Stanley A. Temple in TEDX expresses his dissatisfaction with extinction. His experience in conservation works with three strategies for preventing extinction those are, protection, conservation and restoring. But Temple talks about a fourth strategy that is now being incorporated, revive. But there are concerns with reviving from extinction, he says that this is a new ball game where extinction has never not been permanent before and we must consider the effects of reviving and the implications. The questions he is analyzing is should we revive?

It seems many would quickly react to supporting this idea of de-extinction. Bringing back a species that was previously extinct. But how does that impact the ecosystems and other species around them? And further, how do we decide which species get to be revived, and who gets to choose? There is more complicated implications to de-extinction in considering what is morally correct. Reviving species could potentially advance far enough that we would be reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or millenia. Should we engage in this deep de-extinction of long dead species or are the risks too complicated?

Sandler speaks to a justice approach for why we should be involved in de-extinction, he ends up disagreeing with the argument. The justice approach states that if humans were the cause of extinction for example overhunting as a cause, then we should revive the species. The main issue Sandler takes to this is that it is not the proper way to correct the wrongs, as on an individual level we could not restore the same animal and the species as a whole doesn’t have the capacity to be wronged. I agree with Sandler here to some extent, in recognizing the wrongs humans have caused it is a matter of making sure we changed our actions for the future. We are already working towards de-extinction but continue to display the same behaviour patterns on other animals. Many species have been over hunted or over fished by humans and it is more important to attack that problem instead of revitalizing species.

Within an ecosystem species play many different roles and whether we deem them necessary they are important and valuable intrinsically. Sandler concludes that for this reason anthropogenic extinction is wrong and we should use de-extinction to restore the value that was lost. I have to challenge this thought, as mentioned before we would not be restoring the individual but would be reviving the closest genetic makeup so I still conclude we would not be restoring the damage that has been done.

I think Sandler makes a very important argument, deep de-extinction as luxury conservation. This again addresses as mentioned before avoiding addressing human actions and instead coming up with fixes to ensure our actions have a lesser impact. Humans have a tendency to view themselves above other species, also known as speciesism. If we have the ability to revive any species after extinction, I do believe that humans would be less inclined to change their actions and the harms they are creating. De-extinction would soon be seen as a quick fix instead of dealing with the implication and real consequences of human actions.

“It is fine to pursue if people want, so long as it does not interfere with or compromise ethically important things.” Sandler concludes in his argument that as long as de-extinction practices do not interfere with other things such as human welfare, and existing species then it is ok to engage. I do not agree with him as for as long as de-extinction is a practice that is seen as a “luxury” the right intentions are not being practices. What is ethically important needs to be re-assessed.

 

Alison

 

Sandler, Ronald. Dec 20, 2013. The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. Society for Conservation Biology. https://conbio-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12198

Stanley A. Temple. De-extinction: a game changer for conservation biology. https://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/de-extinction-a-game-changer-for-conservation-biology/

Science has time and time again introduced huge accomplishments in preserving human life, but not without controversy. Now, once again, science has evolved in order to be able to protect humans from mosquito borne diseases. It seems, on the outside, like a no brainer. Having the ability to protect ourselves from the bugs that are useless to us, why wouldn’t we hop on that train? Gene drives are evolving to that point, where they would be able to offer the human population a world without mosquito borne diseases. Gene drives is an approach to genetic engineering whereby, genes are modified and introduced into a species that eliminates certain genes. Ultimately, humans can alter the genes in a species or population. In this particular example we will focus on eliminating the gene in mosquitos that allows for diseases to be carried.  Again, it seems like a no brainer, that this would benefit many burdens of humans and we should carry forward with it. However, I seek to show that this is problematic, and we should not be so accepting.

From a utilitarian perspective, we can analyze this from the point of view of “all players are the best off that they can be.” This is a very subjective perspective and may go one of two ways. We can immediately agree that the mosquitos are at harm and are not the best off that they could be in the situation and conclude gene drives are unethical. Or, there is an argument that could be made in which since we aren’t killing off the species they aren’t really being harmed, and in this situation, everyone is the best off. If you agree with this perspective, which I would say makes more sense, then we must consider Peter Singer’s arguments.

