Along with people’s increasing awareness of environmental protection, more and more nations take action in improving their environment with policies, rules, and laws. However, Canada seems to hold a hesitant attitude to legalize people’s rights to a healthy stable environment. This paper aims to prove why Canadians should have a charter right to a healthy environment and support the decision of using civil laws to protect people’s rights and the environment. Canadians should have a charter right to a healthy environment because of the serious impact of the environment on people’s health, examples or warnings set from other nations, and the fundamental basis of the Canadian Constitution.

First, Canadians have a moral right to live in a healthy environment because the pollution can directly influence their living situations and cause diseases like cancers. Boyd argues that “widespread alarm about the dire effects of pollution had spawned an environmental movement that considered the protection of clean air, clean water and a healthy environment not just a desire, but a fundamental right” (Boyd and Macfarlane “Should”). Without clean water and air, people can easily become sick. The serious pollution can even increase the risk of cancers. Thus, people have the moral right to protect their own health by demanding a healthy living environment.

Second, examples of other nations have proven the necessity of protecting the environment and the effectiveness of using laws, which pushes Canada to make more effort in order to catch up with the global context. As is talked in the video, “more than 100 nations around the world recognize their citizens’ human right to the healthy environment” (“A Tale” 1:47). There has been a consensus reached in the global range in relation to the importance of a healthy environment for human rights. In order to protect citizens’ rights to a healthy environment, the most effective strategy is strong environmental laws. Norway is the positive example of how laws can help solve environmental issues and protect people’s rights. Brazil is a negative example of how neglecting the risk of pollution will damage people’s health. Canada should learn from other nations. So far, Canada only ranked 24^th out of 25 nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which indicates that the nation falls behind other developed nations in environmental protection (Boyd and Macfarlane “Should”). Canada doesn’t have a special situation that discourages it from learning from nations like Norway to benefit citizens by protecting the environment with laws.

Third, even though there might be opposition to the legitimacy due to concerns about political instability and the damage in the industrialization, this right echoes with the basis of the Canadian Constitution that benefits citizens and protects their rights. Suzuki argues that “It’s not about hindering industry; it’s about ensuring that companies operating in Canada as well as our governments, maintain the highest standards and that human health and well-being are always the priority” (“Canada”). There might be an opposition that doesn’t believe that people’s right to live in a healthy environment should be protected by laws. However, the fundamental basis of the Canadian Constitution is to protect citizens’ benefits and interests. According to Bill C-438, “Canadians have an individual and collective responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations” (“Bill”). There is nothing wrong or contradictory to legalize this right because it matches the Constitution well. The purpose is to legalize people’s right to a healthy environment in the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that the government has to protect the environment and people’s health according to the law.

Thus, people’s right to live in a healthy stable environment should be protected by civil law. It is the most effective way to protect people’s interests and health. Various examples from other nations have proven the effectiveness of using civil laws to protect this moral right. Canada should learn from other nations and make more effort in the environmental protection with a firm attitude.

 

-Kaize

References:

“A Tale of Two Valleys.” Class Video.

“Bill C-438.” Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Parliament of Canada.

Boyd, David, and Emmett Macfarlane. “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” Policy Opinions. Mar. 3, 2014.

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” HuffPost Canada. Nov. 5, 2014.

The development of genetics and synthetic biology offers a possibility of cloning extinct species and bring them back to life again. This technology sounds like an excellent opportunity for humans to repair the diversity in the ecosystem. However, there are still a lot of debates in relation to the safety and effectiveness of this technology, particularly its ethical concerns. This paper holds the opinion that de-extinction is not an ethical choice for humans to repair their mistakes because it might bring suffering to animals and fail to copy the original species.

First, de-extinction might make extinct animals suffer again. The cloning technology has a low success rate and often causes “donors, surrogates, and offspring with health problems and abnormalities” (Sandler 358). It is probably that this technology will bring suffering to extinct animals. In order to increase the success rate and reduce negative impacts on animals’ health, there must be a lot of experiments taken. During this process, extinct animals will suffer a lot of pain in those experiments, which is brutal and unethical.

Second, de-extinction might fail to 100% copy those extinct species. It is not sure whether the technology can bring back extinct species exactly as they were. Cloning and genetic engineering cannot make an identical copy to the original extinct species. In addition to the limitation of the technology, changes in the environment can also influence the result. Shapiro argues that “even organisms cloned from frozen cells will not be identical to the extinct organism with which they share their nuclear genome” (1000). It is possible that humans create a new species based on an extinct species. In that case, humans bring new threats to the current ecosystem and break its balance instead of repairing the ecosystem to its previous balance.

Third, de-extinction cannot solve the threat to the extinction of animals and might repeat the same mistake without a sound system to protect animals and the ecosystem. Even though extinct species are brought back to life, they might go extinct again without a sound system of protection. The original cause of their extinction still exists, such as human hunting, environmental pollutions, and changes in the climate (Kasperbauer 4). It is meaningless to bring extinct species back to life without offering them a safe and suitable environment in which they can reproduce quickly. As long as the threat to animals’ extinction exists, those extinct species might soon go extinct again even though the de-extinction technology succeeds.

There are still some supporters who try to promote this technology for the benefits of humans and the ecosystem. Supporters of de-extinction believe that this technology can maintain justice by correcting humans’ mistakes, reestablish lost value, and even create new value (Sandler 355). However, the benefits of de-extinction are offered based on the benefits of humans instead of those extinct animals. Humans want to use this technology to repair their previous mistakes so that they can be less guilty. They want to bring some useful extinct species back to life because those extinct species can bring benefits to them and create new values. De-extinction is still based on humans’ selfishness.

Thus, de-extinction should not be supported due to its unethical nature, the possible suffering to extinct animals, and the failure in copying extinct species 100%. Moreover, the technology hasn’t been mature, and there are a lot of possible negative impacts or low success rates. It is not worth investing so much in a technology that still fails to solve the problem of animal extinction because those threats to animals still exist.

 

-Kaize

Sources:

Kasperbauer, T. J. “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction.” Ethics, Policy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14.

Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species.” Conservation Biology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2013, pp.354-360.

Shapiro, Beth. “Pathways to de-extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?” Functional Ecology, Vol. 31, 2017, pp. 996-1002.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement takes an extreme stand to reduce the population of humans for the sake of the environment. This movement might seem crazy, but it reflects the serious challenge that humans have to face. The overpopulation of humans and the damage to the ecosystem have seriously destroyed the environment and led to the extinction of other species. Thus, Canadians should have a moral obligation to limit family sizes for the sake of the environment and the benefit of future generations.

First, the environmental issue has been so serious that urgent and effective solutions are required. As is discussed in the video clip, about 27,000 species go extinct every year because of humans and “ecosystems took millions of years to evolve to what they are, we have no right to destroy those” (“Is voluntary human extinction an extreme stance?” 0:55). Humans have caused the extinction of too many species. They don’t have the right to destroy the ecosystem that takes such a long period to establish. If humans continue to destroy the ecosystem and make other species go extinct, they will have to face their own extinction as the last species on this planet. In order to avoid that situation, humans should control their population before it is too late. It is a redemption for what humans have done to the ecosystem and other species.

Second, the population of humans is closely related to the consumption of resources and the exploitation of nature, which is the rooted reason for humans’ damage to nature. Wisor argues that “among the many moral obligations that affluent individuals have, the obligation to protect the environment, prevent future environmental destruction, and when possible reverse past environmental destruction should be a high priority” (26). Compared with normal people, affluent people should shoulder more obligations to protect the environment because their superior economic ability enables them to purchase more and consume more resources. When they consume more resources, they should take more obligations to protect the environment. Affluent people should first control the family size and their consumption levels to a certain level for the sustainable development of human society.

Third, limiting the family size and consumption level aim to support sustainable development for the benefits of future generations, which is not a social recession. Some people might take this idea as a threat to the current social development. If people consume less, it will hurt the economy. If people reproduce less, there will be inadequate people in the future to support the social development. However, this idea doesn’t mean to benefit future generations by sacrificing the interests of current people. The current society develops so quickly and blindly that it exploits natural resources crazily and pollutes the environment irresponsibly. This fast pace of social development is not healthy or sustainable. It is time to cool down and adjust the pace of social development. Thomas Young argues that “consumption beyond a certain level is wrong and having however many children it would take to exceed that level is wrong” (183). Limiting the family size and consumption level is a way to help people cool down and develop the society on a sustainable basis.

Thus, Canadians should have a moral obligation to limit family sizes and control their consumption levels for the sake of the environment and other species. Affluent people and nations should take more obligations due to their consumption of more natural resources. Meanwhile, humans should take actions to prevent the extinction of more species and slow down the social development for the benefits of future generations. It is not a sacrifice of current people’s interests, but a redemption for their mistakes and damage to the ecosystem.

-Kaize

 

References:

“Is voluntary human extinction an extreme stance?” Class Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsOZ-kn49q4&ab_channel=mr1001nights

Wisor, Scott. “Is There a Moral Obligation to Limit Family Size?” Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, Summer/Fall 2009.

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

With decades’ efforts, the company AquaBounty finally got the approval of introducing genetically modified Atlantic Salmon to the Canadian market. The introduction of genetically animals has always been controversial as people worry about its safety and possible impacts on other species. The current market performance indicates that genetically modified Atlantic salmon can be a good choice to increase the productivity and reduce pathogens and parasites, but the raise of genetically modified Atlantic salmon might avoid disturbing the ecosystem and the company should offer customers the knowledge of such genetically modified animals.

The advantages of genetically modified Atlantic salmon lie in its fast growth and low level of pathogens and parasites. In order to increase the productivity, “AquaBounty’s salmon also contains a gene from the ocean pout that makes the salmon produce the growth hormone gene all-year-round” (Shakeri “AquaBounty”). With this gene, AquaBounty’s salmon can grow much faster than conventional salmon, which is beneficial for satisfying the huge demand in the market. Meanwhile, genetically modified Atlantic salmon doesn’t contain certain pathogens and parasites in traditional salmon, which makes the food healthier and safer for customers, particularly considering that some dishes don’t fully cook salmon. Compared with traditional salmon, genetically modified Atlantic salmon has its advantages and is more suitable for the market as commodities. Just like how humans train and raise wild pigs and chickens and then turn them into farmed animals for the large-scale farming, it is unreasonable to simply deny genetically modified animals without giving it a trial. In order to satisfy the increasing market demand, humans need more advanced technologies to produce food on a faster and safer basis. Such technologies can satisfy humans’ needs and support the increasing population.

Nevertheless, even though genetically modified animals should be given a trial in the market, the raise of such animals must strictly stick to ethical standards. First, when the technology changes the gene of animals to increase the productivity and reduce parasites, there should not be side effects in the genetic level to influence its nutrition and even cause certain diseases. Genetically modified animals must be tested safe and equally nutritious before introducing them to the market. Just like AquaBounty, companies should spend a long period to develop the technology and test its security, which might need decades. Also, related governments and market regulators should test the security of genetically modified animals seriously before approving the introduction. Second, the raise of genetically modified animals must avoid disturbing the ecosystem. Genetically modified animals should be raised in a certain region and get separated from other species. AquaBounty takes the strategy to make all salmons female and sterile so that those fish will not threaten the natural ecosystem. It is essential to guarantee that genetically modified animals will not threaten other species in the natural ecosystem nor reproduce without the humans’ control. Third, customers must be offered the knowledge of genetically modified animals, including both its advantages and possible disadvantages. Customers should be offered the right to acquire basic knowledge to make their own decisions of whether to purchase or not. Hiding truths will only increase oppositions and doubts of the quality and security of genetically modified animals. In order to let the market and customers fully trust genetically modified animals, honesty and frankness are crucial.

In conclusion, genetically modified animals should be given a chance to enter the market and check its performance. Before denying genetically modified animals, it is necessary to let genetically modified animals prove themselves as qualified commodities. However, related companies must cherish the opportunity and operate on an ethical basis. They must be honest, responsible, and careful enough to avoid disturbing the natural ecosystem and offer customers enough knowledge. It is the only way to acquire trust from customers. Otherwise, genetically modified animals will suffer great opposition and suspicion, together with the inherent controversy related to their safety.

 

 

Works Cited

Shakeri, Sima. “AquaBounty Has Sold Tonnes of Genetically Modified Atlantic Salmon In Canada.” Huffington Post. Aug. 8, 2017.

-Kaize

“A biocentric stance is a life-centered one. It rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics, and accepts the moral standing of (at least) all living creatures” (Attfield 1). Man has always considered himself superior to all other creatures. But, after all, man is only one of many animals. Even if human beings wear clothes and live in houses, they are still equal to other creatures.

In the real sense, people came to the earth only a few tens of thousands of years, and modern people only a few hundred years. But humanity has gradually opened up a new world through labor, technological manufacturing, and cultural innovation. In this world, human beings are, in a sense, above everything else. The interests of other creatures are sacrificed for the interests of humanity. For example, to build houses, people will cut down a lot of trees. To open up farmland, man has driven a large number of animals out of the forest. Some of the actions of human beings are trampling on other creatures. But there is one thing that all human beings should understand: all things are equal.

Before the birth of man, there were a large number of animals and plants on the earth. If we had to say who is the master of the planet, it would be the oldest living plant. But nowadays, people do not respect plants very much. If humans still feel guilty about eating animals, they rarely feel guilty about eating plants. The existence of vegetarians, to some extent, represents the human contempt for plant life. When talking about life, people will mention their good friends, relatives and even their dog, but no one will mention the grass.

But, paradoxically, as radical egalitarians do, if humans do not eat plants to respect them and uphold the belief that they are equal to them, humans are likely to starve to death. Therefore, in my opinion, the concept of life center means that human beings should respect and protect the rights and interests of plants based on the minimum protection of their own needs. For example, to grow food, people will destroy a lot of forests. Suppose everyone can save food and reduce unnecessary waste. In that case, people worldwide will save a considerable amount of food every year, and eventually, a large number of forests will be protected from being cut down.

All things are created equal. Many people often say that only human beings can speak the language and have a culture. But who has proved that there is no verbal communication between animals and plants? Just because humans do not understand animals and plants’ language does not mean they do not have language. I once heard a Wolf howl one night in rural China, and soon another crowd of wolves came to the place. If there is no verbal communication between wolves, they will never come together.

In a word, do not solidify everything with human thinking. Everything in the world may not be fair, but every human should defend relative fairness.

Kaize

Work Cited:

Robin Attfield. “Biocentrism Talk.” 1.