Bill C-438 is “an act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts” (House of Commons of Canada, p1). This act is to ensure that Canadians have both individual and collective right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It focuses on our responsibility to protect the environment. Also, how does the ecosystem impact us and future generations’ well-being? Furthermore, this act would require public engagement to protect the environment. Thus, it suggests that every people have the right to access information about this act and participate in the decision-making process (House of Commons of Canada).

In “Enshrine our right to clean air and water in the Constitution,” Boyd argued that having a healthy and ecologically balanced environment should be our fundamental right. According to the environment could negatively impact human health. As most of the resources, such as water which is contaminated by the industries. Thus, we owe a duty to protect the environment. And it could eliminate the risk of illness and death by access to clean resources. Additionally, Boyd has put the Constitution beyond any other laws by claimed that it is the highest and strongest law. The federal government is the highest level of government proposed. So that the provincial and territorial governments will implement the law. It could operate throughout the whole nation. Then, applied to the real world, countries with green constitutions have a smaller ecological footprint. And it could reduce air pollution ten times faster than in Canada (Boyd).

Nonetheless, Macfarlane has rejected Boyd’s argument by claiming that if you cannot convince the government, political parties, and the public to commit to existing strong environmental policies. It is unlikely governments would commit to entrenching rights in the Constitution. We need their engagements to protect and take responsibility for the environment. If they cannot commit to that, it is unknown that fundamental rights would be the appropriate solution to environmental issues.  Canada faces many critical policy problems, such as an aging population and poverty (Macfarlane). And the aging population and poor people did not have their right to well-being. How can we prioritize environmental rights above all these people who suffer from the issue of aging and poverty in Canada? Besides to ensure people’s engagement to the right. We need substantial provincial consent to ensure people’s participation. However, we are uncertain that the provincial and territorial governments will follow the Constitution. The Constitution may not be the most effective tool to deal with the environmental problem. Moreover, for countries with green constitutions. It is unclear whether we have a fundamental right is meaningful as these countries have different records on the environment. No way we could compare Canada with other countries that have green constitutions until we can clarify that.

In my opinion, I would agree with Macfarlane’s opinion on we should get a commitment to existing environmental policies before we consider the human right to the environment since the court system is more complicated than political debates. And there are many political issues under the court system so, challenging for the public to engage with it. Although, Bill C-438 suggests that people would have access to the information and decision-making process. It is doubtful whether the aging population and other marginalized groups have a voice in court. I would oppose Macfarlane’s idea that there are significant policy problems other than environmental issues. So, we should consider the complexity in the system before we own the right to the environment. However, the environment did impact our lives, especially the vulnerable population in our society include the aging population. Because their immune system is not as good as young people, they are defenseless to diseases. The environmental issues would significantly impact their well-being and health. Also, poor people suffer the most under the impact of the environment. Since they lack access to resources and infrastructures, they do not have the same capacity as wealthy and powerful people to deal with the changes. Subsequently, these policy problems in Canada are interrelated to the environment.

Ruoxin

 

References

House of Commons of Canada. “BILL C-438: An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts.” 2019.

Boyd R., David and Macfarlane, Emmett. “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” 2014.

First of all, I would like to distinguish deep de-extinction from cloning. It means revive species that been extinct decades ago rather than more recent species. (355) Although a similar technique uses in both situations, the value and purpose of these two are different. In “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species,” Ronald Sandler argues that deep de-extinction is not intrinsically problematic but not so urgent or more ethically important compare to other conservation measures and concerns. (359) According to Sandler’s article, I will discuss the duty that humans have to make up their past the concerns associate with deep de-extinction. Then, I would explain Sandler’s idea about deep de-extinction is mainly techno-science oriented instead of conservation-oriented.

Human interruption is the major cause for species extinction, and intrinsic values associated with species are independently from humans. Some people would argue that some species are non-scient. And since they are no longer exist, they would not have feelings or interests in bringing back to life. However, every species has its values, and we as humans should respect that. If humans are the cause of their extinction, even they do not have interests or feelings. It is our responsibility to help restore their lives as they have the right to live. Therefore, we could use deep de-extinction as a tool to reintroduce into the environment. However, it is almost impossible to send these revive species back to their habitat. Since they were “born” in a lab setting and their habitats are different from the past. Also, even we use deep de-extinction to bring them back, many of them will use for research and exhibition instead of release. (358) In this way, to solve people’s concern for ecology and human health. While these “new-born” species would lose their intrinsic value as well as ecological value. They were not in the ecosystem means they cannot contribute to the environment. In the end, they would become subjects people use to study and display rather than species who deserve our respects. Hence, humans still own duty for the extinct species since their life cannot restore by deep de-extinction.

