Portfolio

Report 1: On Lecture 3 (Animal Rights) After discussing whether it is justifiable to eat meat, we went on to discuss whether animals have rights (and if so, to what extent). Professor Lau mentioned Regan s argument that animals have inherent values similar to human beings. I have no intention to get directly tangled in the argument. What I wonder is whether animals will go to the trouble to think whether it is morally correct to enjoy the meat of others, or whether other species have the same right as their own. Using the idea of probability or possibility (which professor Lau resorted to when arguing plants are unlikely to have feelings), Ive confidence the answer is a resounding NO. And if so, based on the premise that all animals are equal (Peter, 1989), why should we care? After all, as the phrase go to the trouble suggests, it is uncomfortable for us think about these issues (If someone questions this factual assumption, just recall how long it takes before we start thinking seriously about animal rights or related ideas. Indeed, most of these ideas are still confined within developed nations (Sunstein, 2004)). Now, most people would find my argument outrageous. Whatever the reason, it is not in our (virtuous) disposition to neglect the pain and suffering we inflict upon other animals. Indeed, I believe the same way. From my perspective, however, whats absurd is not my argument, but the initial premise mentioned by Peter that all animals are equal. A lot of things unravel naturally once we abandon this premise. Certain animals may be conscious, even highly intelligent or extremely rational, yet as a whole, its improbable they can achieve what we humans have collectively achieved. Much as various species live under the same Mother Nature, they are not equal. At least I take leave to believe, worries about the demarcation problem is somewhat unnecessary. In the context of Nature, we human beings should be regarded as a single species. Now the question comes why humans should be ranked at the top of natural hierarchy. My answer is two-fold. First of all, as mentioned above, humans have achieved what other species have not. A case in point is that we (as a whole) gradually come to INTENTIONALLY consider our impacts on our surroundings, including other species. It is quite unlikely this pertains to other species. According to the law of nature, dominant species survive. Naturally, humans ARE at the top of natural hierarchy. A seemingly ticklish question is what comes with this position. And this brings to the second part of my answer. In short, to enjoy rights. Morality (or even philosophy) is meaningful only in the context of human society. Rights, a by-product of philosophy and ethics also belong exclusively to human society. Just as it is meaningless to talk about why we should be moral (since morality is about what we should do), it is equally meaningless to talk about rights in the broad context of nature. Animals may or may not have rights, yet they are endowed by humans from the perspective of human society. Animals do not have inherent rights in nature and nor do we human beings.

From here, we immediately come to realize the relationship between different groups of human beings and that of humans and animals are of an entirely sort. The former can be spelled out in our social context, while the later has to be considered within the context of nature. Judging from our human society, we may say eating meat or torturing animals should be condemned. However, by no means can we tackle these and related issues by resorting to animal rights. Another interesting issue raised in the lecture is why we should act morally if others do not. My answer is that a worse outcome will turn out if we choose otherwise. The situation can be more rigorously modeled by game theory. But the basic idea is simple (and intuitive): a glimmer of morality is much better than a world of darkness. Moreover, the situation we deal with is concerned with interaction. Our behavior will have some (if not tremendous) impacts on others. A glimmer of hope (or despair) will be greatly magnified by the effect of interaction among individuals. By acting morally, huge amount of resources may also be saved (consider if a person spits on the ground and others follow suit, how much effort we would have to spare to make our living environment (clearly, a nasty environment is what most of us revolt) clean and tidy?).

References:
Peter, S. (1989). All animals are equal. In R. Tom and S. Peter (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey. Sunstein, C. R. (2004). Introduction: What are animal rights? In C. R. Sunstein & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions (pp. 3-15). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Report 2: On Lecture 4 (Technology and Food) One point I find quite interesting is that of scientific risks assessment and failure of scientific predictions. The second extrinsic objection to GM food is that it is unsafe for the environment. The counter-argument points out risks should be managed and minimized. In response to this counter-argument, professor Lau made the case that (scientific) institutions can be biased, susceptible to commercial and political influence. I fully agree with it. However, we need to consider whether other agencies (say the press, environmental agencies and scholars) are equally biased. The answer is probably yes. For instance, the press may exaggerate the side-effects of GM food in order to catch the attention of the public. And environmental agencies can also exaggerate the negative effects of GM products in order to raise some fund for research into the area. If the latter example seems flimsy, the case on global warming will back it up. In the lecture, professor Lau used the example of global warming to argue scientists can be conservative. Indeed, it also shows environmental agencies may be biased. Even at this point, there is no sound scientific proof that the recent global warming is brought about by human beings. Despite the lack of evidence, environmental agencies have long held that humans are the ultimate culprits of global warming. Why is it the case? One possibility is what I mentioned earlier: they have the incentive to get the attention of the public so that more funds will be directed into this area (instead of other causes). Now, if we agree other agencies can also be biased, we have to choose between various shades of the negative (which one is comparatively neutral). For me, I am inclined to be in favor of scientists. The reason is not so much about morality, but rather incentives. Compared with the press or environmentalists, scientists rely less on contingent income or funds. In other words, most of the funds will be received anyway, quite independent of the specific results of risk assessment. On the contrary, only when the public get intrigued, the press or environmentalists are likely to get paid or funded, exposing them to greater chances of manipulation. Due to this reason, I do not find the reply to the counter-argument particularly convincing. Another related point is things/technologies we dont know we dont know. From my perspective, except for admitting the fact, we can choose to ignore these things/technologies right away. The reason is simple: they can hardly add to the correctness of our analysis. Although we know there are things/technologies we dont know that we dont know, there is no way for us to identify what they are. And if thats the case, how useful is this piece of information? Or are we going not to advance at all? In presenting the benefits of GM foods, professor Lau talked about their economic, environmental and social benefits. Then, professor Lau presented other opinions which questioned the validity of these benefits. In terms of economics, it is argued there are hidden costs of GM foods, so they are not necessarily cheaper. This is hardly correct, if we call the rule of revealed preference in economics. After all, farmers (and may be consumers) always have the choice of ordinary crops. If they find the price of GM crops exceedingly high, they will choose to do without them. It is also contended that GM food profits rich companies at the cost of small farmers and

developing countries. This may be correct, yet anyway there are total economic benefits. In other words, it is not a valid argument denying the economic benefits of GM products. Indeed, proper regulations can be implemented in order that (at least) part of the benefits is shared by all. In response to the environmental benefits, it is argued farmers may spray herbicides carelessly so that chemical use is more rampant. First of all, this argument is not evidenced by fact; at least Whitman (2000) did not think so. In addition, even if the argument does stand up to reality, we can conclude the overall effect is minimal. A consideration of the farmers incentive will be enough. They may spray chemicals more carelessly, but they will not go to extremes, since chemicals do not come for free. The use of herbicides are further restricted when they become rampant. Under such circumstances, the demand for chemicals rise, (coupled with approximately stable supply), pushing the cost of herbicides upward. Farmers will correspondingly decide against using them. The social benefits of GM food are also questioned. The point is that starvation is due to inequality and government corruption, so GM food is not the solution. At least two aspects are worthy of scrutiny. To begin with, the logic is not valid. To say one factor is the main cause of a phenomenon does not imply an improvement not related with it cannot be a partial solution. The main cause of starvation may or may not be the lack of food, yet enlarging our food supply will undoubtedly better enable us to tackle the problem of world hunger. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow we should first tackle the main problem of an issue. Instead, we should first deal with the problem where the greatest incremental benefits can be generated at the lowest cost. In other words, the issues of inequality and government corruption may be so problematic that it is more cost-effective to enlarge our food supply in the first place (this is hardly fanciful, if we remember how bothersome when it comes to vested interests.). After discussion the three aspects, it was also questioned whether GMO offers better food for consumers. It was strongly doubted whether GM food is the best way to a healthy life. Professor Lau mentioned the problem may lie in poor education and vast supply of bad food at low costs. It may have little to do with GM food. Now, the two arguments immediately above again apply. Put simply, GM food is at least a partial solution to the problem. When easier and cheaper foods also lead to good health, wouldnt it offer an excellent choice for the numerous consumers?

References:
Whitman, D.B. (2000). Genetically modified foods: Harmful of helpful? Retrieved from: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

Report 3 (On Lecture 5) In the lecture, we discussed whether nature should be preserved for its own sake. For this issue, Id like to side with deep ecologists and admit nature does have intrinsic value. For one thing, we are among the offspring of nature. If we deny the intrinsic value of nature (or our matrix), how can we be sure we ourselves have values on our own? For the other, every so often, we stand in awe at the subtle inter-relations and well-coordination of nature. Our appreciation for the beauty and complexity of nature would also be groundless were we to deny the intrinsic value of it. Nonetheless, I doubt that nature should be preserved only for its own sake. Nature is also with instrumental value (i.e. value to us). First of all, nature should be protected in that it adds beauty to our world. When bio-diversity is destroyed, our aesthetic pleasure will greatly diminish. In addition, according to the Gaia Hypothesis (which is also mentioned by the guest speaker), nature and life closely relate to one another, in one way or another. At the same time, biologically mediated feedbacks contribute to environmental homeostasis, making the environment more suitable for life (Kirchiner). Were we to be rash and destroy this balanced cycle, our own existence would be jeopardized. We also discussed the extent of our duty to future generations. One argument is that future people do not exist yet, so they have no rights against us. I do not find it particularly convincing. Our deceased relatives and past great minds are no longer with us, yet many of us still pay respect/homage to them. So maybe rights have little relations with existence. A trickier position is that different people will come to this world due to our present actions and that we do not have rights towards a particular (coming) individual. By arguing this way, few things can be brought to a conclusion---at least I take leave to believe---after all, the butterfly effects suggest few things are surely to happen; even a minute effect can make a huge difference. From my perspective, a safer way is to admit human beings will be in existence for an extended period of time (without even questioning who they are). By accepting all human beings are equal, we deem it our responsibility and obligation to preserve a suitable environment for our future generations. A few lectures back, Professor Lau mentioned doubts on the legitimacy of being moral are meaningless, since morality is about what we should do. The implication is that arguments are meaningful only with certain preliminary premises (whatever they may be). I cant agree with it more and believe the above-mentioned premise should be established in our consideration of our responsibility and obligation towards future generations. Then came the guest speech. In it, two main propositions can be found: we should work towards a vegetarian, or at least a less-meat eater, and grow our own food. I have little intention to reason on the first viewpoint, since it is much of a personal choice; yet I wish to cast doubt on some of the arguments. First of all, the speaker quoted the estimation that in 2025, 64% of the worlds population will be living in water-stressed basins. While I do agree our freshwater supply is not ample, I strongly question the validity and accuracy of the prediction. It should be realized our water supply is more than enough (Remember oceans cover three quarters of the Earths surface). It is consumable water that we are lacking. As freshwater becomes limited,

we will find it increasingly profitable to utilize sea water. At the moment, we just have little incentive to distil sea water or develop related technologies as freshwater can still maintain our sustenance. The argument is well-grounded, if we remember just a few decades ago, we bemoaned the potential shortage of aluminum and copper. At the moment, we are no longer obsessed with such issues, since excellent substitutes for them have been discovered. Similar flaws are there when the guest quoted the statement from John Jeavons, that at the current rate of loss using farming practices, the U.S has between 40 and 80 years of topsoil remaining. Furthermore, I believe the guest fails to consider all the potential consequences were we to become vegetarians or less-meat eaters. I do agree that quite a few (or approximately all) of the problems mentioned by him will be mitigated (solved) in the short run if we adopt his suggestions. Nevertheless, just as mentioned by the speaker, the grain and soybeans consumed by the U.S (at the moment) can support 1.4 billion people (compared with 1.2 billion under-fed people around the globe). A careful thought will tell us this will lead to population growth. Even a passing thought suggests the situation will again be terribly worsened. This is abject, since our sacrifice turns out meaningless. By contrast, proper population control may be a smarter approach. As for the second position raised by the speaker, I believe except for personal satisfaction, growing our own food is neither efficient nor beneficial. It is inefficient in that we are not professional farmers, so our productivity will be comparatively low. Much as our farm produce has problems in one respect or another, at least it is relatively ample. If we choose to grow our own food, even this basic requirement cannot be met (most of us believe it is indispensable; even the guest believes in ample food supply by stressing over and over again how much food livestock consumes). Consequently, it is not beneficial to grow food ourselves. It is equally detrimental if we choose to grow farm produce in our spare time. As the possibility of great enjoyment is ruled out, we conclude our valuable leisure and quality time are jeopardized by spending time farming. On the whole, I believe the issues and ideas raised by the guest speaker are worthy of careful consideration, yet the suggestions may not apply to most of us.

References:
Kirchner, J.W. (2002). The Gaia Hypothesis: Fact, theory and wishful thinking. Climate Change, 52 (4), 391-408.

Report 4 (On Lecture 7) In talking about world hunger, we mentioned it is children that make the whole problem more horrible. On one hand, I perfectly agree with it in principle. Clearly, children should never be deprived the opportunity of life, well-being and education. And if they are languishing in the corner of the world, it is our duty to assist them. However, practical concerns do arise, not least how to prevent manipulation of our bounty and generosity. In mainland China, for instance, there are numerous instances where children are deliberately disabled (perhaps by gangs) in order to arouse the pity of passers-by. It is not unreasonable that similar incidences may occur with UNISEF (or Oxfam)s assistance. We also talked about population explosion and Dr. Deustch concluded less poverty equals lower birth rates. And since aid relieves poverty, population is not a matter of particular concern. From my perspective, at least two flaws in reasoning can be traced. First of all, it is questionable whether less poverty equals lower birth rates. From the knowledge of statistics and economics, we know at most we can attest less poverty is positively correlated (perhaps strongly) with lower birth rates. Now, there is a serious concern. Perhaps, as society progresses, a third factor arises (such as change in social ideology), lowering birth rates. However, artificially reducing poverty may not have similar effects. An even greater concern is that our reasoning is based on the premise that monetary assistance relieves poverty, but how valid it is? As suggested, many countries, such as Haiti, Sudan, and Zaire, have become aid dependent (Andre & Velasquez). Some counter-examples are there, such as that of Indonesia, but at least our premise is arguable. I discussed further on the topic with Dr. Deustch and find his alternative argument convincing: It is our duty to figure out highly efficient means to help the hungry souls and stick with the best approach we have. The current methods are far from satisfactory. (Apart from what is discussed earlier), though quite efficient UNISEF is still largely subject o national interests. Anyone who has acted as a representative in the Model UN knows full well about it. And when Zambia and Kenya governments choose to reject GM relief, when Sudan and Somalia are constantly under warfare, when Iraq is still chaotic and when Egypt and Libya are fighting against dictatorship, what is the significance of our donation? Or is it just futile? In this respect, one of Dr. Deustch (or may be more accurately, Peter Singer)s arguments seem flimsy: perhaps we should retrain and get a job working full-time to reduce global poverty. Scientists and economists, at least I believe, have done much more than professional poverty-fighters. Muhammad Yunus (the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner) relieved many out of poverty by developing and promoting the idea of micro-finance. Robert Solow greatly sharpened our vision on how to effectively help poor nations with his famous economic growth model. They are true charities, if such a word applies. Another thing I think of is our voluntary group (Beyond the Pivot), who will again go and help Ghana this summer. Now, are they just doing their duties (would be morally wrong if they choose not to)? Perhaps not! Arguing about our moral responsibilities is helpful, but it is our actions that matter. In this regard, I do

appreciate Peter Singer, who contributes a large portion of his income each year to charitable organizations. The outcomes may deviate significantly from what he thinks, yet at least, his actions accord with his belief (moral value).

References: Andre, C., Velasquez, M. (1992). World hunger: A Moral Response. Issues in Ethics, 5(1).