I posed the conflict between the human species and other species:
What does the MOQ advocate? The choices are:
a) Maximize the number of humans (and thus the potential amount
of intellectual DQ) BUT at the cost of loss of DQ in the biological level
of other species--which has many consequences for humans, for example,
less beauty and vanished historical and scientific information on
the intellectual level (no wilderness, many extinct species), and
weaker societies (because there is no reservoir of biological DQ to
help agriculture). Maximizing the number of humans has negative
intellectual and social effects.
b) Control the number of humans in some way, and preserve
existing species' ability to be biologically dynamic. (Perhaps this can
this be justified in terms of "higher quality intellectual activity" than
would exist in (a).)
Platt, Elephant and Marco have contributed. I hope I have summarized your
positions correctly!
---------
PLATT concludes:
The MOQ has no qualms, morally, for human intellect to destroy other
species (trees, germs,
flowers, butterflies, dolphin, baby harp seals or whatever) so long as the
levels which support intellect (inorganic, biological, social) remain
stable and viable, i.e., are not weakened in the process.
ELEPHANT (paraphrased and excerpted):
Intellect is a necessary but not sufficient condition (for High Quality
behavior). Sure, intellect comes first. But how intellectual is it,
actually, to chop off the branch of a tree, thirty foot up in the air,
while sitting on that branch? One excellent place for humans to start being
intelligent is with the realisation that there is more to the world than
can ever be evident in our well-formed scientific hypotheses, and to start
behaving accordingly.
DANILA:
(Among other things) Elephant is saying that society has given intellect a
great deal of freedom, but certain Intellectual patterns damaging the
biological basis of human life and we can't afford any more mistakes. In
other words, maximizing the amount of freedom available to intellect may be
morally good IN THEORY but "it is practice which counts, isn't it? Because
all this intellectualising has to come back to the aesthetic continuum,
right, or we'll never get off the hot stove."
Marco seems to want maximum freedom in both directions, which is a goal,
not a prescription:
MARCO: I tend to evaluate intra-level morality by the "diversity" allowed
to the below level (for example a society is more moral also if it's able
to preserve a greater bio-diversity), and by the degree of freedom granted
to the development of the above level (a society is more moral if it's able
to support the intellectual development among the citizens).
DANILA:
I think there is a hint in Elephant's comment which, in conjunction with
the recent discussion about Art, may be helpful for our problem.
I am not convinced that a fifth level can or will exist (who will have the
right to define it: the beauty police: "You must see beauty in this
idea/painting/well-maintained motorcycle or you are intellectually
defective"?). However, I agree that beauty (as a marker of excellence or
RT) is the "upward" goal of Intellectual/Artistic activity. So if the best
Intellectual patterns are the most beautiful, we can criticize the goodness
of Intellectual patterns that are used to organize society according to
their beauty, once they have been applied.
Obviously this raises the question "who decides, for a society, what is
beautiful?" I submit that we already have a cadre of intellectuals devoted
to beauty. Teaching people how to recognize beauty, and showing them
historical examples to refine their taste, is the highest function of
intellectual criticism and the liberal arts in the university. (As an
aside, I think that Europeans have a broader and more MOQish definition of
"intellectual" than Americans do; I believe that in Europe a novelist is by
definition an intellectual, not so in America.)
Now I am not saying that we should empower Professors of English or
novelists to be the ultimate decision-makers on behalf of national
governments whether free market capitalism or Buddhism or any other
doctrine is "beautiful." Any person with some education in the liberal arts
and the MOQ can make a judgment about the holistic beauty (taking into
account effects on all four levels) of a social policy. Perhaps such a
judgment would be nothing more than a gut feeling, a spontaneous valuing,
that "this policy is better than that policy." (The MOQ would legitimate
such a judgment, but it needs to be put into a rational argument.) (-:
I think it would be an interesting experiment for MOQ'ers to try to
evaluate social policies by their beauty (which we agree is the mark of a
High Quality Intellectual Endeavor). Perhaps Marco's formulation could be
the struction (rule) for thinking about them. Anybody want to try?
Danila
P.S. After I wrote the above, I saw Elephant's comments:
"... my point has been one about where the balance of proof ought to lie,
as to whether or not this or that act of human imperialism tends to weaken
the levels, inorganic and biological, that support the existence of those
(human) beings which possess the conditions necessary (but not sufficient!)
to the possesion of intellect.
"Since in general the advantage to be got by destrying this or that
ecosystem is generally marginal (ie increases GDP), whereas the the
potential disadvantages from the break down of ecosystems are global (ie
the extinction of life in general including ourselves), I suggest that we
can formulate a rule: Human beings should tread carefully in the case of
every species, including Dolphins, except ones where either (1) the biology
is perpetrating unecessary suffering (viruses, or if Dolphins are attacking
swimers in 'frisco bay) or (2) the fate of the human race at large is in
the balance (it is moral to kill aids and it is moral to get rid of
plutonium, and would be moral to kill Dolphins if they ever got the Bomb)."
DANILA:
I agree completely in theory. However, your argument rests on assuming that
social policy decisions will bring either "marginal improvements to human
life" vs. "global ecosystem breakdown." But rarely are decisions that easy
to make (the Kyoto climate treaty is an exception). For example, a person
who owns some wild land that is the ecosystem of an endangered butterfly
wants to use it for farmland. Here the benefit to humans seems greater
than the loss of the butterfly; after all, there are many butterflies and
as far as I know they aren't specialized for different functions. This kind
of example is why I posed the question "What does the MOQ say" so we could
get some principles.
(Actually, one promising social policy that I would like to suggest is
abolishing land ownership and substituting a land tax, where the
society/government owns the land and manipulates its usage by the amount of
rent it charges the user such as the farmer or building owner. The land tax
allows society to have a say in how land is used--by manipulating the
taxes--and thus also in species preservation. An more direct method than
Endangered Species Laws.)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
