The "Pollution Solution is a Delusion" Conclusion

Pollution is a major part of our daily life and will only continue to become more prevalent the longer we ignore it. Every single human does it and the "solutions" we have for it now will eventually not be good enough. Along with that, we have huge masses of garbage floating out in the pacific that both twice the size of Texas! Not only is this a major problem for humans, but it is an even bigger issue for animals. Turtles, dolphins and penguins tend to see the garbage as food since plastic bags and other small pieces of plastic can look like other sea creatures that they may feed on. So what I propose is a solution to this epidemic for those creatures that can actually benefit humans too! (And *gasp*, be monetarily and economically lucrative!)
A company, preferably one involved with the recycling or shipping business, needs to setup a dock and factory on the west coast and one of the islands that form Hawaii. The ships would be outfitted with special nets that would collect plastic and other materials as it passed by/through the giant garbage heap. Upon returning to shore, they could then bring the plastics to the factories and recycle them for other uses. Along with collecting and recycling the garbage the ships could also be used to ship products to and from Hawaii, thus helping the economy of Hawaii as well, being as they have a strict plastic bag ban.
Depending on how efficient the nets and ships are the entire heap by Hawaii could be cleared within a decade or two, and even if it takes many years to completely clear the Pacific of garbage, at least we are doing something to try and prevent the great floating heap from getting any larger.

Population Confrontation for a Lonely Nation

The issue of population covers so many areas that just thinking of the word "population" creates a vortex of such suffocating vagueness that this sentence, itself, can't even contend against it! Lucky for the world though, this next sentence will try and clear up the epic mess that the first sentence has created.
Population is a problem for the world for a reason that many may not think of when thinking about the human, animal or plant population. The problem we face is not because we don't have enough space; we actually have way more than enough space to support billions upon billion of more people. The issue at hand is supporting that many people. We cannot support that many people, much less even the people we have living today. Hunger is a major issue for many countries, specifically third world and developing countries. Adding more people on top of this already pressing issue would only exacerbate the problem.
Along with the human population we also have the plant and animal populations. The major issue with these species and organisms are that they have the ability to change their ecosystems dramatically when they are an invasive or naturally destructive creature. Invasive plants can choke out the natural plants of the area they are growing in and can actually cause plants to go into and endangered or even extinct state. We, as human beings, need to watch our surroundings and be sure that certain plants and animals don't get too carried away with their natural ways if it is going to impede on the nature of the nature around them.

Weather Differing

Climate change has been an issue up for debate for a very, very long time. Movies have been made, scientists have been hired, papers have been written and minds have been changed all in the name of keeping people informed on an idea that has now become a believed phenomenon, which may not be the best word to use, but let's use it for now. Of all the items that have been changed and brought up, one major item that truly needs changing is the politics with which climate change is dealt with. The U.S is one of the few countries that have not done any major changes within its government to try and curve the rate at which we propel global warming. We still have politicians who believe that global warming is a myth and go through truly embarrassing feats of idiocy to prove how incompetent they really are at their job. (Sorry. Tangent.) I feel like a major cause of the confusion is the lack of consensus on what the true major cause is. Many agree that the cause is from us humans using so many fossil fuels in our daily lives. Others believe that this is all part of the nature of the earth and that this happens in a cyclical way. The earth will heat up for how ever many years and then cool back down for how ever many years. What we fail to notice though is the fact that what we should be trying to get across is the fact that we are speeding up the process and perhaps throwing off nature's natural process. Areas could see weather conditions that haven't happened there for centuries upon centuries, parts of Europe could be under constant snow, islands will disappear into the oceans and deserts will form where once flourishing prairies existed. Showing the public what most likely would happen could sway some people who are on the fence about global warming and create a change that the world so desperately needs.

Grizzly Man: Nature's Mother

Grizzly Man is an interesting documentary surrounding the life of a man with a different outlook on what life is. We see a man, Timothy Treadwell, live in the Alaskan wild with many bears. He seems to create a relationship with many of them, being as throughout his tape recordings he can name the bear that is in the scene with him. The way with which he reacts with the bears and wildlife around him seems to match perfectly with Ecofeminism. Timothy's caring nature truly comes out when interacting with the bears and foxes. His voice becomes higher, non-threatening and he tends to be very "motherly" towards what he is talking about, repeating lines like "I love you" over an over to those animals that he cares about. He throws out basic gender roles and takes on the task of being caretaker and protector of those animals around him.
What we find when we get further into the movie is the fact that Timothy seems to pick and choose what he sees as truly majestic about life. He is very hypocritical in thinking this way and somewhat discredits what he is trying to achieve. The scene where he shows the severed bear cub's paw on the rocks and showing hate towards the bears that do this pulls at his psyche and shows Timothy's true want.
We can see two sides to Timothy VERY clearly, and it is somewhat off-putting. There is the side of Timothy that he recorded to obviously edit and show to students or the public, but there is also the side of Timothy that causes some uneasiness within the audience watching. The ease at which he goes from caring, calm voiced documentary maker to ranting, swearing, temper tantrum throwing and self-righteous screaming grizzly man is unsettling. Personally, I find showing that side of him to hinder the validity of Timothy's work.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is quite a thought process that truly depicts a different angle on environmental thinking. We shift from focusing solely on animals, plants and earth and turn the attention towards ourselves. The attention switch helps people see how class truly does affect how people are seen and treated. The fact that we continue to be blind in this aspect and not do anything about it shows our true ignorance in working towards a more “equal” standing.

            Keeping trash dumps and harsh company factories by “low class” living areas just exacerbates the issue at hand. What we end up realizing is normal persons cannot do much about the situation. Businesses and money ultimately decide where the factories and trash dumps end up, and since “low class” developments are usually cheaper than “high class” areas, why not build there? From a business standpoint, that just makes sense! But the issues will always be there. There has never been a situation where a business has built a new complex and literally everyone was happy. Case in point: The new Wal-mart of St. Cloud originally caused a bit of customer outcry because of how far the new building was going to be built (and actually was built). Many people who don’t own vehicles find it to be more of a hassle and with the amount of money they have they can’t afford a vehicle. Wal-mart is a place where they can shop with the money they make and moving their main place of grocery shopping creates a larger hassle for them. Sure, Wal-mart may be much, much larger now, but some consumers are not happy with the change.

Into the Wild: Envirolosophy

Into the Wild is a great story encompassing the life of "Alexander Supertramp" and implements many philosophical decisions. The thought of living a life consisting of true deep ecology seems daunting and off putting and even after seeing all that he endured, all the happiness he created and spread, I would never wish to lead such a life. True, today's American culture promotes materialism, but times and people change. We see what good we can do, what we can spread to others and take to heart all those we have around us. This is where Alexander draws an incredibly blurry line between human interaction and deep ecology.
The assumption made by him was that to live a truly free life, he cannot become "connected" to others socially or romantically, but this creates a true rift in his psyche. We see how this affects him in little snippets of him talking to himself while portraying his family.
What we finally see at the end of the movie though is the thought process of a man faced with his own death. He reminisces about all he has done and ultimately tells of his greatest regret: "Happiness is only real when shared." This is the "end all" of final acts. We see throughout the entire movie the beauty and happiness that he brings upon himself from traveling across the United States and finally making his dream possible by living off the land in Alaska. But his final revelation is what truly sticks to the heart of human want and desire. We may be able to achieve this higher sense of belonging when we separate ourselves from money, but we cannot truly achieve a sense of self without the interaction, wanting, need and truth from those who surround us.

The Cove Reflection

The Cove is quite a thought provoking documentary that truly depicts Singer’s Utilitarian view of animal rights. The viewer gets to see how the main activists of the movie (Ric O’Barry, Charles Hambleton, Lou and Mandy-Rae, to name a few) see dolphins not as just a source of entertainment, but actually as a species. They wish to treat these majestic, playful creatures of the ocean with the decency that we treat humans: with respect and the right to life. What we find, though, is that a handful of Japanese fishermen do not wish to be so caring for the dolphins.

The town of Taiji, Japan makes money off of the capture, selling and killing of tens of thousands of dolphins a year! A few of the “lucky” ones get picked by zoo and “swim with dolphins” trainers and handlers to be sent off to different parts of the globe for human entertainment. The rest are netted off and mercilessly slaughtered for their meat. The sad truth is that the slaughter is not based off of any ancient tradition or culture of the Japanese people. In fact, most of the population of Japan does not even know that Taiji does such a thing.

Another interesting fact about the killings that makes no sense for them is that dolphin meat is incredibly toxic. The meat contains a high concentration of mercury in comparison to other sea animals that are used for food. Poisoning caused by mercury does not necessarily affect the individual right away, but the poisoning does have an effect on women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant. Children born to those with mercury poisoning have a higher chance of being born with birth defects affecting motor systems.

Finally, to further the Singer point of view, the dolphins do indeed portray suffering and a sense of sentience. We get to see the dolphins react with their surroundings. A mirror is put in front of a dolphin and they look back at themselves, posing for profile views and turning upside down to see differences. Ric O’Barry also tells us that his dolphin, Catherine, could tell the difference between herself and another dolphin when she watched an episode of “Flipper”. But what we see is quickly changed to the devastation happening in Taiji. The viewer gets to hear and see footage of dolphins being impaled and communicating madly through sonar. We hear an eerie composition of screaming underwater and we watch as the blood of these dolphins turn the cove into something straight out of a hellish nightmare.

The documentary is a truly moving experience that shows how the rights of animals can be fought for in a peaceful and productive way. The viewer is left with a daunting task and question at the end: Feel bad for what is happening to these animals or actually caring and doing something to prevent, or at least hinder, the massacre that happens in Taiji.  

Whose Rights Are Right?

The thought of giving every single “thing” on Earth a figurative voice or right seems somewhat inconceivable. I agree that animals do indeed deserve some sort of voice, but a limit must exist to decide which “things” truly deserve a right. Those animals with cognitive thinking do indeed deserve some right, but the extent of that right depends solely on where that animal is. A cat living in the United States will have more rights than a cat that lives in Australia. Why, you ask? Because there is a major feral cat problem in Australia and without human intervention in controlling the population Australia’s ecosystem and livelihood would drastically change. Many questions need to be asked and mulled over before deciding if we truly want to give true rights to animals. How would they interfere with the ecosystem? Would letting them populate without human interaction ruin the ecosystem? If not ruin, then change in any form? What if the change brings about a spike in human casualties caused by animals or animal related diseases?

            Earth related items on the other hand are a completely different subject. I do believe that we should contemplate more on the intrinsic value of what we have around us before we start destroying for more anthropocentric ends, but that does not mean we should stop creating in the process. Some businesses have thought outside of the box when thinking about destroying nature to build hotels, housing developments or other human oriented structures. Surely an end can be met where we get what we want while disturbing nature in as little a way as possible. Perhaps that is where true “green” businesses are headed.

Natural Law Disagreement

I find I cannot agree with anything covered under Natural Law, or Teleology, because of the fact that the author or any of the works outlined by him cover human evolution as being "natural" or that humans are even considered a species or natural. Not including humans in the debate on whether to use a teleological basis creates huge holes in certain arguments. For example, if we are to completely abandon a certain amount of land and let the area "naturally" return to what the landscape used to be, how can we describe that as natural? Different points in history probably had different types of land in different states. A prairie could have been a small pond or lake in the past. Would letting the prairie flood during a particular time present a natural state? Who decides what natural truly is? What if being back in a natural state hurts the surrounding population?
Our history says that humans have always been foragers, explorers, hunters and gatherers who do what must be done to survive. Since doing so is a part of our DNA, then is harvesting land, building and, sadly, destroying, certain parts of the land around us perfectly acceptable according to evolution and thus teleological thinking? We seem to forget that we are indeed a part of the ecosystem around us, but that we are not including ourselves in talking about "nature" and returning areas to a "natural state". And since not including ourselves in creating a natural state seems to be more so backwards thinking than forwards, we should rethink how to outline what we should do for the future of our environment. Thinking more earth friendly and taking part in reducing our waste in all areas seems perfectly acceptable when talking feasibility. Returning areas to truly "natural states" sounds too fictitious and against human nature to consider.