Environmental rights cause more and more attention in many countries nowadays. Same with Canada, people desire to live in a state where the environment is guaranteed, at least, it makes people feel safe. In fact, the ethics contained in environmental rights are not difficult to understand. The so-called environmental rights mean that people live in clean air, the air quality meets standards, and the drinking water is not polluted. And our food, meat, and vegetables, etc., are not contaminated and can be eaten with confidence. This is caring about everyone’s most basic living conditions. However, the population covered is also very wide. Environmental rights include not only the environmental quality of modern humans but also our descendants. However, since the rapid development of industrialization and rapid economic development, people have often sacrificed the natural environment to meet the interests of economic development. People have begun to use large amounts of coal, fossil fuels, etc., and emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases regardless of the consequence, thus, causing global warming and climate change. In addition, the pollutants discharged in the water have gradually reduced the area of ​​water available for people to drink and caused a large number of aquatic life to die or become extinct. Isn’t this a very disappointing thing?

In fact, I am deeply impressed by this matter. In China, the city where I live has a severe haze every winter. Haze has now become a catastrophic weather phenomenon and often appears in weather forecasts. The main cause is the burning of coal for heating in winter, as well as automobile exhaust, industrial emissions, construction dust, garbage incineration, and many other acts that harm air quality. For a long time, people can only wear masks, and homes install air purifiers to protect the most basic air quality. This has also caused many elderly and young children to suffer from cardiovascular or respiratory diseases in winter. Therefore, many people have been deprived of their environmental rights, even though this is our reluctance. Because the environment is a public resource, no one has the right to deliberately manipulate it, and everyone should have a fair environmental right. So I think it is necessary to protect Canadians’ environmental rights through the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And I also agree with David Suzuki’s point of view that ensuring the people’s environmental rights is not to restrict the development of industry and cause economic retreat, but to ensure that the government always regards the people’s health and well-being as the original intention of all actions, and also to make the government and many companies operating in Canada are always moving to maintain the highest standards. Moreover, action to ensure environmental rights have indirectly inspired many Canadian companies to innovate or adopt green technology and advocate other corporate transformations, which is conducive to the further optimization of the social structure and the upgrading of the industrial chain. On the other hand, by protecting the environmental rights of human beings, the medical pressure caused by the Canadian medical system in response to environmental problems can be reduced, and the people will become healthier and healthier. Therefore,  to ensure people’s environmental rights become legal, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

work cited:

Baike.”Fog and haze.” (2020). Retrieved from https://baike.baidu.com/item/fogandhaze/731704?fr=aladdin

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” Huffington Post. Nov. 5, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment

After study with the  specific analysis of the potential crisis leading to the extinction of homing pigeons, the concept of de-extinction was introduced by Kasperbauer. In fact, the idea of resuming extinction has existed for a long time, because since the rapid development of mankind, the environmental pollution and ecological damage caused by industrialization have become more and more serious, and this effect has accelerated the extinction and disappearance of species. This is a painful thing for human beings and the natural world. If conditions permit, the idea of resuming extinction is not impossible. However, whether the moral ethics and environmental ethics contained in it are in line with the status quo of survival is complicated. And far-reaching thinking content. Kasperbauer pointed out that he focused on the extinction value. The development of de-extinction technology has not yet reached a reliable realization.

So when Kasperbauer uses biotechnology, the idea that the genome is combined with the embryo and develops sounds effective, but the result is that there are genetic differences between the extinct species and the previously extinct species, and their offspring are 80% similar- 90% (2017). In fact, this shows that there is still a lot of room for the complete restoration of extinction. The reason may be the developmental environment or genetic changes. So in this case, the resulting situation is unpredictable. And how do we choose the species to return to extinction? How do we consider whether a species is worthy of restoration? First, consider the impact on the ecological environment, and secondly, are human interests? Is the current ecological environment suitable for extinct species? Should it be abandoned if it has nothing to do with human interests or species that cannot satisfy human interests? This is one of the profound issues that are very complex and contains ethics. Therefore, we assume that the restoration of extinction can be achieved. Taking into account that the reproduction of ancient biological embryos requires specific development occasions, and the physiological structure of modern organisms and ancient organisms have obvious differences when people want to use modern organisms to breed ancient biological embryos, it is very difficult. Moreover, there are huge differences between the current ecological environment of the earth and ancient times. Therefore, even if the ancient species is restored, if the environment suitable for the survival of this species cannot be reconstructed, the survival rate of this species is difficult to guarantee (2018).

Kasperbauer pointed out the five challenges of de-extinction, these are also our concerns. I want to explain two of the challenges. The first is that there may still be reasons for the extinction of species in the current living conditions. We cannot know whether the reasons leading to species extinction are eradicated, because of the complexity of the reasons, and the reasons for existence are likely to accumulate and evolve over time and have become or diverge into more potential causes of extinction. Therefore, if we do not completely eradicate the root cause of the existential threat to extinct species, then even if we resurrect them, the survival rate will be difficult to guarantee. The second challenge is related to the invasion. Kasperbauer proposed that people can genetically modify extinct species to make them less aggressive, but more friendly(2017). I think this challenge is unethical. I think it is not advisable if we can modify the genes of extinct species to be what we want. Because every species, no matter what attributes it is, is given by nature and conforms to the laws of nature. Human beings have no right to change the genes of any species, even if it is of great benefit to the interests of mankind, this is against ethics. So this is a very worthy question.

