Today’s society is an era of the rapid development of science and technology. Gene-drive technology can change the genes of mosquitoes to reduce the number of mosquitoes and control the spread of disease. In Sandler’s article, he mentioned de‐extinction technology (Sandler, 2013). This technology can revive species that have been extinct for decades or even longer (Sandler, 2013). This is to reconstruct the DNA of extinct species by extracting DNA from extinct species (available from some fossils and specimens), and obtaining genetic information from closely related species, so as to revived extinct species (Sandler, 2013).

The development of de-extinction also brings some ethical concerns. In Sandler’s article, it is mentioned that this technology is unnatural and may cause suffering to animals (Sandler, 2013). The revived species may be harmful to the environment and human beings. Moreover, human beings are playing the role of God (Sandler, 2013). After the revived species, it may be released back to nature, but changes in the environment can cause unadapted of the revived species (Sandler, 2013). This will make it difficult for the revived species to survive in the new environment and may cause extinction again. This deep de-extinction technique may lead to some health problems in offspring and increase the suffering of animals (Sandler, 2013). It is immoral that human behaviour increases the pain of animals. Sandler’s article also mentioned that if this technology is used to alleviate human’s guilt, but does not fully respect nature and species, then the technology is ” hubristic” (Sandler, 2013). Moreover, the technology is not perfect and cannot guarantee its success. At the same time, this technology also has a lot of uncertainty. So far, no species have been successfully revived (kasperbauer, 2017).

At the end of Sandler’s article, it is mentioned that this technology cannot solve the existing ecological problems, nor can it make up for the harm people have done to these species in the past (Sandler, 2013). Therefore, there is no very strong or persuasive ethical reason to revive species that have been extinct for a long time. At the same time, this technology will bear high costs and high risks (Sandler, 2013).

In my opinion, I am not in favour of reviving extinct species by using de-extinction technology. The ecological environment will change slowly with the passage of time, and the structure of some species will also change. If the de-extinction technology enables species revived, it may be considered invasive species and may cause damage to the ecosystem and food chain. Environmental changes may lead to the fact that the revived species cannot survive independently (Sandler, 2013). Although it is mentioned that many of the revived species will be used to research and exhibited rather than release (Sandler, 2013). However, such behaviour increases the pain of animals, which is not in line with ethics and violates animal welfare. At the same time, the development of this technology is irresponsible, because through this technology, people can revive these species when they need to. That makes people will not fully respect and protect the environment and protect the existing species. In my opinion, human beings have not taken up the moral responsibility of treating species equally and protecting the environment.

In general, there are some ethical concerns in reviving the extinct species. I think we should pay more attention to how to protect the existing endangered species. At the same time, I think it is more important for humans to take responsibility for protecting the environment instead of making up for it with technology.

Yiyang

Reference

kasperbauer, T., J. (2017). Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831

Sandler, R. (2013). The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. https://conbio-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12198

 

Mosquitoes can transmit the virus to humans. The outbreak of the disease has led to calls for a reduction in mosquito populations in several regions (Pugh, 2016). The main diseases transmitted by mosquitoes include malaria and yellow fever etc. The transmission of these diseases is mainly caused by Anopheles gambiae，Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti (Pugh, 2016). In 2015, 214 million people got malaria, resulting in 438000 people died. In addition, although the mortality rate of other viruses is not as high as malaria, these viruses still make people die every year (Pugh, 2016). In addition, the number of mosquitoes cannot be effectively controlled or reduced by the method of eliminating mosquito breeding grounds (Pugh, 2016). So, advances in gene-drive technology can help eradicate mosquitoes. This technology uses a CRISPR-Cas9 editing system to change the genes of species, and then pass the target genes to the offspring through these species (Pugh, 2016). For example, female Anopheles gambiae will transmit the virus. Therefore, the transformation of Anopheles gambiae is male mosquitoes can only transmit the Y chromosome, thus reducing the reproduction of female mosquitoes, reduce transmission rate and also reduce the number of mosquitoes (Pugh, 2016).

Gene-drive technology is also considered immoral. Entomologist Metcalf opposes this form of total removal of species. Metcalf believes that “all species should be regarded as sacred, and human beings have no right to destroy them” (Pugh, 2016). This kind of intervention is a kind of behaviour in which human beings play the role of God. Moreover, there have uncertainties in gene-drive technology, which cannot guarantee this technology success or no possibility of mutation happen in the future (Pugh, 2016). In addition, some people believe that the extinction of mosquitoes will have an impact on the ecosystem because mosquitoes are the source of food to other species, so it is immoral to eradicate mosquitoes (Pugh, 2016).

Pugh claims “We should abandon the development of biotechnology in the face of any kind of risk” (Pugh, 2016).  And, advocates of gene-drive technology should recognize and reduce uncertainties (Pugh, 2016). Moreover, more data is also needed to determine whether mosquito eradication is correct behaviour. If the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, the technology should be avoided. If this technology can effectively reduce the spread of the virus, then have moral reasons to choose this technology (Pugh, 2016).

My view is should use this technology to eradicate the mosquito, and I think this intervention should be used to help alleviate the transmission of these diseases. Pugh mentions total utilitarianism in the article. The goal of total utilitarianism is to increase the amount of happiness, whether it is to increase the happiness of existing lives or to increase the number of people who live happiness (Pugh, 2016). Even though mosquito also can increase happiness, it has caused too many human deaths and environmental damage. Mosquito transmission of diseases to humans actually increases humans’ suffering, which is contrary to the goal of total utilitarianism. If we use this technology, we can reduce the spread of the virus and increase human happiness. In addition, mosquitoes also will transmit some viruses to animals, which can destroy the stability of the ecosystem and cause some environmental damage. When mosquitoes transmission the viruses to animals, eradicating mosquitoes also increases other species’ happiness. So, we have a stronger moral reason to kill mosquitoes. This technology protects human health and the balance of ecosystems.

Ecocentrism may be against my opinion because killing mosquitoes means destroying the integrity of nature. Ecocentrism regards nature as a whole, and human beings are also a member of the whole. Humans have no right to deprive other species of life, and the living and non-living things in the ecosystem are interdependent. But I think the existence of mosquitoes threatens the lives of humans and some animals, and it needs some intervention to protect humans and animals.

In general, I think there has morality to eradicate mosquitoes through gene-drive technology. At the same time, the continuous progress of science and technology is also necessary to reduce uncertainty and stabilize ecological balance.

Yiyang

Reference

Pugh, J. (2016). Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies. https://jme.bmj.com/content/42/9/578

 

 

From the article by Harrison and Tanner, we can see that they are anti-natalism. Anti-natalism means that human beings should not have children. They are opposed to human procreation. Harrison and Tanner point out some reason about human should not have a child. It’s that humans have caused a lot of extinction of plants and animals, and we have destroyed the environment and habitat. At the same time, procreation is like a gamble, and we can’t guarantee that future generations will do better than we do now or that they will be more responsible for their behaviours (Harrison and Tanner, 2011). At the same time, the article also points out that many parents’ well-being will increase when they are pregnant, but once the child is born, their happiness will decline, and the more children they have, the less happy they will be (Harrison and Tanner, 2011). In the end, they came to the conclusion that human beings would be exterminated through attrition, which means that they would no longer have children to replace adults, so that adults would slowly die, and eventually, human beings would disappear (Harrison and Tanner, 2011). If this can help stabilize the ecological environment, then human beings have a moral responsibility to do so. But in my opinion, I don’t agree with the view of anti-natalism that pointed out in Harrison and Tanner’s article.

In my opinion, people’s view of the ecological environment has begun to change. In more and more countries and citizens are beginning to realize the importance of the environment for the survival of humanity and the biosphere as a whole. Many places are beginning to protect the environment, such as reducing the use of plastic bags or developing sustainable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Progress in these areas is reducing environmental damage. Although the process is slow, many citizens are beginning to have a sense of environmental protection. Because human beings realize that our survival and development are inseparable from a healthy environment. So now more and more people begin to carry out environmental protection action. Will the extinction of the human-environment really make the better? I think there are many ways to improve the environment, such as behavioural norms and the spread of knowledge and technology can also help improve the environment. According to Leopold’s land ethic, human beings need to change their identity in the land community from conqueror to member of the community (Leopold, 1948). Humans have no right to deprive other species of life in the ecosystem. As human roles and ideas begin to shift, it also helps the ecosystem return to balance

At the same time, I don’t think most people will voluntarily give up procreation. Everyone has the right to choose whether to have children or not. Many people believe that childbearing is valuable (Harrison and Tanner, 2011). Although some parents think that childbearing will not realize happiness, they have the right to choose whether to procreation or not. It is immoral to restrict or deprive them of their reproductive rights. And I pointed out above that it is not necessary to take such extreme measures to improve the environment. I think it is possible for everyone to protect the environment within their own ability. At the same time, everyone has a moral obligation to protect the environment in which they live. I think controlling the number of children born in each family can reduce the overuse of land resources to a certain extent. This method is feasible. At the same time, I think that education and the transmission of ideas are equally important. Such an approach is achievable in protecting the environment. As opposed, I think letting all humans not have children and making them extinct, this idea is hard to achieve.

To make the environment better, it does not mean that we must have children or extinction. Instead, we should take a long-term view, protect the environment through changes in behaviour, and everyone should do so with a moral obligation.

Yiyang

References

Harrison, G.,& Tanner, J. (2011). Better not to have children.

https://www-cambridge-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3AF8BE47794522E31BE351F4D9822344/S1477175610000436a.pdf/better_not_to_have_children.pdf

Leopold, A. (1948). The Land Ethic. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of genetically modified foods coming into the market. But many consumers are against the production of genetically modified food because people think that the production of genetically modified food is not ethical. The Comstock’s article pointed out three ethic about GM food that “the right of people in all countries to adopt genetically modified technology (human rights), weigh the advantages and disadvantages between consumers and the environment (utilitarian), and encourage discovery and careful supervision (virtue)” (Comstock, 16). If we act responsibly and carefully, the production of GM food is ethical. As far as I’m concerned, I think that from a utilitarian point of view, GM food will bring a great blow to other agricultural producers and may cause poverty in rural areas. Such behaviour does not bring the greatest happiness to farmers in rural areas but causes farmers’ losses, which is not in line with the concept of utilitarianism. And it is very difficult to achieve the prudent supervision of GM crops, because if the regulator takes bribes, then the regulation will not work, which may also harm the interests of consumers. It’s hard to make sure that everyone involved has good virtues and the right values. So, I think it is not ethical to develop genetically modified food to a certain extent.

I think GM food will have an impact on developing countries or agricultural countries. The rise of genetically modified food will have a great impact on local food crops. This will lead to the disappearance of native species and the decrease in farmers’ income. Ultimately, it may affect the sustainability of local food. At the same time, it may also destroy the stability of nature, because it changes the genes of plants and harms the diversity of plants. The development of genetically modified food will reduce the interests of local farmers. And it will increase poverty in rural areas that make local food unsafe. The economic backwardness of rural areas makes farmers lack more advanced technology to grow agriculture, which also leads to the reduction of non-genetically modified food. Development of genetically modified food which ignoring the interests of farmers, such behaviour is not in line with ethics to a certain extent.

Comstock said that scientists need to have the right values to research in order to make the public trust the research. But I think after scientists develop genetically modified foods, the technology will be bought by many companies. Companies are all in pursuit of interests because only in this way these companies can compete with other companies and survive in the market. But it’s a question of whether these companies will strictly follow the steps of scientists to develop. If the company does not have the right virtue, it will cause market distortion. In my opinion, these aspects are very difficult to regulate. There is no guarantee that every company has the right ethics, which may lead to the distortion of GM crop development.

In my opinion, it is difficult to unify the three ethics mentioned by Comstock, and these three ethics ignore the interests of farmers, so I think the development of genetically modified food is not ethical. I think proper research can help the development of a country, but it needs to be symmetrical with the information of consumers so that the public can trust scientists. At the same time, we need to pay more attention to the economic development of rural areas, rather than ignore it. Helping the development of rural areas will also accelerate the development of the country. In this way, happiness can be maximized that is in line with the utilitarian theory.

 

Yiyang

Comstock, Gary. Ethics and Genetically modified foods.

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

 

According to the data of NOAA, the average temperature around the world is increasing by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 100 years(Bradford, 1). The most greenhouse gas that affects global warming is methane rather than carbon dioxide. Animal agriculture emissions the most methane. Reducing methane emissions is the most important thing that needs to be done now because it will allow the earth to cool down.

Methane is produced by the digestion of livestock. So reducing methane emissions requires reducing the output of animal agriculture. With more and more meat consumers, there are more and more kinds of meat. Mohr’s article also points out that methane content has increased fivefold over the past 50 years and shows no sign of decreasing (Mohr, 3). This also shows that the human diet is mainly meat. At the same time, the rising demand for meat that requires more land for grazing, which leads to deforestation. The loss of trees is also part of the reason for global warming because trees can evolve the carbon dioxide that humans produce. But carbon dioxide will stay in the air for a century, and methane will cycle out of the atmosphere in eight years, and it will cool the earth (Mohr, 4). So reducing meat purchases is the fastest way to mitigate global warming.

Vegetarianism can minimize the demand for meat. Meat lovers need to transform their diet from high protein and high calorie to plant-based products. These plant foods also contain a variety of nutrients. And high protein and high-calorie meat are not good for our health, excessive intake can cause obesity and other diseases. At the same time, I think reducing food waste is also a factor in reducing methane emissions. Overbuying meat will lead to an increase in demand and supply, which leads to an increase in grazing. This also causes excessive methane emissions.

During this pandemic, many people lost their rational thinking because they were afraid of food shortage. So they had panic hoarding, which they bought a lot of meat. But excessive hoarding leads to food waste. This behaviour also reflects the huge demand for meat. I think humans should try to become vegetarianism because when they change their diet, they will reduce high protein intake, which is good for their health. It’s also reducing the demand for meat, which also reduces methane emissions.

Global warming will lead to the decrease of animal and plant species, drought and sea-level rise. These problems will seriously affect human survival. When animals and plants decrease, humans are faced with food shortages and famine. The frequent occurrence of drought or other severe weather will affect crops and cause food insecurity, which will seriously affect the sustainability of food. When these problems happen, they will lead to political problems such as food riots. When these bad things happen, it will be too late for us to make changes. I think reducing methane emissions is a way to help the environment return to balance, so we need to reduce meat demand, reduce food waste and reduce deforestation. All of this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Yiyang

Works Cited

Bradford, Alina. (2017, August 12). Effects of global warming.

https://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html

Mohr, Noam. (2005). A new global warming strategy.

http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean of Leopold’s land community concept is “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” (Leopold,1). And also, land ethics is turning human roles from conquerors of the land to a citizen of the community which means humans need to respect to the other citizen and respect to the community (Leopold,1). Land ethics recognizes the significance of the existence of nature, but do humans really respect these natural things? Do we love the soil, water, plants and animals, as mentioned in Leopold’s article? The answer is no because anthropocentrism and community conqueror behaviour are destroying the community. The conqueror’s ecological concept was to see the ecosystem as something that could help them increase their own interests. Overgrazing, agriculture, building houses and so on have brought economic development to humans. But destruction naturally causes the degradation of plants and soil. Such degradation has led to the degradation of animal populations that depend on them. Egoism always puts the interests first and does not treat other creatures equally. They only want the maximum interests to themselves; they ignore the interests of the community.  The current social situation is that Leopold’s concept of land community is still progressing slowly.

Is it really useful to strengthen education on land conservation? Leopold mentioned that the content of education is actually ” It defines no right or wrong, assigns no obligation, calls for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values ” and “In respect of land-use, it urges only enlightened self-interest”(Leopold,2). When the government takes measures, such as asking farmers to take measures to protect their land within five years, the government will give corresponding compensation in terms of machinery or other aspects. But when the measure ended five years later, no farmers would consciously protect their land. For farmers, the immediate interests are the best, so they will not change their values, they just want to explore more land to do agriculture and make their lives better. But planting more is also destroying more forests, which also brings us global warming problems. If a human does not change their beliefs and values, the concept of equal respect for biology will not be formed.

As mentioned in Leopold’s article, the land pyramid is based on the soil. This pyramid is also a food chain. Up there are plants, insects, birds, animals and so on, and then the top. The conqueror placed himself at the top and could do whatever he wanted. But the pyramid is one layer linked to another, and finally back to the soil. Pyramids are fluid, and it can be strengthened or weakened by constant biological changes. If humans cut down excessively, the birds will have no habitat, which may lead to the extinction of birds. It will cause bird predators to have no food because predators do not eat what birds eat. So the food chain will break into an unbalanced state. Whether the land can adapt to the new food chain is still unknown. But are humans really at the top of the pyramid? The conqueror also depends on land to develop. If the foundation of the pyramid is destroyed, how can the conqueror develop?

Based on my understanding, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of human interests, but the actions of conquerors have harmed the natural environment. Now humans are experiencing global warming, rising water levels, water pollution and so on. The origin cause of these problems is the conqueror’s overexploitation and disrespect for nature. The pursuit of interests always makes people lost and unable to think rationally, which makes the conquerors unable to stop their steps and then reflect on the impact of their actions on the community. I think they have an obligation to respect and treat any organism in the biosphere equally and protect the integrity of the biological chain. Instead of turning natural resources into their own interests. We can’t think of ourselves as the top of the food chain just because we have the ability to create and develop. The relationship between humans and any living creature is complementary. No species can be separated from the environment, all need the support of the environment, including people.

Yiyang

 

Works Cited:

Leopold Aldo. (1948). The Land Ethic.

http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf