At least 2,000 words, 12-point Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced, with name, date, course #, a title, page #s, a works cited page and properly formatted citations for all quotes and paraphrased references to sources.
GENERAL STRUCTURE:
Introductory paragraph that ends with a clear thesis statement
Argument: explain the main position defended and the reasons that support it.
Objection: explain the strongest objection to your position; specify exactly what it is objecting to or how it undermines the position.
Rebuttal: analyze the objection and explain why it either doesn’t present a substantial challenge, or if it does, why it doesn’t undermine the position.
Conclusion: summarize the arguments presented and the conclusion you draw from your analysis in the rebuttal.
Choose one of these 5 prompts:
Dualism, Hierarchies and Nature
Throughout the course, theorists have identified the hierarchical structures of different dualisms as contributing to the current environmental crisis (ex: the human-nature anthropocentric hierarchy, the human-animal speciesist hierarchy, the man-woman patriarchal hierarchy, the white-black racist hierarchy, the European-indigenous settler colonialism hierarchy, and the capitalist-worker capitalistic hierarchy). Select one of these hierarchical dualisms and evaluate its role in contributing to a specific environmental problem. Explain how your analysis relates to a non-hierarchical account of this environmental problem.
Evaluating Geoengineering Deeply? Indigenously? Ecofeminist-ly?
Use deep ecology, ecofeminism or indigenous environmental justice to evaluate the ethics of geoengineering. Identify a specific principle, concept, or theory from one of these fields and demonstrate how it relates to geoengineering. Some possibilities for relating to the topic of geoengineering could include using deep ecology, ecofeminism or indigenous ethics to: evaluate Gardiner’s critique of the desperation argument; illustrate one of the two approaches to technology that Scott outlines; raise objections against one of the two approaches to technology that Scott outlines; identify a different ethical concern. Defend your evaluation of geoengineering against a possible objection.
Animal Rights and Makah Whaling
Evaluate the Makah’s whaling practices and the Anishinaabe worldview of justice in relation to Regan’s theory of animal rights. Does the “fundamental wrong” of viewing animals instrumentally that Regan identified (i.e. what makes institutions like commercial hunting/trapping unjust) apply to Makah whaling? In responding to this question, be sure your answer includes: 1) a comparison of the rights view of justice and the Anishinaabe worldview of justice; 2) similarities/differences between the duties and responsibilities described by each view of justice; and 3) how these two views of justice would evaluate the Makah whaling practices.
Thinking the Future: Cost-Benefit Analysis vs. Collective Continuance
Critically assess the two different ways for thinking about our responsibilities to future generations: 1) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and 2) collective continuance. While CBA enables one to quantify the present sacrifices needed in order to ensure the welfare of future generations, the implicit ethical decisions in the discount rate make this economic calculation less straightforward. On the other hand, collective continuance concerns a society’s capacity to adapt to socioecological change with a more holistic and less quantifiable understanding of intergenerational responsibility. Compare these two different approaches for thinking about our responsibilities to future generations and whether one offers a better way for ensuring the well-being of future generations.
Technology Treadmill and Limitless Material Consumption
Alan Dregson’s deep ecology critique of geoengineering (cited by Scott) deals with the destructive pattern of the technological treadmill. Compare and constrast this with Peter Wenz’s critique of material consumption as part of the indefinite worry-substitution pattern that generates toxic waste. While both describe self-reinforcing processes that result in environmental degradation, they identify very different solutions: getting off the treadmill (deep ecology’s moral & political changes) or limiting the generation of waste (LULU points). Through a comparative analysis, present an argument in favor of either Dregson or Wenz’s proposed solutions for breaking or disrupting the kind of self-reinforcing processes that they diagnose.
