my environmental ethics class is the bane of my existence

so i stupidly thought it would be a good idea to take, first of all, a philosophy class at smith college...i might add that this philosophy class is 'environmental ethics'. while i identify myself as a fairly liberal democrat, this class makes me want to turn into a far-right, conservative republican. it also makes me want to cry or throw my coffee mug at someone's head.

the thing is, it's not a bad class. the readings are great, the work isn't too bad, and the professor is amusing, incredibly intelligent, and clearly knows his shit. the problem is that 90 percent of the smith population that i hate is in the class.

we've got all sorts of trust-fund hippies who, in the end, have probably never worked a day in their miserable little lives. they spout out liberal buzzwords like 'sustainability' and often remind us to 'diversify our alternative energy sources'. while they want to (and believe they can) 'subvert the dominant paradigm', they can't cross the street without getting hit by a car.

i should start over.
ok.
so, i took this class because i felt that environmental law would be a great career path for me. maybe it is, but certainly not if being an environmental lawyer is even VAGUELY reminiscent of this class. which, now that i think of it, it probably isn't. why? because these poor souls in this class have no real world solutions or realistic suggestions. 'smash the patriarchy' probably doesn't mesh well with policy jargon.

the class, as it is billed, is simply a study of how ethics can be applied to environmental policy and decision making. if i had known that class discussion (stupidly fostered by the professor--this is his only fault) would center around some jackass's preachy tirade about how the government should legally enforce a vegetarian diet on all american citizens, i would not have signed up. not in a million years. we rarely discuss policy, once in a while we'll look at a case study, but the class mainly seems to be a soapbox for smithies who, as usual, just want to affirm their own fucking views. once again, smith proves itself intolerant as i am SERIOUSLY afraid to speak out against any of them.

the thing is, none of them seem to understand very much about, well, very much. for instance, today we were discussing some bullshit-- i don't even remember what because we only focused on the actual reading for 3 minutes before the floor was opened up to these deliciously uninformed rants on shifting the power structure etc. anyway, we were supposed to be picking the most ECONOMICALLY and SOCIALLY feasible way to solve a problem: there is a river in the Northwest that is dammed in various places. It produces a ton of hydroelectric power. It has, with the lakes it has created, provided a great habitat for lots of waterfowl. Tons of barges go up and down this river-- crops like timber, grain, and potatoes are shipped inexpensively. This type of transportation is also less polluting than, say, shipping things on roads in flatbed trucks. The only thing is, the salmon population is slipping. THE FUCKING SALMON POPULATION. Ok, so that's bad. But one of the inexpensive options is to produce a fish lift like we have in Holyoke. It's the cheapest option. It would not shut down the dams. Economic and social factors dependent on the dam and what it produces would continue unchanged. From antecedent probability, we see that the lift would indeed be functional.

Possibly the best option, right? WRONG. Not to Smith College! According to my class, we need to, first of all, completely shut down the dams. The level of the lakes would return to the shallowness appropriate for salmon breeding. Spend the 500 million to tear down the dam. Let the fish run free. Give little or no attention to the fact that the habitat (albeit one that we have created) is now home to lots of other species. NO. WE ONLY CARE ABOUT THE EFFING SALMON.

This is only the beginning. Lots of agriculture is completely dependent on irrigation that comes from damming the river. There is apparently a huge aluminum smelting industry depending on cheap hydroelectric power. And, as I mentioned, barge transportation of good depends on the dams.

One girl asked about the aluminum smelting industry: "what is that, anyway? do we really need it?"
While, perhaps, recycling is a more viable option for aluminum cans, this girl failed to realize that 1) aluminum goes into other things and 2) THIS INDUSTRY CREATES JOBS. This girls parents are clearly not employed by the aluminum smelting industry. So why should she care? Just get rid of it. Who gives a shit. The salmon. It's all about the salmon (which we aren't allowed to eat, but more on that later).

Clearly the agriculture dependent on irrigation is not important either. One girl suggested that "we should all live in self-sustaining communities". LISTEN. I'm glad to hear that whatever planet your'e from has a mediterranean climate and infinitely fertile soil, plus the time and means to grow and produce whatever you fucking feel like, but here in the lovely state of Massachusetts, we have something called WINTER during which time we do not grow things and must import them. I have a feeling, too, that if these idiots were forced to live on a farm for more than a week they'd shit their pants. They glorify and idealize organic farming, but seem to FAIL to realize that organic farming means pulling weeds by hand, dealing with pests directly; it's altogether much more time consuming. So yes, Smith College, go buy yourself an organic farm. Eat your grass and continue being miserable. Sure, go ahead and assume farmers are stupid because they don't have a degree from some fancypants institution. I wanted to suggest that these girls and the farmers strip themselves of all of their belongings-- all the money in the world says that the farmers will be able to live off the land MUCH longer than these intolerant brats who don't even know how to do their own laundry, much less raise a fucking field of corn. How's that for Social Darwinism/ survival of the fittest?

So yes. Let's get rid of agriculture. Oh, and one girl said there should be no interstate commerce-- i.e. Idaho should live off its own damn potatoes. Once again, there is failure to realize that these girls' precious little soybeans come from some plantation somewhere. I can not emphasize how mad these people make me. Oh, and also the government should enforce a countrywide vegetarian diet. We should stop eating meat. And the grain that is grown? We'll just eat that instead. Because it's a complete protein, right? Or maybe because we live in America where people are free to choose what they eat? Oh yeah, that. The Bill of Rights says nothing about that, so we're free to penalize people who EAT FUCKING MEAT.

Also, arent' there bigger, more important things going on in this country that we should be worrying about? No? Ok. Salmon population it is! We shouldn't worry about the economy. Or worry about destroying, for that matter, the jobs dependent on these dams which might be some of the only fucking jobs left in this country. Fuck you, Smith College.

Let me reiterate: trust-fund hippies with NO experiential knowledge run this campus. They think they know, but they don't. I'm not saying I know any better, but hey, at least listen to what the professor is saying. Your parents are paying for your lazy ass to be here for a reason.

Yet another reason I need OUT of here.