I saw "Inconvenient Truth" on Friday night. It's a documentary warning about the effects of Global Warming produced by Al Gore. It's really about his mission to make people aware of global warming, why it's happening, what the effects are and what we can do about it.
In some cases it might have been quite sentimental (which is ok), but generally I found it interesting and quite inspiring (i.e. it makes me want to take action). I covered some theory about global warming in my geography courses at UCT and was pleased not to notice any major inconsistencies between the facts presented and my education.
I think Al Gore makes a really strong argument why we should take global warming seriously while trying to make the science understandable and adding a human touch.
The human suffering caused by storms and droughts will be immense, but what really upset me was the reminder of how global warming will effect animals. In the Arctic, it's been found that polar bears are drowning before they are able to find the shore of the rapidly receding ice shelf : ( And, really it won't just be the polar bears that suffer as life cycles are put out of sink and habitats made inhospitable.
We really are heading to a mass extinction. It also makes me wonder if I'm investing my time in the right conservation activity. Trying to protect little remants of vegetation to preserve habitats etc. won't really help when that habitat transforms with climate change.
I didn't search long but here's quite a nice post about the movie.
I urge you to go see it and "The March of the Penguins" to make you realise how they will be effected too.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
kill the tiger!
That's my new motto. Of course I support the slaughter of lions and leopards too. And your cat. Actually, it's not my new motto, but maybe it should be. How about just locking tigers up and feeding them tofu? What about following them around and shooting their prey in the head just as the tiger is about to get them?
I think this paper is interesting.
I think this paper is interesting.
Monday, October 16, 2006
So why do we care about biodiversity?
In the context of my new job, I keep asking myself this question: Why do conservationists and I care about biodiversity?
Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.
This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.
I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.
Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.
This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.
I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Another heroine
I read a short biography about Mary Wollstonecraft this Saturday and found that my admiration for her increased ten-fold. I was already convinced by her work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” written in 1792, that she was not only the “first feminist”, but a compassionate and great thinker. This is an amazing book which passionately and reasonably argues for equal opportunity for men and women based on broader philosophical arguments about morality, religion and duty.
She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?
There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.
Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.
She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?
There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.
Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
the vegetarian vice
Here's a post on my blog about the vegetarian vice. What do you think?
My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.
My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)