1) Should humans really put their own needs over the needs of animals and plant life as the author suggests? What gives us the right to do so?
2) Do you think that the selection "Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism" is a useful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with climate change and preserving the environment, or does it harm a good cause that already has little support from the general public?
3) Should radically extreme environmental organizations like ELF and ALF be disbanded by the government? Why or why not? What would be the best way for the government to handle these organizations?
People can choose to respond to two of these questions.
Humans generally view themselves as superior to other animals and plants. This is due to a variety of reasons, such as the fact that we are capable of complex thought and behavior. There then comes the question, are human needs more important than animal and plant needs? I feel the answer to this is not black or white. In some cases, it is justifiable to consider human needs as superior. An extreme example would be in the case of a drought. The logical course of action would be for humans themselves to consume the amount of water they need, rather than putting plants and animals first. However, in other cases, humans are not more important, such as instances where plants and animals are harmed unnecessarily. Human expansion into untamed areas and the act of deforestation can be argued unnecessary in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to the idea of how to handle radical environmental organizations like ELF and ALF, I personally believe strict governmental intervention is necessary. Although these extremist organizations may argue that what they are doing is for the greater good of the environment, it is clear that they are causing unrest and putting lives in danger. I like the fact that the author compared these organizations to Al Qaeda at the start of the article, because both are overly radical and take unnecessarily violent action. What is more, behavior such as this result in associating the cause the organizations are fighting for to be viewed negatively. ELF and ALF are putting the idea of "protecting the environment" in a bad light, and consequentially preventing any help that could have presented itself had they taken a more peaceful approach. Thus, if the government were to negotiate with these organizations, agreeing to some of their needs, the radical activity should subside. However, if violent behavior still continues, then I believe the organizations should be disbanded.
Humans may have the ability of complex thought and behavior but we are not necessarily superior to other animals and plants. However, while our needs aren't more important that does not mean that we shouldn't put our needs in front of others. It is simply in the nature of living beings to satisfy their own needs over others and this is not necessarily a bad thing, nobody criticizes animals for putting their survival first so why should humans be criticized for doing the same. When putting our needs first becomes a problem is when we could help other species but choose our need for something frivolous and unnecessary over another species survival. We do not need to expand at the price of an animal's habitat as much as we do and there are other cases as well where we should not place our petty needs over an animal's desperate need for survival.
ReplyDeleteThen there is also the issue of radical environmentalist groups such as ELF and ALF. I agree with the author of "Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism" that these groups are dangerous domestic terrorists who are too radical to allow their continued existence in their current state. The government needs to gain control over these groups. However, disbanding them should be a last resort, first the government should attempt to stop the violent behavior and allow the groups to continue to meet and protest peacefully since free speech and peaceful protest are two of the rights of U.S. citizens. But I do acknowledge that it would be very difficult to change the inherent violence of the groups since this violence has been a part of these groups for a long time and that possibly the only way to control them would be to disband them. Also, I believe that Pennsylvania's law about threat against property for the purpose of political protest is a good first step towards controlling these groups and similar laws should be adopted by the rest of the states.
In response to the first question, society has evolved to make the issue of whether or not human needs supersede animal needs a moral dilemma when it has no reason to be. Several thousands of years ago, humans would not have stopped for a second to consider the implications that their actions would have on the animals around them. The very basis of this question assumes a premise about the nature of life that is very vain and arrogant of humans to do: that humans are superior to animals, and that we are the masters of nature and are responsible for monitoring the ecosystem. In a sense, many individuals have built themselves up in their mind to essentially be god. Humanity is not the god of all of the animals on the planet, and to approach the problem from this perspective would only yield false conclusions. Instead, one must approach the problem from the paradigm of reality, in which humans are on the same level as animals and must fight for survival like all the rest. From this perspective, if one intends to survive, then human needs absolutely supersede animal needs. Anybody who debates whether or not animal needs should come first has already placed themselves in the superior mindset and has already assumed that their needs will be satisfied before anything will be done about the animals. It is easy to advocate that animals should receive equal amounts of water during a drought when you have plenty of water, but I seriously doubt that many people would be willing to give up their water and die for the sake of keeping some animals alive. This is one of the problems facing individuals addressing this controversy: the needs of people are already assumed to be satisfied, and what people really mean by human “needs” is in reality just conveniences or pleasures. Few people actually debate giving up the food or water that keeps them alive when analyzing this situation. People instead reference things like shampoo and soda and beer, which are not human needs, and should not be considered in this argument. Therefore, by the very nature of survival, humans must absolutely place their needs before those of animals, and I doubt many would be willing to die to provide for the needs of some animals.
ReplyDeleteAs for what gives humans the “right” to place their needs before others, the term “right” is non-applicable in this scenario. “Rights” are a human construct that do not exist naturally, and as such cannot be applied to anything outside of human society. There are no “rights” in nature; animals have no rights, only an overwhelming drive for survival. What many people mean when they say “what gives us the right?” is “how can we justify this to ourselves?”, which is a relatively simple question to answer. The basic function of humans is to survive and produce offspring. In order to accomplish this primary function, humans must do everything in their power to ensure their survival, which includes placing their needs above the needs of anybody else. This does not give us any sort of “right” to do this, rather it is mandated by the nature of survival and to deny this would be to deny the basis of our existence. The only reason that society exists today is because humans in the past fought for survival and came out on top. In order to argue that animal needs should be placed first, one must actively deny tens of thousands of years of human existence. Good luck to them.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the first question is yes. God created man and gave us fruits and vegetables to eat, and gave the other vegetation as food for the animals. We are given the dominion over other creation on the planet, but our pride has led us to exploit His creation, instead of to "cultivate it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15). Because we distorted the authority God has given us, and exercised it wrongly, we now have environmental issues to deal with.
ReplyDeleteAnother way you can look at it, is that all of life relies on living things to survive. The wolf's survival is equally as important as the deer's survival, which is equally as important as the survival of the plants it eats. Living organisms rely on killing each other in order to live. Man is a living organism too, but we do not need to exploit nature like we do in order to live. The problem isn't our dominion, it's our greed.
I think this article is useful in that it shows the unnecessary and useless acts of violence committed for the sake of the environment. If these radicals and organizations truly wished to better the environment they would look to social reform, global education on environmental issues, and doing their own part in preserving the environment. The vast majority of the human population would support protecting the environment, but burning down a McDonald's is not a way to do it.
Stewart, Brandon
DeleteYes, I do believe ELF and ALF should be disbanded by the government. Extreme organizations such as those are doing more harm than they are doing good. Their destructive acts put people, animals and the whole ecosystem in danger. They may not directly affect others, but they can indirectly harm others by preventing the progress in science and constructional improvement. For example, in the reading, the author states that disrupting the flow of science can set back scientists on discovering new/better aid to those who need it including animals. I do love the environment and believe that we shouldn’t take complete control over nature, but the difference like it is stated in the reading is that we can control ourselves. For instance, if we did indeed stop impeding on the environment, we would basically revert to essentially cave men. Animals and the environment would still be “taken advantage of” because we would hunt and pave nature into our home because of our survival instincts. Animals do the same like a wolf hunting a deer for food or a beaver blocking a river with trees to create lush lands for fish to eat and to protect them from predators. The ELF and ALF have good principles, but unless they want to protest peacefully, the government should treat their violent/destructive actions as terroristic acts.
ReplyDeleteThe hardest part of answering he question of what gives us the right to put our needs over that of plants and animals is you either sound like a crazy hippy or a hatemonger toward the environment, at least that is what I think. I love animals, would give up a lot for either of my dogs to survive but when it comes down to it, if I had to decide if the dog dies or I die, I’m going to go with myself. Depending on the situation, plants and animals should have similar rights as that of humans. You don’t need to beat you dog, not feed your horse or kick your cat just to take out aggression or some sociopathic need to hurt something. Look at Animal Cops; Houston on Animal Planet (love the show!), that city has an entire division of its police force that tends to animals and the safe keeping of them. Our right is to treat an animal or a plant how we feel it should be treated, it is the ethics a person carries that will deem if they feel good about it or not.
ReplyDeleteAny radically extreme group should be disbanded! Anytime you can say radically extreme in front of a group’s name, they are not truly looking to solve a problem. They are looking for the publicity to make a message heard, not necessarily and particular message but a message, and just end up pissing more people off and getting them to turn against their cause than follow it. The best way to handle organizations that are extremist groups is to give them their 10 minutes, let them piss and moan about how they think they are better than you for believing in some absurd cause and then tell them to go home.
Humans should absolutely put their needs over animals and plants. While it being a "right" is not really a good way to express it, we have won that "right" through evolving into the dominate species on earth and winning the war of survival. With this power humans can and should provide for their own survival. The ecosystem, plants and animals, should not be taken for granted and destroyed though. People need to take care of the world as it provides the resources for human needs. Many of these resources are renewable in a sense, but only if we allow them to renew, such as trees. Unnecessary harm should not be committed against animals, but their is nothing wrong with hunting or the like. If an action has a purpose, and will not do major and irreparable harm for future generations, then it there is not reason to stop it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the radical protest groups the government should not disband them, they should however punish all acts of terrorism and destruction extremely harshly. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, and we have to allow even the most radical speech to stand to protect that freedom. A strict line has to be drawn between civil disobedience/ protest and acts of destruction. Once a group crosses that line than it opens it up to the full extent of the law. But their right to speech has to be protected as much as anyone else's.
I think the question of whether or not humans should place their needs over plants and animals is kind of silly in this current day and time. Many people can say how terrible humans treat the environment and that whole spiel, but those same people don't necessarily reflect very environment friendly lives to the highest degree. I'm not saying I agree with how our society is and how dependent we are on material items or how we don't respect the environment as much as we should, but that's what it has come to and it's going to take a LOT of effort in order to change our greedy ways. With that being said, I don't think us humans have a right to place ourselves higher than plants and animals, but that's what it's come down to. Therefore, I think it is logical for humans to put their needs before plants and animals because of how our society is currently.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the question of whether or not the government should disband groups such as ELF or ALF, I am undecided. I don't think there is a clear solution because of possible outcomes that could occur if this were to happen. As the author gave us several examples of, we know that ELF and ALF are capable of causing horrific "terrorist" attacks. If they were disbanded by the government, I can imagine it only causing more anger in those radical groups and give them another reason to fight even harder. Of course I want these groups to disappear, but as of right now there is no logical way of doing that without there being horrible consequences. Unless the government can come up with a way of successfully disbanding these kinds of groups, this proposition should not be executed.
1.)I think that humans should put their own needs over the needs of plant life and animals. Humans have the right to do so because as mammals, we are at the top of the food chain. That is because our intellect has developed by far. Humans have reasoned, analyzed, and invented the world what it is today. Humans have engineered rocket ships and flown to the moon. Animals are incapable of that. In fact, animals lack compassion and are more overpowered by instinct. Some animals eat their babies after they give birth. In contrast to humans who have compassion but lack instinct. Everything that human’s do that may seem like instinct, is actually the result of an effect of something else. Therefore, since the human mind is far more advanced than animals, humans should put their own needs over animals and use them as they see fit. Besides, it’s not like every single person in the world puts his or her needs before animals. There are rescuers that help and heal animals in need too. In comparison to humans, not every government can aid in war and suffering of humans in other parts of the world. There just isn’t enough money for that. Therefore not every human can put the needs of animals before themselves. One must find the balance to keep the environmentalists, and the rationalists happy.
ReplyDelete3.) I believe that the government should disband radically extreme environmental organizations. First off, setting buildings on fire and spiking a few trees is hardly going to impact the environmental movement. There are so many trees and so many facilities. If organizations are trying to make a statement, they should try a more peaceful approach. I believe every action; especially those that try to bring about change should be driven by love not hate. There is so much violence and negative energy in the world already. So why must one add to the problem by hassling people doing their job’s if not killing them. One should not go to the pawns of the operation, but the one’s that are in charge of running the animal testing facilities and cutting down trees. Furthermore, the government should take the necessary actions to shut these violent organization’s down and stop the undocumented murders and violence. I believe that the best way for the government to handle these organizations is to cut the funding. The government should find out where the money to fund the organizations and operations are coming from. Once they do that they can remove the funds so the organizations can no longer strive on anything because money fuels all operations.
I do believe that as humans we should put our needs above above those of our animals. First of all we are the highest up on the food chain for a reason. We have the ability to use logic and create technology that is impossible for animals to do. As bias as this sounds we are dominant to animals. We are not given the direct right to do govern animals but due to our dominance over them we have the power to do so. This power however should be be used only to a certain extent. There are radically extreme environmental groups such as ELF and ALF who are against any governing over animals. I believe these groups shouldn't be disbanded by our government because they have a right to express their emotions through speech as long as they are not physically violent. These groups are all in all not very effective anyways so it would just cause more legal issues to the government than it would in benefits from shutting them down. Government should have some regulations on the protection of animals (which they already do) but they need to stay unbiased and look at what is best for society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the human race is sophisticated enough where we should not put our needs first over other species needs. I also think as the dominant species we have the right to farm, kill, and use other species for our wants and needs but we should not exploit this power. Humans are starting to be aware that we are exhausting our resources but in this current economy we can not afford to put the needs of other species first. I believe we should cut some government programs that support environmental issues. When our economy gets stable, we should focus on helping the environment.
ReplyDelete1) My take on this question is a mixed one because unlike many people I do not think that you need to place either people or nature above the other. This doesn't mean I think we should stop altering the world we live in because that is impossible and unrealistic. Every living organism alters our world, our problem is that we have the ability to do it so much more drastically and have trouble restraining ourselves, often times not realizing the problems we are causing. There are situations though where we do need to put preference on human life over a plant or animal because it is a fundamental motivation to further ourselves and our species. What we need to attempt though is to become closer to being a member of the circle of life rather the center which it revolves around.
ReplyDelete2)I believe that "Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism" has an overall negative effect on its audience. I will grant that it makes some valid points as to the dangers of Eco-terrorism, something i do not condone, but its approach in doing so paints all environmentalists as at least supporters of violence to achieve its goals. Rather than acknowledging that all fields of debate have extremists he paints the entire group negatively. This is harmful because many people are under-informed and/or apathetic to environmentalism and this reading hurts a good cause. I particularly disagreed with some of his ending points. He says that many projects are discontinued even though they will not reduce the species, but instead hurt its ecosystem. In fact, habitat loss is the biggest threat to species and the biggest cause of decline in population. Also by affecting the ecosystem we effect more than just a few species, many times the consequences come back to us. He also claims Roosevelt though it was "folly to freeze in place the land as it always was" and uses this to say Roosevelt was not a preservationist. This makes sense if you did not know Roosevelt actually was a preservationist along with being a conservationist, creating over 50 wildlife refuges, several forest reserves, and adding large amounts of lands to Yellowstone National Park. He was indeed for keeping human influence out of nature. He also uses Native Americans as an example for us to control and change nature, or as he puts it, leave our footprint. What he forgets here is that Native Americans lived with nature, not over it. They started fires to prevent future wildfires that couldn't be controlled and to bring back fertility for the soil so the whole ecosystem could benefit. Please tell me where the Native American's footprint can be seen today. What we do is different, we destroy and do not rebuild, our selfishness hurts the creatures that can not defend themselves. I feel like the author does not understand this.
First of all, people should not put their needs in front of the needs of animals. I understand that as organisms with more intelligence and resources, we are able to be the "fittest." But we must also recognize that plants and animals are limited resources. We have already seen the extinction of countless species, and the endangerment of many more. Anyone who ever made it past the seventh grade was likely taught that people eat animals, which eat plants, which use the sun to create sustenance. There is no right for humans to do so, it's only because by evolution we are the stronger species. Since you cannot prove that "God" is real, I think it is illogical to assume that humans can do whatever they want because God said so. From a logical standpoint, humans need plants and animals to survive, and therefore more should be done to protect them, for they share our interest in preservation.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, this selection does nothing to help the environmentalist movement, which is dangerous because it already has little support. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the notions set forth by ELF and ALF, but I do think that this attack kind of parallels the assumptions that come from other terrorist movements. Just as many Americans believe that all Muslims are terrorists after the 9/11 attack, this article seems to have the same effect: all environmentalist groups and efforts are evil like those of ELF, ALF, and PETA. In reality, many groups are likely dedicated to peaceful means of impacting the environment for the better.
Although it would be logical to disband such organizations, it most likely cannot be done. For many years, organizations like the KKK have existed. These groups can be dedicated to racism, sexism, and violence, yet they are protected by the Constitution because it is in their basic rights to assemble. However, measures should be taken to stop their unlawful acts. In America, civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. have taught us to use civil disobedience and other peaceful protests to create change. If women had used violence to secure the vote, or if modern day Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual (LGBT) groups used violence to secure marriage equality, the government would definitely feel less inclined to dole out such rights. Therefore, reforms should be made within these groups to begin heading in the right direction towards change.
This topic is really hard for me to deal with because I am a vegetarian and do believe in animal rights but at the same time, I believe that humans are the main priority of the world. I do believe that humans should put themselves above animals and take care of themselves and whatnot before helping animals. BUT, this does not mean that I believe that we shouldn't help animals whatsoever. There are many endangered species that are dying because of human action. Also, some of this human action can even harm to humans. For example, in that video we watched in class about the water bottling stations causing people cancer and sickness, animals are affected by this too so in a sense we need to protect both of us. I feel like I am going 2 different directions with this question because I am so torn on it. But essentially, I do believe that humans need to be put first because we are what makes this world function and we have the capability to change the world. Animals do not have the same bodies, brains, etc. to do what we do and they are not capable of participating in the daily tasks that make the world go 'round. This doesn't mean we can't help animals out on the way of our journey though. As for plant life, plants are what we live off of. They provide oxygen, food, and even sometimes shelter. We need to ensure that during our own life journey we are considering the plants in our life as well.
ReplyDeleteAs far as ALF and ELF goes, I do believe that they should be disbanded by the government. I believe in animal rights and supporting animals and getting rid of dangerous/harmful studies done on animals, but they take things too far. Groups like these just despise humans and do many dangerous things that could cause serious consequences. It's one thing to support animals and work hard to protect them, but you don't need to cause mental or physical harm to humans. Although I would love to see these groups disbanded, I can't see it happening because it would be such a difficult task.
1. Yes I believe that humans should put their needs and decisions before animals and plants. I believe that if it wasn’t for humans deciding what is best for the environment and making changes, then many species of plants and animals would not be alive right now. Even though humans have impacted the earth in harmful ways, some of those actions were done for reasons that would preserve the life of the plant in the future because a new eco friendly car could have been discovered for example at that time. I also believe that because humans to run the whole planet, they have the right to put themselves first because if humans did not make decisions on how the earth is to be treated, the same stuff only worse would be happening because there wouldn’t be people trying to find eco friendly alternatives to daily life routines (example: busses were made so not everyone would have to drive a car).
ReplyDelete3. In my opinion extreme environmental organizations should be legal, but under strict circumstances. I understand that there are people out in the world that feel strongly for the environment and have come to conclusion that doing the harmful acts they do is the only way to get their opinion heard, and if there are people that have that much passion about the environment, they have the right to be heard, but not violently...There should be rules made by the government regarding organizations such as ELF or ALF, and if the rules are broken the organization is to be shut down. The books/magazines/journals/articles released by people in these organizations should also be reviewed by legal representatives before being published to ensure that there are not extremely harmful and illegal actions described to persuade the public to them.
Humans should treat animals fairly and not force harmful tests upon them. However, like the author suggests, preventing tests on animals affects many people. For example, animal tests help to improve and or invent medicine that could help save a person’s life. Denying the right to test things on animals is thus denying some people the right to life. As Berlau states, we humans have the right to do this because we were given ”dominion over the animals” in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteI think the selection “Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism” is not a useful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with climate change and preserving the environment and instead harms a good cause that already had little support from the general public. It is difficult to get people to change to a more green outlook and to recycle; this article makes it even more difficult because it exposes the environmentalists who have gone too far. When people read that environmentalists are using bombs and violence to save the planet, they will not want to support them. Therefore, this article sheds a bad light on the goal to preserve the environment.
The government should disband environmental organizations like ELF and ALF. When a person harms others through his or her violence that person is punished for his or her crime. The same should occur to organizations, even if it is for a good cause. You never have the right to harm others or use violence. The best way for the government to handle these organizations would be to bring them to court. After a violent attack, the organization should be tried and if found guilty, it should be disbanded.
Yes, in a world dominated by the survival of the fittest, humans should always put their needs above those of animals and plants. That does not mean we should have the right to abuse nature and the environment. Rather it should be held as a privilege which can be used to help humanity prosper. It is our right because we are superior to other animals. As the author points out, humans were meant “to have ‘dominion’ over and to ‘subdue’ the earth to our needs” as indicated by God in the bible (783). Humans have never been equal to animals, contrary to the belief of many environmentalists who wrongly assume that “any animal” includes both “human[s] and nonhuman[s]” (775). However, radically extreme environmental organizations like ELF and ALF should not be shut down by the government. Instead, they should be treated just as the groups in Pennsylvania were. Humans do not have the right to take away ‘the right to protest” but we do have the right to stop others from causing harm (776). Rather than order them to stop, make it too costly for them to perform acts of terror, as they did in Pennsylvania’s by “toughening penalties for the use or threat of force” (776). This would be the best way for government to handle this problem.
ReplyDeleteLike anything, there must be a balance. Extremes of anything are bad. Therefore, humans must not overly exert their own needs and desires over animals and plant life. For example, animal cruelty for pleasure and the annihilation of rain forests for luxurious products is not acceptable. Similarly, organizations like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front should not put animals and plants above humans. As we can clearly see, fire-bombing ski resorts and blowing up animal research facilities is not acceptable either.
ReplyDeleteInstead, we must learn to coexist with plants and animals. We can do this by limiting our own desires to a modest amount and also by taking animal needs and plant life into consideration.
With that said, radically extreme environmental organizations like ELF and ALF should not be disbanded by the government. That would be an extreme action itself and would no doubt cause more chaos and radical action by those groups. Instead, the organizations should be punished if they break the law like any other organization or citizen. That way no more harm is caused and the issue can be settled in a civilized manner. The organizations would not feel singled out and the issue would be solved.
Although some parts of the reading are not incredibly useful to the discussion of environment preservation, I believe the section on ELF and ALF is useful because it shows how some people are going about change in the wrong way. This section can persuade people to make the right choices, unlike ELF and ALF. With that being said, I believe organizations like ALF and ELF should be disbanded by the government because they are causing more harm than good. They are not helping their cause because they make environmentalists seem like terrorists who cannot be trusted; the best way these activists can get their point across to the nation is if they are peaceful and trustworthy. There are peaceful protestors out there, and they cannot be heard when all the attention revolves around these violent organizations.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a tough question to answer, and I don't think a yes/no answer is appropriate. I feel that there are times where we need to put our own needs over other species. However, I think we have been abusing our power over other species as of late. We need to find a good balance in which both humans and other species can thrive in. It would obviously be an impossible balance to achieve considering a vast majority of the seven billion people on earth simply wouldn't sacrifice to achieve that balance. Obviously I’m not basing this on fact, but it's just the reality that a balance between humans and nature would be impossible.
ReplyDeleteThese environmental groups (ALF and ELF) are not helping their cause when they commit violent acts as they sometimes do. They commit crimes against those who harm nature the most, but that's not the way you solve problems in this world. Obviously we don't allow violence so yes they should be disbanded by the government. As long as these groups are not harming people though, then there is no reason to disband them.
The way I see things, animals are inferior to humans, but the humans shouldn't take advantage of that. Although the needs of an animal is valued, the needs of a humans are as well. The only difference is that the needs of a human are plants and animals. Although people complain that we shouldn't eat animals or kill trees, people need these things to survive. Humans have been using plants and animals since the start of man kind. Not only that, but if we didn't do these things, the animals would.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the issue with ELF and ALF, I think that the government should treat these people like the terrorist that threaten our national security. I think these groups should be shut down as soon as they can so that they don't cause harm to anybody. These people are doing pretty much the same thing as the terrorist, just that they are blowing up places that are causing harm to the environment. I think if caught, they should be sent to Guantanamo Bay for a long time.
1) This question contradicts with how I feel is right but what I know is right, meaning I love animals I would do anything for them but if it comes down to my survival then I would have to choose myself. People should put themselves superior to animals and plants in certain circumstances. Some of those circumstances would be survival and only survival. Humans should not feel superior just because they have the ability to accomplish complex task that majority of animals are not capable. Just like humans animals have the right to do the same they have the same right as humans; strive for survival. Now as for plants, at this time and era humans have not cared much. They have created industries that are polluting the environment, causing fire to spread in the forest. When in reality humans should be working with plants having a balance because we depend on them for survival. I believe that people start to think they can be superior of all living things because we have the power to do anything we want. We are capable to think and respond to complex situations.
ReplyDelete3) Just like I mention earlier I love animals and would do anything to protect them but that does not mean I would do something extreme. Government should disband ELF and ALF. There are other approaches to make a positive change it doesn’t have to be extreme and hurtful. There are other ways to make people come to a reasonable act. The way that ELF and ALF should be changed just by causing evil actions are not going to help them get the word across. There is already a lot of terrorism a lot of violence we don’t need more.
1. I feel that throughout the course of history humans always have put their own needs over other primates, animals, and plant life. We probably would not be here today, civilized and advanced as we are, without having been selfish regarding our basic needs and wants. The author puts it aptly, "We're animals too. The difference is that we're animals with intelligent minds, capable of restraining our desires." Natural selection has favored us with opposable thumbs and superior intelligence; this I guess is the right given to us to continue to do so. But, more importantly, in no way does this mean that other animals aren't given the same significance when it comes to their needs. It is near impossible to have the best of both world but humans are lucky that we are all part of the same world. If we have right to place our needs ahead of other living things, it is also our obligation for the sake of humanity and goodness to recognize that we share this planet with other animals and plant life that are of great importance to different people in different ways. Whenever it is feasible, the well being of other species', their coming generations, and us humans' future generations should be taken into account.
ReplyDelete2. In no way do I think this selection harms a good cause and in no way do I think that the cause has little support from the general public. The general public has likely remained divided on this cause but we are heavily divided on almost every single issue. The reading attempts to present both sides of the argument in the most objective fashion it can but it is very clear by the end which stance the author has on the various topics surrounding this issue. The selection does provide useful information and evidence related to the cause which is a significant contribution for people who many not be too familiar with the subject. I think it provides many solutions to several problems, it also opposes many right away, and is a comprehensive addition to the overall discussion.
We as humans forget that plants and animals provide sustenance, CO2, and O2 gases we rely on to survive. By using these we ARE putting our needs above those of plants and animals, but the way we as consumers have begun to exploit such amenities could result in an outcome very detrimental to our well-being. Humans are inevitably superior beings on the top of the food chain, but I believe we should develop symbiotic ways of living with our surrounding ecosystem. Human needs are relevant, just as plant and animal needs are relevant to maintain a balance in the natural world.
ReplyDeleteActivist groups, such as ELF and ALF that fight to "aid" Earth and animal rights seem to cause more damage than result. These groups are essentially committing acts of Eco-terrorism, and in my opinion should definitely be disbanded by the government. They have caused over $100 million dollars in damage through their vandalism, acts of violence, etc. However, it's difficult to deal with these groups because their crimes are hard to identify.
Humans (myself included) are contributing to the destruction of planet Earth. This is not opinion but fact rather. The toxic pollution from chemical manufacturing companies, the exponential rise in atmospheric CO2 from industrial burning of carbon, and the floating island made entirely of human plastic-waste found in the Pacific Ocean are just some of the contributing factors humans have introduced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. There really is no argument that our species going to be ultimately responsible for the destruction of our planet. Like any other organism that lives on this planet, we too are selfish. If any other animal evolved an intelligent mind before humans then they would be the ones harvesting Earth’s natural resources for their personal benefit. It is not necessarily wrong that humans put their own needs before the needs of other animals or plant life because it is simply in our nature as members of the animal kingdom. We all (all animals and plants alike) feel the natural competition to survive in a world that does not make it easy. Darwin said that it is survival of the fittest that live on and humans are no exception.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the reading and thought that it was a very relevant contribution to our discussion on how to deal with climate change. Environmental activists often become so outraged with private corporations that they overlook the motives of why humans do what they do. People often dismiss our specie’s selfishness as a bad quality simply because we have the intellect to control our desires. We should make it a priority to conserve the planet for future generations to come but the fundamental capitalistic foundation that this great country was built on requires some compromise between both the environmentalists and the entrepreneurs if America is to grow and prosper for years to come.
I agree with previous comments that suggest there is no answer to the first question without sounding like an extremist for either side. If you say that humans do have the right to place our needs over the environment, it sounds selfish and careless for nature. If you say that humans don't have the right to place our needs above the environment, then it sounds like a tree-hugger. The nature of the question allows for no middle ground because it is a question of superiority instead of a question of how to treat the environment. If I had to choose just one option I would say that humans do not have the right to place ourselves as a priority over the environment because of the wrongly dominating nature of the opposite decision.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations like ELF and ALF have a right to exist and the government does not have the right to disband them. However, acts they perform should be more closely monitored due to their history of violent protests and actions. The continuation of these extremist actions that cause harm to other people and companies prove that there should be a more severe punishment for environmental terrorists. This might aid in dissuading them from such extremely violent and harmful acts.
From our reading of "Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism" I believe a new opinion has been offer in the discussion of environmental preservation. I personally was not aware such drastic actions had ever been taken in the name of preserving nature. Such an illustration of dissatisfaction leads a reader to question their own manner of life. A thought to self is of wonder if contribution to either extreme was ever given my ones own action, words, or beliefs. Past this question, we truly are challenged to assess the order in which priority lies in the world. As Aimen Vanood commented earlier, the case of universal order is not always black and white. There are scenarios in which plant and animal life have a greater importance than the wants of humans. This may come to some as a foreign idea, but the world and its land, air, and water are naturally aligned; far too often humans have placed their wants above respect for the land in which they live. In other instances, human sustainability is, and should be, of the highest importance. As mentioned by Aimen, humans are capable of complex thought and behavior, therefore, have the right to serve the needs of life. To serve the needs of life, not the wants. In the case of a hurricane disaster relief mission, human lives are going to be of top focus rather than rescuing animals before humans. In a basic form, humans are the ones to take ownership of an animal, or a plant. Humans feed, nurture, and tend to both of these entities, therefore find themselves superior. My opinion of universal order is not finite.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations such as ELF and ALF should not be disbanded. Though their organizations are extreme in their actions, their intentions are for the better of the planet. Their concern is a stronger concern for the planet than the greater population of the world. If they did not exist environmental responsibility, and thought, would be out of sight, out of mind for nations. Their extreme actions attract attention and cause people to think about the environment in general. The government should give citations for law broken, and give them accordingly.
I do not necessarily agree with the author on the topic of human superiority. As humans, we often disregard other life forms and our natural environment in this idea that we are above it. Putting our needs over those of other life forms is not right in my opinion. Our environment and agricultural surrounding provides so many resources for us that I find it difficult to accept the idea that we should not give back in an effort to sustain it. We often lack consciousness of the needs of others, consistently only thinking of ourselves. Our society emphasis the importance on how the environment can benefit and serve us. Instead we should be considerate of others especially the environment, which has served such a vast amount of purposes for us. Our selfish way of thinking and lack of consideration for others is what contributes to this idea of human superiority. I disagree with this perspective and think that it is time to implement a new way of thinking.
ReplyDelete*emphasizes
DeleteI believe that ELF and ALF should be disbanded by the government because these radically extreme environmental organizations are too violent. They are going to extreme measures to prove their point and are lacking the maturity to make conscious decisions. Although these organizations have good intentions and principals, it does not take away from the fact that their tactics are much too destructive. It seems that they are essentially causing more harm than they are good. Although the protection of the environment should be stressed in our society regularly, there are other forms of awareness tactics that are far less violent. As the author states in the reading, we can go about this in a much more peaceful manner, and be effective. The violent protests of ELF and ALF should be treated as violent terroristic acts and the government should implement severe consequences for those who continue to be destructive.
ReplyDeleteTo be completely unbiased, no one life is more important than another. Whether it's a human, a bird, a tree, or a bear, all life should be valued equally. But if I were to be logical about this, I would place the lives of a lot of creatures and plant life far above human life when it comes to the importance and impact they have on the environment. Seven billion people is 6 billion too many. It's probably impossible to think of any one species of animal with that many in its population other than insects and almost each and every human is causing destruction towards the environment. If anything, we are an invasive species. Do we deserve to take what we want because we are at the top of the food chain? Sure. I'd say evolution has granted us that right, but that does not mean we should exploit that privelage. Chopping down trees, polluting water, and destroying habitats in general are not always something that we necessarily Need to do. People need to be more humble and respectful towards the environment we live in. Yes, we are the smartest animal on earth. But with great power comes great reponsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe government should not disband ELF or ALF. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and these organizations should be left alone unless they, as a whole (not just individuals), decide to seriously impede with the fundamental rights of other people. If anything, these organizations are simply standing up for the rights of those can't do so themselves (plants, animals, earth, etc..). In my opinion, the government should listen to them because a lot of what they are fighting for is extremely important for the future of our planet. To an extent, of course. They can get pretty crazy.
It is only natural for humans to put their own priorities ahead of those of the non-human world. This is the same as with any other animal. However, thought needs to be given to when the problems of the environment become the problems of humans. Tainting of the environment means adverse effects for both wildlife and humanity, so it is impossible to divorce completely care for the environment and human self-interest. There's no point in looking for rights in this situation, because rights aren't necessarily a thing that is given.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the reading itself, it is a valuable writing because it provides a counterpoint to the seas of pro-environmentalist literature that surround the issue. Although it does seem initially to be anti-environmentalism, it helps develop the image of the cause in such a way that allows dialogue to continue. Basically, this shows that there are differences in opinion within environmentalists. And though there are very wrong ways to go about protecting the environment, there are those within the movement that don't support terrorism.
I do not believe that the government should disband these eco-terrorist groups simply because I don't think they can. The text is keen to point out how slippery these organizations tend to be, which makes it hard for the government to easily shut them down. That being said, The members should be tried because what they are doing is criminal. Their dedication to using any means necessary to achieve their ends does not justify their means. These groups do, however, place a necessary pressure on policymakers and other stakeholders. But this s possible because they work outside the system in illegal ways, and it would be remiss if their crimes were ignored.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the first question, as humans I think we should place a higher value on our needs, but should not use our ranking in the food chain to exploit Mother Nature. The movie we watched in class, "Tapped," is evidence enough that our planet is slowly deteriorating as a result of humans considering their needs for the here and now without considering the possible long-term consequences. In regard to the third question, our right to freedom of speech will continue to allow extremist groups such as ALF and ELF to express their views. Fortunately, according to the reading, state legislatures are increasing the penalties for any vandalism, confiscation, or threat to the public. This is probably the best and only way to control the actions of such groups.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that humans should put their own needs over those of plants and animals. I support the whole environmental movement because in the long run if we are doing things that are harmful to plants and animals it’s all going to come back to us. This article was about how extremist are hurting people while trying to get their point across. So I do support the writer’s stance that if you are harming human life to protect the plants and animals you’re really doing more harm then good. This leads in to the next question about do I believe ELF and ALF should disband.
ReplyDeleteI completely believe they should be disbanded they are only making things worse for environmental activist. Any extremist group is unhealthy to remain in circulations. All they are doing is spreading bad information and hurting people in the proses as well as actively participating in acts of terrorism. Unfortunately it’s hard for the government to do anything because having and spreading extremist beliefs isn’t against the law.
I think that many people think of the human race as "superior" to everything else. However, I think this is very far from the truth. Everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship. For example, in the ocean, small organisms, that are mostly consumed by everything else, help "clean" bacteria from the backs of turtle shells. Even the smallest creatures contribute to the ecosystem in other ways besides being the bottom of the food chain. Humans are the ones who do not fit into this relationship. Humans take away and never give back, while the rest of the planet eats its fill and then contributes in some way with its continued life or eventual death.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I do not think humans have any entitlement to the Earth over any other creature. Plus, even if people do not wish to recognize this, humans rely on the environment. If the environment does not exist, we cannot survive. Therefore, for basic survival, humans should not have unrestricted exploitation of the environment.
To the answer the first question I believe it is humanities right to have control over the earth. I believe we should put our needs over the animals and plants but to a certain extent. If you want to go biblical you can find in the bible where it says something about man given the power to rule over everything on earth. We as humans need animal and plants to survive but this does not give us the right to abuse this power. Animals have the right to live and roam free without being endangered of us humans brutally killing them for our own pleasure and not for our survival. I do not agree with putting our needs over plant life because our needs are causing our world to crumble. In the future our human footprint will end all plant life and leave earth a devastating place to live. We must take charge and take care of our earth and not just focus on what we want but on what is right.
ReplyDeleteI believe the government should roll up their sleeves and take action in the situation of radically extreme environmental organizations. The government should disband such groups because what in the world gives them the right to take matters into their own hands with violence? Groups such as ELF and ALF claim to be fighting for a cause but what outcome is coming of their “heroism?” They endanger the lives of other human beings just to try and send a message to people who already see them as a destructive group. To receive positive outcomes groups need dispute the issues in a more mature matter where innocent lives do not have to be at stake. The government should find a way to sit down and discuss different solutions that satisfy these extreme environmental organizations. If the organizations still refuse then the government should use lethal force to protect their people.
I feel that humans should hold their self in a somewhat of a higher regard than animals because we are more advanced for a reason. We our the most unique creatures on the planet I feel because of how far along we have come as a species. The new technology that has been created, the fact we have multiple languages and methods of communication. But while I feel this way I also feel that humans should not be cruel to animals. I know that it does happen all over the world and it is something that I believe needs to change. It is sad that some people have no regard for animals what so ever and that needs to change.
ReplyDelete