Peter Singer is a strong advocate for animal rights and insists that in understanding consequences we take into moral consideration the animal. Singer points to speciesism as the reason why we have failed to do this, in the debate humans are always places higher and more superior to other species. In the debate of insects that “bug” humans this becomes more prominent. Singer would probably question if the benefits that humans get from the use of gene drives on mosquitos are sufficient enough to proceed. I believe Singers argument is relevant and his perspective we may still come to the agreement that we should proceed, and the benefits are enough. However, where I then take issue is that we do not have the answers to what the benefits and harms are. There are unintended harms that cannot possibly be accounted for. Unintended consequences such as how gene drives could interrupt or harm ecosystems, and how modifying genes will impact an animals ability to interact in general with nature.

In forming my own opinion, I take the perspective that we need to assume all animals as equal, for this reason, until we deem if fair enough, safe enough, and beneficial enough to use these gene drive practices on humans it is immoral to practice them on any other being including mosquitos. I am not entirely against gene drives; I think that science has a lot to offer in benefiting everyone and has made some incredible discoveries. However, I can’t help but pose the question, is it possible to modify the genes of humans to avoid carrying diseases. This is a question far beyond my expertise but would be essential in considering why we modify other species over our own, is it a form of speciesism or is it just that one is within our abilities?

 

-Alison

 

References

Pugh, Jonathan. (2016) Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene- drive technologies. University of Oxford. https://eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/mod/resource/view.php?id=4384296

Scudellari, Megan. Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: The promise of gene drives. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unt/detail.action?docID=674677.

Food Sovereignty

 

In Kyle Whyte’s essay on Food Sovereignty, Justice and Indigenous Peoples he focuses on the interactions of colonizers and colonial powers with Indigenous peoples and the impacts on food sovereignty. This post will offer a very current and relevant example of how settler colonial domination undermines indigenous culture and food security.

In Nova Scotia Sipekne’katik First Nation began a moderate livelihood fishery. The idea here is that the indigenous community could exercise their treaty rights, these treaty rights include “right to fish, hunt and gather to earn a moderate livelihood.” [1]This implementation has resulted in an eruption of violence against indigenous people, it is a perfect example of how colonialists work to dominate indigenous groups and create food injustices.

Food injustices are created “when at least one human group systematically dominates one or more other human groups through their connections to and interactions with one another in local and global food systems”[2] In exercising their right to fish and earn a moderate livelihood the Mi’kmaq first nations have permits to fish outside of “season”, this is creating tensions and anger with the commercial fisherman who are taking actions to stop this. In doing this, commercial fishing industry are using their connections to ensure local businesses will not buy lobster from Mi’kmaq fishermen. This is an example as to what Whyte is referring to as a food injustice. Along with interfering in their fishing, there is an unsafe work environment being created in this industry. The uproar in violence including cutting lines, intimidation, pelting buildings with rocks, barricading fishers, fires[3] are just the beginning is preventing a safe work environment or access.

Next Whyte introduces food sovereignty, that is “the right of peoples and governments to choose the way food is produces and consumed in order to respect livelihoods.”[4] Using the same lobster fishing example we can see how it is a situation where an indigenous group is seeking to govern themselves in “different respects as collective societies”[5] The violence targeting indigenous peoples is disrupting how they fish for cultural purposes. However, I agree with Whyte when he states “Indigenous peoples claims about the connections of particular foods to collective self- determination are much more complicated. The claims are more about how colonial domination, in contexts such as US settler colonialism, is organized to undermine certain human institutions that are pivotal to Indigenous peoples’ capacities to exercise collective self- determination, food sovereignty being a significant part of that.”[6]There may not necessarily be a spiritual or cultural need for the livelihood fishery they have set up, however, it is necessary for the indigenous group to continue living their lives without being under the power of colonialism and an industry that seeks to over-power their indigenous culture.

