4(a) What is speciesism? (i) Why should we avoid it? (ii) Why might that fundamentally change the way we deal with our obligations to the environment? (b) Should you own an SUV? Why or why not? (i) Should we outlaw certain kinds of vehicles? Why or why not? (ii) How might we better regulate unusually wasteful or environmentally destructive consumer goods?

My long answer to the questions. 

Step-by-step explanation

(a) What is speciesism?

Speciesism is the discrimination of a living being based on its species. Speciesism is placing the interests and needs of the human being above the interests and needs of other living beings.

Speciesism is a discrimination towards species that are not of the human race, in this case, towards the animal species (paradoxically, since humans are also animals). Within this discrimination different criteria are established depending on the type of animal in question. In our society, animals considered companion animals, such as cats and dogs, have been gaining our respect, but nevertheless, farm animals, such as pigs, cows and chickens, are increasingly treated more as mere merchandise than as a sentient being that fights for the same survival needs as us.

We consider that the human species is superior to the rest of non-human animals, believing ourselves with the right to exploit, use and sacrifice them at will. Speciesism is cruel, unfair and arbitrary discrimination, as is sexism, racism and the rejection of people with a physical or intellectual disability.

Why should we avoid it?

There is no point in discriminating between species. Our misunderstanding of how we should relate to animals has led us into a dangerous complex: we believe we own animals and treat them like toys that are put to use until the rope snaps and they are thrown away. The gravest consequence for the animal species we despise is the cruelty and callousness with which we treat them. Our darkest and most recurring mistake is to see some species as simple food, whose value beyond that function does not exist. This harsh perception of most animal species would be the main argument to avoid speciesism. Another reason is the excessive commercialization that puts a large number of species in danger of extinction - whale shark, rhinoceros, whale, etc. - Our excessive utilitarian vision, in our favor, in the use and abuse of the relationship with animals endangers thousands of species each year and makes a large number disappear in the same way. They are more than enough reasons to avoid speciesism.

Why might that fundamentally change the way we deal with our obligations to the environment?

The elimination of speciesism would give us a more real, fair and balanced vision of how we should treat animals. By changing the way of treatment, we are also contributing to the preservation of the spaces in which these animals live. It is not just about not mistreating animals; it is also about respecting and protecting their environments. To take care of the spaces, the resources and the balance of the diverse biological chains that sustain the life of the species from their members. Reducing speciesism would be an interesting gap in favor of the preservation of the environment. By preserving, recovering and re-growing natural spaces as habitats for animal species, we are helping to guarantee a better quality of life for us as human beings.

Speciesism as an attitude of man is a great paradox. Why does man despise the animal species, being himself an animal? Hypothetically we should put ourselves in the shoes of a species such as pigs, or cows, even horses and rabbits, or poultry. What if one of these species had the power and the ability, the conscience and the reason to treat us with the same contempt with which we treat them? We would surely suffer, and a lot. But it is what we do not think, we are Cartesians, we believe that animals are simple insensitive mechanisms that do not suffer from our abuses.

(b) Should I have a truck? Why or why not?

Yes, I find that a truck is a great work tool, not just a luxury or a whim. This seen from the utility itself that the truck reports as an economic good. Now: having it depends on certain abilities or probabilities on the part of who wants to have it. Do you have the resources to maintain it? Do you have to pay for insurance? Are you safe when driving? These are visions of context that must be analyzed. Satisfaction or happiness is not strictly dependent on owning the truck; it depends on the responsibility with which it is used. All of these are variables that must be taken into account if I want to own a truck. Additionally, I must analyze if my desire to have it obeys more to a need than to a whim. If it is out of necessity: is the truck going to remedy my deficiency as I believe it to be? If it is on a whim or for pure pleasure, for luxury: are my economic conditions suitable for that? Will not buying a truck for sheer luxury put my financial stability at risk? to face the priorities determined as true necessity? Is the truck going to improve my quality of life, or is it just going to become an unnecessary expense? You should think about it very well, before giving the final yes.

Should we ban certain types of vehicles? Why or why not?

Basically we should ban vehicles whose operating and travel conditions do not meet the minimum operating standards for travel and to avoid environmental pollution. I think this would be the fundamental criterion for banning some vehicles. If a vehicle is well maintained, it does not emit smoke into the air, it does not release fuel as it moves, it does not make excessive noise, for example; I don't see why it should be forbidden to circulate. Now, if it is about banning certain vehicles in the sense that they should not even be produced and marketed - I am not very expert on the subject - rather, I am not an expert on the subject, I suppose all those should be prohibited Vehicles whose conditions do not meet the minimum safety requirements and additionally that continue to represent a factor of contamination of the environment and of risk to human life. Vehicles that do not have proven effectiveness in their minimal operation should be prohibited, so much so that they can be marketed without representing a risk to people and the environment. I continue to focus on this aspect because today there is a lot of talk about electric vehicles to minimize environmental pollution.

How could we better regulate consumer goods, unusually wasteful or environmentally destructive?

This is a subject that seems quite sensitive to me. However, I think that the most important thing is the change of mentality of the people in the use of this type of goods. A power plant that consumes large amounts of energy is not a problem in itself, the problem arises from abuse in its use. A plastic bag | is not a danger in itself, the problem arises when we use it and dispose of it irresponsibly. The way I understand it, the problem is not with unusually wasteful or environmentally destructive goods. The question should be how do we change our mindset to prevent consumer goods from being unusually wasted or environmentally destructive? The starting point of the problem is not the goods, it is us; the problem is the constant excess that we evidence in the use of such goods without thinking about the consequences for the environment, even for the economy of nations. A light bulb does not stay on 24 hours a day by choice; a plastic bag does not leave a warehouse by itself to jump into the sea. Does the 8 billion tons of plastic that fall into the oceans annually appear of their own free will? Without bad human action this would be impossible. So, to be specific: we must change our mentality, the way we relate to the environment. The problem is not the goods, the problem is us. How could we regulate? An absolute change of consciousness about the serious situation of compulsive consumerism and mega environmental pollution to which we have taken the planet.