Northern Arizona University/Environmental Ethics/Journals/Selina's Journal
Journal Entry #1
The fan makes the feathers flow frighteningly across my face. What feathers? The feathers of the land. Now empowered by the rights of an individual it has become an overlord. We are now its slaves. The pendulum has swung too far. In a post-apocalyptic world, Aldo Leopold has finally got his way. The year is 2984. The wind cuts through man like a whip, because it is a whip; a whip of slavery and devastation. The land now not only has rights, it has stolen all the rights that humanity once took for granted. The mountains, tall and threatening, overpower the world with the possibility of avalanches, mudslides, and other ecological terrors. The trees loom as the moonlight cast ghostly shadows of the naked oak. The water rushes angrily to the ocean, which shines a deep, omnipotent blue. In this time, there is no God only land.
The few humans that are left, serve the land wholeheartedly, even on the tiniest whim. They plow and sow and reap, but not for themselves, for the land. Sweat drips from the brow of the tired farmer. drip The water tainted by the human body falls to the land. plop The land becomes infuriated. A nearby tree falls on the daughter of the farmer. A scream escapes her tiny mouth and she expires, as fruit did in the back of the refrigerator many years before. But that was a different time. The farmer knows not of refrigerators. He rushes to his daughter, but the rocky earth bellows “NO!” The farmer stops in fear. “Cultivate me!” the wind howls. The farmer knows he has no rights, and he must obey or die. The lightning flashes above, reminding the lonely farmer of the land wars, which decided his fate even before his grandfather was born.
The conservation movement has been existed for decades. However, it has yet to “root” itself in the general public’s interest. This is because conservation is usually not profitable, and therefore humans have no reason to invest themselves in it. Any profits that conservation would result in would only be apparent in the long-term. This does not suit our society, which demands instant gratification. While most living things are content to exist in their realm of the land pyramid, humans prefer to obliterate the entire pyramid with dynamite that is gluttony.
Humanity has gained superior intelligence and the ability to reason through evolution. Using this intelligence we have granted ourselves immunity to predators and certain ecological threats that once controlled our species. However, in the history of time humanity has only just recently freed itself from these pressures, so we have not yet lost these instincts that help us survive and essentially cause us to be greedy. Self-preservation in the form of greed fuels our consumer society, where we look out for our own best interest rather than investing in civilization as a whole.
In 2984, the land is a personification of man. Land protects itself by suppressing humankind. The land, like humans, cannot limit itself to taking only what is necessary for survival. Instead it hoards rights from all others because of self interest. While looking out my window, I understand the hardship we force the land to undergo. However, when I find time to commune with nature, I see the balance that man and nature can share and what good it brings.
Journal Entry #2
A journey to supermarket on a cool evening in September bears little resemblance to the nature trapped within. The apples viciously plucked from their trees present the sinister red shine of the pesticides they drowned in at the orchard—their home. The lettuce wilts, reflecting the sorrow that comes with being kidnapped. The potatoes reluctantly catch a glimpse of a passing bag of potato chips and weep for their fallen brothers. The mini amputated carrots suffocate in the bags, the bruised tomatoes rot in their pyramid of suffering, and the corn breathes a sigh of relief at managing to survive as corn rather than transform into the malevolent high fructose corn syrup. A clap of thunder echoes through the store, reminding the fruit of the true thunder they once experienced in the wild. Their dreams are crushed by the reality of artificial rains pouring down on them from sprinklers which have not been cleaned in years. Humans have taken life and disfigured it.
A woman passes by the blackberry display. A menacing ringing comes from her pocket, and she removes her Blackberry. “Oh, hi John.” The blackberries glare upwards from their plastic prisons in anger. Their name has been tainted by this technological behemoth. Once the word blackberry conjured up images of luscious fruit, filled to the brim with succulent juices; now, ask any American child about blackberries and they will launch into a discussion of the virtues of a cellular device. The apples feel the same pain as a man across the way pulls out an iPhone. Mankind has blocked nature from its thoughts and replaced it with the human’s own artificial creations.
A trip home from the store in the dark, passing a lake reflecting the moon, is a dangerous trek. The headlights of the car can only aid a driver for a few feet until blackness engulfs the rest of the world. The headlights compete with the darkness and this helps the driver. clop-clop clop-clop clop-clop. The car radio drowns out the sound of an approaching elk. The elk competes with the car for the territory on the road, and therefore hurts the human who has formed a symbiotic relationship with the car. Luckily for all involved, the car swerves and the elk steps back, and both carry on their merry way. The elk learns to be weary of bright lights. The human learns to be more cautious on the back road. And the car learns nothing. The battle between dark and light rages on, and parallels the battle between man and nature.
