David Suzuki in his report advocated that Canada should establish an environmental bill to protect people’s living environments. David thought that Canadian people had the moral right to enjoy a healthy environment. So his suggestion was moral. In the current world, more and more countries regard the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy living environment as one of the civil rights. The citizen’s right to enjoy a good environment is the right to live and develop in a healthy, comfortable and beautiful environment. The environmental right is a new concept of right arising from the crisis of the human environment, which is the legalization of moral rights and due rights. It is also the combination of collective rights and individual rights, and the high unity of rights and obligations. In the social relationship of environment, each subject of this right not only enjoys and utilizes the environment but also undertakes the obligation not to cause damage to the environment enjoyed and utilized by other subjects. This belongs to the category of moral obligation. Human existence cannot break this moral principle.

The suggestion of establishing the related law to protect humans’ right to live in a healthy environment is moral for the whole society. David’s idea is reasonable that “progress is possible when enough people recognize its necessity and come together to make it happen” (Suzuki 2015). His words reflect a reality that human beings as a whole need to cooperate to protect the environment, and the premise of realizing this national consciousness is to turn environmental rights into the rights of every citizen. In this report, he proposes the Canadian government to join the environmental plan. The reason is that many countries in the world have been actively promoting the strategy of a healthy environment. If Canadians want to achieve sustainable development, the Canadian government also needs to make a moral decision. So David Suzuki’s idea is in line with the common moral requirement of the whole humans society.

I also support David’s suggestion because the environment is closely related to the living conditions of human beings. In modern industrial society, human social activities have caused serious damage to the environment. Air pollution, water pollution, climate change and other issues have caused serious threats to humans’ health. If humans’ right to subsistence cannot be guaranteed, then other social development and progress will lose their basic significance. Therefore, it is a good decision to add environmental rights to civil rights. For example, some industries engage in the production which causes environmental damage for their own economic interests, such as the arbitrary emission of chemical wastewater, which is not in line with moral values. Because they destroy the living environment of the surrounding residents, at the same time, in a broad sense, they are also destroying their own living environment, because human beings live on the same earth. Therefore, if we can establish laws to protect people’s living environment, it will be beneficial to all mankind. Obviously, it is not an easy thing to achieve this goal because it also requires the society and the government to pay more costs and improve the regulatory force. For Canada, the author’s idea will also receive different feedbacks from different parties. However, in the face of the harsh reality of environmental pollution and destruction, people gradually realize that the environmental right, such as breathing fresh air, has been harmed and deprived, and seriously endangers the survival and development of human beings. Therefore, people put forward the requirements of citizens’ environmental rights in order to strive for a clean and good living environment. It has become an important part of social morality and reminds humans to care about their living environment.

Work Cited

Suzuki, David. (2015) “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement”. Huffpost.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment.

In the article “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction,” Kasperbauer proposes the synthetic biology technology that makes it possible to revive extinct species of animals. He proposed this technology as a way to solve the extinction of animals through the process of de-extinction. Also, he mentioned challenges for this technology. It sounds like a very meaningful and attractive technology to bring those extinct animals back to the ecosystem and repair the diversity of species. However, this paper doesn’t agree with Kasperbauer’s support for de-extinction and believes that this technology should not be developed. De-extinction is unethical to intervene in the ecosystem again and ineffective to solve the extinction problem as long as humans fail to establish a sound system to protect the ecosystem.

In relation to this technology, the advantage of this technology is to repair the ecosystem by increasing its diversity. Extinct animals could be used to fulfill their historic functions or perform new functions in the ecosystem, playing an important role in benefiting humans beings and protecting the ecosystem (Kasperbauer 3). For example, some extinct animals can be brought back to eat pests. These extinct animals can play their previous roles in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem. It is a way that humans repair their previous mistakes. It is the main reason for supporting this technology. Some extinct animals can be useful for humans. The ecosystem can restore its previous balance.

However, this technology also has a series of disadvantages and ethical challenges. One major challenge argued by Kasperbauer is that “the original cause of extinction still exists” (4). So far, humans haven’t established an effective system to protect animals from extinction or control their exploitation of nature. Even though extinct animals are brought back to nature, they might soon go extinct in the same way again. Without a sound system to protect animals, this technology is ineffective in preventing the extinction of animals. Meanwhile, another ethical challenge is that de-extinction “seems to entail significant suffering for sentient individual animals” (Kasperbauer 5). Since there hasn’t been any successful case, it is not sure whether animals will suffer during the process of de-extinction. If extinct animals are brought back to life but soon die in suffering, it will bring a great torture to them, which is more serious than extinction. Humans don’t have such right to impose suffering on extinct animals. Besides, de-extinction, in essence, is still humans’ intervention in the ecosystem. It still breaks the current balance in species by bringing back extinct animals. If some species are invasive, they might cause more problems and threaten other living species. Moreover, for so many extinct species, humans cannot target all for de-extinction. It is possible that humans only choose specific species for de-extinction. This selective operation in de-extinction has a strong bias. If humans only choose extinct animals that can benefit them and are easy to control, they develop this technology for themselves, not the ecosystem or extinct species. It is still selfish and irresponsible behaviour.

Thus, even though de-extinction might increase diversity in the ecosystem, it is still unethical and ineffective if humans don’t establish a sound system to protect animals and the ecosystem. Even if this technology succeeds, it is hard to ensure that those species will not go extinct again. In essence, humans develop this technology for their own interests because they tend only to choose extinct animals that can benefit them instead of the ecosystem. Instead of spending so much time and money on studying re-extinction, it is more effective to study how to protect living animals from extinction and control humans’ intervention in Nature.

Work Cited

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

https://eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/pluginfile.php/6160367/mod_resource/content/2/Should%20We%20Bring%20Back%20the%20Passenger%20Pigeon%20The%20Ethics%20of%20De%20Extinction.pdf

 

The article “Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: the promise of gene drives” introduces a gene technology that can eliminate certain species in order to reduce the spread of diseases and control invasive species. The technology makes use of the importance of a gene in inheritance to control the reproduction of certain species so that their descendants will hold the same gene. In this way, humans can control the population of a species to protect themselves and the ecosystem.

On the one hand, this technology has its meaning and significance. This technology can help control the population of dangerous or harmful species in order to reduce the damage. In theory, this technology has high efficiency. In 2011, Austin Burt and Andrea Crisanti, two geneticists at Imperial College London, succeeded in their gene drives technology as “a gene they had inserted into the mosquito genome had radiated through the population, reaching more than 85% of the insect’s descendants” (Scudellari “Self-destructing”). The purpose of this technology is to prevent malaria spread via mosquitoes. If the population of mosquitoes decreases, they cannot become the medium to transmit diseases like malaria. The technology has entered the experimental phase as Crisanti collaborates with Target Malaria to use gene-drive mosquitoes to control malaria in Africa (Scudellari “Self-destructing”). If working well, this technology can help control malaria in Africa.

On the other hand, this technology might have more uncertainties and moral concerns if used improperly. Even though this technology works in the lab, it doesn’t mean that this technology will work in the wild. Mosquitoes are widely spread in the wild, and they are not limited to a certain room to achieve the effect of this technology. “Gene drive” is “a genetic modification designed to spread through a population at higher-than-normal rates of inheritance” (Scudellari “Self-destructing”). If the targeted mosquitoes spread at a normal or even lower rate of inheritance, then this technology is not as effective as planned. Meanwhile, it is still not sure whether this technology has any side effects, such as whether this technology can push the mosquitoes to evolve in another direction. The natural law indicates that species have the ability to evolve based on the environment. For example, insects will develop resistance to pesticides if exposed for a long period. Researchers have found that animals started to develop resistance against gene drives by “accumulating mutations that prevented the drives from spreading” (Scudellari “Self-destructing”). In the short term, this technology might reduce the population of mosquitoes greatly. However, in the long term, it is not sure whether mosquitoes will evolve to resist the influence of this gene.

Even though this technology is safe and effective, it still has moral concerns. There’s no natural rule written anywhere that humans have the right to eliminate other species and disturb their reproduction, which means that this technology seriously disturbs the evolution of species at the genetic level. If improperly used and controlled, this technology might help mosquitoes evolve into a more dangerous species. Moreover, the reason for developing this technology is to control the spread of malaria by eliminating its malaria. If it works well, a further concern would be the purpose of usage in which this technology to reduce the population of other species that might be media of diseases. In theory, every mammal species has the ability to become the medium for diseases, including humans. In this case, if people are granted with the right to eliminate something they don’t like, they would also be granted with the right to eliminate other humans which is immoral. Certainly, such an act would speed up the extinction of other species simply for the interests of humans.

In conclusion, the technology of gene drives must be carefully developed and used. Before using this technology to protect humans and control the population of other species, humans need to get prepared for the consequence of disturbing the natural revolution. Also, it is essential to make sure that this technology will not be abused to eliminate other species for the interests of humans.

Yunxiang

Works Cited

Scudellari, Megan. (2019). “Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: the promise of gene drives.” Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5

 

 

Genetic modification of crops is one of the most controversial technologies in the current society. One the one hand, this technology helps increase productivity and feed more people. On the other hand, people worry about the security of this technology and its impacts on humans and the environment. In my opinion, genetic modification of crops is not developed on a sustainable basis as this technology sacrifices the long-term benefits for the short-term increase in productivity, which can leave a lot of problems for future generations.

There are three main reasons to explain the negative impacts of genetic modification of crops. First, genetic modification of crops is not beneficial for people’s health and can increase inequality in human society. Comstock argues that “possible harms to humans include perpetuation social inequities in modern agriculture, decreased food security for women and children on subsistence farms in developing countries, a growing gap between well capitalized economies in the northern hemisphere and less capitalized peasant economies in the south, risks to the food security of future generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and exploitative science” (Comstock 5). The security of GM foods hasn’t been guaranteed. It is not sure whether people’s health will be damaged by the long-term use of GM foods. In particular, even though GM foods will not cause obvious damages to people’s health in the short term, it is not sure whether the damages will be caused to future generations or not. However, one thing is for sure that genetic modification does increase inequality between developed and developing countries by changing the model of agriculture. This technology enables crops to grow in difficult environments and greatly increase productivity. As a result, developed countries have more advantages in developing their agriculture and then enjoying more economic superiorities.

Second, genetic modification of crops might influence the ecosystems in a negative way by reducing species diversity and losing soils. Comstock argues that “potential harms to ecosystems include possible environmental catastrophe, inevitable narrowing of germplasm diversity, and irreversible loss of degradation of air, soils, and waters” (Comstock 5). This technology greatly increases the burden of soils and waters. The increase in productivity means the overexploitation of lands and waters, which is not beneficial for the long-term development of agriculture.

Third, genetic modification of crops might also hurt animals. Comstock argues that “potential harms to animals include unjustified pain to those used in research and production” (Comstock 5). In order to develop this technology, animals become the targets in experiments, particularly studying whether there is any negative impact on humans’ health. It is cruel to use animals for such an experiment because it is not an easy or short experiment to draw the conclusion. There will be a lot of experiments required to study the impacts of GM foods on people’s health.

Therefore, genetic modification of crops is not developed on a sustainable basis and should not be promoted on a great scale. Some people might oppose that genetic modification can improve the quality of crops by making them more resistant to pests and severe environments. They believe that such technology can help solve the shortage of crops and feed the increasing population in this world. Nevertheless, it is essential to notice that the fast increase in the production accomplishes the increasing burden on soils and the ecosystem. It is a technology that sacrifices the long-term agriculture for the short-term productivity. If humans rely too much on this technology to feed people on this planet, then future generations will have to face more difficulties and challenges in developing agriculture when soils are overexploited.

Work Cited

Comstock, Gary. (2012) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

 

After reading to the passage A New Global Warming Strategy, I have learned a lot. Before that, like most people, I believed that carbon dioxide was the cause of global warming, but it was not. By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture (Mohr 2). So, when it comes to should we be climaterians, my answer is yes.

Climaterians are individuals who choose a diet that has the least impact on the climate, such as not eating foods that are transported long distances, not eating meat that increases carbon dioxide emissions, and so on. For protecting the earth, I agree with the author that it is necessary to encourage people to eat more vegetables than meat.

In fact, climate change has reached a very critical time. With the rise of temperature in the north and south poles and the thawing of sea ice and tundra, the huge reserves of methane and carbon dioxide in the tundra and deep sea are also constantly released. Moreover, the rate of temperature rise in the north and south poles is much higher than that in other places. Not only by industrial carbon emissions and methane and other greenhouse gases produced by animal husbandry but also from natural surges caused by the acceleration of global warming. Conclusion this situation is very urgent, so we have to take various ways to reduce our carbon emissions: reduce meat and reduce animal husbandry is a very direct and simple way.

In recent decades, animal husbandry has developed rapidly. Now research shows that carbon dioxide is a kind of greenhouse gas; however, methane, black carbon and other non-oxidized carbon greenhouse gases are actually more important because their life cycle in the atmosphere is only about ten years, much shorter than carbon dioxide, the way of reducing methane, nitrous oxide and black carbon is a bit faster, and can quickly solve the problem of climate change and reduce the economic cost of coping with climate change. If people worldwide can adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet lifestyle, it can be solved very quickly. It can also save a lot of medical costs, food resources and water resources for the country. For example, in China, the ecological environment is very fragile, and the population is very large. One-third of the world’s land is used for grazing and one-third of the cultivated land for animal feed, so the land resources are also very tight. Moreover, in order to feed animals, we consume a lot of water and food resources. We look at children in many African countries, they die every five seconds. But in developed countries, they eat fat and oil and then die because they are too rich, suffering from heart disease, cancer, and other diseases of the rich. Therefore, we must be very quick. That is why we advocate a vegan lifestyle, even an organic one.

When we learn that climate change has an impact on us now, it will also endanger the lives and safety of our future generations. They will not have a stable living environment in the future but will continue to cope with climate disasters. Of course, we do not want our children to die of starvation or dryness like those in poor African countries. So, we should consider this approach, starting by trying to eat less meat. When you learn more about meat, knowing that meat is actually not healthy and nutritious, and even makes us have more cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases of the rich. We should eliminate them regardless of the environmental and health costs. Although it is impossible not to eat meat, eating less meat is good for the environment and our health. In conclusion, we need to do more publicity work, whether it is the media, government, and individuals, to publicize from all aspects.

Yunxiang

Works Cited

Noam Mohr. (2005). A New Global Warming Strategy.

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

This week, After I read the Land Ethic, I noticed that it is a novel topic. Because very few people will focus on protecting the land and a new word, “egocentrism.” The basis of the egocentrism is that ecology reveals that humans and other members of nature have both diachronic and synchronic relationship, and they are part of the life system. Therefore, we should consider the ecosystem as a whole, rather than separating the individual in which the parent is contained. Unlike most modern moral theories, which focus on individual rights or interests, ecocentrism is a holistic or totalitarian approach. It judges the moral value of human behaviour based on its impact on the environment. The main problem faced by ecocentrists is how to coordinate the interests of the environment with each of us’s rights and interests. The idea is a research perspective of environmental ethics. It proposes that the central issue of environmental ethics should be the ecosystem or biological community itself or its sub-systems, rather than the individual members it includes. In response to the controversy of ecocentrism, the modern approach defended anthropocentric values on the one hand, and on the other hand, reflected on the inherent defects of modern anthropocentric values. In Leopold’s view, the anthropocentrism value itself is not a problem, because any species is always centred on its own interests. At the same time, the ultimate goal of the ecological movement is to protect the overall and long-term interests of mankind (Leopold 2). It denies and abandons the anthropocentrism values, and the ecological movement will lose its inherent power and cannot continue. Therefore, what needs to be reflected and criticized is not the anthropocentric values itself, but the modern anthropocentric values. In their view, the problem with the values of modern anthropocentrism is that it regards any requirements of human perceptual desires as reasonable and should be satisfied, which leads to the abuse of nature and ecological crisis. Therefore, it must treat modern anthropocentrism. Values are transformed, transforming what it calls “perceptual desire” into “rational desire”, so as to avoid abuse of nature and ecological crisis.

In the article Land ethnic, the ecological crisis has become a global environmental problem therefore proposed the idea that land health is one of the evaluating factors on the ethnicity of land usage. It is mainly manifested in the destruction and exhaustion of natural resources and the pollution and deterioration of the ecological environment, such as air pollution, water pollution, deforestation and vegetation reduction, soil erosion and desertification, garbage flooding, biological extinction, energy shortage, acid rain pollution, earth warming, ozone layer destruction and so on. The increasing severity of the ecological crisis has aroused our unprecedented attention to environmental issues, which has led to a global environmental movement.

All in all, through the establishment of new values, ecologism turns the overcoming of the disadvantages of the existing industrial civilization into the creation of an ecological civilization. I think ecologism is a kind of philosophy first, and then a type of politics. Ecologism is essentially an environmental value, which requires us to truly transcend the value of ourselves or local interests to respect and maintain the interests of nature and the whole. I also believe that ecologism is a kind of ecological consciousness and a kind of earth consciousness. It is a kind of heart treasure to the blue planet we live in. As most of us in the 21st century gradually recognize and accept the new ecological values, the image of we as the guardian and perfecter will surely replace the image of the conqueror and exploiter. The relationship between us and nature will move towards a new situation of harmony and unity.

Yunxiang

Works Cited

Leopold, Aldo. The land ethic. na, 1948.