In the article “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement,” David Suzuki holds the opinion that Canada should join the environmental rights movement and establishes a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights in Parliament to make the federal government protect the environment for its citizens’ health. Throughout the article, he emphasizes the possibility of making such a law, the benefit of launching this movement, and the challenge that Canada faces about the environmental issue. This paper agrees with David Suzuki’s opinion that Canada should make laws to force the government to protect citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment.

It is ethical to protect people’s health by protecting their living environment. If the environment deteriorates, people’s health will be influenced directly. Suzuki argues that “we can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide” (“Canada”). To some degree, environmental pollution can be regarded as a chronic poison to kill people. In a polluted environment, people are easier to become sick and get diseases like cancers. Thus, people have the right to protect their health by demanding a safe and healthy living environment. From the moral aspect, the government has the responsibility for protecting the environment for peoples’ health as long as the environment can influence people’s health.

Besides, this legalization should be supported because Canada also faces a serious environmental threat like most of the other nations in the world. Suzuki points out that the environmental issue in Canada has been serious enough as there are more than 1,000 effective drinking-water advisories, and half of the population “lives in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity” (Suzuki “Canada”). These alerts cannot be ignored. Before the problem has been too serious about being solved, the government should take action in time to control the pollution. The law is used to make the government pay enough attention to their inherent responsibility. Even without the law, the government still has the responsibility to protect the environment and benefit citizens’ health. The law is simply used to make the government pay enough attention and make it easy for citizens to maintain their rights and monitor the government’s behaviours.

However, some people might oppose that environmental protection means a discouragement of industrialization development, which will hinder economic development. However, environmental issues are crucial to people’s health and well-being, which should be prioritized to their economic status. People’s lives are much more valuable than money. Environmental protection doesn’t mean to protect people’s health in the current society. It also means to protect the health of future generations. If people in the current era seriously pollute the environment, then future generations have to suffer equal health threats. The long-term benefit of environmental protection is more significant than the purely economic value. Besides, environmental protection can also help boost economic development as “evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs” (Suzuki “Canada”). In essence, environmental protection is not contradictory to the development of industrialization. Moreover, this law can help industrialization develop on a sustainable and environment-friendly basis.

Therefore, I personally think Canada should take immediate action to join the environmental rights movement for its citizens’ health and rights. It is a moral responsibility that the Canadian government should shoulder. Faced with current environmental threats, Canada should learn from other nations to use effective laws to protect people’s health and create a system that supports people’s right to live in a safe and healthy environment.

-Linfeng Xie

Works Cited

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

This week we are discussing de-extinction, a topic that is very fascinating to me because it is actually very good news for us to be resurrecting extinct creatures. Climate change, human exploitation, and habitat destruction are wreaking havoc on life on Earth. Living organisms adapt to the harsh environment and they reproduce or die out over time, but nowadays, with the increase of human activities, thousands of species go extinct every year. Therefore, the recovery of extinct organisms has become a subject of research for many scientists. In fact, with the advancement of technology, this impossibility has become a reality. But the emergence of this technology inevitably raises many questions that we should consider, namely, is it ethical? Today’s blog will briefly analyze this technology through Kasperbauer‘s article.

First of all, what is de-extinction? Kasperbauer stated that “‘De-extinction’ refers to the process of reviving previously extinct species, discussed most recently in the context of advances in synthetic biology.” (2017) That is, by first sequencing the DNA of the extinct species and then inserting their DNA into the denucleated oocyte of a close relative and then into the embryo for development (2017). Kasperbauer mentioned that “an optimistic estimate predicts that the genes of the extinct species will not be identical to those of the previously extinct species. offspring will be 80-90% similar”. (2017) This means that our recovered organism is optimistically close to the previous life form and its offspring can be mostly similar to the previous organism. Therefore, this means that we are not yet able to get a fully de-extinction organism.

