Spirituality

Friday's presentation as well as the readings from the book show one thing very clearly: religion supports environmental stewardship. In my group, we covered the material by Barry Freundel, Patrick Dobel, and Mawil Y Izzi Deen (Samarrai). These articles (and my group) discussed the role of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and their different ethics towards the environment. Each religion has teachings and scripture related to environmental stewardship in some form or another. For example, one of the basic tenets of Catholicism is stewardship for God's creation. The other religions have similar messages. In addition, Hinduism as well as Pagan religions all have basic tenets that describe care for the environment. What I find interesting, however, is that this seems to be unknown, or underplayed in society.

One would think that religious groups would take a strong stance on the destruction of the environment happening all around us. On the contrary, religion seems to have taken a quiet back seat. To my understanding, there have been no great undertakings by any religious group to address the problem of environmental destruction. While the religions lay out practices that are environmentally friendly in their nature, organized religion as an organization is not preaching about environmental stewardship to any grand degree. The current environmental crises facing the world today would be a great way for religion to promote a sustainable world, and spread their message to more people by working for the environment. For example, Catholicism teaches to care for the lowly of society. This teaching could easily be applied to environmental justice but this simply isn't happening (at least on a grand scale). Social justice is often a subject the church speaks on but it is never put in an environmental light.

In addition to religious groups, the presenters also discussed personal spirituality and gave us a chance to practice and develop our own spirituality outdoors. One thing that was very important about this lesson was that it was done outside. Often times, nature and our ethics and spiritual beliefs about nature are done from behind a wall without being in nature and experiencing the great power it possesses. Experiencing nature is an important part of developing spiritual beliefs about nature. To make decisions for or about something, we must have a personal relationship with it; this relationship can only be gained through experience and not simply through knowledge.

Pollution: it's everyone's fault

Doing this project, I came to realize something very important: pollution is everyones fault. Looking at the articles for this unit, however, we seem to conveniently forget that fact and instead blame pollution on "the Western industrialized world," or "factory" x, or "processing plant" y. It is very convenient for everyone to place the blame on large corporations. Looking at it a little more closely, it is ultimately our fault that corporations are polluting. It is our demand for goods that is creating pollution. Not only our demand for goods but our demand for inexpensive , flawless goods that is driving this process. The cheapest way to keep production costs down in the current market, where fossil fuels are relatively inexpensive, is to use these polluting substances to power manufacturing or as part of the manufacturing process. Since there is no cost for polluting, such as a tax for example, polluting is the cheapest way to produce the goods we all demand.

With this in mind, if we change our demand, we can change how the system works. We need to demand quality products that are produced in more efficient ways and be willing to pay more to get them. In addition, we need to reconsider how we buy. Rather than getting a new cell phone every year we should try to get the very most out of the one we have. Perhaps older cell phones could someday be a fashion statement. Currently, our products are designed to become obsolete so that we need to constantly buy new ones. Even if our products aren't obsolete, companies spend billions on advertising to make us all feel that our year old product is obsolete and that we need to upgrade. One way to address this problem is to make companies responsible for the disposal of the products they sell. If each individual company was required to recycle each cell phone they replace, it creates an incentive to make cell phones that last longer and that people aren't going to want to throw away each year. Another option is to make consumers responsible. Buying a product would involve a deposit that could be refunded when the product is recycled or returned to the company. This essentially makes both the company and the individual responsible for the products. No matter how this problem is addressed, it is clear that our current production cycle is extremely flawed and that we are using too many resources and causing too much pollution to make the goods we all use daily. As a society we need to demand products that are produced in more efficient ways and be willing to pay fo the increased quality.

One final important factor to think about when producing goods and buying ethically produced goods is who is paying the price for the pollution. Generally, the people buying the goods are not the ones suffering because of its production. As George Bradford points out, when environmental regulations in developed countries like the US and Europe prohibit the production of certain materials or goods, they simply import that products from a developing country with less rigid environmental standards. In this way, more powerful nations are outsourcing their pollution and making the poor, the people who can't afford to escape the pollution, deal with it and suffer the side effects. This is yet another reason to demand higher quality goods, pay more for them and ensure that people (and animals) are not being harmed by the production of goods.

