Northern Arizona University/Environmental Ethics/Journals/Jenika V's Journal

--There's No "I" in Cooperation!--

Let's picture this lovely scenario: A man accidently runs over an axe murderer. The axe murderer was going to kill a woman-- the future mother of the man's child! Wouldn't that be exciting? Would that be cooperation? That is, was the man cooperating with the woman by unknowingly killing off her would-be-killer? Is the woman cooperating by not being offed?

Merriam-Websters online dictionary defines cooperation as a verb meaning "to act or work with another or others : act together or in compliance" So, in order to cooperate the two parties cooperating work together to achieve something. But don't you think that they realize that they are working together to help each other out? Otherwise it's more like serendipity when things work out. That man and woman didn't really cooperate. They just happened to help each other out.

So. Do members of the biotic community really cooperate? Let's think of another lovely scenario: A wolf eats deer, and the trees grow because they aren't being munched to death. Then the deer eat the trees and repopulate. Then the wolf eats the deer, and on ad infinitum. But are the wolf and trees really cooperating? Can we really imagine the wolf saying (in a posh British accent, please. If we're going to imagine this we may as well go all the way.) "Oh dear. Those bloody deer are simply ravaging the pitiable saplings. I really must stop those ravenous deer, even if it means harming a valuable member of the biotic community. Because I'm nothing if not cooperative."

Clearly animals don't think that way. If so, we wouldn't have to control deer population after killing their predators. They aren't any more concerned for the future than we are; when left with no external population control they just eat all of their food, have a population boom, then starve.

And assuming that trees or plants cooperate seems even stranger. I can't imagine trees saying (Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Can you picture an Ent saying this? Just to complete the picture) "Now, those mean Aspen are going to take both of us tree species out if we don't band together. So, you spread your roots really near the surface so you take its water, and I'll go deep to make sure there aren't any other sources of water. Teamwork!"

So there, Leopold!

--There's No "I" in Cooperation! Part 2--

No, I don't think the members of the biotic community cooperate in the way that people can cooperate. But I do think that they're all interconnected and part of a circle of life and all that nice stuff. But also think that if you look at a single part of nature you will find it to be, in fact, quite red in tooth and claw or bark or whatever.

Why can't Darwin and Leopold be right? It's sort of like the old and new physics. Newton's physics (e.g. an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force) work in the world we live in. String theory works on the tiny, tiny level that it works in. They don't seem compatible. How can so much chaos result in such a structured universe?

I think the answer to the physics question is also the answer to how so many naughty little components of the biotic community come together to form a highly ordered land pyramid. (And I really don't know the answer. Especially for the physics bit. That makes me want to cry a little when I think about it too hard.) That being said, let's look at a few parts that make up the whole of the biotic community.

Example A: Sharks. Ack! I once sang a song in elementary school dressed up in a shark costume. The lyrics brilliantly went "I'm not really mean; I'm just an eating machine!" Ah, so true. Those naughty sharks eat lots of things, don't they? I also remember articles about people finding old car bits and random objects in the tummies of dead sharks. They're nature's vacuums, and I doubt that if someone explained that, say, dolphins were becoming extinct, that sharks would stop eating them. They're only out for personal gain. And by personal gain I mean a tasty meal.

Example B: Bermuda Grass. This evilest form of grass (don't worry, I realize it has inherent worth too. I just have a bit of a bad history with it.) chokes out and kills the lovely, soft winter lawns that people try to put down. Again, it doesn't care that it's killing the less hardy(but much nicer to walk on) grass. Personal gain strikes again!

Example C: Humans. Well, clearly we're all just out for personal gain too.

The list goes on. I'm sure that there's not one member of the biotic community that wouldn't backstab its neighbor for personal gain if it's taken out of its environment. But they work together in a whole community beautifully. Why? Are we always heading towards chaos or order? It appears that on the large scale things tend to go to stability. How can they when the little things are all chaotic and confused on their own? I just don't know! How could so many different environments produce plants which herbivores eat, which predators eat, and bugs and birds and etc? They work differently, but they all work somehow. It's beautiful and soothing (like gravity in physics) but it doesn't really make sense when we pull apart the parts of the whole. Ah well.