Deep de-extinction could create scientific and even economic value for the extinct species, but it cannot restore their intrinsic and ecological value. Additionally, it is not a critical species conservation strategy due to it cannot prevent extinction or address the cause of extinction. (357) To achieve the deep de-extinction would require advanced technology, intelligent researchers, and human-made habitat for the species. It need support from the government and companies to keep this program running. However, these supporters care less about conservation than getting profit. And these researchers need to convince them to invest. Therefore, despite the unpredictable risk associate with release these species, they need them to make profits. Although these technologies can contribute to other conservation methods, it is not urgent for de-extinction. To achieve conservation, we would need people to realize the cause of these extinctions and prevent them in the future. Moreover, the conservation approach to the currently endangered species is more significant. They are alive and would impact the ecosystem and other species around them. The consequence of losing them is far more severe than bring back the species that we already a lost long time ago.

In conclusion, I would agree with Sandler’s argument on it is that urgent to achieve de-extinction. And there are more substantial conservation methods we could consider rather than develop new technology.

Ruoxin

 

Reference:

Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long extinct species.” Conservation Biology, 2013.

Procreation is a critical component in marriage and an essential stage of one’s life by becoming a parent. Most people assumed it is necessary or obligatory to have children at a certain point in their life. While forget to count the benefits and costs of making this decision. Gerald Harrison and Julia Tanner described procreation as “gambling” in their article “Better Not to Have Children.” They suggested that we should count the overall benefit for ourselves and others include non-human species and the environment. Then argued that if you don’t procreate, no harm for the non-existents (7). In my opinion, it is good to have children, but this should not be an obligation. I should and need to have the right to making decisions that will significantly impact my whole life.

Humans are dangerous and destructive for the environment and other species; the best solution is to remove human (Harrison and Tanner, 1). I recognized the damage human have done on earth. We are probably facing mass extinction that is mostly caused by humans. However, I still think we should not undermine the contributions humans have made. For example, the technologies we have developed to provide accessible food for animals and the civilization we have built, the culture we have. There is a reason why humans have evolved to today’s scale. I am not trying to put humans as superior over other things; we are part of the interconnected environment. It appears that solve the human problem can save the environment. But is it true? We have existed in this world long enough to impact and connect with most of the species on the planet. Despite the damage we have done, we are still connected to other species and the environment. There will be an enormous influence on the food network once humans have gone extinct. As a result, we should find other alternatives instead of simply go extinct.

Nonetheless, Harrison and Tanner have opposed the view of other alternatives, like recycling more and go vegan (1). By suggesting that even we can control our destructive behavior, we have limited control over future generations (2). I would say that the alternatives are not only about changing our behavior. They have ignored the technologies we have developed to save the environment, such as capture Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. Although some technologies are not ready for application, we are making some progress. Also, we could educate future generations and taught them what the environment meant to us. There is no need for us to control children. They will learn these from our narratives and experiences.

Excluding the influence on the environment and other species, procreation still affects the children and us as human beings. Harrison and Tanner claimed that living could bring, such as death. Moreover, parents have no permission to brought children into existence since they have no consent (4). I would argue that even the non-existents cannot count benefits and harm; it is not our right to stop them from existence. Indeed, they are not consenting to it, but there is no way we could get their consent before they were born. Also, we are highly biased in the assessment of well-being (4). Yet, I am happy with my life. Having a child is the decision I make, but they are independent beings and have their own life. Thus, I do not expect anything from them, such as look after me as I am getting old. Except I do hope that they could have good qualities and be wise. I would educate them and provide information include those I do not agree with. Seeing them growing up and become a decent human being is what makes me feel happy. Additionally, I will have a child if I want to, but this is not obligatory to me. Besides, we should not ignore the fact that many people are expecting their child and become parents since they were little boys and girls. Even though I am not one of them, I still believe that everyone has the right to procreation, and this is the moral thing to do.

Humans are overpopulated but put humans into extinction is too extreme. Since we could promote a birth control policy, this allows people to have their own children while eliminating the overpopulation issue. Although children have the right to exist, we as existed beings can decide on our own. Not just influence us but also our family and relationship with others. Become parents means we need to sacrifice our time and energy to be with our children and care for them. Procreation should not be obligatory, but we still need the right to make this decision on our own.

In conclusion, we should not ignore the human’s knowledge and creativity. We are developing technologies and educate people to save the environment. And we are deeply rooted in the ecosystem, the extinction of human beings might bring consequences. Personally, the level of happiness relates to having a child is up to individuals. Thus, it is not morally permissible for someone to take away their right about making their own decisions.

– Ruoxin

 

Reference:

Harrison, Gerald, and Julia Tanner. “Better Not to Have Children.” The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 2011.

Genetic modification is one of the most controversial topics in this modern era since it is considered as an unnatural way to reproduce. The process of this technology can be described as insert the foreign genes (from sources other than the plant’s natural parent) into the plants (1). Additionally, it had invented and developed only for a short time to solve the problem of food insecurity. It means available information is limited so that there is no grantee that this is safe for everyone to consume. However, the productivity of food will increase dramatically by applying this technology. As the number of products goes up, the price of the products will drop. It could benefit people who are suffering from starvation. In “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods”, Comstock argues that it is ethically justifiable to pursue genetically modified food. According to the right people have (right theory), overall benefits are likely to outweigh the harm (utilitarian theory) and be wise, encouraging innovation with careful regulation (virtue theory) (16).

First of all, I want to talk about how does the information on the mass media impacts people’s views on genetically modified food? As I search the word “genetically modified food” on the internet. Most of the searching results were about the risk and danger you will face after consuming it. It is critical to note that most reports or news online are written by non-scientists.

For scientists, as they invent new technology, they have a responsibility to communicate their findings with the public. Also, they have to be honest about their experiments and results. Therefore, a challenge for this communication is that people tend to gain information on the mass media. The opinions that citizens have on these new technologies depend upon the way they engage with the information. Nevertheless, people often present “precautionary response” with what goes into their mouths that is a natural, reasonable, and rational tendency to take precautions (10). Nonetheless, genetically modified food is similar to the food they usually have in their daily life. There is no reason for them to taking the risk.

There is a fascinating experiment that Comstock has done to prove the precautionary response. It divided people into three groups. Group a received positive information, group b received negative information, and both the positive and the negative information for group c. They have put a bid on the pork they will consume. For group a, the biding price of pork going up while group b has a decrease in biding price, close to zero, and group c have a similar result to group b (11-12). We can get a conclusion that a person who holds negative views will have more impact than many people hold a positive view. It is people’s right to choose whether they want to consume it or not. However, if they vote to ban genetic modification could harm those who are facing the risk of starving to death. Is it ethical to pursue the right to free speech by sacrifice people’s life?

Furthermore, people are more concerned about its unnaturalness and the potential impact this “new crop” have on its surroundings. Comstock summarized objections relate to this concern into four aspects: play God, invent world-changing technology, cross species boundaries, and commodify life (6).  In my opinion, the most attractive objection is play God. It is related to people’s religious beliefs. The main idea is humans as creatures are subjects to the Lord of the Universe. Consequently, it is not suitable for us to shift these genes (6). Although this is depending on whether God will approve it or not. A wise and loving God will consider the benefits of developing this technology. For instance, to save starvation and rectify some damage we have done to nature. Thus, God will approve innovation of technology includes genetic modification. We can also put the religious view on the conflict between starve people and people who want to ban genetically modified food. Religious traditions suggest as we honor one view, we are dishonoring the other one but still, the life of a person is beyond personal freedom. (14). Comstock argues that we must not allow someone to bans genetically modified food for narrowly sectarian reasons alone (15). It is not ethical for us to let someone die based on a disputable argument that is inconsistent with God’s will.

Even genetically modified food is justified, we still need to be cautious. There is a long way to go before this technology promotes globally. It requires time to experiment and get more results to support its benefits for human beings that are sufficient enough for them to take a risk. Moreover, we need to be careful and observe more about whether this genetically modified food will be threatening the other species on the planet. Lastly, when you saw negative information about genetic modification on the internet, try to find scientific information from a reliable source to support your interpretation.

Ruoxin

 

Work Cited

Comstock, Gary. Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods:

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG