AGENDA
- Discuss Scruton, "Conservatism Means Conservation"
Module 6: action/inaction
- personal choices -- we've covered
- pollitics -- today
- activism -- next time
_________________________
Current pattern
- Democrats enact pro-environment policies
- Biden--inflation reduction act, Justice 40 initiative, rejoined Paris Agreement; ended drilling in ANWR
- Republicans undo them
- Trump's environmental record so far (follow link please!)
Question: are conservatives inherently less concerned with the environment?
- Today's Republicans -- very focused on growth, American dominance
- Past Republicans
- Conservatives in 1970s--supported EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act
- Teddy Roosevelt (Republican president, 1901 - 1909) established many National Parks
- Conservativism as a philosophy -- how does it view the environment?
Roger Scruton (SCREW-ton)- British philosopher who has written on the philosophy of conservatism
- You read "Conservatism means Conservation"
- "Conservation is the quintessential conservative cause"-- p. 2
- He also wrote a book making this argument -->
- His theory of conservatism is rooted in political thinking of Edmund Burke and others
- Departs from US conservatives--not as focused on individual freedom, growth, and free markets
Conservatives vs. Liberals -- 5 contrasts (according to Scruton)
I. Oikophilia (from Greek: home-love)
- conservative: has love of home, wants to preserve and protect home
- "it is the love of home that provides the most effective motive on which the environmental movement can call"--p.2
- Do you think home is a local concept for him? What about America as our home, or even the earth as our home?
- liberal: focused on good of all, the least advantaged, equality
Does it make a difference where you live?
 |
| Where we live |
II. Love of beauty
- conservative: values beauty in surroundings
- "aesthetic judgment is the primary form of environmental reasoning" -- p. 7
- liberal: more concerned with progress, equality, the least advantaged
Example: wind turbines, solar panels (awful to Scruton)
III. Preservation
- conservative: wants to conserve resources and ways of life; see themselves as stewards or trustees
- there ought to be a "partnership between the dead, the living and the unborn" -- p. 2, cites Edmund Burke
- liberal: progress, not preservation
Application (he doesn't discuss here): he supports fox hunting, other types of hunting (banned in the UK in 2014); in the US: Ducks Unlimited
- conservative: looks for local solutions
- liberal: supports government solutions at all levels including global (the UN)
Local action: neighborhood association that cleans creek, girl scout troop that keeps highway clean, civic association that protests new highway or train tracks
- conservative: supports private property, capitalism; but growth can be incompatible with love of home and love of beauty
- liberal: distrusts; worries about greed leading to depletion
Application: environmental problem of suburbs
- "The most important man-made environmental problem in this country is that presented by the spread of the suburbs. Suburbanization causes the increasing use of automobiles, and the dispersal of populations in ways that exponentially increase the consumption for energy and non-degradable packaging" -- p. 3
- If Americans want to live in the suburbs, its only because government policies have made them desirable--subsidies, problems in the inner cities, zoning
- Poundbury (p. 4-5)
Discussion questions: what would Scruton think of--
- Preserving endangered species that are not particularly remarkable--the delta smelt, devil's hole pupfish, snail darter
- Dextinction of dire wolves, adding lions or elephants to England (like Monbiot discusses)
- Unfair distribution of garbage as an environmental issue (Wenz vs. DeLuca)
- Trump's opening up national lands for logging
- Trump's proposal to weaken the Endangered Species Act
- How to address climate change--mititagion vs. adaptation vs. geoengineeering
TO COMMENT CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK BELOW
Feel free do discuss the discussion question OR anything else in the post OR ask a question.
Testing.
ReplyDeleteFor number 6, He would most likely not support any of these and only support efforts that kept his local home beautiful in his eyes. If he was forced he might also pick geoengineering just because it could be bought for a local level and serve that community only. He might choose Adaptation because his community could do basic level things like not littering to make their community look better. where it could be He is a capitalist so wouldn't really support stopping corporations profits so mitigation is out.
Delete1. Scruton would probably say we should protect fish like the delta smelt because we have a duty to take care of what we call our home. However, he does place some emphasis on aesthetic value, so it could depend on what he deems aesthetic in his eyes.
Delete1. Because Scruton seems to value aesthetic appearances it seems that he way not value the existence of these less aesthetic species as highly.
ReplyDelete2. Based on this reading and the above quote about the dead and undead being partnered, I would think that Scruton would support bringing back extinct species as long as they do not greatly effect the present state of whatever environment they are brought back into.
3. I think that for 4 and 5 Scruton would disagree, he seems to value preservation.
Drew
1. Scruton emphasizes the importance of the environment being considered a home. When viewing the topic of preservation, if these animals listed can be categorized under this home Scruton describes, I believe he would advocate for their preservation. Though, his support for conservation concerning aesthetics could also conflict this argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat would Scruton think of preserving endangered species that are not particularly remarkable—like the delta smelt or the snail darter?
