I'm happy about my "Threading the Needle: Species Eliminativism Meets Biological Conservation" coming out in BJPS. In essence, Marc Ereshefsky provided some very powerful arguments for eliminating the species category from biology. But the species category is essential for environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act. So, what should we do? In this essay, I offer a deflationary way of characterizing species that avoids eliminativism and keeps the ESA intact for conservation. Here is a non-paywalled copy.
James F. Miller Professor of Humanities & Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Lewis & Clark College
Northern Spotted Owls
Over the last year, I have done a deep dive on ethical and conceptual issues regarding the conservation of northern spotted owls. I have now lived in Oregon for about twenty years. Finally I have been able to really think about an important ecological and environmental issue in my own backyard. They have served as an example in my papers and my book Ecological Models; however, I have now been able to dig deeper. This year I hope to have two papers come out on the topic. The first will be a shorter one and then their will be a longer more comprehensive one.
The main claims I am arguing for are:
The effect of protecting the northern spotted owl on jobs in the Pacific Northwest has been dramatically overstated.
The competitive displacement of northern spotted owls by the barred owl should not be addressed by killing the later to save the former.
We should create legislation that directly conserves old-growth temperate rainforest without a reliance on indicator species like the northern spotted owl and the Endangered Species Act (an Endangered Ecosystems Act if you like).
These issues link up to things I have been interested in for years including consequentialism, the nature of ecosystems, “policing nature.” and green jobs. It also gives me time to think about forests I really love.
What's the Deal with the Green New Deal?
Today in my Philosophy and the Environment course, we had a class discussion of the Green New Deal. Here are my slides with links and lots of information for the curious. The core questions we discussed were these. The GND is a resolution concerning decarbonization, jobs, and justice. But, why offer a resolution conjoining all three as opposed to separate legislation? Are these issues inextricably linked? Why?
We talked in detail about the specific goals and projects. There was a good discussion about how they might be linked, and the various objections that have been raised — how much will it cost? is it just a progressive wishlist? Where is nuclear power? If Republicans won’t accept much weaker proposals, why would they accept this? Can mass movements like the Sunrise movement remove conservatives moderates to make the GND possible?
Additionally, we considered radical theories and what they might say — is it too anthropocentric? is it too top-down and not sufficiently “bottom up” as libertarian socialists prefer? Can other countries like Mexico be exploited for energy? How does it address sprawl?
Overall, it was a great learning experience for me, and I think them.
Fulbright Canada
At the moment, I am on sabbatical as a Fulbright Visiting Research Chair at the University of Calgary. I did my PhD here and it is really wonderful to be back and see old and new faces. This last week my Ch. 3 on emotions and natural kinds was read in a grad seminar, reading group, and I gave it as a talk to the department. I received really rich feedback from Marc Ereshefsky, Ken Waters, Adrian Currie, Kirsten Walsh, and a whole host of others. With their help, I have a good draft of Ch. 3, and can move on to Ch. 4 - the evolution of the emotions!
Guelph and Emotions
This week I am at the University of Guelph outside Toronto hanging out with my friend and philosopher Stefan Linquist. I am giving a talk at the University entitled, "Emotions as Multimodal Perceptions; or What James Got Right." It should be fun and I get to try out some new ideas. It has been very fruitful preparing the talk because it makes me see my writing from different angles. So, after this, some edits on the first Chapter and then back to Chapter Two on kinds of emotions.
The second chapter excites me because I am having to think hard about the work of Paul Ekman and a recent critic Lisa Feldman Barrett. Her work poses some very interesting challenges to the claim that emotions are natural kinds. Specifically, she argues that facial expressions associated with the so-called "basic emotions" are not universal in any deep sense. Given the consensus around Ekman's work, if she is right, then this is important stuff. I am skeptical and have my reasons, but I need to think carefully through the issues.
One upshot if she is right is really interesting. If there are basic emotions and there are universal facial expressions associated with them, then cross-cultural communication regarding how we feel might be relatively straightforward. But, if there are no basic emotions or these expressions are not universal, then such communication might be strained at best and really difficult at worst. The debate has important upshots I think.
Chapter 1!
I am writing a book tentatively called In a Sentimental Mood: Emotion, Evolution, and Expression. And, I just finished a draft of Chapter 1, "What is an emotion?" Writing a book is very different than writing articles. It is lots of work but also lots of fun. Now, off to Chapter 2!
RoME
I just returned from the Rock Mountain Ethics Conference at the University of Colorado Boulder organized by Ben Hale and Alastair Norcross. It was a great conference. My presentation was a version of A Guilt Trip: Expressivism, Moral Judgment, and Basic Emotions. My commentator Camil Golub gave me great feedback and lots to think about along with the fine folks at the conference.
Most interestingly, Don Marquis in a session with Michael Tooley argued that his "future like ours" argument for the immorality of abortion was unsound. It is always cool to see philosophers who are willing to change their minds in light of a good objections.
ISHPSSB 2015 & Denialism in Science
I just returned from ISHPSSB 2015 in Montreal Canada. It was a wonderful conference where Matt Haber and I put together two back-to-back sessions on philosophy and anthropology. The talks were great and I think well-received. Additionally, Adrian Bardon put together an excellent workshop at Wake Forest University. The theme was denialism in science and there were some amazing psychologists, philosophers, political scientists, and communications folks. All in all, an excellent summer so far...