Milking the Rhino

For any of you who have a Netflix streaming account, I would recommend an evening watching a documentary called "Milking the Rhino."  It chronicles the tenuous relationship between indigenous African villagers and the conservation land they live adjacent to in both Kenya and Namibia.

"This penetrating look at the pros and cons of wildlife conservation among the Himba of Namibia and the Maasai of Kenya reveals that Western-style game reserves and eco-lodges seldom consider the impact such approaches have on local inhabitants. Filmmaker David E. Simpson offers a look at an emerging new paradigm: "community-based conservation," which seeks to give indigenous people a voice in the way wildlife is both used and preserved." 

Some of the issues that arise:

-Wild animals (especially rhinos) can be very dangerous animals and at times pose a threat to villagers in communities adjacent to the conservation areas. Should the communities be able to kill a rhino that has killed some of their own (people and/or cattle), or should they be forced to abstain and have no recourse to this threat?

-In Namibia, the government has given villagers ownership of the laws which govern how they must deal with wild animals in their areas. On a co-op basis, they decide quotas of how many animals may be killed per month, and it is believed that this forces the villagers to respect their resource and to therefore better protect it. How might an animal rights argument treat this?

-In Africa, eco-tourism is a major incentive to preserve wilderness and its accompanying animal life. However, the fencing in of lands that once belonged to indigenous peoples hurts them by cutting them off from a resource they once lived off of in a sustainable way. How might one resolve the incompatible desires to preserve wilderness and to allow a culture its own life-sustaining resource in a land where resources are famously scarce? Who wins, people or wilderness? If people, who should have the more favorable access to wilderness resources: tourists and developers or indigenous populations?

Is-ought and climate change

More on the is-ought problem and climate change policy, from philosopher and law professor Keith Burgess-Jackson's blog:

The Great Climate Hoax

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the globe is warming. What follows, as a normative matter? Nothing. As David Hume (1711-1776) pointed out long ago, you can't validly deduce an evaluative proposition from a set of factual propositions. (Put differently, there has to be at least one evaluative premise in order for there to be an evaluative conclusion.) What we should do about global warming (again, assuming it exists) depends on the consequences of global warming. Few if any changes have only good consequences or only bad consequences. Almost always, there are both good and bad consequences. Whether we should do something to stop the change, therefore, depends on which type of consequence—good or bad—predominates.

How often have you heard a dispassionate discussion of the good consequences of climate change? All you hear, day after day, is a depressing litany of bad consequences. This alone shows that global warmists are biased. They want intervention to stop climate change, so they mention only the bad consequences of climate change. A rational person with no ideological axe to grind would attend to good consequences as well as to bad consequences. For example, how many people around the world die of extreme cold as opposed to extreme heat, and how would that change if the globe warmed? What is the optimal temperature for the alleviation of suffering, for both humans and sentient nonhuman animals? How many different species of animal or plant would there be if the globe warmed, as opposed to how many there are today? What is the optimal temperature for food production? Would there be more food rather than less if the globe warmed?

Change per se is neither good nor bad. Whether a given change is good or bad, all things considered, depends on its consequences (and how these are evaluated). I wish scientists would inform the public of all the consequences of global warming, so that the public can decide for itself whether to expend its scarce resources in preventing it. That scientists have not done this is the best evidence yet that they are advocates rather than, as they purport to be, disinterested observers. Is it any wonder that they are not trusted? Do you trust people who are hell-bent on selling you something to the point where they omit relevant information? In law, this is called fraud.

Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:28 PM

I think Burgess-Jackson is exactly right here. Note that this is simply to make a point about logic, and agreement with his logical point says nothing about my own (or anyone else's) position about climate change policy.

As an aside, I think it is unfortunate that he uses the term "hoax" in his title, what with the connotations such a term has with other pejoratives such as "climate denier." But presumably he chose that word carefully in order to provoke his readers' thinking.

Jim

Cole's "The Course of Empire"

Our discussion in class today about the human-nature relationship within the past, present, and future reminded me of Thomas Cole's five part series, The Course of Empire. Cole depicts the cyclical rise and fall of an empire, moving from the pastoral and human devoid landscape, to a bustling urban setting, to the demise of the human created world, to the aftermath. I think that the perpetual presence of the natural world, even within the dominating city, reminds me not only of the last man standing's dilemma, but also of the eternal existence of nature. As Cole shows, nature - the trees, grass, water, sun, clouds etc.- is the only thing left, even after the complete desolation of the human community.

If nature can withstand the test of time, maybe it has more value even without the presence of human beings. And, from an artistic point of view, maybe this painting shows that there is still (or is more) beauty, solace, and peace without human beings. To me, the calm after the exploitative presence of human beings suggests that the last man standing should not, in fact, set off a nuclear bomb to destroy this scene.

Link to the wikipedia page for this work of art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Course_of_Empire

Naturalistic fallacy

Hi guys,
good discussion today--the wiki entry on the "Is-Ought Problem" is fairly good, and the topic relates in obvious ways to the "Naturalistic Fallacy," which was mentioned in the readings for today.

hope this helps.

Jim

p.s. the Philosophy Bro wrote on the Is-Ought Problem several weeks ago--a bit vulgar, but the drunken bro example is fairly entertaining. enjoy. :-)

Darwinia Theory of beauty-awesome video

http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

TED collaborates with animator Andrew Park to illustrate Denis Dutton's provocative theory on beauty -- that art, music and other beautiful things, far from being simply "in the eye of the beholder," are a core part of human nature with deep evolutionary origins.

About Denis Dutton

Denis Dutton is a philosophy professor and the editor of Arts & Letters Daily. In his book The Art Instinct, he suggests that humans are hard-wired to seek beauty. Full bio and more links

The Economics of "Sustainable" Development

Our discussion on Thursday raised a lot of questions about whether "sustainable development" — a term frequently touted by big environmental NGOs — is possible. From a Western perspective where we have the luxury of caring about conservation, so to speak, partnering conservation with development in third-world countries rich in natural resources is a laudable goal. A host of problems arise, however ...

• How are people expected to care about the environment when it interferes with putting food on the table?
• What good do conservation and development projects do if they simply replace one short-term neo-colonial industry (like logging, for example .. 2011 is the UN's International Year of Forests, and forest conservation is a big issue currently) with another in the form of an NGO?
• NGO resources don't last forever. How can we make sure that conservation practices are sustained without falling into cultural imperialism or paternalism?
• and many more.

No one has the answer to all these problems, as was made abundantly clear in class, but the World Bank is taking an interesting approach. Currently, they are trying to redefine the metrics by which development is measured. Instead of basing development status on GDP alone, "intangibles" like environmental and cultural capital are being taken into account and assigned a quantitative value. Here's a report on a new World Bank publication:

In 2005, the total economic value of natural assets was $44 trillion worldwide, or $7,000 per person on average while “intangible” capital accounted for the greatest component of total wealth–worth a massive $540 trillion worldwide in 2005.

The Changing Wealth of Nations – a follow-up publication to the 2006 book, Where is the Wealth of Nations? – extends the principles of wealth accounting to include dimensions that go beyond the standard Gross Domestic Product calculations undertaken by finance ministries. It presents, for the first time, a set of “wealth accounts” for over 150 countries for 1995, 2000, and 2005 which allows a longer-term assessment of global, regional and country performance in building wealth.

...

The book finds that intangible capital growth contributed close to 100% of the increase in total wealth in Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe and Central Asia from 1995 to 2005. This share was 80% in South Asia and 72% in Latin America and Caribbean.

“It is the quality of institutions that enhances a country’s capacity to provide economic benefits,” said co-author Kirk Hamilton from the World Bank’s Development Economics group. “When a country has strong institutions that reaffirm the rule of law, ensure government accountability and help control corruption, investment follows and grows.”

The quality of institutions is especially important for the good stewardship of natural capital, the book concludes.

The use of the word "stewardship" and the (perhaps impractical, as Jordan pointed out Thursday) focus on education aside, if a major problem with sustainable development is money, would the resource valuation approach — partnered with community education and government regulation — help? This is a pretty hotly debated concept in the development world, from what I understand. Though the World Bank's literature is relatively new, there's a wide range of research on the field of environmental economics (perhaps some of you have tapped into it for other courses). There is clearly a sea change necessary for natural capital to hold actual development value; I'm nowhere near qualified enough to pass judgement, but I wonder if it would be possible in practice, and how helpful it would be for the implementation of conservation goals.

Thoughts?

Benatar's Better Never to Have Been

We've had some discussion about this book, thought some of you might be interested to see this:

Call for Papers: Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been

Special Issue of the South African Journal of Philosophy, one of the most long-standing philosophy journals in Africa, accredited by the ISI

Guest Editor: Thaddeus Metz (Humanities Research Professor at the University of Johannesburg)

Invited Contributors: David Boonin (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder) and Saul Smilansky (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Haifa)

Professor David Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been (Oxford, 2006) is the most intricate and careful exposition and defence of anti-natalism. Benatar argues, on the basis of purportedly uncontroversial premises, for a variety of surprising and radical conclusions about the disvalue of our lives and our moral duties in light of it. Benatar argues that no matter how much happiness people might experience during their lives, it would always have been better for them never to have been created. And from the claim that human life is never worth starting Benatar further concludes that it is almost always immoral to procreate and that abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is morally required.

Contributions are sought for an issue of the South African Journal of Philosophy devoted to several facets of anti-natalism and of Benatar’s treatment of it in particular. These include, but are not restricted to, the following:

•      Precisely where is Benatar’s argument for anti-natalism most questionable? How does it compare with other arguments for anti-natalism? Do they share common premises or strategies? Which is the most defensible?

•      Is it plausible to hold anti-natalism without pro-mortalism, viz., the view that we should commit suicide?

•      Under what conditions might one be justified in creating a person whose life is not worth starting in terms of her well-being? Can it be right to create such a person for the sake of helping others? How might considerations of human dignity figure into a justification for creating her?

•      If a child is always worse off for having been created, what are the moral responsibilities of her parents with respect to her? Is compensation owed, and, if so, what kind and how much?

•      If the typical human life is indeed a net harm, how should the state get involved? Should it facilitate wrongful life suits, or discourage procreation?

•      From what standpoint is it appropriate to appraise the quality of our lives? Standpoints range from the most subjective, that of an individual, to that of ‘the universe’, the most objective viewpoint available. Is there a principled way to determine where on the scale is suitable?

Deadline for submissions: 15 October 2011. Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to Thaddeus Metz (tmetz@uj.ac.za). Those whose papers are selected for inclusion in the special issue will be invited to participate in a workshop with Professor Benatar, to be held at the University of Johannesburg on 23-24 November 2011.