In today’s grim world nature has no intrinsic value. Humanity only sees the planet as a means to an end. Trees become paper, minks become scarves, and horses become glue. Nature is solely an economic asset to be profited from, not cared for. Only when man can begin to value the blackberry more than the Blackberry will fruit be free from tyranny.
Journal Entry #3
Two foxes scurry across the dark floor of the forest scavenging for small rodents who have just woken up from their daily slumber. As the foxes prowl in the night, the smaller of the two foxes lets out a shriek of pain and is paralyzed. Suddenly, bright lights flood the pitch black forest, and the roar of an unknown beast echoes demonically. The foxes freeze as the lights disappear, and two men emerge from the metal creature. The men walk to the trapped animal and sedate her. The other fox, in hopes to defend his sister, attacks the nearest man. The man aggressively kicks the fox, who is then sent flying and lands against a tree. “Should I go get that one Charlie?” “Nah, you got blood all over its pelt. Now it’s worthless.” The fox weakly lifts his head and gets one last glimpse of his sister before he falls unconscious.
Two years later, the fox has joined the Foxes’ Brotherhood of Insurgence (FBI), a society dedicated to rebelling against the omnipotent human overlords. He has been specially trained to wander through the forest and look for traps put out by man. As he is investigating what could be a trap, he finds himself face to face with a human skull. This greatly puzzles him at first, for he thought the human race was immortal. sniff sniff. It is definitely a human skull. The fact that humans can die is a revelation for this fox. He brings the skull back to his den and even gives it a name: Skully. He wants to believe the truth is out there.
To many animals humans must seem undying. They are all powerful and can control almost every aspect of the planet. Humanity destroys mindlessly and thinks nothing of the innate value of nature. Mankind has created an image of perfection in its collective mind and anything deviating from that image is seen as worthless. Anything that cannot be profited from is cast aside as if it were nothing more than trash.
Man must change its moral values to include all living things on the Earth. This will also take in to account abiotic material, such as dirt and rocks, because they directly contribute to the survival of other species. This is the main point of Leopold’s book, A Sand County Almanac, and especially of the section, “The Land Ethic.” Leopold is hoping to change the perspective of people so that the entire biotic community is included in their ethical standards. If this change was made the quality of life for the entire planet, man and fox alike, would increase greatly. Unity breeds harmony.
Journal Entry #4
As I read John Muir’s Yosemite, I was reminded of my childhood when I used to watch old episodes of Looney Toons, especially ones involving Yosemite Sam. He would always get into conflicts with Bugs Bunny and constantly would try to kill the rabbit. Because this was a cartoon, Bugs Bunny could not die. However, in reality life is not so laughable. Instead nature is quite fragile, and man constantly destroys it.
As I was writing this journal, I was suddenly gripped by inspiration to write a poem:
There once was a man named Sam
He walked with a gun in each hand
He tried to kill a rabbit
And he made it a habit
The rabbit is a metaphor for land
This poem clearly illuminates the plight of land (in the poem, a rabbit) at the hands of man (in the poem, Sam). In the cartoon nature doesn’t suffer, but in real life Bugs Bunny cannot trick Yosemite Sam. The land is bulldozed, drilled, and completely destroyed without regard for its value. It is seen as an inconvenience such as Yosemite Sam sees Bugs Bunny as merely obnoxious. If humans were to change their image of the land and realize it has worth there would be harmony, and Yosemite Sam and Bugs Bunny would be friends. This is the point John Muir was trying to get across (I think).
Journal Entry #5
A few days ago the sky became clouded, and a storm began. As I walked to class, I noticed different people’s reactions to water. Some people would run to the nearest building as if they were afraid. Others would have an umbrella or a raincoat to avoid the rain. While others still would have on a t-shirt and shorts and ignore the rain. A limited few would gracefully frolic enjoying every minute of the downpour while they got soaking wet. I found it very interesting how much reactions differed, and decided this was similar to how people react to the environment.
Similar to when it rains, people’s responses to environmental damage vary greatly. The people who are exploiting the environment and have no interest in environmental issues are like the people who run from the rain. They both prefer removing themselves from nature. Most people are somewhat conscious of the environment, but they are not true activists, like how most people will bring a jacket or umbrella. Others are environmental proponents and they go to extremes to protect nature, as some embrace the rain, feeling joy with every drop. It would be ideal to have all people embrace the environment and understand the importance of giving nature value without going to extremes. The question becomes how can we change people’s responses.
If the people who are afraid of the rain realized water is not going to hurt them, they would have no need to run. Those who destroy the environment should realize it is only a small inconvenience to take steps to protect nature and the benefits outweigh the costs. The people who embrace the rain too much get wet and have their immune systems weakened, and thus get sick. Extreme environmental activists bomb things and kill people for whales. Although this makes for somewhat interesting television, it is not an ideal mindset. These people need to understand that nature is not the only important matter. It is good to be aware of the environment along with other issues. A balance is necessary for nature and man together to live long and prosper.
Journal Entry #6
Although Thoreau claims to hold simplicity one of the highest virtues, he does not simplify his life, he merely transfers his desire for more consumer goods into his writings and thoughts. Instead of going out and buying things to satisfy his material wants, he supplants these desires and uses the energy towards living a lifestyle that differs from most rather than a lifestyle that is completely simple. He seems to contradict himself when he states he is not trying to live a completely simple lifestyle, but yet he believes that people should. Still some would consider this a healthier life choice, because he is consuming less, but these people do not have to read his book in its entirety. .
If Thoreau was one of the ants he discusses in “Brute Neighbors,” he would likely consume significantly less than and be an efficient worker. Unfortunately, he would talk so much that both the black and red ants would hate him, and they would decide to set aside their difference to kill him. The definition of self-sufficient, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “able to maintain oneself or itself without outside aid.” It is very clear that Thoreau does not fit this definition. While he does grow some of his crops, he trades these crops for others, which is outside aid. True self-sufficiency is impossible for someone to accomplish. A community may be self-sufficient, but for an individual, this is an unfeasible feat. By not making it clear how much self reliance a person should have, Thoreau confuses the reader into thinking they need to live a life of complete simplicity. .
It is interesting that Thoreau is such an advocate of simplicity, and yet his writing style is overly elaborate. Walden has been feared by high schools students for many generations. This clearly is not because the book is so simple and easy to understand. It seems if Thoreau truly wanted to be simple, he would have written in way that would be accessible to the less educated peoples of his time. A more straightforward approach to conveying his ideas could have allowed people to understand what he was trying to say rather than frustrated and give up. In the end, Thoreau failed to accomplish his goals, not by my standards, but by his. .
Journal Entry #7
While reading Thoreau’s Walden, specifically “The Bean-Field,” I began to come to the conclusion that Thoreau was merely wasting his time. I believed that spending seven hours a day taking care of beans and thinking about mankind was an extremely inefficient use of time and didn’t really enrich the experience of human life. I tried to think of something Thoreau could have done that, in my opinion, would have been a “good” use of his time. Gregor Mendel, who holds a special place in my heart, immediately came to mind. Thoreau and Mendel were doing very similar things during the same time period and yet both persons had dramatically different impacts on history.
Gregor Mendel counted peas every day, much like how Thoreau spent time with his beans. The result of Mendel’s experiments was the discovery of basic genetics, while the result of Thoreau’s experiment, including not only his bean adventures but his whole stay at Walden Pond, was some thoughts he wrote down in a book. In my mind, the results of Mendel’s work, even if he did change a few numbers here and there, were much more significant than the philosophical ideas Thoreau presents in his book. I can see Mendelian genetics and understand how it works. However, Thoreau’s arguments are dubious and, in general, I do not accept them. Using Mendel’s conclusions in my life is easy, and most of the time, it is fun; But when I try to use Thoreau’s conclusions I get bored and usually start feeling nauseated. The minimalistic ideas of Thoreau I do understand, and I have been introduced to these ideas many times before. On the other hand, the idea that chef end of mankind is the pursuit of virtue is something that my mind believes to be an absurd idea. I would be much more inclined to agree with Thoreau if he argued the chef end of mankind is the pursuit of the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, which really makes no sense, but I think it would be a more enjoyable endeavor.
After much thought, I decided the reason I think Thoreau wasted his time is because I value science and mathematics over philosophy, much like humans value certain species over others. Maybe if I valued all subjects equally I would be a more productive member of society. Unfortunately, I trust that I am too close-minded to ever appreciate philosophy in the way I appreciate math, or at least appreciate the subject as much as it deserves.
Journal Entry #8
In my Buddhism class, I recently had to read a book called Contemplative Science. It is all about how to reconstruct the current methods of science so they include not just natural sciences but what occurs within the mind. This reminded me of the ideas in Walden and some of the ideas that are in Emerson’s essays that I have read so far. Contemplative science puts an emphasis on thoughts instead of the physical sense, much like how Thoreau puts emphasis on his thoughts and believes the soul is more important than anything in the physical world.
Thoreau spends his days thinking, much like a monk spends his time meditating. Most Buddhists tradition focus on discovering what the ultimate truth is rather than what appears to be true in the natural world. This usually involves realizing that everything is empty, and a person must ignore what their physical senses tell them. Thoreau also believes that the truth is not in the physical world. The truth lies within the souls of humans, and they must explore their spirituality in order to find it. Emerson shares Thoreau’s view and believes people need to change their perspective to include the nonphysical world.
It is interesting to see how closely the ideas of the monk who wrote Contemplative science and the ideas of Thoreau and Emerson correspond. In conclusion, I have decided that both Thoreau and Emerson are closet Buddhists, or at least they would have respected the view of Buddhism if they had been exposed to it.
Journal Entry #9
Emerson’s idea of an Over-soul reminds me of the Borg in Star Trek. The Borg are cybernetic organisms made up of many other species. They share a collective mind and an individual can hear the thoughts of all other individuals. It is really like there are no individuals at all, and it is strange to imagine having millions of thoughts going through your head at once. Emerson’s Over-soul proposes that there is a collective soul which connects humans, nature, and God (if the Borg really existed out there in the Delta Quadrant it would probably include them too). He even says, “behold, it saith, I am born into the great, the universal mind. I the imperfect, adore my own Perfect,” which seems more like a Borg saying than something an individual would say. The Borg assimilate many species, against their will, to gain knowledge and to try to become perfect. Emerson believes that when people are close to the Over-soul they become more virtuous, because the soul puts virtuous thoughts into their mind. In a sense, the Over-soul makes endeavors to make people perfect.
I see Emerson’s push for an Over-soul more of a push for religion than anything that could be put to use. The Borg are often used as a metaphor for the evils of religion in Star Trek. They force people to join them, they can never leave, and they can never again think for themselves. When a few individuals are separated from the collective mind within the series they feel very alone and realize how much comfort the other thoughts in their head brought them. Emerson says that the Over-soul makes one more virtuous because it brings them closer to God. This is similar to how Christian religions say that one who is more involved in the religion will be more virtuous and get into heaven. Emerson likely just wants people to believe in God and therefore he creates this idea of an Over-soul to convey his ideas.
Although Emerson fully believes his Over-soul can only cause good, this collective soul could actually do more good than harm, just like the Borg. The soul is an in tangible object, therefore it is hard to find out how to get closer to it. If people just decided to act virtuous rather than spend their time trying to get closer to this ambiguous soul, then the problems of the world would be fixed much faster. Instead of trying to reach perfection, either through the Over-soul, religion, or the assimilation of thousands of species, people need to just work on goals they can actually achieve.
Journal Entry #10
It is apparent after reading Thoreau and Emerson that they share many of the same ideas, which would be expected since Thoreau learned under Emerson for so many years. I find how they both focus on the spiritual world rather than the physical world the most interesting. They both claim that most people put too much emphasize on viewing the world with only their physical senses and believe more people need take on a new perspective. They believe a person’s spirituality and soul are of much more significance than anything that is tangible.
In “Self-Reliance,” Emerson states “travelling is a fool's paradise.” This is very interesting because many people claim they love to travel, and it is something they want to do a lot of in their lives. Emerson is asserts that travelling is not as good of a thing as it sounds. He points out that just because someone changes their location, it doesn’t mean their life is going to change. Peoples’ problems follow them wherever they go, because the problems usually are caused by the person not their location. Emerson believes it is more worthwhile to spend time trying to change one’s soul rather than changing one’s surroundings.
Thoreau uses this same idea in Walden. He states “it is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar.” He ridicules the normal appeal of travelling by stating people do this for some sort of asinine goal such as counting cats. Thoreau agrees with Emerson that the most valuable journey is not a physical one, but one that takes place within the soul.
It is hard for the average person to agree with Thoreau and Emerson, because it is difficult to perceive the world in a way that is not physical. They both claim by focusing on the spiritual soul people can become more virtuous, but it seems this statement is arguable. Neither provides concrete evidence for why this is true, probably because this would be extremely difficult to do. There is no way to measure how virtuous a person is or what affects the morals of people. Since this is true, the question is whether people should try to focus on the spiritual world even if it has no results. I think more scientific research should be done on what the nonphysical world actually consists of; then this question could be answered. Thoreau and Emerson would likely not agree with me.