At 02:55 PM 7/20/01 +1200 K.Feete 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?
If you're going to be serious, at least *read* what I wrote.
Humans are not about to eliminate life. Life is far more resilient than
we are.
>"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"
Its funny, Kat, but the above, and most of the rest of this message is an
argument that *I* usually use when arguing with environmentalists. IMHO,
our cities are as much part of the environment as a termite mound.
Humans *are* the environment, as much as anything else is. Thus, the
primary purpose of "environmentalism" is to ensure that poor
decision-making does not result in us making a sub-optimal living
environment for our future generations.
>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.
Wow, we're in the same minority!
>Even nonliving objects, while they did
>not have a concious aim, still had a *purpose* and should be respected in
>regards to that purpose.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree that rocks, argon gas, and snowflakes have a
purpose. I have great difficulty believing that Archaea, poison ivy,
cuckoos, bacteria, and mosquitos have a purpose - but I could be convinced.
> It's a bit like the American Bill of
>Rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't *give* us anything.
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed with our
Rights by our Creator. The Constitution, meanwhile, states that *the
People* are giving rights *to* the Government. The Bill of Rights is
simply the People saying, "by the way", just in case you didn't notice,
nowhere in the preceding pages did we give the government the right to do
this, this, and this.
> I can't *give* them anything; all I can do is cease
>to take away.
You *can* give a habitat to the billions of organisms your body is
providing a habitat for.
You *can* give protection and nuturing to a dog, cat, fish, iguana, or
other pet.
You *can* cultivate plants.
>IAAMOAC. And that civilization does *not* merely include humans.
Unfortunately, civilization, *by definition* includes humans. I'm not
saying that your concept of the unity of man, non-sentient life, and
inanimate matter is therfore invalid. I'm just saying that you *can't* use
the word civilization to describe it. Words mean things, and civilization
does not mean this.
> If the mosquitos weren't a disease risk, but an annoyance, I would
>do nothing;
You've never swatted a moquito? Its not like mosquitos are much of a
disease risk in the Eastern US - at least until the West Nile Virus came
over here.
>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.
So, if a mosquito was costing you $1mil, you wouldn't swat it? Say if
the mosquito was at risk of entering a "clean" room, where you were
developing a pharmaceutical?
I know what I would do.
> 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*
Indeed, I can agree to this. Merciless, pointless, and malicious
destruction of life is wrong.
I, however, would consider my above example to be a "need." I am
guessing, however, that you would not.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
