I read an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune published on Jan. 30th, 2010 that talked about a current "man vs. nature" conflict. It involved the fishing industry in California and the endangered species of sea otters.
While the population of living sea otters were being diminished by fur trade, the supply of shellfish, mussels, and snails grew and helped fishing companies evolve into $10 million industries that supplied seafood to many restaurants and fish markets. After the protection sea otters received by being declared an endangered species in 1977 under the Endangered Species Act, their population has grown and a group of sea otters have made their way to the waters of California to call home. Because of the otters' diet, the supply that the fishing companies rely on has declined and has brought down companies' profits. There have been attempts made to relocate the sea otters to an artificial habitat on a distant island, but the otters seem to dislike their forced home and return to what has been called the "no-otter zone" where fishermen call dibs on the sea creatures that otters feast on. Companies are complaining that "giving the critters free rein will jeopardize their industry." (www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-otter-recovery)
So the question is, who's side would Locke take in this case: the fishing companies or the sea otters?! Who should rightfully get first dibs on the supply? I think this debate can go either way. The sea otters have a legal advantage in which the fishermen cannot touch the otters because they are endangered and because of the fact that they are endangered, the sea otters shouldn't be denied access to the food that they need to survive. However, according to Locke, sea creatures would be considered a part of nature, that which is common. Therefore, fishing companies have the right to take the shellfish, mussels, and any other sea creatures and "prepare" them to be sold to restaurants and to people. We have discussed Locke's theories in the terms of people vs. people, but does that apply to cases where it's people vs. animals with legal rights?
I think that Locke would be in favor of the sea otters. Not only are the otters protected by a contract, but God created both animals and humans, and although we are obviously superior, this would deal with who owns this property. Does the state of California own this property, do the fishermen, or do the sea creatures who inhabit the ocean own it? Obviously, for an animal to take any kind of ownership would be ridiculous, while on the other hand I think we should give the otters credit. When one door closes, another opens and though it may seem the otter are hurting profits, they are preserving their lives, and probably benefiting the natural restoration of the ocean and environment. If we compare the otters to humans, which sounds ridiculous, I'm in favor of the otters, who put work into the sea, just like the fishers, so the land is common to both of them. In the end, I am sure the humans will win, but it sounds like a touchy situation.
ReplyDeleteI feel for the plight of the otter. But its contract protects them from being slaughtered, it doesn't give them rights to property. I believe that Locke would agree that nature is important but these fisherman are helping to sustain life for man-kind. The fisherman put in the labor to ensure that fish is caught and secured for sale and consumption by others. These people as a whole benefit. It's not that the sea otter is being killed for food they are being relocated to keep business flowing and supply a basic need to the people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Locke would go for the sea otters. The sea otters are the ones that are doing the labor to survive. Locke would not go with the fishing companies because they tend to waste food. Locke believes if we waste our property it is considered stealing. The otters only consume what that need; they do not take more than they can handle, but companies do. Eventually they will have to much in stock, which they cannot sell before it expires. Therefore, Locke will go in favor of the sea otters.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, after reading this article I believe that locke would be ont he side of the companies. The sea otters don't really produce much for the commmunity that they live in, except damage it. If the fish companies could have more fish, productivity would go up and so would labor and the work-force. Also, the companies that gather otters would start to profit if the animals would be lifted from the endangered species list. This would solve problems. But because Locke doesn't think from an emotional point of view, but rather from an economical one I think he would go with the companies.
ReplyDelete