Polar Bear Discussion

Some YS contributors (including myself) had a bit of a debate about the previous post. I thought it worthy of posting on the main site. (Note: I have corrected minor typos and made formatting corrections, nothing more).

Iberk said...I'm sorry but the fact that the state of Alaska would sue to get polar bears removed from the Endangered Species list is, frankly, disturbing. Since when can economics and politics override the simple facts of the environment? If a species is endangered, then it is endangered, there should be no consideration of whether such a label is 'bad for business', just the science. I also agree completely about the oil prices. How can these companies get away with such high profits when

1) they are taking money directly out of the hands of consumers, simply because they sell a 'necessary' commodity;

2)when there are starving people in the world; and

3) when global warming, as a result of their product, is still such a huge problem.

Rishubhav said...Firstly, I'd like to see the models that they used to determine the "endangerdness" of the bears in question - that seems to be the crux of the issue here. Just because the government says that they are endangered doesn't mean anything unless that statement has been peer-reviewed and approved. Perhaps it has been, but I'd like to see the rationale.

As for your point about gas prices, in the last year oil prices have about doubled. Have gas prices? America is still paying less for gas than much of the rest of the world.

Besides, how is a company being greedy for taking advantage of a windfall? This is a normal thing for companies in a capitalist free market to do, and I don't see why oil companies are any different.

The Young Sentinel said.. Iberk speaks wisdom.Rishubhav: If you consult the peer-reviewed studies on polar bear populations, you will see no question as to whether the polar bear is in grave danger. Breakups in arctic ice has forced many bears to swim 50 miles or more in search of food and land. However, the issue transcends the polar bear itself. To deny the fact that this species is threatened is to deny global warming itself. This is why I make an issue of it.

Disciple of Science said...First off, Rishubhav, your point about our country having lower gas prices than the rest of the world is not necessarily true because we subsidize oil immensely. Thus, if we stopped subsidizing it, we would be paying the same prices as the rest of the world at the pump not tax time. The subsidies are there to protect the petroleum industry and trick consumers into believing that petroleum prices are not as high as "they could be."

A corporation should not be apathetic to the rest of the world simply because it will make more money that way. Though they are built to make money, (just look at the commercials about the People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry that are essentially advertisements for drilling in ANWR,) they need to see that they are destroying this beautiful planet via global warming and over industrialization.

Just because we are a capitalist society gives us no right ravage the environment, just like the eighteenth century French monarchy had no right to oppress its people because it was a monarchy. Unlike the French though, polar bears cannot bear arms, (no pun intended,) and overthrow corporate America. Therefore, we must elect a president and congress that will make the environment a priority.

To say that the polar bears are not endangered and will somehow survive alongside the petroleum industry is no different than Marie Antoinette's infamous, though fictional, comment in reference to the food shortage among the impoverished French populace: "let them eat cake."

Rishubhav said...Economics 101: At the most basic level the only way to decrease the price of a commodity that has a finite size and increasing demand besides short-term gimmicks is to increase the supply. This simple fact seems to have escaped many liberals who want to have their Antoinette-esque cake and eat it too.

On the one hand they bemoan the rising costs of gas, and the profits of the oil companies. On the other hand whenever the oil companies try to increase their supply and thus lower gas prices they cry environmental foul.

I don't understand how you manage to link polar bears to oppressed French serfs. Do the polar bears in turn oppress the poor defenseless seals? Does that make the phytoplankton the Untouchables of this system, at a bottom of a long chain of inter-species oppression? Or is it different because what polar bears do to seals is "natural"?

Going out on a limb here, Disciple of Science says that "Just because we are a capitalist society gives us no right ravage the environment"

Why not? What do you mean by ravage our environment? If you're referring to global warming and depletion of fisheries, then yes those are shortsighted acts and humanity shooting itself in its collective foot.

If however, you're referring to some kind of mystical notion of "natural beauty", then I must respectfully disagree. You say that corporations "need to see that they are destroying this beautiful planet via global warming and over industrialization. "

As I said before, global warming I can get on board with - that's just humanity's stupidity. But industrialization has brought great wealth and prosperity to most who have experienced it. Is is "over" industrialization simply because now that we've reaped the benefits others want to as well?

In the end I guess it comes back to polar bears. Which do you care about more, natural beauty and animal life, or actual sentient, thinking human beings?

Disciple of Science said.. This country needs to see that it needs to find an alternative source of fuel that is not E85. Instead of destroying ANWR to appease our gluttony for oil, we should be leaving Iraq, removing subsidies, reining in the petroleum companies, and actually financing scientific research. Can one not see the detrimental qualities of high oil prices AND that oil is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly?

The eighteenth century French social order was implemented to keep the rich, royalty, and church in power. Thus, my linking of polar bears to the oppressed French is accurate because we are killing them to appease the oil companies' greed and keep them in power.

Rishubhav, you say that humans killing polar bears via global warming is the same as a the polar bears consuming seals, while in the same comment you contradict yourself by holding humans to a higher standard than other species with the words "which do you care about more, natural beauty and animal life, or actual sentient, thinking human beings?" Humans need to be held to a higher standard because we can easily disrupt the natural balance of an area that we have no business destroying unless it is for food and the survival of the species.

I don't think that you understand the phrase over industrialization, which is the imposition of humans into an area such as the Amazon to reap the resources. I am all for industrialization, as long as it can coexist with the environment.

Also, "natural beauty" can be interpreted as the "mystical notion" which you spoke of, but that is not what I believe that it means. To me, it is the simply the Earth and its non-polluting/manmade parts. Though, I am not saying that there is no beauty in manmade artwork, structures, or literature, for those are immensely beautiful as well.

NOTE: Polar bears are conscious organisms because they are sentient and have an awareness of their own existence. Though they cannot think as we can, that does not make them any less sentient. Even microorganisms have a sort of "unconscious sentience" as I call it, which means that they know what is around them except they are on a sort of "autopilot."

Also, Antoinette's fictional comment is used to illustrate her ignorance toward the world around her, not simply that there was a food shortage. Thus, I do not understand your words: "many liberals who want to have their Antoinette-esque cake and eat it too."

The Young Sentinel said...Rishubhav: I strongly disagree on a number of points. Let me rebut your argument.

1. The problem with your "increasing the supply" point is that in the long run, drilling for oil in the ANWR is a short-term gimmick. Every peer-reviewed study seems to suggest that oil supply has peaked. Everybody acknowledges that soon we will have to confront the truth: alternative energy sources are necessary. Pretending that this new arctic drilling will help is contributing to the problem. Sooner or later we will have to switch to wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, or even nuclear (which, though, has problems of its own). Rather than deny the problem, let's start figuring out a solution before time runs out and our economy is completely devastated in the process.

2. I know that the way of the world is this: Corporations have a legal obligation to maximize returns for their shareholders, even if this requires artificially high gas prices.

The difference between the US and other countries is that while others have high gas prices as well, much of the price is in the form of a gas tax which the government uses to pay for health care, education, etc. In the US, the same money goes right into the pockets of the corporations.

I'm not directly faulting ExxonMobil for trying to increase profit. Corporations in a capitalist society can never be honestly expected to voluntarily put workers, the environment, or consumers before profit and dividends. This is the singular greatest flaw with our system.

However, it is the right, indeed it is the responsibility of our government to put in place protections that ensure that workers, consumers, and the earth are safe from these corporations. This means regulating toxic waste, water and air pollution, and employee Health and Safety among other things.

The capitalist system, properly checked, is a wonderful thing. Corporations and big business can create as much as they destroy. However, we need a government that can keep it in check. Much more than the polar bear is at stake.

3. The environmental question comes down to a fundamental choice about the nature of the world:

Does the earth exist solely for our needs and desires, to be used at our discretion or at any way? Or rather, are we stewards of a planet and natural world which is infinitely more complex and extensive than our own species?

In effect, acceptance of the first leads to some of Rishubhav's conclusions: that humanity is shooting itself in the foot with global warming and overfishing, that the ecology is a resource that might as well be taken advantage of.

I wholeheartedly reject this belief. Virtually every human attempt to overuse the environment has wreaked havoc on our world, threatening the ecology as well as our civilization. Invasive species, overfishing, logging, rainforest destruction, strip-mining, and untreated sewage all stand testament to the fact that we do not fully understand the natural world.

What we do not understand we will destroy. And destruction of the rainforest, for example, is more than a matter of animal rights, it is a humanitarian question.

If we harm this earth much more, subsequent generations will be forced to cope with a world without many of these resources; without sound farmland, without natural resources, without stable ecosystems, without countless species of plants and animals whose genes could hold the cures to cancer, AIDS, Parkinsons, and other diseases.

It is more than a "mystical notion of 'natural beauty'". It is in our best interests to adopt sustainable environmental policies. We've only got this one planet.

4. Yes, I do think that polar bears' eating of seals is an entirely different matter from arctic oil exploration. The nature of the bears' ecosystem necessitates the hunting for matters of survival. The polar bears to not get a legitimate choice as to whether or not to eat seal. It is a Hobson's choice: they eat seal or they don't eat. It is a simple matter of survival in a natural system refined by billions of years of evolution. Nature knows what it's doing.

Oil companies exploring for gas, however, is an entirely different matter. Here survival is not an issue. Rather, the issue is whether to cause harm to the environment (which no one denies) which would be precluded if other energy solutions such as wind and solar were adopted. Here the question is one of greed, not of survival itself.

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."-Mahatma Gandhi

Disciple of Science, on another note, is semantically wrong about the polar bears being "sentient". As far as we know, the number of species conscious of their own existence is rather small, limited mainly to a handful of great apes, dolphins, and elephants. Although I agree with your overall thesis: that the bears are intelligent enough to suffer, want to protect their babies, and want to live, to call them "sentient" is technically incorrect. Your main point, however, is still valid. The fact that their intelligence is less sophisticated than our own does not justify unnecessarily cruel behavior on our part. With greater understanding comes the need for more inclusive morality. I am not an activist PETA maniac, but I understand the distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering.

* * *

-The Young Sentinel
-Rishubhav
-Disciple of Science
-Iberk