> CB: Gotta tell you. I am not very to open to concepts like "perfectly
linked". It starts to get religious
>
Tom:
yes. stupid of me. Howabout "really well linked."?
> CB: Yes, take your time. But remember I am a humanist. I don't go for
"anthropocentric".
>
> ((((((((((((
Well, this implies that I must tailor-make an opinion that avoids stuff you
"don't go for".
I will pass on that wonderful opportunity.
>
>
> > 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: Still, at each point here your conceptions implicitly come down to
human species survival as the standard. "Unsustainable" means unsustainble
in the sense that something humans are using will runout. The notion of
"linked" , perfectly or well, means the human species being linked in a way
that it doesn't use up what it needs to survive.
Tom:
Yes. This is anthropocentric. ... and somewhere back about July we had a
discussion of anthropocentrism addressing this point. The idea of this form
of anthropocentrism is inseperable in discussing "the Crash." Of course that
standard is "man is the measure of all things". Otherwise, why are we
discussing? Go home, mix some martinis and wait for the crash. As Carlin
says," the earth ain't going away. We are." So what is the point of your
objection?
> CB: What do you mean "exuse" ? Excuse for whom or what ? Who or what is
the judge who would or would not give the excuse ?
>
> (((((((((((
Perhaps I am guilty of reading into your questions the same implications
Carrol read into mine. In generalized schoolyard terms what I meant was
"Just because nature allows extinction is no permission for man to embark
upon extinction wholesale." I think I was anticipating an argument you were
about to make "Nature kill species, man is part of nature, therefore man can
kill species" but you wouldn't make that mistake would you?
> CB: Nature is right here, right now while the humans ( who are not outside
of Nature) are doing it. Ergo, the current extinction is by Nature, just as
much as the Cambrian extinction or the dinosaur extinction. Humans are
natural beings. There is no such thing as a non-natural being.
Yes. The mistake implicit in your statement is that humans can continue
"doing it" because they are natural. In a way you are correct. Humans can do
it up to the limits imposed by nature. These are called "consequences" and
unavoidable. It IS a value judgement on my part to think this activity is
not a good idea. If you think it is an okay idea, kewl.
> CB: Alternative to what ?
>
> ))))))))))))))
And now you are being disingenuous.
>
> I don't agree that it is possible to do anything that is not in line with
Momma Nature. Reality is natural. Humans are not capbable of violating the
natural laws of the universe ( Momma Nature).
Yep. Agreed. Humans are simply capable of hastening their own extinction.
It's a bad idea, but it is indeed "anthropocentric" to say so. If you wish
to argue that such human activity as leads to early extinction is excusable
or supportable because "Humans are not capbable of violating the natural
laws of the universe", by all means do so. Far be it from me ...
> CB: Are you seriously saying that humans could "destroy" nature ? The
universe is infinite. Huimans are infinitely small compared to nature.
>
> On a lesser level , are you claiming that humanas are in the course of
exterminating all life on earth ? Cockroaches are pretty tough. Don't you
think humans will die out before all life is destroyed ?
Nah. I'm saying they are at this moment destroying nature at a rate
comparable with the Cambiran period you mentioned, the dinosaur extinction
event, and even the Mississipian. I never meant to imply "all" life. Just a
lot of it. I think it's a bad idea. Yes of course humans will die out
before they take out every species. It is only another value judgement of
mine -- and an assertion at best -- that it would be a shame to kill off all
bears and whales and leopards as humans make their exit.
>
> CB: Major changes in society must go through the political. Economic or
cultural change is controlled by the political, the power. Ultimately,
economic change cannot comeabout without poltical change first. Same with
the cultural. _Capital_ is a critique of POLITICALeconomy
>
> This point may be a bit semantical. I don't know that we disagree in
substance on the last point.
No, I agree in substance. as far as it goes. I have been arguing that nature
is acting in the economic arena, I suppose it is not too much more madness
to argue that nature is acting in the political arena too. The problem right
now is one of timing, nature requiring change in economic, cultural and
political activity, and requiring those changes simultaneously and rapidly.
If we wait for political change to be perfected (ie be "first") we don't
have the time.
>
>
> With due respect, for us to have our most direct exchange, we should focus
on the humanism vs naturocentric issue. I am saying openly to you that my
interest in other species is through their impact on the human species.
That is the crux of the general difference I am feeling.
>
> Best to you,
>
> CB
Thanks, CB, I too think this is the general difference. I am arguing -- as I
just wrote to Carrol -- for a position of "intrinsic value" of species.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
