This weeks readings covered an interesting topic that I had not thought of before, The ability to Bring back species from extinction (known as De-extinction). My mind ran straight towards the thought of bringing back dinosaurs (thinking immediately of  Jurassic park). My immediate reaction was negative as, that would be near impossible based on the environmental requirements of dinosaurs, plus the danger that would come with having them around. However, the two articles I will discuss did not mention dinosaurs, but instead animals that have only recently gone extinct such as the Passenger pigeon. Both T.J. Kasoerbauer and Ronald Sandler brought up important concerns and questions regarding de-extinction that I agree are vital to answer before moving forward with the prospect of bringing back extinct species. I would like to go over all the points I agree with but I lack time so I will go over two key arguments and concerns that jumped out at me. First being our real obligation towards extinct species, and second, the potential outcome of successfully accomplishing de-extinction.

Ronald Sandler mentions that a reason to bring back species who’s extinction was caused by humans is to bring justice to the species and right our wrong. However, as he mentions soon after, “it is not possible to harm or wrong a species because a species do not have aims or welfares distinct from those of the organisms that’s comprise them.”(Pg. 355)  So to bring back a species to make up for what has already happened does not work and in fact as Kasperbauer points out, “for many species, the original cause of extinction still exists.” (Pg.4) so even if we were to bring them back for the sake of justice, they could very well end up extinct again because of us. Sandler goes on to say that it would be more beneficial to look after future populations of species rather than focusing on bringing back ones we have already lost. The wrong can be made right again by acknowledging our mistakes, learn from them,  and  treat the species we do have better than before. I agree that it would be more beneficial to focus our efforts on conserving the species we still have that are endangered. Even in the event that we use de-extinction on a species such as the passenger pigeon, they will not be the individuals that were harmed in the past, and won’t necessarily even be the same as those species. We can try our best to recreate the species but it will most likely not be a 100% match anyways. Another argument towards the supposed justice it would bring is that de-extinction could potentially only harm the individuals as the very process of reviving a species will involve a large number of failed attempts and lost lives. With this in mind, bringing back a species could possibly cause more harm to them rather than fixing what has happened.

An issue that both articles raise is the effect de-extinction will have after it has been successfully accomplished. There is a chance the species could become invasive and only create more of an environmental problem for us and for other animals. Although one of the main reasons for pursuing De-Extinction is that the species could prove highly beneficial to the environment and help create more diversity where it may be needed, it could also have an opposite effect. Sandler does point out however, that the animals that are in line to be tested would most likely be unable to survive long if they were able to spread because there would be low genetic diversity and rates of reproduction(Pg. 358). Kasperbauer believes that in the case of passenger pigeons, there is a significant chance that they could become invasive as they were known to travel in flocks of billions, because of this, there is a dangerous chance that they could eat up food supplies for other animals and cause great damage. I believe it really depends on the species, as Sandler mentions that mammoths, for example, would have a low rate of reproduction, making it less likely for them to really become a threat as numbers would be easier to control. Of course research should be done on each species that is being considered for de-extinction so as to run through all potential risks they may have on the environment.

Both articles brought up interesting and important points regarding de-extinction. It is definitely hard to come to a definite decision on whether this technology should be fully pursued or not as there are many good arguments for and against it. But as both articles and I  agree, extensive research is required before decisions can be made. I do believe that we have a bigger obligation towards maintaining the populations we have now rather than focusing on long gone species but I do also see the positive implications this technology could bring to the field as well.

-Olivia Salioh

 

Sources Cited

Sandler Ronald.(2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354-360.

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

While reading Jonathan Pugh’s article and his arguments towards the use of gene-drive technologies on mosquito populations I found myself disagreeing with some of his points regarding “moral value”, and the falsity of the sacredness of life. I believe the usage of “moral value” is too intrinsically biased to be used as an argument in this situation. Our opinion of what it means to say that life is sacred also differ. Looking at more factual, science based information would seem a better method of advocating this technology in the hopes of decreasing mosquito transmitted disease. He does however mention the requirement for more experimentation which is an opinion I do agree with. In this blog post I will explain my disagreements as well as my agreement with Jonathan Pugh’s article and why I believe we shouldn’t rely on biased terms in determining what is best.

One of my biggest objections to Jonathan’s argument is using a being’s ‘moral status’ to help determine whether we should or should not do something. I do not believe that humans have the power to decide whether or not something has ‘moral status’.I personally see no valid reason why we are able to decide such matters. It is too easy to be biased and say something has no moral value based on what we deem to be valuable qualities. We decide that a mosquito has little or no moral value because it does not appear to be self aware or conscious, a standard that we created. So how do you measure moral status in an unbiased way? A person could claim that a brain surgeon has a higher moral status over a retail worker because they are capable of performing complex surgery while a retail worker simply puts out new stalk and takes care of customers. A doctor has more refined skills and has the ability to save peoples lives on a daily basis so one could decided that a doctor is of higher moral status based on their skill while the retail worker is of little moral value because they are incapable of this higher degree of skill. But then what if the retail worker has an outstanding skill at speaking with people, selling things, and making good conversation while the doctor’s social and communication skills outside surgery are lacking. Could you not just decide that the retail worker is of higher moral status because they can connect more easily with other humans, which may be a quality you find more human and more valuable? Bringing up Moral value is not a valid argument in determining if we should kill off an entire species because there is no unbiased way of deciding whether something is morally valuable or not. So the decision to eradicate mosquitos on the basis that they don’t seem to present self awareness or human like qualities, in my opinion, is not justifiable.

Pugh discuses an argument against using the concept that all life is sacred and mentions Peter Singer’s point of view which is that no one actual means what they say when saying that because in every day life people eat vegetables and fruit without issue or take antibiotics that destroy bacteria (Pg. 579) . I ,however, believe that both of them are over analyzing the meaning of the word ‘sacred’. Just because something is sacred does not mean we must do everything in our power to prevent a life from ending as this would be impossible. I believe calling life sacred means that it deserves our utmost respect and that it should not carelessly be wasted. Although vegetables and fruits are living, their literal purpose is to be eaten especially in the case of a fruit where the only way for the species to survive is for an animal to come along and eat it and spread the seeds. As for bacteria, allowing a harmful bacteria to kill you willingly just goes against human nature for survival. It is actively damaging you in a parasitic relationship so there is almost no choice in the matter. It is only natural to act in your own self interest so that you can survive. To say life is sacred means that it is deserving of respect, killing off an entire species, to me does not show respect as this decision acts too much in the self interest of humans. As I will discuss in the next paragraph, many other species could be effected by this decision, major food could will be cut off for many animals, possibly resulting in death of other species. It is necessary to treat the life of mosquitoes with respect, their life plays a specific role in the environment. If we did not treat life as sacred it would be much easier to go in and wipe out populations that seem to have no effect on us but because it is sacred, immense amounts out thought must be put into the decision of using gene-drive technology.

I do agree with Pugh that more extensive research is needed on the effects gene-drive technology could have when executed. He mentions that the “long-term ecological consequences of eradicating mosquitoes is mixed.”(pg 580) Which means more research is necessary for us to come to a concrete understanding and decision, it is not only the human population we must take into account but every population in the area as well. As he mentions, mosquitos have an effect on the ecosystem regarding food sources, and pollination. To come to a concrete decision, factual information is required more than biased opinions on whether or not mosquitoes are morally valuable or not.

Olivia Salioh

Pugh, J. (2016). Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(9), 578-581. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103462

Hopkins’ paper makes many good points and gives a lot of insight into future solutions to the meat industry that thoroughly intrigued me. It made me aware of so many possibilities that I had not considered in terms of making meat products without livestock. I thought that was truly fascinating. However, there are many points Hopkins brings up that I  believe do not serve to paint the full picture of why people continue to eat meat. His explanation does not encompass the global community as a whole. Looking at cities worldwide is essential because it is not just western society that slaughters animals for food.

I agree that packaging meat for grocery stores contributes to enabling consumers to disconnect from where the meat originates. However,  I do not believe that aspect accounts for everything that stops an individual from looking into a vegetarian lifestyle. Hopkins puts a great deal of emphasis on the meat packaging, but what about countries that are not restricted to only having grocery stores with aisles of packaged meat? Many countries have markets (such as the now widely known wet markets in China) where you can either see the full dead animal or witness the animal slaughtered in front of you (such as fish or chickens). Countries with this system can see the animal that will become their dinner firsthand, but does this compel them to want to halt eating meat? Maybe for some, but the truth is that people who grow up being exposed directly to the slaughtered animal do not seem to hold more empathy towards the animal.  These people most likely feel the opposite of what western people would and adopt a mindset where there is no great importance placed on how the animal feels and how fresh the meat is. A cow is simply meat for people to eat. So I wonder if there is a difference between not seeing the animal in a grocer store versus seeing the dead animal right in front of you. If anything, you could argue that not seeing the animal would significantly affect a person’s ability to grow empathy for the animal. If you grow up used to seeing the sight of slaughtered livestock in front of you, then you grow numb to it. A possible cause for the disconnect between a person and their food’s origin may be more due to a lack of education in one’s upbringing. Growing up without learning to care for animals and their well-being could be a larger factor in people’s inability to act in the animal’s interest rather than in their craving for meat. This inability to connect to the animal lacks in many cultures. There is a rising concern for animals worldwide, but this could be due to the growing availability of information on the internet. People are now able to be educated on animal lives. If it were more solidified in our culture to treat animal lives with respect, it would be more widely acceptable to lesson meat intake. I do not believe the primary cause is the presentation of meat at the grocery store.

Another point I would like to discuss is Hopkin’s view on people who eat meat. I believe people are more complex than how he perceives them. There are many reasons other than a person merely ignoring the death of a livestock animal for food. There are more reasons than just the presentation of meat on the shelves that prevent someone from fully adopting a vegetarian lifestyle. There are many contributing factors, Hopkins’ point being one of them, of course, but not a soul reason. If one grows up in a culture where meat is a core part of meals, it can be hard to separate oneself from these cultural norms, it takes time and effort to fully transition. Of course, someone who grew up with more bread or vegetables in their diet would find it much easier to quit meat altogether. Many social events or activities center around meat such as Barbecue or hot pot in many cultures. There are also important meals based around meat, such as the Filipino dish Lechon (involving an entire roasted pig). The temptations to continue the social norm can be overpowering, especially when there is a lack of vegetarian options.  The willpower to stick to what is normal outweighs the thoughts of where the meat comes originates.  What about people who live with their family and have no say in what they eat. There are many complex reasons why a person might find it hard to separate themselves from eating meat, and I believe Hopkins generalizes these people too much and makes them seem as though they are weak-willed or not trying hard enough. Maybe it would be more useful to dissect the root cause of why it is so hard for a person to quit meat rather than only blaming selfish motives and the ability to ignore the source of their meat.

Sources Cited:

Hopkins, P., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?. Journal Of Agricultural And Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579-596.

 

As Leopold wrote this paper in 1948, it is safe to say a great deal has changed since it was written, but a lot has also surprisingly remained unchanged. Leopold’s article on “The Land Ethic” made me ponder what Land Ethics is today and how it contributes to the world’s state. While I agree with most of what he says, I believe some points can be argued.

Growing up in Canada, I feel that a great deal of effort has been placed towards conservation efforts and pollution; however, reading this article makes me question many of the motives surrounding these changes. A lot of what I see relates the same mindset observed by Leopold. Our communities still share many of the same ideological traits that people displayed in the early 1900s regarding selfishness. I agree with many of Leopold’s issues regarding people’s idea of land ethics being heavily based around economics rather than being a member of the land. Many of the changes I witness daily take advantage of “economic importance”, at least at the consumer level from what I can see as an average consumer. A modern day example is the price of plastic bags at a store. To encourage people to use reusable bags instead of the single use plastic bags stores provide, companies have started charging for bags. Although this does cut a small fraction of plastic bag usage, the consumer does not always have an eco-friendly mindset pushing them to remember their bags. More often, it is because they would instead rather save their money. People do not see the value in spending 5 cents on a plastic bag when they can either carry the item or bring their bag. However, my argument is that because this is a money based mindset, does that make it wrong? I agree that from an individuals’ ethical standpoint, one can view it as unethical to the land. However, I think it is essential to look at the big picture. Although that individual cares more about saving money, what matters is that they are still unknowingly doing something better for the land. Is it possible for a person to practice ethics unknowingly? Is a question that comes to mind as I think about this. Using an event that Leopold references; even though the only reason songbirds were put on the agenda was for economic reasons, it is good that people were at least able to recognize the issue at all, even if for selfish reasons. Is making everyone understand correct Land Ethics necessary to get the people to comply and change habits for the good of the land? Thinking from this point of view makes me question further what exactly is land ethics.

Another argument I would like to bring up is Leopold’s view on the education method. He says, “is it certain that only the volume of education needs stepping up? Is something lacking in the content as well?” He addresses this for a short paragraph before moving on to farmers without fully addressing the issue of education.  I believe both the volume and content need to step up significantly. To say that the volume needs to be stepped up is directly related to increased content as well. So yes, there needs to be more education, and of course, it must be quality education. I believe the teaching standards in the 1900s must be much different from now but applying the same ideology anyways; I agree that we need more education on the environment and how we connect to it. I believe education and physically exposing children to the land are critical factors that will help current and future generations develop an attachment to the land. I don’t think Leopold stresses this enough. He quickly moves on to a new topic before thoroughly discussing the importance of education in the first place.  If people were to be taught from an early age about earth’s mechanisms and why we should care about it, we could raise individuals to care about the planet. Education is also vital for older generations that can be delivered through the internet, TV, or books. Hopefully, through education, the concept of land ethics can be cultivated to a point where the community can agree that we should care about an endangered species not for economic value but because of the connection we share as fellow members of the land. This is already beginning to trickle into our society as there is a rising number of people fighting for animal rights or working to restore habitats. There are those that are still driven by economic greed. Yet, if we can manage them through laws and regulations such as carbon tax, putting prices on single use plastics,  regulating hunting and fishing, we can lessen their impact.

It would be challenging to get all of humanity on the same page regarding what should make up Land Ethics as everyone has their own experiences that influence the way they see the world. It would be ideal but challenging.