Please read the following as written by someone frustrated with the loose
language and lack of communication happening, rather than as an attack on
people with chemical sensitives. I keep trying to discuss ethics and all I
get back is an education on chemical sensitivity. I appreciate the
opportunity to learn about it, but I was hoping for a dialogue on ethics
and nobody seems willing to.
Cyndi wrote:
> I was a bit surprised at your reaction to Dawnskye's suggestion. My
> approach would have been to say "this product is rather eco-unfriendly in
> this, this, and this way. Here are other suggestions I can think of and
> this is how well they work for the purpose you outline and their ecological
> footprint." Since I don't happen to know of any ways to build a mold-free
> space, I didn't respond that way myself. I read your response as saying
> "this suggestion is inappropriate and you never should have made it."
> Perhaps that was not your intention but that's how I read it.
Perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic or something. Please reread my
original post; I have a few times and can't find what you are objecting to.
It was not an attack on people with MCS. I seriously wanted to discuss
the ethical question AND STILL NOBODY WILL!
I never said the suggestion "should never have been made". I did say
styrofoam was not an ecological choice; not that the "suggestion" was
inappropriate, but that styrofoam might be an inappropriate material. I
did use the phrase "slam dunk", which may have inserted more emotion to the
point than I intended, but I still haven't heard an ethical principle
proposed that makes even "slam dunk" incorrect.
> Not all of my suggestions will be ecological, but I think it is good to
> brain storm at first then weed through the posiblilities.
>
> This was my point exactly! Brainstorm first, then criticise.
Please reread Dawnskye's 4/24 post. It does not sound like a brainstorming
exercise, and it was not defended in her 4/26 post as one either. Jeff and
Dawnskye were already into a discussion of the pros and cons of styrofoam
before I chimed in. So, why was my post "coming down on" or " jumping all
over" Dawnskye and Jeff's weren't? Is it because I tried to talked about
why we choose things instead just suggesting others choices? Is it because
I ventured into the taboo subject of ethics?
> As I said I regret my remote feelings to the problem. But, my point
> stands; I'll just reword it to be more sensitive. To what degree is it
> okay to harm the environment to prevent our personal suffering?
>
> See the beginning of my post. It goes way beyond discomfort and suffering.
> It's about maintaining enough functionality to consider yourself human.
I keep getting corrected on my terminology. I started with "discomfort"
and got "@#$%" in response, with the suggestion that I use "pain and
suffering". So, I used "suffering" and get "maintaining enough
functionality to consider yourself human" as the preferred wording. Can't
you see that I'm trying to respond with sympathy? Don't get hung up on the
wording or even whether or not I have a deep enough appreciation of the
difficulty in maintaining enough functionality to consider yourself human.
Shall I reword my question again?
To what degree is it okay to harm the environment to prevent our personal
difficulty in maintaining enough functionality to consider yourself human?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic now. But I hope you can see the question for the
words (forest / trees). AND I STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN AN ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION.
> What people without disabilities often don't see is how those of us with
> disabilities sometimes see "suggestions" that we stop doing things we need
> to do for our health not only as personal attacks but as threats to our
> very life and being. (snip)
> But the underlying viseral reaction is "you are threatening my life."
I'm sorry it makes you feel that way, and I'm glad you see the distinction
between the emotional response and the intellectual understanding. Your
explanation helps me see where you are coming from. That helps me
understand why the focus has been on what choices are made, but I wanted to
discuss the underlying ethics.
> Underlying these comments is the, possibly correct, assumption that
> currently uneffected people would make the same choices, as people with
> MCS, if they were similarly effected. If so, then there may be no
ethical
> conflict here. All may be working on the principle that individual
> survival and freedom from pain and suffering has priority over other
> factors, and that the health of the earth should be considered when
> possible. Is this how you feel, Cyndi?
>
> I choose to rephrase the question.
>
> Do I think it's okay for me to kill off the last of the ____ (fill in name
> of endangered plant or animal here) so I can have a lifetime supply of some
> substance that will improve my health? (Or insert any other extreme
> example here.) No. I don't.
>
> Do I think it's okay for me to shift my overall use of non-renewable,
> non-eco-friendly, resources (and every one of us here uses some) into a
> somewhat higher usage so that I am more functional and free of pain and
> suffering? Yes. I do.
>
> As a person with MCS I already use far fewer environmentally nasty things
> than most people. Perhaps even fewer than some of you (when counting
> outright toxins).
>
> In other words, I choose my health whenever possible and I use resources I
> need (a space heater because I'm cold sensitive, for example) but I go out
> of my way to make up for the usage. Some of the stuff I'd do anyway but
> some I might not...for example, I might not push so hard for the expensive
> solar panels if I didn't use so much electricity (partly because it makes
> them more cost effective and partly because I feel I need to ethically).
I thank you for some clarification of you ethical position. You didn't
directly answer the question, but perhaps you said enough for me to venture
some further clarification. From this I take it that you feel you are
already more "earth friendly" than you ethically need to be. You seem to
be doing a lot towards being "earth friendly", and as I said before, you
are to be commended on it. You seem to be trying to find a balance that
you are comfortable with between environmental harm and maintaining enough
functionality to consider yourself human. You are choosing a certain
amount of discomfort in order to prevent harm to the environment, though
some of the earth friendly things you do are mainly for personal benefit.
So, you could agree with the original ethical principle that individual
survival and freedom from pain and suffering has priority over other
factors, and that the health of the earth should be considered when
possible.
Assuming that you found a balance that you are comfortable with, do you
have any problem with everyone else living that way. Don't take this
literal; I mean living with that level of consumption and technology. In
other words, is it sustainable enough for everyone? Do you feel that
because of your pain and suffering that you should be allowed to do things
that others should not? I do not intend any judgement in these questions.
(the face to face interaction is missing) I am sincerely asking for your
point of view.
I, personally, do not feel that I am "earth friendly" enough. I also do a
lot toward reducing my ecological footprint. But, I would not want
everyone else to live as I do because I believe that I am not yet living
sustainably. Yes, I feel hypocritical about living in a way I do not want
others to live, but as Jeff often points out it is more important to being
making steps in the right direction than to worry about not having arrived
yet. It is a personal desire of mine to help humans figure out ways of
living sustainably on this planet, or better yet, to encourage a
flourishing ecosphere. In order for me to live more sustainably, I would
not necessarily need to endure any pain and suffering. So, perhaps it is
"easy for me to say". I do not have the visceral response of "you are
threatening my life" to motivate me, but I do have a strong personal
feeling (though perhaps an intellectual one, if that's possible) that our
unsustainable society is a threat to much of the life on the planet. It is
from a feeling of "we are all in this together" / "we are one" that I want
to pursue an ecopath.
Eric:
