> CB: When you say "RE-linking" , do you mean in the past "man" was linked
to that perception ?
Yes. In the past was what is now called by Quinn "the Great Forgetting",
when we forgot the 3 million years of evolution wherein we were perfectly
linked. You might look back a couple of posts to the reference to "Descent
into Olduvai" for a balanced view. I am informed that the new edition
"Descent of Woman" now has a discussion of this. Naess says we still carry
the capacity to link up. I'd take a while to explain further, ...
complicated, ... all that.
> What is your definition of _exploiting_ the natural world ?
Practicing unsustainable activity in every aspect of our culture. "Eating
our Grandchildren" is the way the Hopi describe it.
>
> CB: Do you agree that 10,000's of species have extinguished in the course
of natural history by non-human causes, i.e. that's the way nature works ?
Of course. But that in no way supports or excuses the massive die-off
caused by man's exploitive activities. Nature doesn't endanger or wipe out
whole orders of species over the course of 250 years. (look at the current
extreme we have place the entire order of amphibians in, if you need a scary
wake-up call!) We are in the midst of one of the most devastating extinction
events in geological time, the direct result of our exploitive culture. See
E.O. Wilson's "Diversity of Life" for a prize-winning summary. I posted some
other stuff to the list a while back. If you are truly interested beyond
this discussion, ask me off list and I'll send you some.
> CB: Isn't true that the natural history of ecosystems is that they
change, not that they are preserved ? Wouldn't it be unnatural to arrest
everything in its current state ?
If you think the alternative is what we have now, you don't understand the
problem. You should not read Wilson's statement above as "arresting
everything"; he is concerned with allowing the *systems* to continue to
operate unmolested. i.e. it's okay for Momma Nature to kill species of bears
off, it ain't okay for the chinese bile market to do it.
Implicit in your question is the idea that man's exploitive activity is
somehow a natural part of things and that nature is resilient enough to
absorb the activites. Since Rachel Carson we have begun to learn that nature
is not. Again, the massive dieoff we have inflicted upon the biosystem
should have you much more alarmed than you appear to be.
> CB: Expending energy in politics is the only way humanity will survive.
Changing human conduct with respect to ecology is a political project. If
you don't have a political model , you will fail in your goals.
I am tempted to explain once again that this is a reason for participating
in Crashlist. However, your use of the word "only" up there disqualifies
your statement. "Changing human conduct" -- as little of it as can BE
changed -- is not just an operation for the political sphere. Tahir's
statement about state modeling notwithstanding, economic activity is another
area where marxists excel and can be useful. There is nothing "only" about
the issue under discussion. Every area of human culture needs attention.
However I do agree that failure is guarenteed without a political component.
Since I *do* have a political model -- Voila Crashlist, and my frustration
about gettin' on to a discussion of it.
Thanks, Charles
Tom
"They counted on being able to punish them into being better, on being able
to inspire them into being better, on being able to educate them into being
better. And after ten thousand years of trying to improve people--without a
trace of success -- they wouldn't dream of turning their attention
elsewhere." - My Ishmael, Daniel Quinn
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
