1.How did Timothy Treadwell say that he saw himself in relationship to the bears with whom he spent 13 summers in Alaska?
He wanted to be a bear, to become one with them.
2. Were the grizzlies Treadwell’s friends? What, if anything, do his names for the bears (like “Mr. Chocolate”) suggest about his attitude toward them?Maybe, Treadwell saw the bears as his friends but they were not. By giving the bears names he made them domesticated in his eyes. This is a careless attitude towards an animal of nature.
3. What can we make of Treadwell’s celebrity status, his appearances on commercial television programs like “Letterman”?By 2001, Treadwell became notable enough to receive extensive media attention both on television and in environmental circles. He frequently made public appearances as an environmental activist. He traveled throughout the United States to educate school children about bears and appeared on the Discovery Channel, the Late Show with David Letterman, and Dateline NBC to discuss his experiences. He was also a co-author, with Jewel Palovak, of the book Among Grizzlies: Living with Wild Bears in Alaska, in which he described his adventures on the Alaska Peninsula. Treadwell, along with his friends Palovak and former American Gladiator Jonathan Byrne, founded Grizzly People, a grassroots organization devoted to protecting bears and preserving their wilderness habitat
4. Treadwell claims that grizzlies have been “misunderstood.” Have they? What do you know about the history of these bears?I do not think they have been misunderstood, just not respected for what they are. It’s easy to respect that the shark is a killing machine because it looks scary and is not cuddly looking or has had it’s image made into a child’s favorite stuffed animal.
5. Is there a place for grizzlies in the lower forty-eight states? Why might some groups think so and others not?
We have to, at some level, make place for them I the lower 48 states. We are the ones encroaching on their land. Easier said than done huh? I think to be fair to the grizzly, we do not offer enough room for it to live naturally which in turn puts humans at risk when a grizzly takes a walk into your suburban neighborhood.
6. What attitude does Willy Fulton (the pilot) exhibit toward Treadwell?
A good friend.
7. What does the tolerance of the grizzlies for Treadwell’s presence among them say about them? Were they intimidated by him, do you think?
Was it really tolerance in the human sense? I think Treadwell just didn’t fit into their world so they hadn’t categorized him as a threat or snack….yet.
8. What was Treadwell’s view of nature? Did he see it as a utopian ideal or was he merely naïve?
I think he was both naïve and he saw nature as an utopian ideal. Remember Alaska and the bears are what he attributes as his saving grace from drugs.
9. What did Treadwell want? (Transcendence? A religious experience? Celebrity? Protection?) What was he seeking? What kept him coming back?
Transcendence because he wanted to become a bear. A religious experience because it saved him from the brink of a druggie’s death. And protection, for the animals he loved.
10. Was Treadwell an activist? An ecologist? An anthropologist? A preservationist?
I think he had a little bit of all the ‘ists’ in him however misguided his intentions.
11. Several of us laughed aloud during the viewing of the film? Recall what made us laugh and comment on those particular scenes? Was the filmmaker’s humor intentional?
I think that Treadwell was naturally a humorous man. Some of the humor was mainstream and some of the humor came from his bizarre behavior.
12. What does the filmmaker want us to think about Treadwell and his experiences?In his narration, he depicts Treadwell as a disturbed man who may have had a deathwish toward the end of his life, but also refuses to condemn him for this.
13. How does the filmmaker view the relationship between humans and nature? How about Treadwell?
14. How did the Native American Ph.D regard Treadwell and his experiences?
"At best he's misguided," Deb Liggett, superintendent at Katmai and Lake Clark national parks, told the Anchorage Daily News in 2001. "At worst, he's dangerous. If Timothy models unsafe behavior, that ultimately puts bears and other visitors at risk."
15. What should our attitude toward Timothy Treadwell and Amy be? Was their conduct with the bears “ethical”?
I feel sympathy for anyone who would die in such a violent way but I have to think that it was not a necessary and preventable death. That is to be pitied. There behavior was not ethical, in my opinion. To protect nature, you have to respect nature and Treadwell did not respect the Grizzlies by invading their home turf.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
“Historical roots of our ecological crisis” by Lynn White
In 1967, Lynn White, a historian from the University of California, published an article in Science magazine entitled ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’. In his article, White maintained that because modern science and technology are products of Western culture, and because Western culture has at its roots Christian attitudes and principles, and because Christianity is arrogant toward nature and views nature as having no reason for existence except to serve mankind, then Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt for our current ecological crisis. Lynn White’s article, while published over 30 years ago, is considered in academic circles to be the definitive indictment of Christianity for crimes against nature. And modern conservationists and environmentalists, although they may not remember Lynn White, generally hold the view that Christianity is environmentally unfriendly. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/ecology.asp
Prompt #1: What does White mean when he writes, “neither atavism nor prettification will cope with the ecological crisis of our time”? Briefly describe at least one current example of each approach (more, if you’re able).
