From: "Mark Jones"
MJ: The problem I have with DE is
that it assumes what it sets out to DISprove,
i.e. it
assumes (logically,
theoretically, and also empirically) that homo sapiens
sapiens
is somehow
a distinct and unique by-product of evolution,
Tom: You understand it
wrong. EACH SPECIES is a distinct and unique product of
evolution. That's
why we call them "species". You fall into thinking that
"therefore DE sees
man as outside nature." or something else that promotes a
view of H Sap as
an agency outside of nature. Nothing could be further from
the truth. What
you extrapolate below out of your misreading of DE are
things I would not
support at all if they were true DE positions. (But then I come out of the
Daniel Quinn/Ishmaelian end of things and don’t march lock-step with DE, perhaps
there ARE some DE fools who advocate this? I’m wondering where you got this
impression, perhaps form what someone characterized as the DE
positions?)
What leads you to this, I surmise, is DE's struggle with some
of the
consequences that the capabilities of H Sap have produced -- as a
product of
evolution.
MJ: and then seeks to disprove
this by
asserting that after all, we are interdependent with all other
species,
we
cannot exist without biodiversity etc. But in truth this argument is
highly
contradictory, or I am missing something.
Tom: yeah, you are
thinking that DE says man is not interdependent and IS
interdependent in the
same breath. That is not my understanding of the DE position.
MJ:
Homo sapiens sapiens is a characteristic product of the evolutionary process. It
is no exception to the rules which have governed the entire evolution of life on
earth.
Tom: True! And you need to remember that, too. <g>
MJ: the determining characteristic of evolution is that it is a process in
which ALL species whatsoever seek to maximize their niche, at the expense of as
well as in concert and co-operation with, all other species (or subsets
thereof).
Tom: True!
MJ: As a matter of self-evident fact (unless
you are a Creationist) humankind is not an exception in any sense, either
functionally or typologically.
…
Tom: This depends upon what you view as
"functionally". See below. Otherwise, True!!! So how can we look for solutions
that ignore this fundamental principle? What you have just written is the core
of a "biocentric" attitude.
MJ: H umankind is simply a normal product of
the evolution of DNA-based life forms, which is why we share most of our genes
with potatoes, amoeba etc. Homo sapiens sapiens has been more successful
(perhaps only temporarily) at maximising its niche and can therefore be
considered to be a highly-successful (in the
short term)
adaptation.
Tom: Up to a point! There is a big caveat with your statement
starting with all after "can therefore". "Successful" may be exactly the wrong
description, used in the wrong direction. In our case it may be that it’s just
taken 300000 years for a particular mutation to be sorted out, and the crash is
the mechanism. (This supports your "evolution is to blame" theory below quite
well.) BTW, it is for this reason (and another one or two) that Hallyx calls us
Comet Sapiens, in honor of the LAST big dieoff 63 Million years
ago.
MJ: But that's all it is, an adaptation, and a fairly minor one
at that, if you consider the whole immense process which has filled geological
time and which has shaped the planet, its atmosphere etc.
Tom: True! Any
time we fail to remember that we set in motion events which trigger "the
crash".
MJ: Arguably, if we hadn't come along something else would.
Therefore, it is
not what we are doing to nature that is the problem, but
what evolution is doing to
itself.
Tom: Yes, logically it would look
like that would be true doesn't it? But it is simply not
true. It IS what we
are "doing to nature" that is the problem of OUR
survival in our niche (and
the survival of some of our species neighbors
around us -- like most of
them). Objectifying "evolution" as some sentient
force who is to blame is
part of the anthropocentric trap. Evolution has
done nothing to "itself",
since there is no such thing as evolution in that
sense. It's cool to blame
it, but it gets us nowhere. Were evolution an
entity, it would be just as
happy to wake up one morning and find a biomass
made up solely of bacteria
and roaches.
To the extent that DE thinks that's a bad idea, Carrol is
right in
identifying DE's (and Marx's) concerns as "anthropocentric."
What DE is asking for is recognition of the line we have crossed outside
of biocentric behavior, and asking that man continue to use his
evolutionarily
unique capacities to adapt. (nothing outside of the theory of
evolution in
that.) Adapt toward biocentrism.
MJ: And this
ecosphere-threatening outcome was the inevitable outcome of the
totality of
evolution during 500m+ years. Blame evolution, not humans. Blaming humans
is
just inverted anthropocentric arrogance.
Tom: Yeah! We get off scott free
because we are only doing what Mother Culture
told us to do, and she got it
from Papa Evolution. We are not to blame, nassty old Evolution is the culprit.
Let's kick his ass.
MJ: If homo sapiens sapiens is functionally and
morphologically part of general evolution, we should stop arbitrarily
abstracting ourselves from evolution. What bigger or more characteristic
anthropocentrism is there, than human guilt-trips? What other species does
this?
Tom: You are correct. There is nothing wrong with anthropocentrism PER SE, it
is just when we extend it beyoud the boundaries of reality that we get into
trouble. The idea that the crash is a "bad thing" is anthropocentric, but I kind
of like trying to prevent it anyway.
MJ: Equally, what DE proselytisers ignore is the fact that in seeking
to 'conserve biodiversity' and be fully 'biocentric', they are actually arguing
that homo sapiens sapiens should single-handedly negate (and transcend?) the
entire evolutionary process, with its governing logic of niche-maximisation, the
evidence for which geologically (and in other ways), is overwhelming.
Tom: Nah. Nobody is arguing for "Fully". DE is arguing for knowing what’s
"biocentric" and what’s not. NO competent DE "proselytizer" would ever consider
that humans can single-handedly negate (and transcend?) the entire evolutionary
process. Can’t be done, except in the limited sense that our actions can
single-handedly negate US.
MJ: So in this sense, too, DE is highly contradictory. DE seeks not just the
negation of *human* evolution, i.e. of its underlying niche-maximisation
dynamic, but in so doing, it seeks to
negate the evolutionary dynamic which
it wants to conserve. For by endowing homo sapiens with a new and unprecedented
custodial role, as guardian of biodiversity and evolutionary complexity, DE
negates the underlying logic of the whole of evolution.
Tom: Again a misreading of DE. H Saps are NOT to be custodians! (wish I could
repeat that a ba-zillion times) We are "guardians" only in the sense as E.O.
Wilson says: "…. devising a wiser use of resources than has been accomplished to
date. And wise use for the living world in particular means preserving the
surviving ecosystems, micromanaging them only enough to save the biodiversity
they contain." WE do NOT put our hands on the levers of the evolution machine,
we simply "guard" against other H. Saps doing it. And there is a certain amount
of "slack" that we are entitled to as a species within the biosphere, so DE
doesn’t seek to stop all human activity.
MJ: It is saying that evolution should stand on its head and do what it has
never done before, that it should cease interspecies
competition/maximisation in favour of some other process in which biodiversity
is "sustained", i.e. in which biodiversity actually goes into stasis and
evolution goes into suspended animation. For once humans do get full control of
biodiversity, and have their hands on the
levers of change, then either
evolution ceases to be a blind stochastic process, which is its
essence, and
becomes something subject to conscious development, i.e., something
teleological, with ends presupposed by actions: OR all change of any kind is
stopped, in the name of "conservation".
Tom: I wish I knew how you arrived at understanding this to be an accurate
characterization of DE. NO responsible DE guy would spout such nonsense. (
Whales can go extinct, not stay in ‘stasis’, that is perfectly FINE, and long as
it’s part of the evolutionary process. What’s wrong is Comet Sapiens killing all
of them off in a generation. THAT ain’t "interspecies competition/maximisation
", that’s murder.) At least the kind of DE I know. Probably there are some
idiots out there who want to advocate that. Self-loathing anti-humanists, and
I’d disassociate myself from them. If you find a passage where Arne Naess says
that, then HE’s wrong!!!
MJ: Actually, that latter option is a
non-starter. Trying to stop all change is in itself the most drastic change,
inflection, that will ever have occurred in evolution, and is also theoretically
impossible if only because the laws of
entropy and thermodynamics build
change into our slowly-unwinding universe, so failure to adapt to change is more
likely to result in general extinction than it is in conservation.
Tom: YES!! Exactly. Now …. Can’t you see that "we have both the duty and the
necessity to take charge, and to be the custodians and then the inventors of
future evolution and future biodiversity, [for] evolution and
life [to]
continue at all." has EXACTLY THE SAME FLAWS??? Trying to CONTROL all change is
as impossible as trying to STOP all change.
MJ: So what DE is actually all about is a fantastic, profound and completely
unprecedented acceleration of evolutionary processes, and in the context of the
complete negation, and transcending (sublation) of the rules of transformation
which have always governed evolution and which are predicated on competition and
co-operation by species striving to maximise their niches. This is why I say
that DE is philosophically completely contradictory. That does not mean we
cannot learn from Deep-Ecology, we can and we must.
I have yet to see ANY
DE thinker from Naess to Sahtouris, face up to this conundrum. Probably the
reason is because (a) people are afraid to contemplate this Faustian prospect,
in which humankind consciously seeks to apply and to develop what, from the
point of view of all other species, would be divine powers and (b)
because
once you accept the argument that we have to be responsible for CHANGE not just
conservation, and that that is the real essence of biocentrism, i.e. it puts
humans first and not (as Naess absurdly argues) seeks to remove homo sapiens
sapiens altogether from Nature-- once you accept this, then immediately you are
confronted with the question of means-- of what technologies do you use. And
we already know
what they are, don't we? They are things like DNA splicing,
cloning, gene-engineering etc. Yes, we shall have to deploy all those
technologies. Think about it.
It is, I repeat, absurd to argue that
humans must be eliminated in order to preserve biodiversity, as if we were not a
result of evolution ourselves. Deleting humans would be the greatest act of
vandalism against evolution which could be envisaged.
Tom: I’d laugh at DE and those guys if I thought that this is what they
advocated. I’d campaign to put ‘em up against the wall along with the CEOs of
Time-Warner. I am really saddened that this is your understanding of
biocentrism. Where does Naess "absurdly argue" that? It’s not my understanding
of him.
MJ: But equally, only if humankind does take a decisive step
forward, and does
accept
that, as the highest (and most dangerous)
product of evolution, we have
both the
duty and the necessity to take
charge, and to be the custodians and then
the
inventors of future
evolution and future biodiversity, will evolution and
life
continue at
all.
Mark
Tom: The concept that we can ‘take charge’ is an illusion, and an illusion we
have nurtured through Mother Culture for 10,000 years. Can’t happen. It’s what
has brought us to the edge of the abyss.
Thanks,
Tom