Although de-extinction technology is still immature, I think it can still help human beings make up for the extinction caused by their own faults. It is also a feasible idea to restore the diversity of the ecological environment. Therefore, when we measure whether this technology should be widely used, I hope that it can continue to progress in accordance with the changes of the times and the progress of human thinking while avoiding the survival threats brought by the restoration of extinction to species and humans, which is the most meaningful.

work cited:

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

Zhihu. (2018). Could we use DNA technology to realize de-extinction? https://www.zhihu.com/question/304934951

Harrison clarified his perspective at the beginning of the article, that is, human beings are destructive, whether it is to the ecology or peace of the earth. Therefore, it is feasible for humans to control the behavior of modern humans, but we cannot predict the behavior of our descendants. As Stallman said, giving up having children may reduce the burden on the environment. The most obvious example is that fewer children will reduce carbon emissions and reduce global warming contributions. His example is, to have a child, their life may need to take 2,880 transatlantic round-trip flights. Therefore, we can realize that the overpopulation problem caused by continued open fertility will pose a serious threat to the ecological environment of the earth. And Stallman’s concern is also rational. For example, thirty years later, it may be difficult for us and future generations to obtain food. Abandoning childbirth is also an important issue of ethics and morality. This will not only deprive human beings of their reproductive rights but may also make the problem of aging populations in some countries worse.

So I think that giving up childbearing may alleviate the problem to a certain extent, but it is difficult to really convince people. We may feel that not having children will reduce the damage and waste to the earth, but our world needs some young power to advance it better. Take my country, China, for example. The majority of traditional Chinese thinking is that getting a family and starting a business is something that one must do. Having a family and children is filial piety to parents. If there is no birth of the next generation, it will be considered disrespectful to the ancestors and violates ethics. Especially in China, the pension mechanism and pension benefits are not perfect, and most elderly people cannot imagine how they would spend their old age without their children taking care of them. There is also an old Chinese saying that raising children to prevent old age means raising children to prevent oneself from being dependent on old age. Although this is a long-standing thought, and there are more and more “DINK families” in modern China, it is also something that many elderly people cannot understand and accept. But I don’t think that we give up childbearing is the best way to make the present better. If we reduce harm only by abandoning fertility, it will also be futile for modern people not to make efforts to change.

Suppose we cannot reduce the birth rate to 0% all at once, so let’s refer to the pros and cons of China’s family planning. Another Chinese example is that in the 1980s, China began to implement a family planning policy, that is, each couple can only have one child. The implementation of this policy has effectively alleviated China’s rapid population growth. It also eases the burden on the environment. But the obvious problem is that the imbalance between men and women is caused, and the emergence of only-child groups will also transform China’s social structure, population structure, and civilization structure. The far-reaching impact is the serious problem of China’s aging population.

Therefore, we can refer to the example of China’s population control and consider whether the meaning of giving up childbearing can meet our ideal expectations.

–Ziyuan

Works cited,

-Harrison, G., & Tanner, J. (2011). BETTER NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN. Think, 10(27), 113-121. doi:10.1017/S1477175610000436

https://eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/pluginfile.php/6160284/mod_resource/content/2/All%20Animals%20Are%20Equal.pdf

 -Stallman, R. (2012). Why it is important not to have children.

https://stallman.org/articles/children.html

Wilderness protection has always been a controversial and very broad issue. It not only includes environmental issues, but also ethical issues. The wilderness is considered a place where human civilization has not been exploited, and it is also a place not ruled by humans. It belongs to all the plants and animals in the natural world and is also considered our common property. The value of the wilderness is immeasurable, and at the same time, the wilderness also has unlimited possibilities. And the area of wilderness is much larger than that of human cities, because of the vastness of nature and the limitation of human exploitation. So according to Cronon’s idea, let people think that the wilderness is sublime and a very active guide. Therefore, people feel that the wilderness is sacred and has infinite power in the concept of consciousness. This is also the deepest core of what Cronon said, making the wilderness also have a profound influence on humans and nature. In fact, through Cronon’s text, we can intuitively feel Cronon’s love and admiration for the charm of the wilderness, and the many descriptions he used to make the wilderness so beautiful and moving. The wilderness feels beautiful and lonely. Because there are not too many traces of human life, everything is in the most primitive state. It allows humans to feel the appearance at the beginning of life and appreciate the spiritual guidance brought by the wilderness. But are these just people’s beautification and beautiful reveries?

In Cronon’s article, he clearly put forward his critical views, which aroused human thoughts. In fact, our approach somewhat escapes history and environmentalism, because we have not clearly distinguished the actual urban interests from the wilderness. Instead, we cannot choose between the two and want to possess both. Indeed, I think that human beings cannot give up the various benefits brought about by modern life and return to protecting the wilderness. This is also an ethical concept. The wilderness also teaches us many things, because human interests and wilderness may have this difference on many levels, so we should build a positive relationship, in an attitude of respect for the environment and responsible human behavior. It is also a symbol of the peaceful coexistence of the wilderness. So I feel that the convenience and progress of life brought about by modern human cities are not disrespect and pollution of the wilderness, but a sign that human civilization is always progressing. We can control pollution and reduce the impact on the wilderness. Respect for the wilderness and a sublime attitude to live in harmony with nature is also a kind of respect for the environment.

 

Works cited:   William Cronon. 1995. The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

https://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html

GM foods have been controversial ever since they appeared. No matter from the food safety issues that people worry about, or from the ethical and moral aspects, the praise and criticism of GM food always exist. In today’s society, people’s demand for food is increasing, and food diversity is becoming more and more abundant. So for agricultural production, GM food may be a good thing for them. Because of the application of GM technology, not only can greatly increase crop yields, reduce the impact of pests and diseases on crop quality, but also reduce input costs. This is a very economical thing. But they may have overlooked the ethical level. Recalling the land ethics mentioned earlier, we must follow the laws of natural development and follow that the land and all creatures on the land have equal rights to life and all other equal rights. But is it reasonable to apply GM technology to the land? In other words, when the rights of land are slightly affected, will people choose the benefits of a bumper harvest or respect the land? It is undeniable that we cannot ignore all the benefits brought by GM food. I  agree with the author’s point of view that we need to use and develop GM technology responsibly to ensure that the impact of GM is positive most time. A good example is the production of environmentally friendly pigs studied in Canada. Because phosphorus is an important part of pork production, pigs are inseparable from a large amount of phosphorus for breeding and reproduction. Especially pig feed contains a large amount of phosphorus. When pigs excrete, a large amount of phosphorus-containing waste will be discharged into the soil, causing serious soil environmental pollution and causing the problem of soil eutrophication. Therefore, in order to solve difficult environmental problems, the Canadian research team used GM technology and planned to produce environmentally friendly pigs, which not only solved the problem of phosphorus pollution to the environment but also made humans eat healthier. Therefore, I believe that the existence of GM food has a certain degree of rationality. As people’s concepts and awareness continue to increase, gm technology has also improved, and the improvements are more in line with environmental ethics and land ethics. Because technology always serves mankind, mankind has the ability to make the world a better place.

Work cited:

Brad C.Joern, Alan Sutton. 2006. Phosphorus management in pork production. https://porkgateway.org/resource/phosphorus-management-in-pork-production

Gray Comstock. nd. Ethics and Genetically Modified Food. https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

 

 

In today’s society, human beings are consuming more and more animals. Among them, the most widely consumed animals are food animals, such as pork, chicken, beef, etc., which are consumed in a huge amount all over the world. And the economic phenomenon brought about by meat consumption is also considerable. But for those who are vegetarian or religious, meat consumption is not acceptable or even strongly opposed.  Patrick’s very important point in the article, is people acting a period of moral vegetarianism to reduce the consumption of animals, it contains animal ethics thoughts, make human moral practice the protection of animals. But because the meat culture is greater than the moral vegetarian culture, and with the rooted consciousness of people, eating meat will not be easy to change, so the development of ethical vegetarianism has been limited. So in order to satisfy the majority of meat lovers, soy products instead of real meat products have emerged as a viable alternative, but in this article, Patrick argues for a deeper shift in animal consumption. That is laboratory breeding. This may sound incredible, but the results of the experiment were unexpected. In addition, there is a variety of laboratory technologies of this thought, and the transformation of different technologies according to different needs is enough to show that the ideas generated by human beings in order to protect animals and meet human needs are feasible.

So culturing meat is a great way to reduce animal suffering. And the direction of change is positive, widely supported, and ethical. Lab-cultured meat can, to a certain extent, reduce the carbon dioxide emissions caused by breeding animals on the land and reduce a series of environmental pollution caused by meat production. At the same time, it is very important to protect the rights of animals, so that animals also enjoy the equal right to life. It’s in line with human morality. In addition, the laboratory culture can produce different kinds of meat customized to meet the needs of different consumers, improve the production efficiency of meat, and increase the diversity of products in the market. More important is to make meat production more standardized and safe, and to avoid food safety problems caused by animal diseases. In this article, Patrick passed on to readers by means of contrast and comparison that cultivating meat is a feasible way.

Cultured meat has the technical support for the development and, more importantly, the moral support of human beings, which is very critical. Only when most meat lovers actively convert their consciousness and ideas to consume and cultivate meat, protect animals, and reduce animal suffering, can the cultivation of meat proceed smoothly, and the animal protection cause of human beings can achieve stable and sustainable development. Patrick’s article very clearly conveys to readers the concept of active animal protection, and have educational scientific significance. Moreover, the scientific cases he provides are very convincing. Thus, from this point of view, technology can effectively change some of the earth’s bad status quo, and the earth’s ecology can have a good improvement.

 

Citation: Hopkins, Patrick D., Austin Dacey. 2008. Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? file:///Users/macbookair/Downloads/Hopkins-Dacey2008_Article_VegetarianMeatCouldTechnologyS.pdf