Atavism (ăt'əvizəm) , the appearance in an individual of a characteristic not apparent in the preceding generation. At one time, it was believed that such a phenomenon was thought to be a reversion of “throwback” to a hypothetical ancestral prototype. The term is seldom used today since science has shown that such abnormal characteristics can be explained by the inheritance of a pair of recessive genes. I understand the definition but not sure where to locate an example in present time. I think overall, what White is trying to say is that it’s too late to go back in time and try to fix the ecological problems that exist today. Prettification also will not do either. That is akin to putting a band-aid over a dirty wound.Prompt # 2: White comments that “all significant science is Western in style and method, whatever the pigmentation or language of the scientists.” Speculate briefly, about why this statement is true. In the course of your answer, give us a working definition of science and the scientific method.
The statement is true if you were to trace science like it was a family tree. Though there were many marriages and offspring of outside languages and cultures the West, the west infolded these into one big family.
Science-
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge Scientific Method-
: Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Prompt #3: Comment on White’s assertion that, “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” What does this statement mean? What evidence does White offer in support of this claim? Do you agree with White’s analysis? Why or why not? Finally, list at least three characteristic attitudes of beliefs common to the Judeo-Christian worldview?
Christianity is anthropocentric because it teaches humans to see themselves as the most significant entity of the universe and regard the world in terms of human values and experiences. I think White’s opinion is antiquicated. But, of course this was written in 1967. I think that the world, regardless, has come along way in their attitude towards our environment. From saving the rain forest to stopping extinction we are learning from our past mistakes. Yes, I know not everyone is learning.
1.Human beings did not evolve from non-human primates, but were created in the image of God. Men and women are more than merely very complex and highly evolved apes. They possess physical attributes that are not shared by animals, such as an erect posture, hands with a highly developed opposable thumb that can do work, faces capable of expressing great emotional feelings, and a brain and tongue capable of articulate speech. More importantly, they possess spiritual attributes not shared by animals, such as a moral consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, an understanding of beauty, emotion, and the capacity to know and worship God.
2. Human beings are commanded by God to be fruitful and to populate the earth. Men, women, and children are this world’s greatest resource, not its greatest liability. Estimates of the world’s human carrying capacity, that is, how many people this world can sustainably support, are meaningless unless we answer the question of how many people can be supported at what level of material affluence and habits of consumption. While the six-fold increase in world population over the past two centuries has been alarming, our world is currently undergoing a demographic transition. The United Nations recently estimated that 44% of the world’s population live in countries where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and demographers are now predicting that world population will peak within 50 years and then decline, perhaps sharply, with potentially serious consequences.2
3. God entrusted humans to be the earth’s stewards. To subdue the earth and rule it, while not phrased in politically correct speech, is analogous to the process of gardening. For a garden to be a success, the soil must be broken up, seeds planted, the initial seedlings thinned, the young plants watered, weeds pulled, and pests controlled, but in the end there is a harvest. Gardening involves subduing and ruling a small patch of wild nature to yield a benefit useful to people. The Scriptures even tell us that it was God who planted the Garden of Eden as a home for the first man and woman ( Genesis 2:8)—as if providing an example for us to follow. On a worldwide scale, subduing and ruling is like managing and administering. Humankind has been given the honor and privilege of managing and administering God’s creation, with the expectation that we will do it responsibly.
Prompt #4: White says that, "Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not." Do you agree? If so, describe the kind of religious remedy that will be required. If not, explain why White's proposed remedy is flawed or inadequate. I like the historical analysis that Lynn White did, it was very interesting. However, I feel he lost sight that we are all simply human regardless of our religion and I think that the drive to succeed and prosper is also inherent
I found this at Answers in Genesis and thought I would play devils advocate and give a response from Preston Bristow. This is his religious remedy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/ecology.asp
Christian stewardship
Why is it that Christianity does not have this earth-healing effect everywhere it reaches? I propose two reasons, which I lay at the foot of all Christian believers as a challenge to their basic assumptions and thinking about this world and their place in it.
