Please use the link below as a reference to the questions asked.
Reference reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/us/california-redwoods-climate.html
Accurately summarizes the NYT article. Important details are not left out, e.g. the kind of trees mentioned, the exact regions that have the trees (and would have the trees), the precise effects of global warming mentioned, and which ecosystem exactly stands to be harmed according to the most
scientists.
Give a brief summary of the article, but focus on Taylor.
Introduce Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism in general before launching into what Taylor might say about the NYT article. Do not confuse Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism with ecocentrism.
Discuss the four main duties of Taylor, but the discussion makes sense (logically flows) given biocentric egalitarianism in general. More specifically, it’s mentioned that following the duties is supposed to be the way we respect nature as biocentric egalitarians. To be sure, the first two duties can each be given a fairly quick explanation. But the duty of non-interference should be highlighted and clearly explained with no important details left out, e.g., this duty has features or parts to it that should be touched on. It should be clearly stated that the duty of non-interference suggests that Taylor would not be okay with assisted migration. Also, the duty of restitutive justice is highly relevant. Because the motivation for assisted migration is human-caused global warming, this duty suggests that perhaps Taylor would be okay with assisted
migration.
Accurately portray the ideas of the reading or handout. Illustrate key points where applicable. Key terms are defined if needed (e.g., ‘assisted migration’, ‘intrinsic value’, ‘teleological center of life’). Do not assume that the reader has a background in the issues at hand, so nothing important is left unexplained.