental elements. Thus, humans should see ourself as a member of the natural community, where the moral community’s scope needs to be expanded to include humans and nature itself. While the mere act of amending the constitution does not directly address environmental issues, it is an indispensable start.

-Dengnan Chen

References:

1. David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
2. Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf

Many familiar species, such as mammoths, thylacine, and passenger pigeons, have disappeared from the planet, some due to species competition or environmental changes, others due to human activities. Their extinction was once thought to be irreversible, but with the rapid development of genetic engineering technology, scientists have found that it is possible to resurrect these extinct animals through “De-extinction” biotechnology. Currently, no previously extinct species has been successfully resurrected. (2017)Scientists estimate that the technology holds the promise of a milestone breakthrough within the next few decades. (2017)Although the technology is still far from being ready for use, the potential problems it may cause have already caused widespread concern in society. In Tyler J. Kasperbauer’s article “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction,” he summarizes 5main challenges for “De-extinction” biotechnology. I will selectively discuss the first, second, and the fifth challenge.

1)Species resurrected by anti-extinction techniques may become extinct again for the same reason.
2)There is potential for resurrected species to become invasive.
3)The dilemma between resilience and reversibility.
4)Bringing back only one species may not provide meaningful ecosystem services.
5)Ethical Challenges

Taylor believes that one of the biggest causes of the extinction of the traveling pigeon is human hunting practices. Many people consider them to be pest birds, and if they are resurrected, they will probably be hunted again. (2017)If certain human activities led to some species’ extinction, then we should be prepared to ensure that these behaviors do not occur again before resurrecting the species. I believe the human overhunting problem is relatively easy to solve with better laws, more effective hunting regulations, and more education. We should carefully consider resurrecting species that have become extinct due to habitat loss or climate change. Species that extinct due to environmental reasons may be less suitable for resurrection using anti-extinction techniques, as recreating the right Living Environment for them may be very difficult or costly.

Secondly, he points out that the resurrected species may become invasive. After the extinction of the traveling pigeon, its place in the ecosystem has been taken by other species. Suppose the pigeon population was to be revived and released， it will undoubtedly affect other animals in the ecosystem that share the same food source as the pigeon and even leading to the extinction of other endangered species. In the past, as many as five billion passenger pigeons lived in the United States. If the cloned pigeon population could be increased to a level similar to that of the original, the natural balance disturbance would be unimaginable. Maybe we will need to hunt to control passenger pigeons’ population, as ironic as it may sound since human hunters exterminated them.

In the fourth challenge, he brings up a popular misconception that I think is critical to De-Extinction technology. A common argument is that resurrecting extinct organisms can conserve diversity and restore stability to declining ecosystems, which is inaccurate. Given the large population size of passenger pigeons, their resurrection could significantly increase or decrease the stability of the ecosystem. In most cases, however, a single species cannot significantly affect the stability of an ecosystem. (2017)If the goal is to increase environmental stability and species diversity, it is essential to consider bring back numbers of associated species together. But doing so tends to increase the risks associated with De-Extinction significantly.

Finally, We still have many questions to answer before we can resurrect the traveling pigeon. I believe that there are many limitations and side effects to the use of De-Extinction techniques. Protecting species diversity requires more consideration of how to protect currently endangered species and environmental stability. If we try to protect the environment through technology that brings back extinct species, it’s likely to be half the results with double the effort.

-Dengnan Chen

Reference:
T. J. Kasperbauer (2017) Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831

 

In 2011, two geneticists at Imperial College London successfully genetically engineered mosquitoes so that a gene they inserted into the mosquito genome has radiated throughout the mosquito population, reaching more than 85 percent of the mosquito offspring. This gene-driven technology can be used to reverse the sex ratio of mosquito offspring to produce more non-biting male offspring, thereby controlling mosquito populations and reducing or eliminating insect-borne diseases. Not only that, but the technology can also be applied to other biological populations to control invasive species and address the problem of pest resistance. The potential public health and economic benefits of this technology are arguably enormous. But the potential risks of this technology are also huge, such as the impact that a collapse in a particular species’ population could have on other species in the food chain. There has also been debate over the ethics of using genetic technology to make specific mosquito populations extinct. In Megan Scudellari’s article “Self-destructing Mosquitoes and Sterile Rodents: The Promise of Gene Drives,” she discusses some critical questions about gene drives. Two of my concerns are the validity and controllability of her discussion.

Where will We Use Gene Drives?

Articles she cites suggest gene drive technology performs well in the experiment of Anopheles Gambiae Mosquitoes. The drive can spread effectively in the experimental cage. But it faces a lot of difficulties in the experiment of mammals. It seems that the technique is more likely to be used in the near future to eliminate disease-carrying mosquito populations. Mosquitoes now dominate the application of technology. More experiments and research are needed to control invasive rodents using gene drive technology. Another technique she mentions is genetically engineering the Aedes aegypti mosquito to be resistant to all four major dengue viruses. If this technique can be proven to be effective, practical operations’ ethical problems could be greatly alleviated. People are conservative about using genetic technology to exterminate specific biological species. But public acceptance of the technology goes up considerably if it is to alter its genes to fight disease.

Is Gene Drives Safe?

It could be argued that this technology is currently under control. According to Megan’s article, the Safe Gen contract explicitly prohibits field trials. All experiments are now conducted in cages. However, as this technology evolves in the near future, field experiments are an inevitable step forward. Megan raises the concern that once the field trial begins, gene drives can change entire populations and, thus, entire ecosystems. “This technology has the potential to be immensely powerful and to change the course of things that we may not be able to predict,” says molecular biologist and bioethicist Natalie Kofler.(Scudellari)

I’m conservative about Gene Drive technology. My main concerns are the ethical aspects of this technology and the potential threat to species diversity. All living things on Earth have a reason for their existence and a place in the ecosystem. Even if we did have the ability to exterminate other creatures, we do not have the right to choose to exterminate any of them. Wiping out specific mosquito populations may be beneficial to the human population as a whole. However, suppose the scope of use of gene drive technology is measured in terms of benefits rather than morality. In that case, I fear that the technology may end up being a terrible weapon. From the species diversity point of view, there are also considerable risks associated with this technique. Imagine if a mosquito population is wiped out, the frogs, spiders, and other small animals that feed on these mosquitoes would also be in jeopardy. And so on, the number of predators such as snakes that feed on these small animals would also decrease accordingly, and eventually, the destructive consequences could befall us. But I have to say I’m also excited about the potential for the technology described in this article. I look forward to more experimental advances that will alleviate my doubts. If gene drive technology can eliminate the spread of malaria by allowing mosquitoes to inherit antibodies, then this could be an appropriate solution.

– Dengnan Chen

References:

Scudellari, Megan. “Self-Destructing Mosquitoes and Sterilized Rodents: the Promise of Gene Drives.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 9 July 2019, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5.

Gary Comstock argues why he changed his mind to accept genetically modified crops in his article “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.”
Many people worry about genetically modified crops because of their potential threat to humans, animals, and entire ecosystems.
He calls these objections against GM crops because of “anticipated results” as Extrinsic objections. He argues that these potential threats can be controlled and avoided and should not be a reason to ban the technology. He also introduced other common complaints to GM crops like “To engage in ag biotech is to play God” and “To engage in ag biotech is to commodify life.” He refuted them for good reasons. At the end of the article, Comstock believes GM crops are morally acceptable If we use GM crops carefully and responsibly.

Genetic technology, like any technology invented by humans, is risky. In the project of scientific progress, we should make bold assumptions and be more careful to verify them. GM foods are a potential technology that could help people in many resource-poor areas gain better access to healthy and nutritious food. I agree with Comstock that we should not morally reject GM food if it is validated systematically and scientifically with the benefits outweigh the risks. But I can’t deny that the potential threat could be enormous. Before reading this article, I, like many others concerned about GM technology, was particularly sensitive to negative coverage. Fear of the unknown (or, to put it more positively, caution) is innate in humans. Throughout evolution, man has stood out from the crowd, not because he has strong limbs and sharp teeth, but because he has developed intelligence. Wisdom itself begins with the search for the unknown. Curiosity and caution about the unknown are ingrained in our genes. Comstock refers to this fear of unknown risk as a precautional response. A large part of his article is devoted to explaining how he thinks precautional response may affect public opinion on genetically modified foods. I agreed with the most about Comstock’s arguments that people’s reactions to GM crops in food abundance countries may affect people’s conditions where food is scarce. The public’s precautional response to GM food will cause bias and leads the public to believe rumors that have no scientific basis. The social backlash against GM crops could affect the development of GM technology in these developed countries. In developed countries, the cost of rejectingGM crops is relatively small compared to undeveloped countries(Advanced economic and agricultural strength allowed their citizens to have abundant food choices). Some developing countries may be in desperate need of GM technology, and their people may lack food or vitamins. Halting or delaying the development of GM technology would indeed harm their interests.
Comstock makes a very scary but possible assumption “freedom of speech may risk losing an opportunity to help some of the world’s most vulnerable.” Indeed, free speech does lead to the free spread of rumors, which is also one of the significant disadvantages of free speech. Therefore, I think the government and the public need to make appropriate free speech restrictions to reduce the destructive consequences of rumors. One might argue that such limits undermine the right to free speech, but as with GM technology and other technologies, freedom without limits leads to the direst results.

Now, My attitude to GM crops changed from Skeptical and conservative to cautious and optimistic. The reason for optimism is that gm foods have not yet been found to be harmful, despite widespread criticism. I am cautious because it is new, and societies need time to learn more about it and accept it. Further, there is no good or bad technology, just as gunpowder can make beautiful fireworks and cruel wars. Transgenic technology is now widely used in biopharmaceuticals. Since it is possible to make drugs, it is also possible to make drugs. It has nothing to do with technology, but with the people who use it. Only by accepting it can we make better use of it and let it benefit us.

– Dengnan

References
Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In Food ethics (pp. 49-66). Springer, New York, NY.

This week in PHIL 355 class, we focus our discussion on ecocentrism. Unlike the biocentrists we learned last week, ecocentrists believe humans have duties to individual living beings and have responsibilities to collectives like ecosystems and species. In this blog, I will discuss some ecocentrism ideas introduced in the reading “The Land Ethic” by Aldo Leopold.

The Community Concept

In “The land Ethic,” Aldo Leopold suggests an extension of ethical consideration to environmental communities， he argues that “a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it.” He used southwestern Wisconsin’s topsoil slipping case in 1930 as a call for ethical change. In that case, the local farmers only acted based on their self-interest but ignored government and scientists’ suggestion and eventually led to floods in 1937. Thus, he argues we must have “internal change in our intellectual emphasis loyalties, affections, and convictions.” in other words, is to “love, respect, and admiration for land.” （Aldo Leopold, 1948）

Leopold’s Land Ethic is a sentiment-based ethics system. However, an Ethical system based on human emotions may have sufficient motivation, but it does not provide consistent guidance for people to take the right action in environmental problems. I think Leopold missed emphasize Knowledge or science as an essential foundation of ethics. Knowledge can change people’s perceptions. With a better understanding of the ecosystem, we are now more aware of the critical role nature plays in our community. We know that ecosystem produces irreplaceable clean water and air; it also generates food and recycles our waste in the circulation process. To understand that living or non-living being in an ecosystem is so closely related to our life will automatically generate a sense of responsibility or ethic towards the environmental communities. Because to harm the ecosystem in someone’s interests will consider harming the public interests, it is a fundamental moral standard not to benefit oneself at others’ expense. Also, increasing Knowledge about ecosystems will help us develop an increasingly accurate ethics system applicable to situations with different cultural backgrounds (Erbaugh, James Thomas, 2008)

 Principle of Land ethic

A vital land ethic principle suggested by Leopold is that “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity stability and beauty of the biotic community it’s wrong when it tends other ones.” Indeed, Leopold is right that we should “quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem” and be more cautious about human activities that impact ecosystems. But to judge every human activity that disturbs nature as wrong will be too strict and impossible to engage. First, the concept of integrity, stability, and beauty needs to be clarified. The integrity and stability of ecosystems are continually changing; human activities can be considered wrong when it causes Irreversible trauma like massive species extinction and large habitat loss (Fill in the lake, Use herbicide or insecticides on a large scale). Some necessary human activities that bring relatively less and reversible disturb the ecosystem should be acceptable in the Land ethic system. Secondly, the principle should indicate it only judges human activities; I am not sure if Leopold only refers to human activities when he talks about “a thing.” Otherwise, natural disasters like forest fire, earthquake, and tsunami will be considered bad things humans need to prevent(which we can not ). Thus, I believe a more proper way to put the principle is, “Human activity is right when it only causes reversible distortion to the ecosystem’s small scale; it’s wrong when it tends to other ones. ”

Dengnan Chen

 

References

Erbaugh, J. (2008). Understanding the Land Ethic. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Aldo Leopold(1948). The Land Ethic. (Electronic Thesis). Retrieved from http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf