Gaia question

So reading Abbey's section I had a thought concerning one of the questions brought up in the section.
Somebody questioning the concept of Gaia asks how it could be possible if certain creatures and components of the planet aren't aware of the overall scheme of the planet as a whole entity. My question then is, does a component of the Earth NEED to be aware of the big picture? Think of a human being. Does an arm truly know what the job of the leg is?

Language

It seems one of our major problems is how to connect to other species. Without doing so we can't begin to see things from their point of view. It doesn't seem like we can learn their languages, at least not fully, so perhaps we can teach them one of our languages. In my book the latest chapter shows studies of sign language being taught to great apes. It shows some incredible findings, such as mothers teaching signs to their children with aid from humans. Also it shows apes adapting signs to mean new things such as the sign for poop to mean dirty, for example, one ape using this sign to call someone bad. This could be a huge step towards making a great connection to other species.

Ramble

So this might just be me rambling but...
The first few chapters of my book about great apes seem to be an attempt to cause sympathy for the apes. Is this okay? It seems like a blatant attempt to make them seem human so we can allow ourselves to feel sensitive towards them. This might be the best way to start a revolution of thinking among people reading the book, but is it fair of the authors?

Question

This might not directly relate to ethics, but lately we've been discussing the extinctions a lot, and I was wondering if any of you knew how the ocean life has been affected by these extinctions? We talked about that one species that lived through them all and can live in space, are there things in the sea that are similar? It seems plausible.

Negative animals?

I had this thought looking at someone else's blog post.

Are there any other animals besides humans that have a serious negative impact on the planet? The first that came to my mind was cows and the methane that they produce in large quantities, but this seems to be a product of mass farming by humans and therefore not necessarily the fault of the cows. I'm sure there must be some animals out there that have a negative impact, but could any of them possibly add up to the damage we have done ourselves?

Broken System

Cows. We talked about how there could be a perfect closed system of cow and dairy production. But instead we feed them corn which is not their usual diet, and we keep them penned up in warehouse and barns where the methane builds up over time. It seems that we took a perfect system and over time ruined it. So why are we trying to make this broken system work instead of moving back to a closed one?

Not quite Leopold

I would like to talk about a point raised in Leopold's essay. I understand now after reading it a few times, that this sin't Leopold's stance at all. This is something I messed up in my SLAP, but better luck next time I guess.

He points out another side of things that he doesn't believe, but still feels is important to mention.

"The evidence had to be economic in order to be valid."

Obviously this isn't 100% true, but economics still play a vital role in our decisions when it comes to the natural world. If we completely outlaw companies that our polluting the environment at once then an unreasonable amount of people will be out of jobs. So how do we find a balance?

Russow

One thing that immediately strikes me is how she says she can't say that it's wrong to deprive an individual animal from its natural habitat. She starts the essay describing why it would be silly to compare a species to another calling one more important than another, then moves on to say this. But humans are a species just like any other out there. Do we allow humans to be kept captive against their will? So why are we doing so to other species?

Dealing with Anthropocentricism

First of all, I hope I spelled that right

But, do you think it's okay to work through our problems with an anthropocentric view for now?
We can use that view and apply it the best we can to other animals to imagine what their views and values might be. Maybe in doing so it would make for an easier transition into a non-anthropocentric view

Anthropocentric

It seems as if it's impossible maintain a view that isn't in some way anthropocentric. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but more so just a fact of life. It is a view we can't escape simply can't escape because we can only see the world through our own eyes. But there have been studies with great apes of people teaching them sign language that have garnered quite a bit of information. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction. In a very small sense, we were using the same language and could understand each other . Experiments like these are a huge step in seeing the world through the eyes of other creatures, and moving away from an anthropocentric state of mind.

Non-Human Persons

So I brought this up in class recently but here it is again.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/17/india-declares-dolphins-whales-as-non-human-persons/

The declaration states (1):

1. Every individual cetacean has the right to life.
2. No cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude; be subject to cruel treatment; or be removed from their natural environment.
3. All cetaceans have the right to freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment.
4. No cetacean is the property of any State, corporation, human group or individual.
5. Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their natural environment.
6. Cetaceans have the right not to be subject to the disruption of their cultures.
7. The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this Declaration should be protected under international and domestic law.

This is incredible in so many ways. This advancement has taken much longer than it should have, and hopefully it will open the flood gates for other nations to follow suit and to do so with other animals as well?

Thoughts?

Obviously it might present problems as well. For instance what if entire aquariums are shut down completely. Think of what that might do to certain areas of America.

Native Thinking.

So a lot of people think that the Native Americans had a religious view of nature and the land.
While this might only be the story passed down to us through the years, it is still an interesting idea!
When trying to imagine a greater power than themselves, they merely looked to the environment and stopped there. This seems like the safest assumption of all when it comes to a religious view. It is tangible. It's right there in front of you. You live within it, and without it you would be lost. So are other religions silly to be looking further for something bigger than just what lays around us?

Introduction

Hello there!
So it's been a while since I've been a philosophy class and I'm very excited! I picked it up as a minor, but the last few semesters I haven't seen any classes I've been interested in. But this one seems really interesting so I signed up.
I honestly don't know yet all that this class entails, but I'm excited to find out.

I'm hoping to gain a greater appreciation for the natural world around me and learn how to better coexist with and within it. I gained a huge appreciation for religions during World Religions, so hopefully this will be a similar experience.

Can't wait to meet all of you and get started.