As British commerce set its sights on China, into its imperialist "portmanteau", they packed opium, the addictive and illegal drug they hoped would level the trade imbalance that existed between China and England. The resulting Opium Wars between the two sovereignties led to China's loss of Hong Kong, with its strategic location and deep water ports, to the British. Britain’s introduction of environmental and economic changes to its Asian colony changed the culture of the Hong Kong people.

The tiny island, before its colonization, sustained a small population of subsistence-fishing people. However, as Britain transformed this undeveloped island into a commercial seaport, and as British missionaries came into this new colony to force salvation onto the poor pagans of the "orient", the integrity of this subsistence-fishing culture began to dramatically suffer.

My grandparents lived in an increasingly commercialized and populated Hong Kong. Subsistence fishing declined as people worked in the bustling commercial seaport. My grandparents contributed to the overpopulation, and the resulting degradation, of Hong Kong by having large families. The importance of having many children was rooted in the traditions of this patrilocal culture. However, the ability to support a large family in Hong Kong also involved changing the traditional modes of production, and entering the British constructed commercial enterprise. Trying to produce a suitable number of boys, my mother's mother concluded her childbearing years with nine girls and three boys. Supporting twelve children, however, was not difficult, because of my grandfather's role in British commerce, as a successful wholesale and retail businessman. The size of my father's family illustrates the importance of adapting to the new environment. My grandmother was a traditional Chinese healer, who struggled to support three children, two boys and one girl, after my grandfather's death when my father was four years old. Because she did not incorporate herself into the new environment of British commerce, their modes of production and survival proved more difficult.

My parents grew up during the rapid industrialization of Hong Kong. Missionaries developed Christian schools that offered courses in English language, which, to the commerce-dependent people, was a necessity. My grandparents, who had been Buddhists believing in the spirituality of nature, sent their children to Christian schools for the best education. Since then, my mother has converted to Christianity and my father does not identify with any religious belief. Although they both agree that nature is a "good" thing, its spirituality has been replaced by its importance to the human standard of living.

My parents have benefited from Britain's colonization of Hong Kong. A new language, new schools, new infrastructure, a new type of economy and government, better education, and a new religion were all introduced to the Chinese people, along with the pollution, degradation and overpopulation of the island. This new industrial environment gave my parents a "western" education, complete with the capitalist and consumerist ideals that allow my parents to succeed as business people involved in the importation of Chinese factory-made goods into the United States.

Today, Hong Kong is still a tiny island, but now it is home to several million people. Although the industrial exodus of factories out of Hong Kong and into China occurred during the 1980's, the water is still sewage-laden, the air is heavy with pollution, and the streets are packed with too many people. Pride in the British colonial heritage and ideals is evident in the migration of wealthy capitalists out of Hong Kong before the Chinese reclamation of the island. The values of many Hong Kong citizens have changed. Materialism, Christianity, and capitalism are the dominant aspects of this new Hong Kong "culture" that was introduced by the British, and that has justified the degradation of the environment.

My parents joined the exodus out of Hong Kong when I was one year old. I grew up in a suburb of San Francisco. The environment in which I live is now post-industrial, based on the same Christian, capitalist ideals that influenced my parents. My desire to help remediate the adverse effects of humans on the planet is more a result of a scientific interest than of philosophical or ethical reasoning. As my brain fumbles with the philosophies of both pro and anti-environmentalism, I wonder if both beliefs have roots within the Judeo-Christian dogma of human dominion over nature. Whether planetary exploiters or planetary stewards, the right or responsibility of humans as the dominant species to control the earth seems to be the underlying principle. My study of environmental science involves manipulations of “nature” in an attempt to “fix” our past manipulations. As a person who is trying to reject the Christian beliefs that have polluted the world and altered the cultures of people around the world, it is disturbing to think that it is these same beliefs that have paved the foundation for my major.

I believe that my preference of science over philosophy is due to the social environment, constructed by my parents and “western” ideals. My parents and this society both tend to place a higher value on questions with a definite, quantifiable, and tangible answers, which are typically provided by science, rather than philosophy. I am hoping that my interest in science will affect the environment and society positively, and that this class will provide me with a better philosophical understanding of human existence and the role of humans on earth.