--Querying Quantitative Reasoning Qualitatively--

I've gained many nuggets of wisdom from House: MD. One is that everyone lies. (That's not true. Trust me.) Another is that people see what they are trained to see. A neurosurgeon will see a list of symptoms and first think of brain-related diseases. A cancer specialist will think of a specific cancer which could cause the symptoms. A podiatrist will think that the person broke his foot and any symptoms are caused by the pain.

In the same way, I can see how people who study science believe that everything can be quantified. Love is just a bunch of neurons firing. We care for children because we've been evolutionarily programmed to do so. I can see the point of these arguments. But then, don't you think you could see the point of the arguments that the neurosurgeon, cancer specialist and podiatrist make? It's not like they're making things up. But they don't consider that other things could cause the same symptoms, or that more could be at work than they realize.

When scientists say that love is all in our head (literally) they might be right. But do they have the whole picture? Poets might have as good of an argument (though it is not quantitative) that love has nothing to do with neurons. Can't we all just get along? Can't we say something like "Ah, the dearest love of my life kissed me on the cheek and it seriously set some neurons flying because I know in my heart that he is my soul mate"? What sets those neurons going? Why do they go more for some people than others? And it can't be all evolutionary or no one would marry people who, say, couldn't have children.

So there, Scientists!... and Romantics!

--Evil! Evil! Evil!--

Well. I was having a pretty kickin' day until a guest lecturer came and proved that all humans are evil. Well, I believe in her definition we aren't evil. We just commit an almost infinite number of evils every single day. (Right.) She also didn't say that, but with her arguments and one more point I can assure you that we are really all quite naughty. And by naughty I mean completely evil. Here are Claudia Card's arguments:

1. Evil is different than a lesser harm. We can culpably commit an evil deed by causing intolerable harm to people. As she said, a lesser harm, like tax fraud, doesn't really hurt anyone so it isn't evil. (Though, really, it's hurting the rest of the taxpayers, right? But let's not get into that...)

2. Intolerable harm is the deprivation of basics ordinarily needed to make a life (or death) decent. So, if you don't let someone have non-toxic food, or let them live without debilitating fear, you are causing them intolerable harm. Shame!

3. Just because culture says it's ok to live in intolerable conditions doesn't mean it really is ok. So, if everyone else is slapping the elderly it doesn't mean you morally can too.

4. If you just sit back and let these intolerable actions happen you're also doing evil, even if you weren't the one who started it.

Now, let's take a closer look at 4. Woah! We sit back and let people live in intolerable conditions all the time, literally. People are starving to death right now. People are being beaten and tortured and killed, and we're just sitting here writing a paper(or reading a cynical view of humanity)! Thus, we're all being evil all over the place every single day.

Now, if people were good don't you think we'd all buckle down and stamp out all the evil in the world and then go on to lead happy, peaceful lives? Don't you think we would find it impossible to hear about, say, the sex slave industry, and go about our lives ignoring the extreme suffering of others? For that matter, don't you think we'd go out of our way to find evil and eradicate it? But we don't. So, we're all pretty much evil. Oh well. I'm going to go watch Star Trek and try to forget about my moral ineptitude. Because that's what we're really good at, in my opinion.

--A Lesser of Two Evils?--

Ok, now that I've proven unequivocally that we're all supa-evil,(doesn't that sound less depressing? supa-cool!) let's consider our general depravity in the context of environmental ethics. The guest speaker, Claudia, also mentioned that we might decide to do the lesser of two evils. This is still bad, but less bad, especially if there is no way that there is a way to non-evilly do something.

That's a bit confusing, no? Let me try to express myself more clearly. And I'll do that by unashamedly using Claudia's example. So, let's say that it's common practice to slaughter all prisoners of war. Then people say "hey, let's make them all slaves instead!" You could vote for that because you think that it's less morally reprehensible to deny someone his or her freedom than deny his or her life. Here you could choose to vote for neither option, but it might be a more intelligent move, especially if the vote is close, to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

So, in life, we can often decide to choose between two things which both could be seen as evil. An example, you practically beg? Ok.