Just like in Whyte’s article like the salmon fishers the Lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia are exercising their treaty rights. “rights protecting Indigenous peoples’ relationships to particular foods from the actions of settlers.”[7]While indigenous people are having to fight for their fishing rights, more importantly they are fighting for their treaty rights and respect for them. The settler’s way of life in the lobster industry has been to have an off season in order to avoid overfishing and depletion, however, treaty rights state that indigenous people need not be impacted by settler activities and should have the right to continue fishing during off seasons. In order to avoid settler colonial domination this particular indigenous group in Nova Scotia must continue to fight for respect of their treaty rights.

The current crisis and uproar of violence against indigenous lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia is a suited example for Whyte’s article. It is relevant in discussing his main arguments and understanding how settler colonialism interferes in indigenous cultures and food security. It is representative of how indigenous connection and relation to this industry is also a fight for self-determination and avoidance of domination.

 

[1] Angel, Moore. Sipekne’katik chief’s message to Canada is moderate livelihood fishery is here to stay. Published October 20, 2020. APTN news

[2] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance. Published March 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.

[3] Amanda, Coletta. Indigenous People in Nova Scotia exercised their right to catch lobster. Now they’re under attack. Published Octover.26, 2020. The Washington Post.

[4] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples

[5] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples

[6] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples

[7] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples

 

 

References

 

Amanda, Coletta. Indigenous People in Nova Scotia exercised their right to catch lobster. Now they’re under attack. Published Octover.26, 2020. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canada-nova-scotia-indigenous-lobster-fishery/2020/10/24/d7e83f54-12ed-11eb-82af-864652063d61_story.html

 

Angel, Moore. Sipekne’katik chief’s message to Canada is moderate livelihood fishery is here to stay. Published October 20, 2020. APTN news. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/sipeknekatik-chiefs-message-to-canada-is-moderate-livelihood-fishery-is-here-to-stay/

 

Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance. Published March 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.

 

 

Alison

Gary Comstock’s Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods offers an argument for genetic modification of crops and if it is a process that is morally justified. Genetically modified crops are “derived from microorganisms, plants, or animals that have been manipulated at the molecular level to provide them with traits that farmers or consumers desire.” (Comstock, 1) An important thing to note here is that these manipulations include foreign genes, that could never be obtained naturally by the plants. Comstock offers his perspective on this modification and how ethically justified it is.

The first argument presented in the debate on the ethical objections to GM is the possibility of harm to humans or other living things. He uses three ethical principles in this analysis, rights theory which states that we treat humans as autonomous and not as a means to an end. Utilitarian theory which says we must act in ways that maximizes happiness and minimizes consequences. Lastly, virtue theory which states actions must be justified as if we act as a just, fair, and good person. He says that in a debate of consensus or compromise we still might reach an unjust solution in that we cannot rely on it to always provide the ethically sound and morally correct argument.

Comstock then turns to analyse the ethical issues that are involved. He introduced Extrinsic and Intrinsic objections and says that it is critical that we separate these two in the discussions of ethics. Extrinsic objections focus on “the potential harms consequent upon the adoption of GMOs”  (Comstock, 5) these are the anticipated results that may or may not come about but make the argument that the possibility of them coming about should give enough reason to abandon GM technology. Comstock offers his opinion, that these are real concerns which require serious responsibilities however, he does not think that this is a significant enough argument to implement a permanent ban. He then offers intrinsic objections in which he says are more valid in defending a permanent ban, intrinsic objections “allege that the process of making GMOs is objectionable in itself… the “unnaturalness objection.” (Comstock, 5) But then he continues to point out this is contradictory to a lot of other research in agriculture and would be harmful to terminate all of it. Comstock offers a couple ways to measure harms but ultimately ends up concluding that we do not have the capacity to conclude that the harms will outweigh the benefits.

Comstock offers a reason for why we care so much about genetically modified food. It is a simple explanation that simply says we are cautious about the things that we put in our mouths. It is a simple yet rational concern, he goes on to give another good point that the food we have is working for us and what do we have to gain from changing it. Comstock understands the importance and gives understanding as to why humans ultimately care so much, this in my opinion assigns moral significance to it. If he acknowledges the importance of human choice in what they eat we need to be able to give this ability to everyone.

Comstock concludes with the claim that it is ethically justifiable to pursue genetically modified crops and foods. The benefits will outweigh harms, in terms of human rights the people of various countries can choose to adopt or not, and lastly “encouraging discovery, innovation and careful regulation.” (Comstock, 15 )

I agree with Comstock and his approach on this issue, however, I think that he is missing a ethically important point in this debate. When we speak of theories of Contractarianism where moral rights come about from what is agreed upon, which I think he uses in his argument. But also his Utilitarian approach, where he is looking for the better off solution. In these scenarios the minorities and oppressed can and do lose out on their opinions and regulations are imposed on them instead. Comstock touches on this briefly with his analyses of religion and minority groups however, his argument doesn’t breach the scope of the problem and he still misses the issue of ethics of imposing GM foods on them. Comstock offers an opinion and describes many reasoning for why people care and should care, what we eat and what we let our kids eat is important. It would be ethically unreasonable to then take away the options for minority groups based upon a majority.

 

Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010

 

Alison

In Mohr’s article he takes an anthropocentric position and presents vegetarianism and veganism as a “New Global Warming Strategy”. He brings global warming to light as a very threatening and urgent problem to humans. However, my reflection on it will bring light to the weak and contradictory points he makes in defending his argument, which I believe weakens his argument substantially. This reflection is not meant to disagree with his overall ideas, instead it will analyze where Mohr has gone wrong in presenting his arguments.

“If we wish to curb global warming over the coming half century, we    must look at strategies to address non-CO2 emissions. The strategy with the most impact is vegetarianism.”[1]

Mohr’s argument is strange in that in trying to present the meat industry as problematic to our environment he deduces global warming to one source. He has made strong claims backed up by sufficient evidence of the impact of our diets on the environment and the importance of bringing this into light. However, at the same time in making this argument he ultimately comes across in saying not to worry about Co2 emissions, it is not a problem. Personally, I think his argument could be stronger, I agree with Mohr that humans have long turned a blind eye to the problems our diets are creating. He has made some constructive points in claiming vegetarianism or veganism would have a quick and crucial impact on the current climate crisis and I wish he had explored the benefits of this idea more rather than posing it against Co2 emissions, both sides are fighting for the same outcome and would more successfully work together rather than against each other. In an anthropocentric view we should be concerned about all of the threats to global warming and resource depletion not just one.

Another issue I have with Mohr is his argument that we should cut emissions from the meat industry and do nothing about Co2 emissions in order to save the economy. “similar cuts in carbon dioxide are impossible without devastating effects on the economy. Even the most ambitious carbon dioxide reduction strategies fall short of cutting emissions by half.”[2] Firstly, like anything if the industry was cut, he is wrong to claim that it would have no impact on the economy as the meat industry is massive and employs a huge number of people. I also take issue with this argument because his priorities are contradictory, in that he states to us that global warming is the biggest issue we are facing but then places the economy above and as more important. I do not think that this is his intention but in comparing the two strategies he is certainly contradicting his beliefs.

Many signs point to yes, we should be climatarians and practice veganism or vegetarianism. The harms to the environment and animals seem to evidently outweigh selfish benefits. However, it is also evident that through separation of the process and personal benefit this is not an easy or probable transition. I would however, challenge Mohr in his claims that environmentalists have overlooked vegetarianism as a solution for climate change. Recently, there has been a notable shift in how society interacts with the meat industry. One example being the film “food inc.” which has been incorporated into public education and ultimately went viral. This tells me that many people are aware of the impacts of meat but that doesn’t shift them away. The second example of this shift is the emergence of “beyond meat”. But with this shift, a meat alternative is offered and while some choose to opt for this option majority of society is still very invested in the meat industry. With this evidence I think that the lack of knowledge about the impacts of the meat industry is not the problem like Mohr claims, but even with some knowledge the morals of people are lying somewhere else.

In conclusion, I do not disagree with Mohr that the meat industry is having a huge impact on our environment. However, with the environment being the centre of his argument we should not disengage with other forms of destruction. Further, in considering why humans should care it is no longer a lack of knowledge but where the morals of humans must be further explored.

 

Alison

 

[1] Mohr, Noam. “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earthsave International Report, August, 2005. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

 

[2] Mohr, “A New Global Warming Strategy.”

 

References

Mohr, Noam. “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earthsave International Report, August, 2005. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf