The idea of creating a clean environment within Canada has been increasingly discussed in the last 3 decades. Currently, we have not assigned the right to live in a healthy environment in our constitution, even though many in our current government administration champion the idea of becoming ecologically sustainable. David Boyd and Emmett Macfarlane make separate arguments on the most effective way to achieve the goal of healthy environment for Canadians. While I agree with the arguments made by Boyd to amend the constitution to include the right to a healthy environment, Macfarlane does pose an intriguing point relevant to the ethicality of imposing such a right through a constitutional amendment rather than the democratic system of the court of law. I will be analyzing arguments made by David Boyd and Emmett Macfarlane and finally, provide my insight to this topic and which of the arguments I am more inclined to support.

David Boyd holds the stance that the right to a clean environment should be enshrined in the Canadian constitution. He argues that while a law can provide some mitigation in the environmental destruction, it is not as solid of a document as the constitution, as it is considered the strongest of all laws and the law in which all others must be consistent with. Boyd argues that current methods do not rightfully protect the environment or Canadian citizens. This is apparent because we currently do not have the right to a clean environment in the constitution and currently regulate it through weaker laws, and as a result we are currently ranked 15^th out of 17 countries with regards to the comprehensive index of environmental performance indicators. Finally, Boyd provides insight to the successes of Norway, ranked 2^nd out of 17 countries, and has the right to a clean environment enshrined in their constitution since 1992. Boyd does not believe that this would solve all our problems instantaneously, but it would provide a solid base to prioritize environmental sustainability in the eyes of Canadians.

Emmett Macfarlane disagrees with Boyd on the idea that environmental rights should be put in the constitution but shares a belief that something needs to be done regarding the state of our environment. The prominent argument made by Macfarlane is that enshrining these rights in the constitution moves the power of decision-making from politicians and the government into the eyes of the court system. Macfarlane vehemently argues against a constitutional amendment on the opinion that judges do not have the legitimacy or competency to interpret environmental policy issues. This opinion is based on the intricate nature of such issues and the various disciplines required to successfully interpret the ecological, economic, and judicial aspects of environmental issues. Once a right is enshrined in the constitution, the ability to debate and compromise is lost as well.

I am inclined to disagree with Emmett Macfarlane. Instead of discussing what points made by Boyd I agree with (all of them), I will talk about a few of the arguments made by Macfarlane that lead me to disagree. Although I am unsure of the competency of judges regarding making informed decisions on environmental issues, petitioning the government to crack down on environmental issues is not an effective way to approach a sustainable Canada. This is the world we are currently living in and it has allowed us to destroy the Canadian environment in the interest of development. Secondly, I do not believe making compromises and debating over a clean environment is needed. If a group of peoples health is being deteriorated by industrial  or environmentally destructive activities, there should be no exception made on behalf of the effected group, and all responsibility and consequences should be placed on the party at fault. If we would like the achieve the goal of a healthy environment, we cannot make exceptions and the right to a clean environment must be enshrined into our constitution.

 

Source –

Source: Boyd, D. R. & MacFarlane, E. (2014). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Policy Options.

The issue of discussion for this week focuses on the idea of “de-extinction” of a species. I will be specifically focusing on the ideas of Ronald Sandler in his ethical analysis, “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species”. In his essay, Sandler analyzes various arguments in favour and against the practice of species de-extinction, but ultimately makes the conclusion that, although neither of the ethical arguments are very strong, it is not a priority that humanity should readily accept without addressing the concerns. For such an idea to be considered “ethically acceptable”, Sandler states that there are many concerns that need to be addressed first. I will be analyzing the concerns that Sandler mentions regarding the unnaturalness, animal welfare, and ecological issues tied to the process of bringing a species back from extinction (Sandler 355).

The technology used to bring a species back from extinction involves the use of “transgenic biotechnology” which is used to mix genomic material of individuals that could not have bred otherwise. This is where protests arise against the “unnaturalness” of de-extinction and the associated technology (Sandler 357). Although he does acknowledge the validity of this argument, he identifies potential flaws in this argument. One of which is that our society is reliant upon many things that would not exist without human intervention or the purposeful crossbreeding of species for the benefit of humans (Sandler 357). Specifically, vaccines and much of the agricultural products exist today because of the use of some form transgenic biotechnology and the intervention by humans.

The concerns regarding animal welfare are valid and these concerns can be tied into many other fields of scientific research and just the overall impacts of humans on animal species. Sandler provides a rebuttal to this through examples of the current use of animals in scientific research and the animal agriculture. Sandler argues that because of how we already treat animals, concerns regarding animal suffering in the use of transgenic biotechnology do not pose a special or particularly imposing problem (Sandler 358). However, I am inclined to disagree with his argument, specifically the use of the example in the argument itself. Our current treatment of animals in research and agriculture is not ethical, at least in my opinion. The concerns regarding animal welfare need to be addressed in these issues as well as the issues surrounding de-extinction. I believe Sandler makes a mistake of the use of a logical fallacy in his argument. His justification that it de-extinction does not pose any more harm onto animals as does scientific research and agriculture is a red herring that pushes the focus away from the question that should actually be discussed, if our current practices should be considered ethically acceptable.

The ecological concerns regarding the de-extinction of a long-lost species are valid, and I believe should be of the top arguments against the use of transgenic biotechnology. Sandler argues that bringing an extinct species back does not address the environmental or ecological issues that caused extinction in the first place, climate change is an example that he referred to (Sandler 358). Another concern pertains to the potential impact the de-extinct species could have on the ecosystem (Sandler 358), as it is arguably very different from when the species was last alive because this topic is discussing a species that has long been extinct. Many of the potential lost species to choose from were lost due to human activity and destruction of habitat and without addressing the human activities that caused the extinction in the first place, biotechnology to bring a species back from extinction will not help us.

While it sounds like a very cool scientific advancement to bring a species back from extinction, I do not believe it can be considered ethically acceptable. Although, the technology does have implications for future conservation efforts on endangered species, and as alluded to by Sandler, can be used as a last-ditch conservation effort (Sandler, 354). I agree with Sandler’s conclusion that this topic is not a priority over current issues that plague animals’ species, however I do believe that parts of his argument for the use of transgenic biotechnology may be slightly flawed.

Sources:

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

Gary Comstock posed some very intriguing points in his argument for genetically modified food products. Specifically, his argument on the grounds of religion and “playing god”, as well as the utilitarian consideration of balancing the benefits and harms of producing genetically modified food (Comstock, 2010).

Comstock acknowledges the argument that genetically engineering plants and animals for the benefits of humans could be considered as playing god and subjecting nature to an unnatural process but disagrees with the validity of the argument. His reasoning is supported by the existence of more than one interpretation of God. In my opinion, this thinking is difficult as it portrays a westernized ideology of god with the assumption that all humans share this belief. Comstock points out that even within one religion the perspectives vary on this topic and are inconsistent (Comstock, 2010). For others who do not hold a belief in a God or a higher being, this argument could not convince them otherwise. An argument over the ethicality of genetically modified food in relation to religion is made which can also be connected to equality and rights of people. Comstock looks to explain how genetically modified food can have major benefits on the lives of humans, such as reducing rates of starvation and insufficient nutrients. Taking on the endeavor to solve problems such as the ones mentioned is arguably virtuous and, in some contexts, it can be argued that a God would do the same (Comstock, 2010).

Comstock makes an argument that by continuing the use and development of genetically modified food, the benefits are outweighing the harms (Comstock, 2010). Similar to the arguments made in the previous paragraph, the benefits of genetically modified food are a possible solution to starvation and world hunger (if distribution is fair among equality of people), and have provided entire populations of people with nutrients essential to a healthy life that they were not able to obtain prior to genetic engineering. The Golden Rice project is a largescale example of successful genetic modification that improved the lives of millions by introducing a needed precursor in the rice for the body to develop vitamin A (“The Golden Rice Project”, 2009). From an ethical standpoint, if the process is completed with care and virtue, using genetic engineering to better humanity should be accepted.

Humans have been modifying nature right from the beginning of humanity. We artificially select plants and animals with desirable traits and breed them in order to isolate those traits. In a sense, this could be considered genetically modification but over a longer period (generations). For example, most fruits and vegetables we see at the grocery store did not exist 4000 years ago, but through careful cross-breeding and artificial selection, we can now by 10 different varieties of apples or “seedless” watermelons. This isn’t to say that I personally agree or disagree with genetic modification, but at this point in human history, why does the use of innovative technology to assist our efforts of genetic modification change our entire perspective on its ethicality. If we look at this idea from the perspective of Comstock, I would be inclined to believe he might agree.

 

References –

• Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In Food ethics (pp. 49-66). Springer, New York, NY.
• The Golden Rice Project. (2009). Retrieved 12 October 2020, from http://www.goldenrice.org/

The topic surrounding the ethical consumption of meat (or unethical) is very relevant to my life and a lifestyle that is deep-rooted in the lives of many Albertan’s. In my opinion, becoming vegetarian should not be a hard expectation that we set but rather something we encourage and innovate to become as close to the current diet that non-vegetarian may have.

Personally, I’m not a vegetarian and I eat more meat than I’d like to admit, but learning about the impact of animal agriculture on global warming is something that makes me want to stop eating as much meat. I can’t see myself completely stopping, and the article mentioning meat grown in vitro as tissue culture is intriguing and reveals a potential second solution to the issues associated with a meat inclusive diet (Hopkins & Dacey, 2008). Growing meat cultures and allowing people to continue eating food as close to their preferred diet as possible without the impact on climate change or implications of animal cruelty is promising. The most difficult task to accomplish would be to convince people that it is safe to eat and to make something that has a familiar taste. Although in my opinion, this issue confuses me as the majority of food found in the grocery store contains additives that if people knew exactly what they’re eating they may share the same feeling about lab cultured meat as they do about a bag of Cheetos.

The decision made by the Edmonton City Council to vote against implementing a vegetarian/vegan food options for all events is a decision that I do not agree with. Even as someone who eats meat, I think that this would have been a good change. It would have set a good example to instill change without forcing anybody to change their lifestyle. In addition to the ethical reasons, this would have been inclusive of those already on a vegetarian/vegan diet without excluding those who eat meat. I would understand the result of the vote if the plan was to force everyone to become vegetarian or all city politicians but it wasn’t implementing any sort of change to people’s lifestyles outside of city events. This would have been a very forward way of thinking and would set a good example for the rest of the city and the province. The council faced extreme opposition from Albertan’s which is not surprising as prior to this vote many supporters of vegetarianism/veganism have been silenced or cancelled in our province. For example, K.D Lang, an Alberta born singer had many of her songs banned on Alberta radio stations when she came out as a supporter of the anti-meat movement (Butts, 2015).

For people who are serious about reducing their carbon footprint and becoming part of a movement that is focused on changing a major contributor to global warming, becoming vegetarian/vegan or even reducing the amount of meat consumed should be on the top of their list. In Alberta, a major producer and consumer of meat product, this goal has and will continue to face opposition. Without the leadership to set an example of positive change, proponents of this movement are faced with an extreme task. Although It is not impossible to achieve this goal especially with the innovations of lab cultured meat and outside pressure put on people in leadership to act on this issue similarly to the approach taken with other forms of pollution.

 

References Used:

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0

Butts, S. (2015). Edmonton City Council faces divisive vote on whether to make all of its catered meals vegan or vegetarian | National Post. Nationalpost.com. Retrieved 6 October 2020, from https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-city-council-faces-divisive-vote-on-whether-to-make-all-of-its-catered-meals-vegan-or-vegetarian.