Pretty interesting..

Watch The First 54 Seconds. That’s All I Ask. You’ll Be Hooked After That, I Swear.

Do you think we're doing the right thing?

A psychological ethics problem states:

There is an out-of-control train heading down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on this side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the train kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

This is effectively how we are thinking about pesticides: we are killing the few for the interest of the many (utilitarianism). But is it really in everyone's vested interest to use pesticides?

Ponder this:

1. All pesticides are made out of chemicals.

2. Chemicals are made by scientists.

3. Scientists want to make money.

4. In order to make money, chemicals have to be made cheaply.

5. Therefore, pesticides are made cheaply.

6. Cheap chemicals are made poorly.

7. Poorly made chemicals are generally bad for consumers.

8. Therefore, pesticides are bad for consumers.

These chemicals are not just bad for the people who interact with them on a daily basis (i.e. farmers and those living near the farms); they are also bad for the population as a whole because eating something that is used to kill something else does not seem intuitively intelligent. But we have these magical things called grocery stores (where our food actually comes from *snorts of laughter ensue*) so we do not have to think about where it really comes from or the process is goes through to be found in the store down the street.

I leave you with some food (hopefully locally grown and with minimal chemical impact on us and the environment) for thought:

Utilitarianism: Its a Dog-Eat-Dog world out there?

When is utilitarianism not right?

Everyday millions of people are exposed to dangerous, toxic pesticides. Trying to provide for their families, in turn leads most people to bodily harm. I cannot wrap my head around utilitarianism and better yet why we accept it as a reason to continue living our lives because it does not directly affect us. It is so simple to just say, "Well, someone has to do it!” But at the cost of what?

 In the reading, Bell talks about the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number?" This means that if the richest parts of the world want the best foods [organic, pesticide free] than they get it in surplus only because they can afford it and those who cannot afford it are left with the worst of foods [processed, unhealthy]. I disagree with all of this. Yes, I understand that with their being inequality in the world I get to move on with my life, but at the same time I feel that there can be ways to decrease the amount of inequality in the world. It takes a lot to change what people are already used to but if changing can produce greater happiness for the greater good than why can we not do this? Why? Because of the use of utilitarianism. As Bell but it, if the world wants to be generally happy than "sometimes the minority [poor, working with pesticides] must accept an unpleasant sacrifice to benefit the majority [rich, getting all the goods]." I believe that it is just easier for people to just put aside all of the problems of utilitarianism and just let others deal with ugly in order for them to get the pretty. 

The greater good or the greater convenience?

Pesticide exposure causes many problems, including birth defects. Yet we continue to use them all over the world, because they help with the production of food. 

This is rationalized by utilitarianism thinking: Pesticides are helping with food production, which helps a greater number of people than the pesticides are hurting. Is that really the "greater good" (as utilitarians would put it) for the population as a whole?

It may help a greater number of people than it hurts, but by no means should it be considered "good". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6veswwuU6dE

It is obscene that pesticides are so prevalent on the foods that we eat every day. We think that we are eating better when we eat fruits & vegetables, because we are avoiding processed foods. We don't actually know, however, what we are consuming when we are eating "healthier". 

Although the pesticides that are on what we eat aren't usually enough to kill us, they could be doing other damage. Pesticides in large enough amounts are used specifically for killing species. There could be a huge number of negative effects that they have on us, that we haven't figured out yet. 

Are the use pesticides worth the possible risks?

Calculate your carbon footprint

Andrew shared this link from The Nature Conservancy which allows you to calculate your carbon footprint.

http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

Calculate your ecological footprint

Here's a website that allows you to calculate your own ecological footprint.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/calculators/

Seeds of Death (80 min) - Movie

If you ever do have time do watch this, do it! I watched the trailer and it seemed pretty interesting!

~Cheers