I consider myself an environmentalist. (someone who cares to either preserve or conserve the natural resources found in the world in which we live) I identify with environmentalism because I believe that the Cornucopian idea of immense faith in humans to somehow eventually "have/use" more than we really "have" is illogical. Cornucopianism is the thought that though we do have a limited amount of resources now, by the time those resources run out, humans will have come up with new technological ways to replace those resources. But mostly, I identify with environmentalism because regardless of what power we humans have or will have with which to survive longer, (with our new and magical resources) I believe that using the resources we have now inefficiently is in itself a stupid thing to do. Just because one believes wholeheartedly that man will be able to maintain and recreate resources and survive indefinitely does not mean one should proceed to use the resources of today wastefully. Conservationism is the heart of my environmentalism, because to me it makes perfect sense and should be common sense. (Conservationism is the thought that one should use resources efficiently, rather than impractically preserving resources that were put on this planet to use) Thus far, I have read nothing regarding conservationism with which I don't agree. The "gospel of efficiency" (Samuel Hays's description of what Conservationists believe) is what I strive to read and follow.
My identification with moral extensionism stems from my belief that animals other than humans possess sentience. (Moral extensionism is the belief that animals and living beings other than humans have sentience, or the ability to feel). I don't have much scientific research at hand with which to back up this belief; it is just difficult for me to believe that a dog, cat, or mouse does not have the "capacity to suffer or to experience enjoyment or happiness."
My social beliefs are pretty plain and simple. I think one should be free to do whatever he or she chooses to do, as long as no one else is suffering for it. (Regarding abortion, I believe that the soon-to-possibly-be-baby is "suffering" for it). Ideology-wise, i think this means that I'm pretty "liberal" socially, with the big abortion exception. This means that I accept any and all both-sided-consensual social situations. Economy-wise, I am whole-heartedly for personal responsibility, very generally "against welfare," (I believe it is worthy in some situations) and sick of our country's disgusting spending habits. I like to conserve both our world and our money, and think that those who work hard deserve what they earn.
My environmental and political beliefs don't conflict too much. Obviously making life efficient costs money, but the point is that efficiency will save us money in the long run, so I generally consider upgrades in efficiency of procedures, whatever the cost, to be good investments in our future. Being an environmentalist means being in favor of certain environmental research, which obviously costs money. But once again, I consider that money well-spent.
As of now, I have not come upon any realizations or questions, but I have no doubt that this class will only confuse me more and by the end of it, i'm not sure if i'll have any true opinions!!! (i am VERY easily persuaded....it's a terrible and wonderful thing)
I guess we're all just trying to find a way to live peacefully with both nature and our money. (or lack thereof)
thanks for reading!!!!!!!!!
I would like to question something you said in your 3rd paragraph. You say that you think everyone should be able to do what they want as long as no one is suffering from their actions? I agree with this statement but believe there is some tension with this idea and conservationism. Surely, people who over-indulge in the world's scarce resources are doing so without making other people suffer. The rich housewife in California who drives her SUV to her neighbors house down the road is indeed harming the environment but could you claim that she is making people suffer? Therefore conservationists would surely argue that people should not be allowed to do what they want, if the effects damage the "common wealth" as a whole.
ReplyDeleteGREAT point! That is when regulation comes into play...obviously we will never (I don't think...) be an emissions-free society, so governmental limits are important in cases like this. I was using my "do what you want; don't hurt anyone" mantra regarding social issues, rather than environmental, but regardless, the phrase is too general to pass all the tests! I'll have to come up with a better summation of my beliefs...for now it'll be "do what you want, without violating universal moral code, which is assumed (presumptuously) that everyone has."
ReplyDeleteBut what if we have different moral codes? Different culture will assume that different things are acceptable, this is what moral relativism is. I still think that is a too broad statement. I agree that it is a nice idea that everyone can do what they want without violating a moral code, but come on -- is this really possible?
ReplyDelete