John D. Giorgis wrote:
>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.
Did you read what *I* wrote? We can't destroy life. We can destroy
ourselves and set life back a few billion years, but no, we can't destroy
life. I don't consider this an overly pleasant idea, though.
>>"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.
Add "and the other species on this planet" and we're in agreement.
>>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.
They exist. That's all they need. "Purpose", in this case, does not mean
"use".
>> 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.
Er, can I take it away without killing myself? No? Then I don't think it
counts as giving. They're pretty much on their own. <grin>
>
>You *can* give protection and nuturing to a dog, cat, fish, iguana, or
>other pet.
>
>You *can* cultivate plants.
Yup. I regard it more as a trade, though: I give, I take away. It's also
how I regard agriculture at large. But that's all a personal, human
thing, done for animals because I want some emotional or economic return.
I can't "give" a wolf his territory or his life. I can't "give" the bears
Yellowstone Park; I can only cease to take these things away, in the same
way that no government can give me the right to free speech, but can only
acknowledge my right to free speech. It's an important distinction IMO.
>>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.
All right, how's this: I do not consider myself civilized unless I
recognize the rights of others. I include non-sentients in my definition
of "other". No recognition, no civilization.
>> 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.
Ow! 'Scuse me, I just got whiplash lookin' for that huge mess of
mosiquitos I was supposed to nuke with DDT- they seem to have dissapeared
and left me with this one wimpy bug. Watch those snips, John; this is
taking my comments out of context with a vengence. <grin>
Of *course* I swat mosquitos. They *bite*. I kill flies too. I'm a
farmer. I kill and eat cattle. And I *certainly* have killed my share of
pests. That's nature. I'm still part of nature. When I find a way to keep
the buggers from biting me, then we'll talk about their right to exist.
But I don't spray a swamp with DDT- or any other pesticide- to get rid of
them, because there's more things in swamps than mosquitos. There are
*consequences* to this action. I am, technically, a higher form of life,
and I should be and am aware of these consequences. There is a question
of scale here which you've rather convienently eliminated.
>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.
Sure- as I said, you seem to have made some mistake about what I was
trying to say. These aren't inflexible rules- it's more like a sliding
scale.
But is drilling for oil a "need"? Is supplying the timber trade from
rainforests a "need"? Or is it merciless, pointless, and malicious
destruction of life?
Obviously the answer is somewhere in the grey zone, but I would put it
more towards the "merciless and pointless" end of the scale. I am
guessing, however, that you would not.
Kat Feete
-------------
"He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them
something to aim at."
Terry Pratchett
