, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
"SAVE THE BLUE WHALE!"
Step 1: Post an initial position (80% of grades)
1. My Original Answer and Why
When I first encountered the crossroads assessment question, I chose option (d): "We must save blue
whale because their survival is critical for sustaining healthy ocean ecosystems." My reasoning was
grounded in a pragmatic, systems-based understanding of environmentalism, heavily influenced by
the concept of ecosystem services.
I am a student of economics and environmental science, and my thinking has been shaped by the
work of scholars like Gretchen Daily (1997), who famously articulated the economic and ecological
benefits that natural systems provide to humanity. To me, the blue whale isn't just a beautiful animal;
it's a keystone species in the marine environment. Their survival is directly linked to the health of the
entire ocean. For example, the phenomenon now known as the "whale pump" is crucial. As Roman
et al. (2014) demonstrated, whales feed at depth and then defecate at the surface, releasing iron and
nitrogen-rich plumes that stimulate the growth of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are the base of the
marine food web and are also responsible for producing a significant portion of the Earth's oxygen
and capturing carbon dioxide (Chami et al., 2019).
This is a clear case of what environmental philosophers call instrumental value – the value
something has as a means to an end (Korsgaard, 1983). The blue whale, in this view, is valuable not
just for what it is, but for what it does for us and the planet. It acts as a biological engine that helps
regulate the climate and support fisheries. Protecting the whale is, therefore, a smart investment in
our own future. Option (d) seemed like the most scientifically sound and defensible position because
it moves the argument beyond emotion and into the realm of tangible, measurable benefits. It felt
like the "correct" answer in an academic setting where we are taught to value evidence and utility.
2. My Current Answer and Why
My current answer has shifted significantly. While I still believe the ecological arguments are
critically important, my perspective has evolved to see them as incomplete and insufficient on their
own. I now believe my position is most closely aligned with option (a): "Why?" , or perhaps a
synthesis of (a) and (e).
The reason for this shift is that I've come to realize, through reading philosophers like Aldo Leopold
(1949) and Holmes Rolston III (1988), that over-reliance on instrumental value is a dangerous
foundation for conservation. When we argue that "we must save the blue whale because it's useful to
us," we are essentially creating a transaction. We are saying that the whale's right to exist is
contingent on its performance for humanity. What happens if a new technology makes whales
economically redundant? What if, contrary to current science, a study found that their impact was
negligible? Under a purely instrumental framework, the moral imperative to protect them would
vanish. As Singer (1975) would argue, this creates a dangerous moral hierarchy where value is
assigned solely based on usefulness to the dominant species.
"SAVE THE BLUE WHALE!"
Step 1: Post an initial position (80% of grades)
1. My Original Answer and Why
When I first encountered the crossroads assessment question, I chose option (d): "We must save blue
whale because their survival is critical for sustaining healthy ocean ecosystems." My reasoning was
grounded in a pragmatic, systems-based understanding of environmentalism, heavily influenced by
the concept of ecosystem services.
I am a student of economics and environmental science, and my thinking has been shaped by the
work of scholars like Gretchen Daily (1997), who famously articulated the economic and ecological
benefits that natural systems provide to humanity. To me, the blue whale isn't just a beautiful animal;
it's a keystone species in the marine environment. Their survival is directly linked to the health of the
entire ocean. For example, the phenomenon now known as the "whale pump" is crucial. As Roman
et al. (2014) demonstrated, whales feed at depth and then defecate at the surface, releasing iron and
nitrogen-rich plumes that stimulate the growth of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are the base of the
marine food web and are also responsible for producing a significant portion of the Earth's oxygen
and capturing carbon dioxide (Chami et al., 2019).
This is a clear case of what environmental philosophers call instrumental value – the value
something has as a means to an end (Korsgaard, 1983). The blue whale, in this view, is valuable not
just for what it is, but for what it does for us and the planet. It acts as a biological engine that helps
regulate the climate and support fisheries. Protecting the whale is, therefore, a smart investment in
our own future. Option (d) seemed like the most scientifically sound and defensible position because
it moves the argument beyond emotion and into the realm of tangible, measurable benefits. It felt
like the "correct" answer in an academic setting where we are taught to value evidence and utility.
2. My Current Answer and Why
My current answer has shifted significantly. While I still believe the ecological arguments are
critically important, my perspective has evolved to see them as incomplete and insufficient on their
own. I now believe my position is most closely aligned with option (a): "Why?" , or perhaps a
synthesis of (a) and (e).
The reason for this shift is that I've come to realize, through reading philosophers like Aldo Leopold
(1949) and Holmes Rolston III (1988), that over-reliance on instrumental value is a dangerous
foundation for conservation. When we argue that "we must save the blue whale because it's useful to
us," we are essentially creating a transaction. We are saying that the whale's right to exist is
contingent on its performance for humanity. What happens if a new technology makes whales
economically redundant? What if, contrary to current science, a study found that their impact was
negligible? Under a purely instrumental framework, the moral imperative to protect them would
vanish. As Singer (1975) would argue, this creates a dangerous moral hierarchy where value is
assigned solely based on usefulness to the dominant species.
