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.