This weekend I am cutting trees with chainsaws. No joke. Am I the worst Environmental Ethics person ever, or what? But I'm helping to cut down these trees(not the old ones, just the young undergrowth that people are afraid will cause worse fires, so please don't hate me too much) and cutting them up and giving them to people who can't afford to heat their houses.

I was a bit disconcerted about ruthlessly murdering nature after reading the lovely poetic musings about trees and how beautiful the biotic community can be if we don't go around messing things up all the time. But I am doing the somewhat-evil thing to alleviate a worse evil, namely people freezing to death(or being really, really chilly).

So the question that I pose now, and hopefully will spend quite a bit of time reflecting on is this:

Are people more important than other members of the biotic community?

--Let's Dance to Joy Division!--

Ok, time to be a bit more optimistic about people. Really, we're not super evil. I mean, if we thought about all the evil things that are happening all the time we wouldn't be able to survive. I think we just don't think about people who are in horrible circumstances because if we did, we'd vicariously feel really yucky all the time. And what would be the point of living if everyone felt really crappy all the time?

I think a good example of how, really, optimistic we are is the song "Let's Dance to Joy Division." Here's a link if you'd like to hear it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCf84ov2MZ4

Ah, the wisdom of a 22 year old! My favorite part of the lyrics:

Let's dance to joy division, And celebrate the irony, Everything is going wrong, But were so happy

Joy Division is an English band. The lead singer killed himself, to give a bit of background. So, back to the point. If we think about it enough we'll realize that the world is horrid. I think it's kind of nice that we don't focus on the negative all the time. It's like we all either are naive because we've never learned about the sadness in life, or because we choose not to recognize it. Why should we let the depressing parts of life tear us apart?

It doesn't make us evil if we don't spend all our time focused on the negative, even if that's the only way we can help to our full potential. We can't as individuals solve all the world's problems, so we shouldn't spend all our time focused on it. Then we won't get anything done; we'll just become mopey, cynical whiners. And no one likes a mopey cynical whiner. Except English majors, and some Philosophers.

--The Best Part About Underachieving--

Ok, I like the idea of giving the choice of listening to music while reading these. Isn't it a neat idea? So here's for this journal entry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_5V8We3hgg&annotation_id=annotation_460995&feature=iv

This is Invincible, by Muse. The beginning reminds me of whales singing. That's not why I chose it, though.

Now onto the real stuff. Here's something that Thoreau sort of talks about. And I've realized it's a in a ton of literature. (Especially coming of age stories.) They all have characters who think they are normal, but then realize that they're meant for something better than normalcy. The character normally muses "I always thought I was meant for something great."

Why does this sell so many books and movies? I think it's because everyone feels like they are meant for something more, at least at times. We all think we can be great. And that's because we can be! (Yayy!)

Everyone has so much potential, it's almost embarrassing. 90% of the world has the potential to become concert musicians. (if you read some info on music, it says natural talent isn't what makes great musicians, but practice.) Most of us have the potential(with enough work) to become the next Tour de France winner or brilliant architect or world-renowned author. We could be the next Mother Theresa or the first person to cure the common cold or AIDS. The list of what we can achieve is beyond our comprehension. Our potential is infinite in that there has never been a person that did something so great that no one else could match it. Some examples? Sure!

The four minute mile was breath-taking when my grandmother was in college. It was what everyone wanted to do, but people thought it was impossible. Then, two people ran it in the same year. They achieved the impossible. (She dated the second guy to run it. That's how I know about it. Neat!) Now people run four minute miles all the time, even in high school. Eddie Izzard, a not-really-athletic comedian, just ran 43 marathons in 7 weeks. He trained for five weeks beforehand. Whaat?! Scientists said that we can all do the same thing if we just push ourselves enough. (Who feels like an underachiever now?) We know that so much can be done, and that we can really do something great, but most of our choices lead us away from greatness toward normalcy.

