John D. Giorgis wrote:
>All I'm saying is that it makes no sense to ruin us because we "might" ruin
>the Earth. (Actually, it is highly unlikely that we would ruin the
>Earth, short of nukeing the whole thing. Things like global warming,
>while they might make life pretty miserable for us, might actually improve
>biodiversity on Earth. Sort of like the greening of Antarctica.)
So, in other words, we're only capable of destroying ourselves and the
few other billion species that exist on the Earth, not the Earth itself,
which will probably just go back to primordial soup level. I agree. Is
this supposed to be optimistic?
>
>Look, the environment is going to be changed by human activity. There
>isn't much that rational beings *can* do to avoid impacting the environment
>in one way or the other. Now, we can either fear the change, or we can
>understand the change, and work with the change. I'm just asking that we
>do the latter.
"The environment" is going to be changed by human activity- because we
are a part of the environment. Let's throw these artificial distinctions
out of the window right now. The difference between us and the rest of
"the environment" is that we are self-concious.
The arguement you seem to use, John (please note I say "seem to"- this is
all assumption- please correct me where necessary) and which seems to be
in popular usuage, is that this self-conciousness removes us from the
sphere of "the environment" and to a plane of higher being (in your view)
or to the level of scum-sucking destroyers (in the view of the more
radical end of the environmentalist movement). In either case the
assumption is that, for better or worse, our desires, needs, wants, and
choices are outside of the "environment" and must be considered
seperately. In your case, you assume that they are *paramount*- that the
environment should be considered only as it presents a benifit to
humanity. More than that, you wish to consider only that part of the
environment which offers an economically measurable benifit to humanity-
but more on that in a seperate message. Others have a different view of
humanity: I'm sure you're familiar with most of 'em, positive and
otherwise.
My view is something of a minority one as far as I can tell. I believe
that, although a self-aware component, we are still nothing more than a
*part* of the environment.
Let me segway briefly into some of the cool stuff we've been studying in
philosophy class recently, namely Aristotlian teleology. "Teleo" in Greek
means "end", in the sense of an endpoint, an aim, or a fufillment.
Aristotle believed that all things had a teleo. Man's teleo was
happiness, whereas the happiness of other living beings was a lesser
sense of satisfaction or, in the case of plants, simply living and
reproducing. But *everything* had their teleo, their aim or fufillment;
everything had a psyche, a soul. Even nonliving objects, while they did
not have a concious aim, still had a *purpose* and should be respected in
regards to that purpose.
Now I don't like all of Aristotle by any means, but my approach is
similar: *all* things have their place and their purpose. Man's purpose
appears to be slightly higher than that of other beings because we are
self-concious but, while that may in some cases supercede the purpose of
other beings. Other things do *not* exist simply for our use; they have a
purpose, a life, a set of aims and a right to exist that is entirely
independent of us. We are simply the first and the only beings to advance
far enough to recognize this right of ourselves, this right of other
beings; the only ones to have come far enough to given what already
exists a shape and a set of words. It's a bit like the American Bill of
Rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't *give* us anything. It merely states
what we already have and pledges not to attempt to obstruct that.
Similarly, I believe that the rights of other beings on this planet
exist. They don't need my permission to exist. They don't need my
*blessing* to exist. I can't *give* them anything; all I can do is cease
to take away.
This doesn't mean I place the lives of other beasties (or plants, or
places) above human life. If my family was in a burning building, I would
dive into that building to find them and save them; that's natural. But
if my family was safe I would turn around and walk back in to save
everybody else. That's civilization.
IAAMOAC. And that civilization does *not* merely include humans. If I
lived in a place where the humans were dying of malaria, I would not
hesitate to use DDT to kill the mosquitos. That's natural. They're
humans; they're my people. But if I could use any other chemical, I
would. If the mosquitos weren't a disease risk, but an annoyance, I would
do nothing; if they were affecting my *profit*, and the only choice was
to do damage to the environment or take the cut, I would take the cut.
That is civilization.
Human civilization has never progressed in a smooth ark. It has always
progressed in more of a jerky, nervous fashion, with various societies
coming across hurdles and, like nervous racehorses, gone smoothly across
some but balked- and fallen- at others. I think this is our next hurdle.
We've been nerving ourselves up to it for a while. What else is science
fiction about, after all, if not expanding that horizon of what we can
*respect*? Two centuries ago it was white Anglo-Saxons. Then we
reluctantly admitted the Celts; and more slowly, the blacks, the Asians,
the Indians... and just within the past fifty years or so have begun to
extend that barrier to natives, primitives, and cautiously and
reluctantly admitting that maybe we have no ability to tell them what is
"right" and what is "wrong" save in the most general of terms. And in
science fiction we say: what if they weren't even human? What if it was
an alien? What if it was a machine? Can we extend civilization, respect,
that barrier of not-fair-game to something that doesn't look like us?
Can we extend that barrier to our resident aliens- these beasts and
plants that we don't even understand? Can we accept that they, too, have
a right to their homes and their way of life that cannot be set aside for
our *convience* but only our *need*?
If we can- we'll make it through.
If we can't, we never deserved to.
Kat Feete
All homage to David Brin, whom I have most liberally and unabashedly
stolen things from.
---------
A man said to the Universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane
