Planting trillions of trees can lead to deforestation (Jones). This statement makes no sense, but yet it is true. The reason this oxymoron of a statement is true is human fallibility. Incentivizing planting trees also incentivizes farmers to clear out their trees so that they can plant more trees and receive awards. This situation proves a philosophical thought by Roger Scruton; homeostatic systems are the best method of dealing with the environment.

A homeostatic system corrects itself in response to change. Homeostatic systems exist in an end of themselves. They don’t have a goal other than surviving and thriving. An example of a homeostatic system would be the government. It exists simply to exist. It isn’t trying to accomplish a specific set of goals like an environmentalist non-government organization (NGO) would. An environmental NGO exists for the purpose of trying to help the environment. Scruton says, “NGOs often exist purely for the sake of their own goals,” (Scruton). Neither I nor Scruton are arguing that those existing for a noble goal like environmentalism have bad intentions. Rather, due to human infallibility, existing for a purpose leads to bad consequences because not all factors are taken into account. For example, Greenpeace, a well-intentioned organization, fought against Shell over their oil platform. Shell wanted to sink the platform into the sea. However, Greenpeace, to protect the environment boycotted Shell and pressured their shareholders to dismantle the platform. Shell gave in and spent an additional $50 million to dismantle the oil rig. We should praise Greenpeace for winning and protecting the environment. However, Greenpeace was wrong. Not only did it cost Shell an insane amount of money, but it was actually less environmentally friendly to dismantle because of the amount of energy that it took. Nowadays, environmentalists advocate that oil rigs be sunk into the ocean as a positive for the environment because it gives fish more habitat (Scruton). Even though Greenpeace had good intentions, they were utterly wrong. Human fallibility proves that being goal-oriented is useless because it attempting to accomplish the goal, you may do the opposite.

Since goal-oriented systems aren’t efficient at protecting the environment and supporting sustainability, homeostatic systems are responsible. Homeostatic systems take into account all aspects of a situation. This is very important when considering the climate change crisis. As mentioned in my previous blog post, many worldly issues are interconnected because people have the view that they need to dominate other things. They dominate the environment, other sexes, other races, other nations, etc. Homeostatic systems have the ability, unlike NGOs, to consider all aspects of an issue. If a systems-only goal was to only focus on sustainability, then they would be ignoring the issues that are connected to it. They would ask everyone to take responsibility for the environment instead of those most benefited. For example, minorities have historically been more affected by environmental hazards than white people (Cole et al.). To ignore this fact is to ignore the core problem, and if you ignore the core problem, you cannot find the correct solution.

In conclusion, I’m not arguing that NGOs should not exist. They bring well-needed attention to important problems. The environment is a perfect example. However, it is important to remember that no matter how certain you may think you are, you are fallible. You may be wrong. Instead of smearing others for their actions, like how Greenpeace smeared Shell, try to understand their perspective and try to cordially work with them. It was reported Greenpeace never tried to actually discuss the issue with Shell (Scruton). The first step to working with others is accepting the truth that you could be wrong.

Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. NYU Press, 2001. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgj6v. Accessed 18 Apr. 2024.

Jones, Benji. “The Surprising Downsides to Planting Trillions of Trees.” Vox, 22 Sept. 2021, www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22679378/tree-planting-forest-restoration-climate-solutions. 

Scruton, Roger. How to Think Seriously about the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism. Oxford University Press, 2015.

You read the title correctly. Greta Thunberg hates poor people. To explain why, first let me explain the current state of industrialized society. Greta herself said, “We have industrialized life on earth,” (Thunberg). Over the past couple of hundreds of years, nations went through the Industrial Revolution, and innovation rose to a level never before seen. With this, came increased materials usage and greenhouse gas emissions. While the Industrial Revolution increased the well-being of people, it harmed the environment.

These facts lead to a simple solution to environmentalists; stop innovating so that the environment is not harmed. I’m not sure if they would rather we had never gone through the industrial revolution in the first place, but I would guess that Greta would not want us to go through another with the same outcome. The problem with this line of thinking is that not everyone went through the industrial revolution. There are still 3rd world countries. Not everyone has gone through their industrial revolution, yet. As society advances, it is clear that at some point, everyone will go through their industrial revolution in the same way that China went through theirs more recently than the United States. If climate change is such a pressing issue, shouldn’t we prevent 3rd world countries from industrializing? It only makes sense that we cannot allow them to pollute the way that we did for the sake of the environment. This is the line of thinking that environmentalists like Greta must have. So, perhaps saying she hates poor people is too extreme, but my point stands that dealing with future industrial revolutions is complicated.

Greta gets a lot of online hate for her activism. I admire Greta for her work at such a young age. She is not always right, but she tries her best, and that is more than most people. One area where she is completely right is in how to handle environmental inequality. She says two things that ring true. First, inequality is a symptom of how we treat nature. Second, “Those with the most power have the most responsibility,” (Thunberg). Let’s focus on the second point first. It does make sense that those who benefited already from harming the environment should be responsible for fixing the problem they caused. Additionally, the extra resources make the developed countries more capable of solving the problem. Henry Shue argues that equity, instead of equality, should be used because of the unequal environmental situation we are in (Shue). We can’t ignore history and expect undeveloped countries to take the burden of our mistakes.

Greta’s first point aligns with this idea as well. Her stance aligns with ecofeminism. Karren Warren, an ecofeminist, claims that any attempt to fight feminism or environmental inequality must address both (Warren). This is because of the way that people view nature. Society, especially developed society, sees nature as something we can dominate. This is the same way we view each other. Men think they can dominate women. Races think they can enslave other races. Nations think they can take resources through war from other nations by domination. The idea of ecofeminism is that we should stop trying to dominate everything around us. This is important because as a developed country, we cannot demand that an undeveloped country not industrialize. They are autonomous, and we have no power over them. Even if we could morally ask them to refrain from industrializing, we cannot demand it. 

In conclusion, developed countries have the responsibility of fixing climate change because we caused it and benefited from it. From an equity perspective, we shouldn’t ask undeveloped countries to not try to get the benefits we receive every day. We definitely cannot force them to stay a 3rd world country in the name of climate change because we do not dominate them. Recognize the privilege that you have, and understand that your privilege comes with a responsibility.

Henry Shue, Global Environment and International Inequality, International Affairs, Volume 75, Issue 3, July 1999, Pages 531–545, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00092

UNDESA DISD. (May 22, 2021). #ForNature by Greta Thunberg. [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdSJTvvWNzk

Warren, Karen J. (1990). The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. Environmental Ethics 12 (2):125-146.

I’ve heard many times before from good-intentioned people that our planet is doomed. We have pushed climate change past its limit. I’ve thought this was the truth myself at one point. However, not everyone agrees with this sediment. Demar Degroot says that thinking this is wrong and dangerous. Greenhouse gas emissions have plateaued and should start declining soon. Still, he emphasizes the severity of the situation. If we do nothing the Earth will warm to dangerous levels. (Degroot).

I’m not here today to discuss the specifics of what we need to do. Those are debated. Instead, I will focus on a more pressing issue: motivation. It is fairly accepted that to change the course of climate change, significant sacrifices in material use need to occur. The alternative is a lucky scientific breakthrough just in time. I do not want to bet on that. I’d rather only drive one car per family or use paper straws, and nobody hates paper straws more than I do. However, it is also fairly accepted that people are unwilling to change at the individual level because they don’t want to sacrifice their pleasure while other people may make their efforts useless by over-consuming anyway. So, the big question is how do we motivate people to care enough about the environment to make significant negative lifestyle changes.

Well, it isn’t my fault. I’m motivated. I’m not harming the environment. I believe that most people would say these things about themselves. Everyone wants to look across the aisle to blame others. The truth is that it is everybody’s fault. However, some get blamed more than others. So, let’s explore the opinion of those who have been blamed for our climate crisis: conservatives

Conservatives have been blamed for climate change in large part due to their support for free enterprise. Additionally, as indicated in the name, conservatives are resistant to change. So, how could a group of people who are naturally resistant to change and support capitalism possibly have the solution to motivating people to take care of the environment? Well, Roger Scruton, a conservative, thinks that localism, a conservative idea, is the solution to our motivation problem. It is indeed hard to motivate people at the international level. Why would I sacrifice my pleasure if those living across the world won’t? Scruton says this is the wrong way to think about it. Instead, we should be focusing on our local communities. If we focus locally, we will develop oikophilia, a love of one’s home (Scruton). If we love our immediate surroundings, which is easy to do, we will be motivated to take care of the environment in our immediate surroundings because we will care about it. If this idea is scaled up, then everyone will be taking care of their section of the environment and making the necessary sacrifices. Then, we have a chance to fight climate change.

To be clear, I am not a conservative. I am not advocating for Scruton’s ideas. That is not the goal of this paper. The goal of this paper is to bridge the political divide. Liberals reading this post will likely be disgusted by my detailing of the conservative argument. They may not even have read this far. Also, it is likely that up until this point, conservatives reading this paper were nodding in agreement mindlessly because it fell under their label. What if I told you that Scruton is actually a liberal and that is his liberal idea? He’s not, but how did it feel for that split second you thought I tricked you? Did you try to justify his argument now that he’s on your side? Did you try to poke holes in it now that he’s against you? My point is that fighting climate change truly takes everyone. People think it is impossible to unite in a way where everyone contributes and everyone sacrifices. I do not. It was not that long ago since World War Two. America upended all of its industries, and every single American contributed to the war effort in some way or another. A common enemy, climate change, can motivate people to sacrifice pleasure. However, we cannot do it if we are not united. We can’t hate each other due to our political beliefs. We can’t blame each other for our collective actions. If we are going to win our war against climate change, everyone must contribute how they can.

Degroot, Demar. “Our Planet Is Not Doomed. That Means We Can, and Must, Act.” The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/07/our-planet-is-not-doomed-that-means-we-can-must-act/. 

Scruton, Roger. How to Think Seriously about the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Aliens are here! At least, that is the conspiracy theory that has become gospel to many worldwide. Governments’ leaking information and whistleblowers telling stories have everyone questioning whether or not aliens have visited us or not. While everyone is googling “Are aliens real?”, I am instead wondering what implications that brings to society. Let me pose some questions that may seem counterintuitive at first. Do aliens have the right to eat us? Can they morally enslave us? Should we allow it? If we are morally consistent, then the answer might be yes.
As it stands, humans culturally believe that we are in some way superior to other animal species (I will henceforth just refer to them as animals). Julia Corbett thinks that humans’ environmental belief system is based on their individual experiences and cultural pressure (Corbett, p. 13). Everyone’s personal experience with nature is different, but the cultural pressure on us to view animals as less than us is immense. Not everyone thinks about why they are morally allowed to eat steak for dinner, but most people and cultures are rooted in this idea. What is it that distinguishes humans from animals? Some say that it is our high intelligence. Well, what an arbitrary line your human brain has set for itself. The way that we measure intelligence is set to measure human intelligence. An octopus is incredibly intelligent, but it is a genius in vastly different ways than humans are. Is their type of intelligence less inherently valuable than the one our brain tells us is superior? Not to mention that, even by human measurement, the least intelligent human (Ie: a baby or someone with a mental handicap) would, therefore, be less morally valuable than many other animals such as monkeys, elephants, and dolphins. So, if aliens are here, they are likely much more intelligent than us. They found us and traveled the galaxy so I would assume they are intellectually superior to humans who can barely make it to our moon. So, if we justify killing animals because they are dumber than us, then we also must realize that aliens can justifiably kill us for their benefit.
Well, perhaps there is a line. A line of intrinsic value. Once meeting a certain threshold, an organism can have intrinsic value if it meets certain requirements. This takes out most of the quantifiability of value. I am not more valuable than a peer because I have one IQ point higher. In the same way, aliens cannot justifiably enslave us because we meet these thresholds. Therefore, we are just as intrinsically valuable as them. If we were below this line, like the pigs we eat, then they could eat us. If an organism is below this line, they don’t have intrinsic value; if they are above it, they do. This theory sounds nice to our brains. We figured out why aliens can’t make a human zoo. They won’t be visiting the savage European male enclosure or coop of wild women from America. I’m not so sold. Where is this line? Who sets the line? We’ve already established that we cannot trust our brains because they are biased. Additionally, we’ve already established that any line we draw would either exclude some humans or include animals that we degrade. So, again, this theory of human superiority fails when met with a higher being. If we are morally consistent we should understand that at least they have the right to put us behind bars. We might even have to allow this if we want to be morally consistent. Animals don’t allow us to eat them, but that is because they don’t understand our superiority. Since we would understand alien superiority, we should bow down and offer ourselves as resources for their enjoyment and health.
While interesting, the goal of this post is not to make you fear the arrival of aliens or make you submissive to our future overlords. Rather, I’d like to challenge your cultural idea of humans’ place in our environment. We take the anthropocentric (human-centered) view that we are at the top of the moral hierarchy. Culturally, this is what we have been taught. Our environmental beliefs strongly derive from our culture, but our culture is wrong. Unless you are willing to be eaten by an alien in the coming years or you are fine with being intellectually and morally dishonest, then our hierarchical view is flawed. Treat animals with the same value as fellow species. Don’t commit crimes against nature such as eating meat or capturing animals.

Corbett, Julia B. “The Formation of Environmental Beliefs.” Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental Messages, Island Press, 2006.