The first challenge is to our almost unqualified embrace of the current economics of growth and consumerism. Traditional capitalism’s emphasis on work and the rewards of honest labor, restrained by Christianity and the Bible’s many admonishments against greed and covetousness, produced great benefits for the good of society. Today, with Christianity relegated to the margins of society, the economics of growth and consumerism are spiralling upward unchecked, driven by relentless advertising and promulgating a worldview based upon dissatisfaction and craving. We are daily bombarded with appeals that we will be happier if we buy more things that we don’t really need, that soon wear out, that bring only fleeting pleasure, and ultimately leave us in greater debt. This drive to earn more so we can get more has resulted in a booming economy, but at a disastrous cost to the human spirit and world ecology.
The second challenge is to our assumption that this world does not matter in the eternal scheme of things. It is interesting to note that the bestselling Christian fiction series of all time is the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, which is about the last days.13 The minds and hearts of Christians are focused less on this life and more on the life to come, and rightly so. Biblical prophecy predicts the destruction of this world and the creation by God of a new heavens and a new earth. If this world and everything in it is headed for destruction, then why should we worry about some ecological degradation along the way?
The answer to these challenges is found in a right understanding of Christian stewardship. Christian stewardship is based on the concept that everything we have was given to us—our health, our emotions, our intellect, our talents, the social and economic benefits into which we have been born, and all we do or earn or make with what God has given us—all ultimately are gifts from God for which we cannot take credit. In fact, because God created everything, He owns everything and they are only on loan to us. We are not owners but caretakers. And as the Biblical parable of the Talents14 tells us, we will be held accountable to God for what we do with the resources He has entrusted to us.
Prompt #5: If you could ask Lynn White one question, what would it be?
Basically, I would like to know if he thought we as one untied Earth were doing any better, especially after he viewed the 1970’s- 1980’s self-destruction of our environment?
Prompt #1: What does White mean when he writes, “neither atavism nor prettification will cope with the ecological crisis of our time”? Briefly describe at least one current example of each approach (more, if you’re able).
Atavism (ăt'əvizəm) , the appearance in an individual of a characteristic not apparent in the preceding generation. At one time, it was believed that such a phenomenon was thought to be a reversion of “throwback” to a hypothetical ancestral prototype. The term is seldom used today since science has shown that such abnormal characteristics can be explained by the inheritance of a pair of recessive genes. I understand the definition but not sure where to locate an example in present time. I think overall, what White is trying to say is that it’s too late to go back in time and try to fix the ecological problems that exist today. Prettification also will not do either. That is akin to putting a band-aid over a dirty wound.Prompt # 2: White comments that “all significant science is Western in style and method, whatever the pigmentation or language of the scientists.” Speculate briefly, about why this statement is true. In the course of your answer, give us a working definition of science and the scientific method.
The statement is true if you were to trace science like it was a family tree. Though there were many marriages and offspring of outside languages and cultures the West, the west infolded these into one big family.
Science-
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
: Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Prompt #3: Comment on White’s assertion that, “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” What does this statement mean? What evidence does White offer in support of this claim? Do you agree with White’s analysis? Why or why not? Finally, list at least three characteristic attitudes of beliefs common to the Judeo-Christian worldview?
Christianity is anthropocentric because it teaches humans to see themselves as the most significant entity of the universe and regard the world in terms of human values and experiences. I think White’s opinion is antiquicated. But, of course this was written in 1967. I think that the world, regardless, has come along way in their attitude towards our environment. From saving the rain forest to stopping extinction we are learning from our past mistakes. Yes, I know not everyone is learning.
1.Human beings did not evolve from non-human primates, but were created in the image of God. Men and women are more than merely very complex and highly evolved apes. They possess physical attributes that are not shared by animals, such as an erect posture, hands with a highly developed opposable thumb that can do work, faces capable of expressing great emotional feelings, and a brain and tongue capable of articulate speech. More importantly, they possess spiritual attributes not shared by animals, such as a moral consciousness, the ability to think abstractly, an understanding of beauty, emotion, and the capacity to know and worship God.
2. Human beings are commanded by God to be fruitful and to populate the earth. Men, women, and children are this world’s greatest resource, not its greatest liability. Estimates of the world’s human carrying capacity, that is, how many people this world can sustainably support, are meaningless unless we answer the question of how many people can be supported at what level of material affluence and habits of consumption. While the six-fold increase in world population over the past two centuries has been alarming, our world is currently undergoing a demographic transition. The United Nations recently estimated that 44% of the world’s population live in countries where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and demographers are now predicting that world population will peak within 50 years and then decline, perhaps sharply, with potentially serious consequences.2
3. God entrusted humans to be the earth’s stewards. To subdue the earth and rule it, while not phrased in politically correct speech, is analogous to the process of gardening. For a garden to be a success, the soil must be broken up, seeds planted, the initial seedlings thinned, the young plants watered, weeds pulled, and pests controlled, but in the end there is a harvest. Gardening involves subduing and ruling a small patch of wild nature to yield a benefit useful to people. The Scriptures even tell us that it was God who planted the Garden of Eden as a home for the first man and woman (
Prompt #4: White says that, "Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not." Do you agree? If so, describe the kind of religious remedy that will be required. If not, explain why White's proposed remedy is flawed or inadequate. I like the historical analysis that Lynn White did, it was very interesting. However, I feel he lost sight that we are all simply human regardless of our religion and I think that the drive to succeed and prosper is also inherent
I found this at Answers in Genesis and thought I would play devils advocate and give a response from Preston Bristow. This is his religious remedy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/ecology.asp
Christian stewardship
Why is it that Christianity does not have this earth-healing effect everywhere it reaches? I propose two reasons, which I lay at the foot of all Christian believers as a challenge to their basic assumptions and thinking about this world and their place in it.
The first challenge is to our almost unqualified embrace of the current economics of growth and consumerism. Traditional capitalism’s emphasis on work and the rewards of honest labor, restrained by Christianity and the Bible’s many admonishments against greed and covetousness, produced great benefits for the good of society. Today, with Christianity relegated to the margins of society, the economics of growth and consumerism are spiralling upward unchecked, driven by relentless advertising and promulgating a worldview based upon dissatisfaction and craving. We are daily bombarded with appeals that we will be happier if we buy more things that we don’t really need, that soon wear out, that bring only fleeting pleasure, and ultimately leave us in greater debt. This drive to earn more so we can get more has resulted in a booming economy, but at a disastrous cost to the human spirit and world ecology.
The second challenge is to our assumption that this world does not matter in the eternal scheme of things. It is interesting to note that the bestselling Christian fiction series of all time is the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, which is about the last days.13 The minds and hearts of Christians are focused less on this life and more on the life to come, and rightly so. Biblical prophecy predicts the destruction of this world and the creation by God of a new heavens and a new earth. If this world and everything in it is headed for destruction, then why should we worry about some ecological degradation along the way?
The answer to these challenges is found in a right understanding of Christian stewardship. Christian stewardship is based on the concept that everything we have was given to us—our health, our emotions, our intellect, our talents, the social and economic benefits into which we have been born, and all we do or earn or make with what God has given us—all ultimately are gifts from God for which we cannot take credit. In fact, because God created everything, He owns everything and they are only on loan to us. We are not owners but caretakers. And as the Biblical parable of the Talents14 tells us, we will be held accountable to God for what we do with the resources He has entrusted to us.
Prompt #5: If you could ask Lynn White one question, what would it be?
Basically, I would like to know if he thought we as one untied Earth were doing any better, especially after he viewed the 1970’s- 1980’s self-destruction of our environment?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"Four Changes"
In Gary Snyder’s “Four Changes,” he scrutinizes the four areas of human living that need attention and change. Population, pollution, consumption, and transformation are controlled and are the responsibility of humans. As of 1970, the humans are not in control and are behaving very irresponsibly on mother Earth.
In section one of “Four Changes,” Snyder addresses population. Simply put there are too many humans on this Earth and something needs to be done. In 1970, the world’s population was 3,707,921,742 compared to 2007 with a population of 6,605,046,992. Three billion more people, in thirty years, on the same planet, that is definite expansion. When I look at these statistics, it does make me wonder how our planet supports itself and give credit to Snyder’s proposal for population control.
On the emotional side, I think that the gift of creating life is precious and an important necessity. With the gift of procreation also comes responsibility that has changed in our modern times. A hundred years ago, having a large family was sometimes a necessity such as running family owned businesses and farms but this landscaped has changed now and is not necessarily needed. Having many children can seem indulgent to others but to others it an ingrain love of family. I cannot judge others in that area of choice. On a social level, I do judge those who are heedless of the responsibility of having children. Many do so with no thought to being financially and emotionally prepared to do so. As of 2003, five million families were on welfare, this is not to say each case does not have it is own circumstances but the key word is families. Many have been caught in the vicious cycle of welfare and having more children means more money. Knowing that the government will always take care of a person’s offspring is a handicapping way at looking at having children.
The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. So, socially we as a nation are improving as far as responsibility towards pregnancy and education. In the end, economically, I tend to side with Snyder’s proposal of removing “income tax deductions for more than two children” and a scale that forces “lower income families” to be “careful too.”
In section one of “Four Changes,” Snyder addresses population. Simply put there are too many humans on this Earth and something needs to be done. In 1970, the world’s population was 3,707,921,742 compared to 2007 with a population of 6,605,046,992. Three billion more people, in thirty years, on the same planet, that is definite expansion. When I look at these statistics, it does make me wonder how our planet supports itself and give credit to Snyder’s proposal for population control.
On the emotional side, I think that the gift of creating life is precious and an important necessity. With the gift of procreation also comes responsibility that has changed in our modern times. A hundred years ago, having a large family was sometimes a necessity such as running family owned businesses and farms but this landscaped has changed now and is not necessarily needed. Having many children can seem indulgent to others but to others it an ingrain love of family. I cannot judge others in that area of choice. On a social level, I do judge those who are heedless of the responsibility of having children. Many do so with no thought to being financially and emotionally prepared to do so. As of 2003, five million families were on welfare, this is not to say each case does not have it is own circumstances but the key word is families. Many have been caught in the vicious cycle of welfare and having more children means more money. Knowing that the government will always take care of a person’s offspring is a handicapping way at looking at having children.
The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. So, socially we as a nation are improving as far as responsibility towards pregnancy and education. In the end, economically, I tend to side with Snyder’s proposal of removing “income tax deductions for more than two children” and a scale that forces “lower income families” to be “careful too.”
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
My New View on Global Warming
Global warming is something I grew up hearing about, but not understanding its meaning. My first memories of these words would be in the 1980’s as a child of ten. The 80’s were a decade of new phrases such as global warming, Star Wars (not the movie), and HIV. To a ten year-old, the phrases were just adult talk. Twenty years later I am an adult and these phrases are still major issues around the world.
I already believe in the theory of global warming but must admit I have had a laissez-faire attitude towards the topic. I cared about it but was content to have somebody else take global warming up as his or her personal crusade. I would have never selected the movie An Inconvenient Truth to watch until it was shown in my Ethics in Ecology class at college. I can honestly say that the movie was good and I would recommend it to others to watch. The movie was entertaining as well as informative.
All the evidence presented in An Inconvenient Truth was convincing to this viewer. The computer models of the Earth’s hypothetical future and scientific facts used in conjunction with known environmental history were too logical to dismiss. From the increased number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the last thirty years to the projection of three hundred thousand deaths attributed to global warming by the year 2032; it was enough to let this self proclaimed ‘Marie Antoinette’ sit up and take notice.
I already believe in the theory of global warming but must admit I have had a laissez-faire attitude towards the topic. I cared about it but was content to have somebody else take global warming up as his or her personal crusade. I would have never selected the movie An Inconvenient Truth to watch until it was shown in my Ethics in Ecology class at college. I can honestly say that the movie was good and I would recommend it to others to watch. The movie was entertaining as well as informative.
All the evidence presented in An Inconvenient Truth was convincing to this viewer. The computer models of the Earth’s hypothetical future and scientific facts used in conjunction with known environmental history were too logical to dismiss. From the increased number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the last thirty years to the projection of three hundred thousand deaths attributed to global warming by the year 2032; it was enough to let this self proclaimed ‘Marie Antoinette’ sit up and take notice.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
My definition of ecology.
What ecology means to me. It is the study of all living things and the environment they reside in. Not just the studyof each individually but their relationship with each other. Like a human being, whereas the body is the environment and everything internally, of course, represents all living things. If the body is struck by an object, the skin (environment) will bruise. If the body is struck very hard, there will be a bruise but also a bone (living thing) within may be broke.
My definition of ethics.
My personal definition of ethics is as follows. My ethics are set of morals and beliefs that I live day by day with and guide me through many decisions. These decisions may be simply what is wrong or right or what is the best decision for my self to make. My family and the culture I live within have molded them. Most are set in stone, such as not stealing, being kind to others, etcetera. Other morals and beliefs are changing as I age and learn more about the world and the people in it. The changes, I would like to think, are for the better. The changes to my morals and beliefs are not easy; in fact, they have become more complicated. I feel that when I was younger that decisions were easy, so black and white. Now I realize that that there are numerous shades of gray in between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)