Of course, this is depressing. If we all did great things, we'd have so many beautiful buildings, art, music, etc. The world would be a better place with 10,000 Mother Theresas running around, too.

But then how would we have time for relationships, watching the sunsets(or a movie), etc if we devoted so much time to becoming great? What's the point of making beautiful art if you're miserable? Maybe people who we deem 'great' are actually to be pitied; many of us are destined to have a life where we can do what we want without worrying about our decisions. There's a glorious freedom in that, even if most of the world has it. We do not have to worry about our decisions throwing us from greatness to failure. We don't have to practice our craft 10 hours a day. Maybe that's not great, but it's not too bad either.

--Recursion-ursion-ion-on--

Ok, I really liked this song when I first heard it. Then my friends said it sounded like skank-o jazz. But hopefully my faithful readers will not react the same way. The song is only mathematical and sort of recursive-seeming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk63Psr3wzY&feature=player_embedded# This would be Windmills of Your Mind, by Sting(So it has to be good.)

The more I think about recursion the more I like it. Just in case you don't know recursion, let me give you an example. Do you know about the Fibonacci sequence? You always add the previous two numbers in the sequence to get the new answer... like this:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55....(1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, etc.)

Neato, eh? the 0 and 1 are 'base cases.' You can't do anything to figure them out since no numbers come before them and to get each number n we have to add (n-1) + (n - 2). Ack! No n - 1 or n - 2? That's why in equations you can always find the nth number in the equation, but only when you have all the base cases you need. Otherwise, you can't really know what the number will be! Cool!

What, you don't find this mind-bogglingly awesome? Well, did you know that you can see the Fibonacci sequence in the branching of trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, uncurling of a fern, spiraling of shells, breeding of rabbits, family tree of honeybees... It seems a bit more important now, perhaps?

And it makes sense that growing things are easiest to look at with recursion; they take what is before and use that while growing. Imagine if trees grew in a linear way, or if they didn't use the parts that had already grown. It certainly wouldn't work well. A tree needs a tendril before bark and limbs and leaves.

But! Recursion need a base case or two, or it won't work. Unlike equations like n = 5 + 2 (n = 7! That's the kind of math I like!) You need to know original ns for, say, n = n-1 + 2n + 2.

The Key Part, If You Got Bored And Started Skimming: Emerson says that laws expand, and are not linear. Recursion, anyone? And it's the same with laws as it is in nature! Growth is not linear, or constant. It takes what came before it and feeds off that to become more.

And how can we expect to understand the complex ecosystem and how it grows (either more diverse or through global warming, or anything) if we don't know the base cases? We do not know how anything grew over millions of years and so may be clinging to some dino-era characteristics, or something. We can guess, but we can't know it all. Because it's all the most confusing recursive function on earth, and there is no way we can prize apart all the different n-1's and n-1756's, and etc. Ah well.

--What's So Great About Aesthetics, Anyway?--

So, for our song selection we will have Pachelbel's Canon. What's more beautiful than that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wpPk8qk3uQ

You know those people who don’t enjoy the natural splendor all around them? The people who don’t even look at a sunset while walking? They are generally regarded as almost inhuman. For instance, whenever I say to people “how can you not look at that beautiful sunset?” They don’t reply “Who cares?” They always say something like “I did look. I just wasn’t the moment you looked over.”

Why do they feel guilty? Perhaps because it’s only human, and wholly human, to love beauty. As some smart guy said “Beauty is truth. Truth is beauty.” This sounds pretty and harmless. But wait! Why, then, is it considered wrong to love people for their beauty? It is generally regarded as shallow to be enamored with someone simply for his/her looks, yet shallow to not love anything else for it’s beauty? (What else do you love that sunset for if not for its beauty?)

One could argue that it’s shallow not to love someone for their beauty, but rather love someone solely for their beauty. Again, the opposite holds true for, say, symphonies. Imagine a person saying “I like that. It was brilliant; it had good chord progression which really added to its splendor.” Then “I loved that piece. It really touched me; I don’t know why, but it was beautiful.” Who sounds more human there? But imagine “I don’t know why I love him/her; I think it’s that excess of beauty...” vs. “I love him because he’s smart and he makes me laugh.” Aww. Second person definitely gets more points.

So. Why can’t people love others just for beauty and not be considered unfair? Sure, it’s not fair that hardly anyone is lovely, but it’s not like we’re scolded as children to call all sunsets wonderful even if there’s hardly anything there.

--It's Not Our Fault.--

(A note: I wrote this a while ago... I sometimes disagree with what people say. And I clearly wasn't too happy this day. So, I'll choose a song I used to enjoy listening to when I was in high school, that doesn't like listening to others either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4smim2MNvF8)

Ok, so we're supposed to respect the biotic community, right? We shouldn't mess with what nature knows is best (e.g. by killing off all the wolves.) But if this is the case, we should keep ruining the environment, driving big cars, etc. Because it's not like we're aliens, for goodness' sake. It's nature's fault for letting us evolve into really intelligent, really selfish and not-really-far-thinking people.

Here are the choices for how we came to be: 1. Nature was a bit daft. So we should realize that we know beter than it does and stop our nasty habits of killing everything.

2. Nature knows what it's doing. We'll cause the world as we know it to die out, maybe, and then a new one can grow from the ashes! Like a phoenix! Or we'll evolve our morals soon enough to not kill absolutely everything. But we should do that naturally, right?

Of course there are other choices, e.g. we were made by a higher power and are a bit different than the other members of the biotic community. But that's sort of like choice 1.

Number one is probably what most environmental advocates secretly agree with. We can't say, though, that nature is perfect and that it produced humans, unless we in any state can be considered as perfectly helpful to the biotic community as any other member. That's tough to believe, seeing the weird consumerism that has taken over, but if nature's perfect, I guess I can't complain about that sort of stuff.

--Pause--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs5pH4GKYkI&feature=related

Today I walked to work during the sunset. I really enjoy walking, even if it's on campus, because there are so many neat things to see. I also listen to headphones practically every time I either have to walk more than five minutes or have to walk by cars. (I'm afraid that's a habit that came about walking to and from highschool and being freaked out by people calling things and honking. I don't have to respond if I can't hear!)

When I walked to high school my favorite song to listen to was Beethoven's Symphony No.7 Allegretto. My first class was at 7:00, so I'd often get to walk at sunrise. And every once in a while I'd time the song just right so that the climax came right as the sun rose over the mountains. I'd complain to my mother that everyone else had a car, but not with enthusiasm because those walks were nice and peaceful in an otherwise typical high school experience.

So today I still don't have a car and still don't mind because I'd rather walk 2 hours a day than get angry while driving (which I have been known to do.) I mean, two hours of peace is nicer than 30 minutes of annoyance right? Today was an especially nice walk. I saw a fox while walking through a forested part of campus. Cool! I walked in some of the remaining snow and kicked ice like a kid. And the sunset was marvelous. While facing the west I thought it was the coolest from that perspective. But then walking North I got to see the mountains, purple except for a pink band where the Aspen trees are. The sky was becoming darker blue above them, and there was one cloud at exactly the same height as the Aspens that was a more salmony color. If that wasn't nice, I don't know what is.

--What Makes Worth?--

So. Earlier I said that I wanted to figure out if the Biotic Pyramid is more worth saving than people. I remember when I was younger(3rd grade) I bought and acre of land or something to save in the rainforest. I felt wonderful! I was saving the world! But my mom made me feel crummy when she said "That's nice, but if there were people starving and needed to have farmland, wouldn't you give that to them?" Yes, I would! But wait...

So, if we consider things on their own people will always come out above plants/animals. Consider: There is a fire. If you run in, ignore the little kid, and save the rare houseplant no one will call you a hero. If you deny land to refugees because they'll just mess it up, you aren't being very nice. Etc.

But then, if we never worry about the Biotic Community and ruin it we'll ruin ourselves because we depend on it to live. This reminds me of a haiku I made up once:

A wise man once said Vanity of vanities; All is vanity.

--Worth Reconsidered--

I think that life's questions have so many reasonable answers that it's impossible to figure out which is best. Oh well. They all have flaws because the other great arguments disagree with them, and everyone knows it's logically impossible to have A and not A. (e.g. I can't both write a paper and not write a paper. If only...)

I'm afraid that I'm the opposite of Thoreau. I could not choose the environment over people. I'm glad that I'm not a leader because I'd say "yes, if there are people who are starving we have to keep farming no matter what! Wuahaha!" And, here's the worst problem I can see. Let's say we find a way to make everyone get a healthy amount of food and water and shelter. Everyone's happy. But then almost everyone will be able to have more children, overpopulation will happen, and then there won't be enough food again.

But that doesn't mean we can justify letting people live miserable lives, right? If we were in pain would we want people saying "oh well, it's for the best. She's draining earth's reserves."

--No Tolerating Tolerance!--

Tolerance, Ah Tolerance. What a mixed bag you are. Frankly, I can't tolerate tolerance some times. It's nice when we say "Yes, I will tolerate any religion and I won't beat you up just because your religion is different than mine." But what if that religion says that its members must kill all humans and they obey all the time? We can't tolerate that religion because it hurts others, right? Or let's say free speech. It's all nice until someone starts saying racist things and gets people to follow them and then Nazi Germany or the KKK is born. Should we tolerate the Nazis? It's hard to say we should, at least if they actually hurt people.

And what about being the "world's police"? I remember someone saying "well, what if some country saw Columbine and they decided we couldn't govern ourselves and took over? We wouldn't like it." Good point! And most people say we shouldn't be the world's police. Tolerance and all. But what about Rwanda? People were begging U.S. people to come over and we were considered mean for not helping. But if we did go help people would say we were just doing it for oil, or something. Good point!

But then if we look at our involvement in Latin America it becomes clear that we screwed over that continent(to put it frankly.) We set up dictatorial regimes with people who seemed less communist, and gave them military training to kill thousands of people who didn't like the way the government was run. So we shouldn't help! But we should! But we shouldn't. So, back to tolerance. Tolerance is tolerable, but I don't think people should always turn a blind eye.

--The Meaning of Life--

I figure it would be good as a last journal entry to let everyone know the meaning of life.

Just Kidding! It's my theory that everyone has their own meaning of life. Every word that's spelled differently has a different meaning, and people are all different so why can't they have a different meaning too? But. Here's the story of how I decided what the meaning of my life was.

In high school I was a bit of a weirdo. My dad had philosophy books in the bookshelves, but I didn't want to read them because I didn't want my growing brain ruined by brains that were already grown in a society that taught them how to think. (That makes sense, right?) So I'd sit on the roof and stare at palm trees and try to figure out things like the meaning of life.

One year I decided that everyone who is over the age of 20 has experienced Deep Pain, and most people have experienced it by the age of 15. (Deep Pain I classified as something that, if explained, others would say "oh I could never survive through that; e.g. a teenager's parent or sibling dying.) One night I woke up at 3 in the morning or realizing that the meaning of life is to help others. Everyone's been in pain, I figured, and helping people makes the person helping feel better, and the person being helped better. Actually, when I gasped awake that night I wrote an entire front and back of a paper explaining it. The next morning I excitedly read it to some of my friends, beginning with "I figured out the meaning of life!" Not many seemed too impressed.

Sitting on the roof the few weeks after I decided more things: most of the evil committed in the world is done because we are selfish. Example? Murder? Not helping or being selfless. Doing it for sick pleasure or to make the murderer happy. Same with rape, stealing, defaming someone...

Maybe everything we do is because we're selfish. Perhaps we only help people because it makes us feel better about ourselves. But I like the explanation at the end of Anna Karenina. That is: if that were the case, people wouldn't help out people if no one were there to see it, or if it hurt the person helping (e.g. giving a peasant family something to eat.)

So, maybe helping nature is good too. But (I'm sorry! My genius doesn't lie in finding inherent worth in all living things!) for me at least, I only help out nature thinking that it'll help out future generations of people.