# Northern Arizona University/Environmental Ethics/Journals/Jasbir's Journal

Journal Entry #1
I read the first portion of the Land Ethic and kind of had a gist of what it tries to express. After Wednesdays class however, I realized that I was way off. I didn’t see all the things we discussed in class. It showed me how much more critical I need to be with my reading. I had to read it twice before I got it.
When discussing the first section of the Land Ethic, the examples Leopold uses were quite intriguing. He speaks of humans being mistreated in relation to the earth being mistreated. He speaks of the right we have over the environment and why we feel we can harm it. I think he concludes that we have no right to treat another human as property just as we have no right to harm the environment and treat it as our property.
I think Leopold is trying to describe the earth and everything within the earth as being divine. Every plant and animal as having as much worth as a human or god. If we don’t protect the world we live in, then there will be no world for us to live in. It is a bit of a Hindu/spiritual philosophy in my opinion.
Journal Entry #2
On the Friday of the second week I drove by a great field filled with bright yellow flowers. I’m not sure on the name of these flowers, but there was an entire meadow of them. I had my camera with me so I decided to pull over and take pictures. At the time, I hadn’t thought about environmental ethics class or even of the journal entries. It wasn’t until I sat down to write this entry that I realized that I don’t have to write about Leopold’s experience with nature, I can just write about my own.
It was very unexpected that I found this place that looked so pristine to the eye. It is located on the highway to Snowbowl and has a Shell gas station next door to it. Not the ideal set up for such a beautiful place. The time I spent there was a very quiet one. I don’t remember hearing the roars of the cars going 50 mph. All I remember is being amazed at the amount of bees that were around me pollinating. They didn’t seem to care that I was invading there personal space trying to get a close up picture of them.
I guess, in this respect, there truly is no mystery to nature like Leopold suggests. Even if there’s a busy high way, gas station nearby, curious environmental/ photography students wandering the premises. The bees had only one thing on their minds, the flowers. They weren’t disrupted by us because they weren’t distracted from their goal. Could that in itself be a mystery of how species can just adapt to changed surroundings.
Journal Entry #3
Chickadee 65290 was one of my favorite sections of this weeks reading. I thought it was very interesting how simple of a experiment Leopold conducted by banding 7 chickadees and seeing how long they’d last year by year. Leopold mentions how Chickadee 65290 showed no sign of genius. This same chickadee was recaptured 3 more times the same Winter. Which I felt helped the experiment because for a chickadee to not be recaptured after a year or two, it could be assumed that it may have died.
I wasn’t aware of the very specific size of chickadees that was described in the section. Leopold mentions how chickadees are to big to be caught by a Venus fly trap yet too small to be preyed on by hawks. This rose the question of why the number of chickadees recaptured was going down every Winter. Because if their size was their biggest prey repellent, then why the dwindling population. I think the reason for the lack of population simply comes down to the lack of intellect.
Birds tend to run into a lot of different objects. They have been known for running into buildings, cars, wind turbines, planes, and other objects. Their lack of intellect and for sight is what their worst enemy is. Birds run into these objects and cause internal hemorrhages to themselves. So I would assume that Chickadee 65290’s survival may have been based on a lot of luck.
Journal entry #4
I felt that Mary Austin had a great voice and poetic way of writing. IN her writings, she is able to have the reader view the landscape she is describing through just her words. She helps the reader see the landscape from all different angles by using different methods of articulating the language. In this case, her writings expressed the Southwest and how she interprets the landscape. The Land of Little Rain discusses the Southwest from views of the different people that inhabit it, for example the Native peoples. I felt she captured the Southwest very well.
John Muir is referred to as the father of environmentalism. After reading A Thousand Mile Walk to the gulf, I would not give that title to anyone else. His journey from childhood to adulthood is like no other. It was amazing to learn about the difficulties he was able to overcome. Muir’s mentality of protecting nature and the environment was a unique one for his time. Im sure many of the general population at the time did not understand his relationship to nature and why he preferred to set up camp in the wilderness rather than a hotel.
I find it reassuring that someone of that time was able to stick to what he believed and was able to change the face of the earth. Despite all odds, he was able to work with our political leaders of the time and put forth legislation and with the “green foot” in mind. A foot that was pro nature and pro protection of the environment.
Journal entry #5
Thoreau’s section on economy discussed many issues that don’t have clear answers right at the surface. I found that in order to fully be able to comprehend the concepts discussed in economy, you have to think very critically and analytically about the text. For example, there is no clear answer to Thoreau’s question about “the chief end of mankind. I feel that each individual would answer that question differently. But I felt Thoreau’s answer on that was what truly should be the chief end of mankind.
Thoreau feels that all too often, mankind has confused its true necessities with what society tells them. Thoreau compares physical necessity to spiritual necessity. After he discusses how food, shelter, an clothing are just physical needs of man, not spiritual, I realized that no one I’ve come in contact with, including me, is concerned with anything else other than physical needs. Besides thinking about religion, people like my family members, friends, or colleagues haven’t yet thought too critically about the spiritual needs of an individual. I agree with Thoreau when he writes that mush of our efforts are devoted to accumulating wealth, fame, and power. Hardly do we think of pursuing virtue or living virtuously. In Thoreau’s eyes, the health of the soul holds more importance. I would agree with this statement, I feel that we are conflicted with what we think we need yet we think don’t think critically of what we actually need, a healthy soul. In my opinion, a healthy soul can think long and hard bout tough issues society faces, and would come up with just answers and solutions. A tainted or unhealthy soul will always have a conflict of interest or let some other force drive it away from the right answer. This will not let the soul think objectively.
Why is it that issues like protecting our earth is a partisan issue in congress. A clean and healthy earth should not be put up for dispute between political parties. We as humans should demand a just and right decision to protect our environment without any conflict. I’m not saying we should revoke peoples freedom to think what they want. I simply raise the argument that if individuals are willing to dispute about wether they want a healthy planet or not, then there is something about their soul that is unhealthy. If we had individuals with healthy souls that did not think about conflicts of interest, such as having to vote Republican or Democrat, we would get more done. If we had individuals who could think beyond being a red elephant or blue donkey, we would have people that could think objectively about issues like environmental protection.
Journal Entry #6
I found Solitude to be a good method of experiment for Thoreau to try and cultivate virtues. Getting away from the pressures of the rest of the world and social norms puts the individual at a better position to cultivate such virtue as simplicity, magnanimity, and trust. I agree with Thoreau’s methods and I feel that solitude is a good method to cultivate an issue like simplicity.
I feel that simplicity would only be tougher to cultivate if one was to be preoccupied with straining issue, like mortgage payments, house bills, car payments, to name a few. I don’t feel that there would be enough time to be able to free up space in your mind that can think critically about cultivating virtues. That may also be why that since a person’s birth, they are thrown into a system that will not allow you to think about more important issues in life.
Solitude can help an individual become more in tune with themselves. It can help unlock different types of thoughts and parts of the mind that may have been unknown. I also feel that while during this period, time will seem to go slower. There will be more time in the day to tackle the issues necessary. Time seems to blurr for the general population and people that have these issues that preoccupy them. The everyday hustle and bustle of modern life makes it it so one’s days fly as birds without time for rest. Cultivating virtues is much like cultivating beans, it requires time and patience.
Journal Entry #7
The chapter about the Bean Field was definitely one of my favorites. This explanation of cultivating virtue made the most sense to me . Thoreau’s explanation of planting, growing, and hoeing the beans is the same as what Thoreau is trying to do with virtue. He is trying to cultivate his beans and in the meantime, he will try and cultivate the virtues of his own soul.
For the short response paper, I chose the objection that humans are unable to cultivate virtues or think virtuously. My reasoning behind this is because Thoreau’s description about why some of his beans didn’t grow. He expresses how the reason why some of the plants failed to grow could have been because the seeds could have been worm eaten, sterile, or soil was infertile. I interpreted these failures of growing the seedlings as faults within us to cultivate virtues. Sterile seeds, infertile soil could simply mean that our minds are too corrupt or too far along gone that it cannot process even the foundation of cultivating such seeds as virtues. I think what Thoreau means by why certain seeds didn’t survive is that people are too often preoccupied with social or political issues that they never stop and think about living a virtuous life. Many individuals are not able to make just decisions because they let whatever constituency cloud their judgement. Other may simply fear uncovering such virtues because it will open their eyes to the many different ways they may be distanced from achieving such an enlightened state of mind. They may not want to let go of the way of life they adore so much and would choose to let virtue go if it calls for them to let go of issues that may be harmful to them. Drugs, gambling, violence, gangs, are issues that are harmful to the individual but people will continue to pursue this lifestyle because they refuse any alternative.
Along with the reasons why some of the seeds were a failure, I also understand that there were those that did succeed and flourish. I feel this means that virtue may be achievable for some individuals. There may be those that have the potential to achieve this state of mind. So I feel Thoreau’s Bean Field is the world and the plants he cultivates are us humans. Some may grow and achieve virtue while others may fail.
Journal Entry #8
Poverty, is undeniably an issue that is yet to be resolved. There have been many methods put forth to fight it: unemployment benefits, shelters, food banks, but I’ve never thought critically about poverty as Emerson does. After traveling to Europe and Asia, and having first hand experience with beggars, I thought I was a good person for always giving any spare change to the poor. But my adult relatives who were familiar with the place, unlike myself who was a visitor, would refuse and tell me to ignore them. But ignoring them would simply not sit well with my conscious so I would go against their demands and share the wealth anyway. Why it is that unless I gave the beggars something, I would not feel fully content?
I personally feel that the way I have been raised is a big reason for my willingness to give. I’ve always been taught t help others if I am able to because you never know when you’ll need help. So for me, building good karma may be one of the reasons I try to be charitable when I can. This would make sense when helping a family member who can help you in time of need, but how would giving someone off the street spare change benefit me later. It wouldn’t, in the real world, its simply a way to make myself feel better for potentially helping a stranger in need. It may simply be out of selfishness that I help the needy.
Emerson, however, looks at these ideas more critically. He tells the story of a philanthropist coming to his house, telling him that because he can afford it, he should contribute to the fund.I was surprised when Emerson responded by refusing, but his explanation behind it made perfect sense. He explains how giving people charity is a way to give them pity and this translates to showing your better than them. Charity is also another way to show them that they are incapable and need to rely on others for survival. Emerson would argue that this ideology would only make individuals in poverty to sink deeper into the rut their already in. Emerson believe that all people deserve respect and there should be other methods of helping individuals in need besides charity. I don’t feel that ignoring them is an answer. Instead, exposing them to shelters and methods of getting them back into a functioning society would be a better approach. Teaching them how to make money rather than simply giving them a temporary fix. I think these are the ideologies Emerson is trying to express in his essay.
Journal Entry #9
For this week, the idea of spiritual poverty has intrigued my interest. Individuals rarely get to see this spiritual poverty because poverty is always seen as a physical issue. If someone lacks a sufficient amount of money to provide food and shelter for their family is physical poverty. I feel that this is what most of us think and see when we have encounters with the homeless or beggars. Unless it is prominent in our own life, we rarely see spiritual poverty. Someone who has simply given up. Im sure we can all recall individuals who we might think have given up or on the verge of giving up. These individuals tend to be those who have subdued themselves to drugs like alcohol, gambling, and narcotics. But the wealthy deal with spiritual poverty just as much.
Another way of looking at spiritual poverty is of people who don’t chase or pursue the chief end of man. The individuals that are too preoccupied with buying the biggest house, most cars, and having the most expensive clothing are all in the spiritual poverty department. Why would it be, that people would hold physical poverty at a higher pedestal then the spiritual? Wouldn’t the soul of an individual be more important? Wouldn’t having s healthy soul, one that can think in a rightful manner, be more important?
I wouldn’t agree with the statement that removing all material objects from your life is the only way to achieve virtue. I am not an expert in this field, but I do feel that a balance of achieving the physical and spiritual necessities is needed. Not everyone can be a John Muir and be one with the wild and not need any material objects in their life, but we all can strive to achieve the same mentality. That we are a part of nature and are connected to it and that living in harmony with nature and ourselves is something that can be praised. Having a healthy soul and living within your means is a good way to lay down the foundation of a balanced individual. One that is healthy physically and spiritually.
Journal Entry #10
Ideas grow over time. Emerson believes that thought and understanding grow outward. It starts as a circle and grows out in all different directions. He mentions how understanding does not grow linearly or even as a tree grows. Emerson goes on to mention how this is also a model for how nature grows. At first, I had some issues wrapping my head around this. Comparing a tree to a circle is no easy task. So I come up with some different theories of why might a circle make more sense then looking at ideas and thought linearly.
I think the reason why a circle is more functional is because the inner circle is like the core ideas and thoughts. It is what we have learned from the past. And the ideas that push outward to make another layer to the circle or push to resize the circle are the new ideas we are learning. And because our understanding is constantly growing, there is no stoppage. As a tree grows, it goes from the roots to the trunk. The trunk later grows branches which later grow leaves. But what about after that. Afterwards, it is simply the trunk that contributes to its height and there you are. I feel the idea of the circle is more applicable because the growth of thought is endless. That and thought does not wait until the branches to think outwardly. Thought is constantly pushing outwards and is trying to understand ideas from all different angles and directions. The tree can only push so far.
I feel that viewing thought linearly or as a tree would be a way of limiting yourself. The circle method gives the opportunity to think and understand with an endless amount of distance. That and there are no restrictions to the direction thought can go, it can go up, down, diagonal. Just like there is an endless amount of knowledge and understanding in the world, there are an endless amount of thoughts to be created.