FOOD!!

I am many things; for the purposes of this blog post, I will focus on two that are of significant importance in relation to food: I am an environmentalist and I am a college student (i.e. poor). Over the last few years, I have learned about and studied the various inefficiencies and problems with the food industry around the world. Confined animal feeding operations, pesticides, transportation, genetic modification, poor farming practices and the diet of the American people are just a few of the many problems. From my perspective, I see eating locally as the solution to this and many other environmental problems. Thinking locally eliminates the need for transportation over long distances and keeps money in the local economy to support neighbors and friends. In addition, organic foods, fresh foods, and seasonal foods are also important because they cut back on transportation costs and excessive inputs and genetic modifications necessary to grow plants out of season. In addition, I recognize a need to cut back on meat consumption. As Coffn points out, it takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce a gallon of beef in addition to a number of other resources and cattle produce 20% of world methane emissions (a powerful greenhouse gas). Ultimately, the food we eat and our food demands create a great deal of environmental problems.The solution, as proposed by Michael Allen Fox is vegetarianism, and the avoidance of meat. This would ultimately avoid the environmental harms of meat production mentioned above as well as many other associated problems. However, this would only work if most or all of the world adopted a vegetarian lifestyle. While this would help, we would all need to become locavores (people who eat food raised within 100 miles of where they live), as well,in order to create a more sustainable food system. While a world of vegetarian locavores is unlikely, it is theoretically possible. This leads me to my next problem.

That problem is money. The food system today as well as the ideal one we have set up above, has the fundamental problem of being expensive. People who are hungry or are on a limited budget are looking to get the calories they need and to get them as cheaply as possible. Ultimately, cheap food comes down to mass production, wide distribution, rapid and cheap production (i.e. with chemical inputs and genetic modification),  and heavily processed. Good wholesome food and food that is raised in ideal conditions and environmentally friendly ways is ultimately too expensive for people who are just trying to get the calories they need to survive.  Even local foods cannot compete with the mass produced items you get at large grocery stores. Being a college student with limited funds, I am unable to afford the food that would be the most healthy and most environmentally friendly. In order to fix this problem and supply the world with good, sustainable food, the good foods and the environmentally sustainable foods need to be able to compete in the marketplace with the unhealthy, unsustainable alternatives. How this is to be accomplished is another story. However, this is, in my opinion, the primary factor that needs to be addressed to create a sustainable food system around the globe.

population

The statistics on world population were particularly striking to me. The fact that all the people in the world could fit into the state of Rhode Island and that if every person on earth had the average American home we could all fit into Texas were particularly striking. These facts seem to point out the fundamental reason that population is a problem for the world, sprawl. While food production is one of the fundamental problems, it would appear that since we can all fit into Texas, there would be enough land left over to farm and that food wouldn't be an issue. Ultimately, it is the distribution of food that is the problem. The fact that people are so spread out and not concentrated in single areas of continents or even states, causes big problems. The result of this sprawl is that each individual community needs more infrastructure to provide the things they need and want. This means that it takes large amounts of energy to get people what they need. Looking at distribution in this way reveals that the people living in cities are actually more efficient. In cities, the necessities of life are available to a much larger number of people than they are in suburbs and small communities. In addition, these people are often taking up less space because cities are built vertically rather than horizontally like suburbs. While there are many environmental problems associated with living in cities, ultimately, getting the people in cities the things they need to survive is more efficient that getting it to other people around the country or even state. In addition, thinking in terms of international trade, the distribution network and inefficiencies get far worse. In an ideal world, populations of entire regions would live in one concentrated area to maintain a high level of efficiency. Ultimately, as humans we need to stop trying to get away form one another and find a place amongst the community.

Climate Change

Coming to SJU as an environmental studies major, climate change was one of the issues I felt very passionately about and one of the few environmental issues I felt I had a decent grasp on. I was ready to get started and figure out a solution to climate change. As I learned more and more about climate change I became increasingly frustrated with the governments and people around the world. To me the issue seemed very cut and dry; climate change has the potential to drastically alter life on earth, we as humans have the ability to possibly affect whether climate change accelerates at its given rate or slows to natural speeds, we need to fix it! At the same time that I was realizing all of this, I was learning about other environmental issues: water pollution, water allocation, food system inefficiencies... Suddenly everything else seemed just as important. While I didn't forget about climate change, it did take a back seat to other issues, other issues that felt more manageable. Ultimately, I think this is the main issue with why climate change isn't addressed. It isn't a matter of knowing its a problem; it's a matter of the huge process of fixing the problem. Fixing the problem of climate change will ultimately take the involvement of the rest of the world in one focused effort against a common enemy. The problem just seems too daunting to handle even if the rewards from doing so would be tremendous. Just as I had become overwhelmed and frustrated, I think the rest of the world working to fix this problem ultimately feels the same way.

My perspective on climate change has never been a question of whether it is happening or not. Climate is changing and it is clear (although the media may not portray it this way) that we as humans are causing it. I have always put that fact aside and realized that the outcomes of fixing climate change will ultimately create a better, stronger world. The entire world now has the ability to collectively combat a problem of global proportions and create societies that are not on a race to the bottom. Addressing the climate change issue will lead to societies that are more sustainable and healthy for the people that live there. In addition, global cooperation towards a single goal would go a long way towards achieving cooperation amongst nations rather than constantly fighting. Climate change could be the common ground that everyone agrees about. In addition, cooperation on this issue could lay the foundation to combating other global environmental problems.

Grizzly Man- a New Type of Gender Identity Crisis

Timothy Treadwell, known popularly as "Grizzly Man", was a man who rejected society in favor a living in the wilderness. Timothy seemed to be having a great deal of trouble defining himself and figuring out where he fit in. His films were full of his comments about how he didn't fit into normal society and was having troubles in his love life and with society in general. In order to better understand himself, Timothy would live in the woods for several months at a time to live amongst the bears, a society that didn't judge him and actually accepted him. While I respect the idea of trying to find yourself in nature and even returning to a more primitive state of living on the land and escaping the noise of society, I think the way Timothy went about it was entirely wrong.

Timothy set out into the wilderness to better understand grizzly bears. He filmed them and taught the population about these amazing animals in order to help protect them. The mentality being that if people develop a love for these animals as he has, they will be more likely to protect them. However, the way Timothy went about this was ill thought out, dangerous, and a bit crazy. To introduce people to the animals Timothy not only filmed the animals but attempted to become part of their society. Timothy even referred to the bears as "friends". While there are clear danger issues associated with getting too close to an animal that can very easily kill you at any moment, Timothy never seemed to realize that he may be doing these bears harm by getting so close to them. While Timothy meant the animals no harm, the rest of the world may have. Ultimately, Timothy was teaching these bears that humans posed no threat and were friends. Clearly this can be a problem in terms of poachers and those that do mean the bears harm. Timothy's extreme love for the animals seemed to blind him to the harm he may actually be doing to the animals. Timothy's decision to get close to the bears seems to me extremely selfish and misguided.

In class, we recently discussed issues of a crisis of gender identity. An internal conflict where a male or female feels they are trapped in the wrong body. Timothy seems to be going through a completely different type of gender identity crisis. It seems to me that Timothy felt he was trapped in the body of the wrong species entirely. Timothy seemed to want to become a bear. He never seemed content to simply live amongst them for a few months each year. He always wanted a deeper relationship with the bears, a relationship he couldn't have because of his species. Instead, Timothy seemed to have created artificial relationships with the bears. He would talk to the animals, touch them, and tell them how much he loved them. I think it is fair to assume that the bears never felt the same way about Timothy, the bears emotions seemed to never amount to anything more than curiosity. To the bears, Timothy just seemed to be a part of the scenery. Timothy had a strong desire to be part of a society that could never fully accept him because of his species.

Ultimately, Timothy's perceptions about bears are very much ecofeminist ideas. The ecofeminism movement is centered around what I would describe as empathy. Because of the oppression females feel by society, they can better understand and relate to the oppression of the environment by society. This is ultimately Timothy's position. Because of the oppression he has felt by society, he feels he can better associate with the oppression of the bears. Timothy finds a deeper connection with the bears because of a shared oppression by society. While Timothys actions resemble ecofemiinsm ideals, they are ultimately extremely radical in that Timothy was never content with empathy and helping to save the bears.He always wanted a deeper relationship.

Environmental Justice: It's in the Little Things

Over spring break, I traveled to Houston Texas. On our way to the park one day we decided to walk through one of the richer neighborhoods in Huston to look at the mansions and large houses. They all had well-trimmed lawns or people who were working on their lawns with the exception of one thing. In several of the yards, there was a large, bright yellow sign. The sign was against a high rise that was scheduled to be built a few streets down. I soon realized that this yellow sign was environmental justice at work (or environmental injustice in this case). It represents what is often the case all over the world; those who can afford to fight against injustice are the ones who succeed. These people, like the houses I saw in Houston live in gated communities away from the environmental consequences of their living. They don't have to smell or even see the garbage they produce each day, don't want to see the high rise buildings they work in and don't need to deal with the pollution they create on a daily basis. For the poor, this is not even possible. They don't have the money, political clout or resources to fight off large corporations and individuals from harming their local environment. The rich live lives of luxury and excess while the poor pay for it with their environment. While I don't know whether the high rise will actually be built in Huston or not, it does represent typical environmental justice. If the rich neighborhood was able to prevent construction, the high rise would still be built but it is likely that it would be built near a poorer community that is unable to fight back. In addition to the above example, environmental injustice can be found in our food system and waste disposal systems amongst other system.

Over break, I also watched the film Food Inc. this film shows countless examples of environmental injustice. One example that was particularly upsetting to me was Monsanto's patenting of their seed. In this way, Monsanto makes it illegal for farmer to save seed. This locks farmers in a cycle of debt to buy seed each year and keeps the farmers farming and buying seed each year. Even farmers that buy traditional seed are often prosecuted by Monsanto because of cross pollination from neighboring farms that contain genes patented by Monsanto. Unable to afford legal bills, they are often forced to settle with Monsanto and do as Monsanto wishes. This example shows how those who are unable to stand up to larger, richer corporations or individuals are forced to bend to the will of society and big business. The needs of the rich thus keep, in this case, farmers in debt so that the rich can have cheaper food.

The above examples are a bit abstract in that they don't directly deal with some sort of pollution or physical harm. It is typical to think of environmental justice in terms of physical pollution, like we see in the book Flammable. In the book, a shantytown in Buenos Aires is suffering lead poisoning and other toxic poisoning as a result of the Shell Oil Company. Wile the example of Huston and Food Inc don't deal directly with a physical form of pollution they are environmental justice issues in that they represent the actions of the many impacting a small portion of the population, or as is the case in Houston not affecting a portion of the population. Those affected tend to be those who are marginalized by society because they are unable to fight for their own rights because of a lack of money and resources to do so.

Into the Wild: A Deep Ecology Experiment

The film Into the Wild begins with a quote from Lord Byron: "...I love not man less, but nature more..." This quote seems to adequately describe the view of the deep ecology philosophy. Deep ecology is a philosophy of respecting nature for its intrinsic rather than instrumental value. This means that humans should value nature not because it provides some good or service to humanity but simply because it exists. This view of nature seems to be that held by Alex Supertramp, the film's main character. In the film, Alex gives up nearly all he has in favor of living off the land in Alaska. He wants to escape society in order to find "freedom and simple beauty" in the wilderness. Alex's view of nature is clearly consistent with those of deep ecology. After living in the wilderness for some time, Alex actually becomes unable to leave nature as a result of a fast moving river that he is unable to cross. Alex eventually dies without ever returning to society again.

While I understand and respect Alex's actions to leave society in favor of a life closer to nature I feel that he took the deep ecology philosophy to an unhealthy extreme. He completely abandoned all those who loved him and ventured into the wilderness with little experience or expertise. Part of Alex's reasons for escaping from society seems to be his past; as a child Alex's parents were very wealthy but also constantly fighting. Alex ultimately experienced love not through affection but through presents and things. On his way to Alaska, however, Alex meets several people that genuinely love and care for him but abandon's them in favor of his wilderness goal. Alex seems to believe that nature will ultimately make him happy. Upon his death, however, he realizes that human interactions are an essential part of happiness when he writes "Happiness only really matters when shared." This is ultimately the moment that Alex realizes what deep ecology is all about. It isn't about forsaking humankind in favor of a more primitive lifestyle but appreciating nature within human societies. Ultimately, Alex seems to forget a key part what Lord Byron says, "...I love not man less..."

Ann McElhinney

I had a very difficult time watching Ann McElhinney's presentation tonight without standing in protest. I found her comments to be hypocritical and on many occasions extremely rude.

McElhinney began her speech with a story of Greenpeace and their work to stop a mine. She said the people lied to the general public in an effort to stop the mine from being dug. When asked why they did it, they said that they lied because they cared about the land and didn't want to see the land destroyed. In mentioning this she was preaching against the role that emotion plays in our environmental decisions. The remainder of her speech was then focused on her own personal views and opinions and how she feels about environmental problems in the world. Countless times she mentioned that it is hard for poor people to care about the environment because they have more important things to worry about like getting food and water and avoiding disease. Her primary example of this is children dying of Malaria in Africa because DDT was not being used to repel mosquitoes. DDT was not being used as a result of the harmful effects noticed by environmentalists like Rachel Carson. When asked about an environmental problem facing our world today, she would respond by asking essentially why that issue matters when parents are losing children to Malaria in Africa because the rest of the world tells them not to use DDT. For a person who thinks emotion has no role in our attitudes towards the environment, her own environmental views seem to be heavily influenced by her own emotions.

McElhinney also made a statement that she liked the "stuff" she had and enjoyed the material wealth that our society has brought to her. She likes her Macintosh computer, her washing machine and other material possessions. She mentions that all the environmentalists she saw at a conference were all at a convention speaking against mining and seemed to be oblivious to the fact that mining made the computers that they were using. Her primary concern, after all, is the children dying of Malaria in Africa and their suffering parents. It seems to me that if she knew about the children in developing nations who are being born with birth defects because of contaminated water that results from the recycling of scrap metal from computers, she may not enjoy her Macintosh computer quite as much any more.

Finally, I must say, that I was extremely disappointed in her critique of both our university and the abbot of St. John's. She criticized him for disagreeing with Genesis and thought that disagreeing with the Bible should be extremely offensive to the Catholic faith and that challenging the Catholic faith is behavior unbecoming of a man of God. She then proceeded to discus the problem with "the year of sustainability" and how the students paying for the initiatives of moving towards carbon neutrality had no say in the matter. If every student had to be in support of an on-campus initiative as she seems to be suggesting, their would be no events on campus, including her own speech. Students pay money for events on campus that they don't care about all the time. Apparently, environmental initiatives are the exceptions to the rule.

I hope that this post does not come off as derogatory, I simply meant it as a critique of the presentation. Ultimately, everything in life is about perception and perspective. It seems to me that Ann McElhinney, like the rest of the world (myself included), has a specific perspective based on the facts she has at her disposal. Her speech did a great job of raising awareness of the issue of Malaria and DDT use in Africa and in that respect was extremely helpful. I felt the problem with the speech was that the narrow focus on a single issue was used to assert the relevance of other issues. Each issue deserves its own consideration even if another issue seems to be more pressing. Each individual person has a perspective on what they would consider the most pressing issue of the day. Each issue deserves its own attention rather than ranking the issues on some sort of scale of importance and handling them in order.

Vandana Shiva Presentation

Dr. Shiva's presentation was very inspiring to say the least. Her work around the world has opened many people's eyes to problems in our food industry and water privatization practices amongst other issues. In response, Shiva has come up with her own unique ways of fighting these problems. For example, in response to the work of Monsanto to make genetically modified seeds a necessity in farming, Shiva has organized many small farms to block out Monsanto and practice traditional, small-scale, subsistence farming on the land. In addition, she organizes groups of people doing the same thing so that collectively they can have a voice in a government unconcerned with the needs of the individual farmer. Today in class we discussed what lengths we would be willing to go to in terms of environmental activism. I see Shiva's work as well within the confines of what I would be willing to do. She works within the law to fight the system and comes up with her own unique solutions to the problems at hand. She then teaches others and begins what can best be described as a grass-roots movement to gain support for better and more environmentally sound methods of living daily life. Vandana Shiva is a very inspiring person who combats environmental problems in her own unique way and works to make the daily lives of people better and make the environment a better place for everyone.

The Cove: Something Smells Fishy

Watching The Cove was very difficult and frustrating for many reasons. What I found perhaps more upsetting than the killing of dolphins (which was horrible to watch) was the political process that is enabling the killing to continue.Ultimately, the political system that runs the world is responsible for deciding how we treat the animals around the world, including dolphins. This is a problem for animal rights because teh current system in place doesn't work well. Why does politics revolve around allegiances, and who has more money as opposed to doing what is actually right? The movie clearly shows that the capture and slaughter of dolphins is completely pointless. The dolphin meat is not desired as a food item, is unhealthy to eat, and not actually worth that much money when subsidies are factored out of the equation. Yet the Japanese government continues to get support to keep this fading industry alive. The industry, lacking financial viability is, ultimately, slaughtering of dolphins for no reason. This is done by providing financial support to smaller nations who then support the Japanese agenda. As the old saying goes, "you don't bite the hand that feeds you." This, is ultimately what politics has become, a popularity contest similar to those found in high schools all over the world. The one who can throw the best parties, give the best gifts or has something to offer everyone else, has the most friends and gains support while those pursuing true friendship are left out. This is exactly the same as what is going on at meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The Japanese government has more to offer to many nations and as a result gains the allegiance of these nations in supporting its causes. Instead of sitting down and arguing about facts, figures and ethics, the discussion is focused on each side's lies and embellishments. Instead of having intelligent discussions, the entire political system breaks down into accusations of a "he/she said" nature and embellishments of the truth. The film, The Cove, was very disheartening to watch for many reasons but what was perhaps the most troubling was the scenes showing the backwards nature of the political system that exists in today's world.

land ethic

Aldo Leopold developed his land ethic due to his relationship with his land. He saw the beauty of the land and the animals that inhabit it. His land ethic arose as a way of protecting the land he loved by extending humanistic ethics onto the land. Like Leopold, we all develop an ethical view towards the land as we grow up. Depending on experiences, land ethics are widely varied from individual to individual. Growing up, I developed my own personal land ethic. I grew up in the suburbs of Rochester Minnesota but always wanted to move further out into the country. I have always wanted to have a plot of land with a large forest that I could spend time exploring and playing in. Instead, I had a small yard in which to explore and have fun, at least for most of the year. In summers, my family would spend a great deal of time in our lakeside cabin in northern Wisconsin. It was here that I got to experience more of the natural exploration I always desired. I could go fishing, catch crayfish and minnows, paddle around the lake, go snorkeling, swim, and explore the lake environment. This time spent outdoors was always a very important part of my life and influenced the way I see the natural world. For me, the natural world was worth protecting in terms of the recreational activities it offered for me and my family. Harming the environment through pollution or littering ruins experiences in nature for me and everyone else. Looking back, my lake cabin also influenced my ethical views towards animals as well. Fishing on our lake was often a challenge and I never caught many fish. Whether this was due to overfishing or not, I still don’t know to this day. In my mind, however, overfishing was the problem and people taking too many fish was why I could never catch anything. I always felt that wildlife needed to be protected so that others could enjoy it and should not be exploited by the few. Like Leopold, my land ethic was formed by my relationship with the land as I grew up. The lessons I learned at my lakeside cabin have shaped my attitudes towards the environment to this day. 

