Tom,
I think when we get to the following exchange below, we reach a point of clarity of
our differences:
Tom:
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: Ok !!! That's straight forward enough.
___________
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/09/00 01:24PM >>>
> 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, I am splitting hairs between "perfectly" and "really well" , because there
is a long history of association of words like "perfect" with religion. I don't know
exactly where you are coming from, so perhaps you are coming from a religious or
quasi-religious position. So, I don't think it is trivial or petty for me to focus in
on the word "perfect" in trying to get a precise determination of what your position
is. There is a substantive issue of religion/non-religion in the questions we are
discussing/debating.
So, furthermore, what is the substantiation of your claim that life was really well
linked to its environment for 3 million ( or was it billion years) ? Let me say , I
have studied paleontology and natural history too, and I don't agree with your claim
as you use it in this argument.
(Actually, further along, I think we clarify this. You are making a value judgment ,
and that is fine with me. Read below)
> 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".
((((((((((
CB: It doesn't imply you have to tailor your opinion. It is a sort of short way of
continuing the debate without my writing a long paragraph in response at every point.
Sort of letting you talk and state your opinion while briefly reminding you what my
contrary opinion is , and, so that we don't just give our opinions, but rather get
some direct confrontation of our points of difference. I guess I am trying to kind of
telescope exactly where we might disagree , without saying it harshly.
In other words, I kind of gather that you have the view that humanity is
anthropocentric and that Marxists are anthropocentric. I am trying to let you know
that that is where the rub is so you can focus on it , and we can have directly
meeting of issues, won't go around not answering each other directly as someone else
keeps complaining.
So, in other words, why do you think biocentric is correct and humanist wrong ?
((((((((((((
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: Well, it's humanist. Anthropocentric is pejorative. But what I am saying is that
there is hidden "humanist" standard in your argument.
The point of my objection is that avoiding "eating your grandchildren" is a humanist
standard. That is not the same thing as saving the leopards from the Masai. Do you
follow ? In other words I don't have as a goal to paraphrase Hallyx , insuring that
the rest of nature's creation enjoys the same benefits as humans.
(Hallyx had said: "3) What is the socialist "vision" for a sustainable society which
would
nurture us down the millennia while, at the same time, allowing the rest of
nature's creation to enjoy the same benefits? ")
I give priority to humans over other species. Tell me why you think that's wrong. And
just to anticipate, when you say I should be concerned about other species because we
need them, that is what I mean above when I say your position implicitly is "humanist"
or "anthropocentric", because the interest in the other species is derivative from our
species self-interest.
Let me add, I am not against other species having "benefits". I just don't see humans
insuring that as an equal priority with insuring we have certain benefits. I'm :
People First, other species second, but not hostilty or utter indifference to other
species.
In a way, this is the same discussion that everybody has with vegetarians who are
vegetarians for animal valuing rather than "no animal fat" reasons.
> CB: What do you mean "excuse" ? 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: My question is what is your basis for saying that just because nature allows (
causes , doesn't it ?) extinction is no permision for man to cause extinctions ? What
is the source of permission or lack of permission ? What is the source of the ethical
position you are putting forth here ?
(((((((((((
> 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: Yes. I am not against making a value judgment. I am making one too. Mine is based
on the principle of humanism or anthropocentrism , as you say it. I am boldly , and
have been for several posts, telling you that my ethical and "value" ( there's a hot
word) system gives priority to the human species over other species. In fact, that is
in a way consistent with the Marxist theory of value ( the discussion of which is so
much lamented here). Both use-value and exchange-value are connected to human activity
, use and labor.
Of course, there is nothing in this that prescribes vicious or wanton extermination of
other species. Live and let live as much as possible. And to make a slightly different
reference to your "well or perfectly linked" concept, I am in favor of maximally good
linkage ( coexistence) with other species, with the caveat that when if it comes down
between us or them, I'm with us; and I am not sure that there won't come cruches of
this type from time to time.
> CB: Alternative to what ?
>
> ))))))))))))))
And now you are being disingenuous.
((((((((((
CB: No, I just couldn't follow what you were saying.
)))))))))))
>
> 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.
(((((((((((
CB: But I haven't said a word that disagrees with this. This demonstrates again what I
meant by humanism as implicit in your argument. When you appeal to avoidance of
extinction of the human species ( which is a good appeal from my standpoint) to me you
have an implicitly humanist argument, not biocentric. In other words, the human
species might be saved from extinction without saving all ( many) other species from
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: I wasn't referring to human action leading to human extinction. I was referring to
human action that leads to extinction of other species.
I was saying that humans nor any species can do anything that violates the objective
natural laws. In other words, Momma Nature doesn't have ethical laws, only natural
laws. And it is not one of Momma Nature's laws that humans can't exterminate a
species. So, ( see above) you have to be appealing to an ethical law when you say
humans shouldn't exterminate other species ( and you say you are appealing to your
own ethics above)
> 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: Ok !!! That's straight forward enough.
I think it's a shame too. But I think it's a bad idea for white people to tell Masai
or Makah what to do too. So, I have to balance the two on the scales of "justice" and
I come up with the Masai and Makah at this point. I trust the Masai and the Makah more
than I do white people.
Now the wholesale extermination of species, such as with the rainforest, is on another
level. This threatens the diversity of species necessary to undergird human survival.
That's my concern for other species DERIVATIVE from my concern about human survival.
>
> 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.
(((((((((((
CB: I guess it is we differ on our theories of human society. I don't think it is
possible to make fundamental economic change except through politics. We don't have
any way to impact the economic except through the political. The cultural changes are
aimed at in order to change the political. To me the cultural does not change the
economic directly, but only through political mediation
It still seems to me that this is somewhat definitional. Anything that you point to as
really changing the system I would call political. I don't think we should linger on
this dispute for that reason. The real dispute is this naturocentric vs. humanist , I
think.
>
>
> 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.
(((((((((((((
CB: I will take a look at that post. I do think much of my response is contained in
this post, above.
As have said a couple of times, I am admittedly putting forth a crudely humanist
position. I am sort of exaggerating the callous indifference to other species, for
clarity, and because I think this is where a main difference will come down to. I am
not indifferent to the leopards or whales, but when it comes down to it , I have to
say, I give humans priority. Of course, I know you might say that "it doesn't come
down to humans vs leopards. We both can survive." But I guess , as I said before, I
think human self-extermination and extermination of other species are not exactly the
same issue ( though there is some overlap with the many species extermination and
human dependence on a diverse ecology), so for analysis these issues have to be
separated.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