So, let’s think about some of the problems we face and how we should deal with them once we can fully recover an intact extinct organism. I think its emergence could bring some degree of benefit to our ecosystem. The rigorous Kasperbauer also identifies five key challenges of de-extinction, which means that if it is indeed feasible, we need to address these challenges first to protect our existing ecosystem. The challenge for de-extinction is that, for many species, the original cause of extinction still exists.” (2017) It means that we first need to Verify that the main cause of the threat in the environmental community has been removed or reduced. So if we don’t solve the problem, even if we recover it, it’s going to be endangered in a similar way. The second point is “invasiveness”, which I understand to mean that when a new species enters an ecosystem, it causes an imbalance in the ecosystem, i.e., it takes away resources from similar species (2017). (2017) This means that the invasion will cause problems for other species. The third point is that it is still about “invasion”, which means that if we resurrect organisms that are vulnerable to extinction, we can genetically modify them to be less aggressive. The fact that this means they are less likely to survive means even more that this so-called de-distinction may be short-lived for them. The fourth point that I think is worth considering is that even if we bring back extinct species, it will be difficult to mimic the ecosystems in which they once lived. I believe the author is more interested in conveying to us the difficulty of this project. Because a single species can be produced when we have the technology to do so, but over time our ecosystems have become very different from what they were before. So, the question that comes to mind is, will we be able to bring it back to Earth in a way that will create a good environment for it to live in and not affect the habitat of other organisms? The last and most important challenge that Kasperbauer brings to us here is that “it seems to entail significant suffering for sentient individual animals.” (2017) Here I think that in fact, the evolution of organisms is about reproducing offspring, and perhaps we don’t know if they want to be de-extinct or not. considering the suffering of sentient animals is something we morally need to give them respect. However, if it really can bring more good than bad to the ecosystem, I think the suffering is worth it.

In general, I do find that De-extinction seems to be a good technology for our lives. Perhaps it will also allow us to compensate for our impact on the environment. I personally would support it if it could really “rejuvenate” the ecosystem. At the same time, we need to remain cautious, even if it brings us psychological comfort. But we also need to consider whether this compensation is really what they (extinct species) want it to be.

Work cited：

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

-Linfeng Xie

This week’s reading spread to us that gene-drive technology is whether good or ethical inadequate. These articles are also very fascinating. As we all know, the reason why the Earth is unique is that life on Earth is unique. All live with their own code and their own genetic information, which activates it as a living biosphere. Because of this uniqueness, we often develop our own ideas to create filters that allow us to cut the genes of life forms in the biosphere that are harmful to the environment and human health, and keep it once and for all. Gene drive (CRISPR) is the process of using designed molecules to find the DNA in an organism’s genome, cutting out the genetic information and adding a new piece of information. CRISPR is the modification of specific genetic information in the human genome to get characteristics required by life forms. (nature)Today, it is limited by the laboratory stage, but scientists have tried to use it to edit crops, livestock and even human embryos. The question that arises is whether a gene drive should be used and whether it will have an unpredictable impact on us.

On a specific topic, the mosquito has become the dominant subject of this technological experiment. Why you might ask? Pugh stated that “WHO estimates (released in December 2015) suggest that there were 214 million cases of Malaria in 2015, resulting in 438,000 deaths. There have also been explosive outbreaks of dengue and chikungunya in the past decade, although these viruses are less lethal than malaria; an estimated 500 000 people are hospita-lised with severe dengue each year and about 2.5% of those affected die.” (p.578) Scientists chose mosquitoes as a prime target for attack because mosquito-borne diseases put a huge strain on global medical care, and every year many people are killed by Mosquito-borne diseases and lose a lot of lives. Thus, more and more scientists want to apply gene-drive technology to mosquito breeding. Their main direction is to put modified mosquitoes into nature to make their population disappear.

In fact, this could save thousands of human beings, if it works. nature mentioned that, “As soon as researchers began to make gene drives in the labs, animals developed resistance against them – accumulating mutations that prevented the drives from spreading. Tests of two drives inserted into fruit flies, for example, genetic variants conferring resistance formed. , mutations alter a sequence that CRISPR is set to recognize, preventing the gene from being edited.” (nature) Which means the miracle of life is also in its unpredictability, if one species carries a gene-drive feature, it may evolve some new mechanism of life even if we can predict that it will keep replicating, but its unpredictability makes me a little apprehensive. And life is resilient, all the more reason we need to prevent gene-drive technology from having an impact on our biosphere. Thus, we need to invest more to create a stable way to apply gene-drive. But, this new technology is more like a challenge to the laws of nature, which I also think is undesirable. It’s more like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement we discussed at Week 10, which has signalled an urgent need to take steps to protect our environment. So in the end, in the case of this technology poses a potential extinction risk to mosquitoes. It is more workable to use gene-drive to get antibodies to malaria in their bodies. So, we should use gene-drive technologies when they are more effective and have a less environmental impact.

-Linfeng Xie

Work cited：

Scudellari, M. (2019, July 09). Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: The promise of gene drives. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5

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

Among the learning resources this week, my favourite is the short film called Is voluntary human extinction an extreme stance and Thomas Young’s Overconsumption and Procreation: Are they Morally Equivalent? Now our environment is facing tremendous pressure, due to human Activities and the popularization of technology There are about 20,000-40000 species on our planet that are endangered every year. At the same time, it also mentioned that the reason why the ecology of this earth can become the most suitable for us human beings has experienced more than one billion years of development, and we humans have no right to destroy it. Indeed, we are obliged to protect the earth. (Youtube video)

First of all, there is a stopgap measure mentioned in this video, which is voluntary extinction. This word sounds very cruel. It reduces the impact of humans on the environment by reducing the population. I think this is very extreme, but in fact, we are only a species on the earth, and the impact we have on the earth over the years seems to make this method acceptable to me. Therefore, this also shows that we need to take urgent action to alleviate our impact on the earth. Young mentioned that the value judgments on Overconsumption and Procreation are actually the same, both are selfish. The general definition of Overconsumption is that the consumption level exceeds that of Americans, which is actually unsustainable and undesirable. (P.184) In fact, some fertility in today’s society is of no significance to society, because these parents have no ability to raise their children and provide good education. In China, in 1982, the government promulgated the “family planning” policy. At the most severe time, the government will give you appropriate penalties if you over-birth. Therefore, most Chinese born in the 1980s are only children or not. More than one sibling. This is a good method, but it also caused a lot of problems because he was morally unreasonable.

To sum up, it is imperative to encourage people who are deeply concerned about the impact of population growth. They consider not giving birth to too many potential impacts on society and the environment. Instead of requiring the government to issue policies to restrict. I think a better way is to increase people’s awareness of the environmental impact because there is currently no supporting theory to solve this problem. People are selfish, we will ignore many moral and cost issues. We need to build a sustainable growth environment for our offspring, instead of worrying about the survival environment. Even if one day we can immigrate to another planet, the current situation will be unsustainable and irreversible to a certain extent. It is important to cultivate everyone’s environmental responsibility. This seems to be a difficult task, but once the environment is completed, it will be protected. At least now I see a glimmer of hope that environmental awareness is gradually being valued by people. This may have something to do with the extreme weather and global warming that have caused people’s attention in recent years, but at least it has been seen by people. The forces of nature are powerful and fragile.

—Linfeng

work cited：

1. “Is voluntary human extinction an extreme stance?”. December 18, 2013. Youtube video, 2:46. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsOZ-kn49q4

2.Young, Thomas. “Overconsumption and Procreation: Are they Morally Equivalent?.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 2, 2001, pp. 183-192.

In this chapter, Gary Comstock considers whether the pursuit of genetically modified crops and food is morally justified. For what are genetically modified products? It is extracted from microorganisms, plants or animals to provide the characteristics that farmers or consumers want. (1) His first consideration is the inherent opposition to genetically modified products because he considers that the production process of genetically modified organisms is offensive. Because as a normal person, I will always show my fear of such research that challenges nature, and I am also very worried. This also includes worries about scientists. The most important thing is the challenge of disseminating complex issues. When the media transmits information to the public, we always consider its bias. So the author introduces three secular ethical traditions here: The right theory believes that we should always treat humans as autonomous individuals, not just means to achieve ends. The utilitarian theory believes that we should always maximize good results and minimize bad results. The virtue theory believes that we should always act in the way of a just, fair, and kind person. (4) Repeat the experiment in accordance with the third principle. If all three principles can reach the same conclusion, then we have good reason to believe that our conclusion is morally reasonable. He believes that these opponents have no legitimate basis, that is to say, genetically modified products do not have moral problems in essence.

He then considered external objections to genetically modified products, including those based on the precautionary principle, which focuses on the potential harm that may be caused by the use of genetically modified technology. From my understanding, sometimes the precautionary principle is more like a fuss because this kind of psychology makes people very sensitive to negative information. Moreover, he mentioned that a person with a negative view of genetically modified foods will be more influential than many people with a positive view. (10)He thinks these worries have their own reasons. However, this is not a reason to completely abandon genetically modified products. In fact, the precautionary principle has promoted the supervision of genetically modified products to a certain extent, and they require careful development of genetically modified products under proper supervision.

Finally, Comstock put forward a positive case of genetic modification technology he supported. It is based on three considerations: the right of people to choose to adopt genetically modified technology; the balance between the possible benefits of genetically modified technology and the harm to consumers and the environment; and the wisdom to encourage discovery, innovation and careful supervision of genetically modified technology.

In general, genetically modified technology will become more and more mature as technology advances. In fact, the author has a very mature understanding of transgenic technology, and his views are also very directional, which makes me worried about transgenic technology seem to be persuaded. The increasingly widespread application of genetically modified technology and its results has made it possible for many difficulties and problems faced by human society to be alleviated and resolved to a certain extent, and people are excited because it can bring welfare to mankind. People will also worry about the harm it may bring to us. Therefore, genetically modified technology is both danger and opportunity. Therefore, supervision is the best preventive method for people to adopt this new technology because once the technology is commercialized, it will face the health of tens of thousands of lives. As we face the food crisis today, genetically modified crops have brought us hope for sustainable development. I have a small worry that the author has considered almost all aspects of genetic modification technology, but she did not point us to the future development direction of genetic modification technology. For example, if cloning technology develops in the direction of the war, I think it will have a catastrophic impact on people.

-Linfeng Xie

Work Cited：Comstock G. (2010) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. In: Gottwald FT., Ingensiep H., Meinhardt M. (eds) Food Ethics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_4

As for the assigned article, this week was “Duties to Endangered Species,” it was the last one part in A Sand County Almanac, written by the author Aldo Leopold. I think the main reason why this article was selected as a required assigned article is that it is indeed the most representative article in this book. The main problem facing the book ” A Sand County Almanac” is the problem of the human development model. In other words, since the industrial revolution, human development with science as the main direction has caused and caused all the problems caused by the change in attitude towards nature, which has resulted in reflections on this development model. There are many aspects reflected in the book, mainly because the ways that primitive humans recognize nature are different from the ways that modern humans know nature. Modern humans mainly learn about nature in schools. The primitive way is nature itself to educate humans. To put it simply, nature educates human beings in a love of nature, and this sentiment can produce a worldview based on the whole of nature, which in turn produces a demand for the protection of the whole of nature. Therefore, the land ethics code is generally regarded as an environmental theory based on holism. one good example he gave to us in “The Ecological Conscience” is that but when the state promulgated some policies to help farmers, they also need to take some responsibilities, but they are selective in fulfilling their responsibilities, that is, just do What’s best for you.
“The land ethic as a product of social evolution ”he mentioned. I agree with his point of view. It is precise with the advancement of technology that people are gradually ignoring respect for the natural world. People usually have respect for every member of the community, and of course respect for the community itself. The role of conqueror does not last forever, because it is ethically unfeasible. Therefore, incorporating the land as a whole into the collective concept is only to facilitate people to protect nature rationally. Finally, I’m glad that the author mentioned here that the composition and feedback adjustment methods of each ecosystem are different because the environmental differences caused by various factors will make the environmental protection methods required by different regions different. Imitate blindly. When technology continues to develop, we should develop in a sustainable direction. Because as a part of the earth, we have the responsibility to protect our living environment through our knowledge.
Maybe one day when we break the limit that the earth can withstand, we will inevitably be affected. Besides, I personally it is great thinking but there is no doubt that we can not able to use it purely. For example, we have to change our food chain servicer from feeding to. nowaday we cultivate animals to feed us. when we use the item from the natural world to feed us is also the way to make our cultivate animals lose their role in the food chain.

word cited：The Land Ethic ,Aldo Leopold, from A Sand County Almanac, 1948