Perspectives: Holism and Nature's Interconnectedness

Holism is the best approach for ethical treatment of the environment. Holism considers human relationships with the environment in much the same way as nature is structured, interconnected with each part being dependant on all the other parts. Holism considers the health of the whole ecological community rather than its constituent parts. Holism is similar to the Gaia Hypothesis defined by James Lovelock. The Gaia hypothesis looks at Earth as one being and having the health of the whole dependent on the individual parts. Similarly, holism considers the interconnectedness of a whole and how different parts of a whole interact with and affect each other. While it may be very difficult to define what the whole is in many cases, considering the interconnected elements in an environment and how one action may affect other parts of the environment is extremely important to environmental health.  In addition, this ethical philosophy tends to support actions like hunting for their beneficial effects on the environment. Hunting helps to control animal populations so that the animals don’t harm other parts of their environment, die of disease or harm the ability of other animals to be successful. For example, each year in Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources issues deer tags for a specific number of deer that can be taken in order to keep deer populations in check. In this way, the deer do not overgraze on tree saplings and kill all developing tree and do not outcompete themselves and other animals causing widespread death. This is an example of the benefits of holism; by considering how each part of the ecosystem interacts with other parts of the ecosystem, the best ethical action can be chosen by what decision will do little to no harm to other parts of the whole. In other traditions, like natural law, killing deer may be unacceptable because the deer are valued because they are fulfilling their natural function even though their actions may be harming other species of plants and animals. Holism, on the other hand, takes the rest of the environment into account in order to make the most ethical decisions regarding the environment and its constituent parts. Since ecosystems function as parts of a whole interacting and affecting one another, the best ethical approach to making environmental decisions thus must take into account this interconnected dimension of nature. 

a short biography of me!

My name is Drew Hatzenbihler. I was born on August 13th in Rochester MN in 1988. I have lived in Rochester my whole life. I am the son of Deb and Denny Hatzenbihler and have one sister Heather who graduated from St. Ben's in 2007. I attended St. Francis of Assisi school from kindergarten to 8th grade. I then moved to Lourdes High school for 9-12th grade. I am currently a senior at St. John's University. In May I will graduate with a major in Environmental Studies and a minor in Computer Science. From there I hope to pursue a career in outdoor education. I am particularly interested in creating nature-based, summer camps so that children can have outdoor experiences they may otherwise never have. My love of the outdoors developed as I was growing up. I spent summers on Grindstone Lake in Hayward Wisconsin. There, my family would spend weekends swimming, tubing and relaxing for the majority of the weekends available in the summer. I hope that someday, I can enable other children to have similar summer experiences as me. In particular, I hope to work with children with special needs so that they can have the same summer, outdoor experiences as other children their age and not be hindered by a disability. In my spare time, I enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing (both on water and ice), swimming, wakeboarding, hiking, snowshoeing, and sitting around campfires with friends and family. In addition, I spend my time relaxing, watching television, Playing board games, playing video games, spending time with friends, woodworking, listening to music, and napping. My favorite food is probably cheeseburgers (Even better if bacon is thrown in) followed closely by scalloped potatoes and ham (especially when the ham is leftover from holidays). I am addicted to Dr. Pepper but avoid coffee at all costs. Finally, my pet peeves include shower curtains that intrude on my shower space by blowing in an invisible breeze, hair on the soap, and hypocrites.