ReplyDeleteRoger Scruton would likely support the preservation of these species, not because they are useful or charismatic, but because he sees conservation as a moral duty rooted in stewardship and respect for the inherited world. His idea of a “partnership between the dead, the living, and the unborn” suggests that even small, seemingly insignificant species deserve protection as part of the natural legacy we’ve inherited and are responsible for passing on. Scruton’s conservatism values continuity, beauty, and the integrity of ecosystems, which means that losing obscure species could still represent a harmful break in the environmental fabric. He might argue that protecting such species reflects a deeper love of home and responsibility toward the future, even if they don’t generate headlines or economic benefits.
Scruton would support the preservation of the species as he holds it to a higher value, despite his belief of conservation based on aesthetic value which species such as these tend to highly lack in. He would still advocate for their ability o be preserved due to having a moral obligation to protect the natural species itself for they can be seen as stewards of nature, and we must preserve our duty to continue this partnership with them. There is an ecological balance to things and their preservation should still be held to high regard.
ReplyDelete1. Scruton would not be interested in saving non remarkable species under the endangered species act because he is more focused on what ads aesthetic value to the world. Along these lines I would think that he would be in support of Trump weakening the endangered species act to exclude animals that do not add value to our world.
ReplyDelete2. Scruton could support the dextinction of species depending on the reasoning and how it was done. If it was done to help with conservation on the local level and add to the aesthetic value of the earth then he would agree
3. I think that Scruton would support geoengineering because it would be a good way for specific places to solve their climate change problems based on the main issue in their area.
I think Scruton would support preserving endangered species that are not quite that remarkable because he thinks humans as stewards, and as stewards, they should preserve the land, which also means preserving species. It could also be said, though, that he would not support the preservation of unremarkable endangered species because they do not add much aesthetic value; so if they vanished, it would not hurt the land's vanity
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Scruton would not be in favor of protecting spices that qualify as non remarkable under the endangered species act. I think this because the species being saved would be those that do not add much aesthetic value to their habitat or the world in general. So Scruton would not be in favor of supporting these animals that have no aesthetic value.
ReplyDeleteScruton's position on species preservation is complex. While he prioritizes aesthetic value, I think he might support the protection of "unremarkable" species like the delta smelt or snail darter if they contribute some sort of ecological balance. He might not care about them in general, but if their loss caused a disruption that would matter to him. I would assume that Scruton would be open to reviving dire wolves as long as it restores balance, however I think that adding lions or elephants to England seems almost too "untraditional" to him. I also think Scruton would resist the opening of national parks/lands for logging or any attempt at weakening the Endangered Species Act. On climate change, I think Scruton would lead more towards a solution that deepens peoples connection to their environment and respect the beauty of a place.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that Scruton would support the preservation of endangered species. He would probably argue that the preservation of these species is an act of retaining the land and the traditional way of life. Despite the fact that these species are said to not be particularly remarkable, I believe he would still find some value in their preservation and their unique beauty.
ReplyDeleteI think Scruton would support the preservation of endangered species regardless of aesthetic value because of his idea about being stewards of nature. These endangered species help nature and their ecosystems greatly, and even though they may not have aesthetic value, they still contribute in a way he would find valuable. He also sees humans as stewards of nature, meaning that we should help with the balance and betterment of nature, and that comes with preserving endangered species. There would no doubt be a great ecological loss if these species were to go extinct, and as stewards ourselves and with their own stewardship, I think Scruton would want to preserve them.
ReplyDeleteI think that Scruton would have a hard time preserving species that are not unique and provide some sort of value. Things like the delta smelt, seem less interesting, whereas the dire wolf might be more valuable and increase aesthetic experience. He focuses a lot on aesthetic experience and preserving resources, I am not entirely sure that he would be ok with spending resources on animals that are just not that remarkable.
ReplyDeleteHe talks about the environment as a kind of home, so if these animals are seen as part of that shared home, I think he would support protecting them. But he might only argue for preserving them if they add overall beauty to the environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Scruton would want to maintain the beauty of nature in his home. He would support protecting animals but prioritize maintaining the general beauty of the environment. If an animal species does not add to the aesthetic beauty of its environment or contribute in some way then I don't believe he would support efforts to preserve that species.
ReplyDeleteLucas Ross
Delete4. I for the life of me cannot understand the reasoning behind opening up our greatest natural treasure for logging. I understand that it is cost effective and if the nation is going to engage in a trade war it needs to show that it'll sacrifice anything to win said trade war but there has to be a better alternative than this. One of the main drawbacks of conservatism (at least in my opinion) is the mismatching application of sentimental values. This leads to odd social policies with extremely aggressive economic policy which seems at odds with each other.
ReplyDelete1. Scruton would probably say we should protect fish like the delta smelt because we have a duty to take care of what we call our home. However, he does place some emphasis on aesthetic value, so it could depend on what he deems aesthetic in his eyes.
ReplyDelete