Hi Elephant, Danila, All:
ELEPHANT:
> Platt would probably point out that things go extinct every day in the
> normal course of things, and he'd be right. He might add that if the global
> ecosystem has let this plant-butterfly subsystem get down to an acre and a
> half with no noticeable ill effects on the world as a whole, then there is
> nothing at stake in it's extinction. This is an attractive argument, except
> that proves too much. The acre and a half situation is something alot of
> species are on their way too with our help, so the argument I'm conjecturing
> on Platt's behalf could apply to about half the species you care to mention,
> and if you do apply it to all those species, there wouldn't be much left to
> keep the system going, or even to call a 'system'. Remember that the
> situation that we've inherited is something that's been worked up over
> millions of years, and something which we still don't completely understand,
> however great we are at landing on the moon. It's rather like an eight year
> old child (let's say he gets top marks in all his classes) being given his
> grandpa's pocketwatch as a present, and opening it up to see how many bits
> he can remove before it goes dead.
I�m flattered to have the benefit of a volunteer spokesperson,
especially one of Elephant�s stature. But, on second thought, it
looks like I�ve been set up as a strawman. Still, I think the
compliment implicit in the former outweighs the exploitation of the
latter.
ELEPHANT
> I guess Prisig was saying something similar when he talked about the folly
> of intellectuals opposing social norms just for the sake of it, as if
> soceity were something dispensible: the enemy. Instead, what we should do
> (if we want to call ourselves 'intellectuals') is remember how necessary
> social order is, and try, with proper modesty about our knowledge, to
> 'tweak' it so that is cooperates with the existence of the intellectual
> level as a whole - and not, mind you, with every crackpot intellectual
> pattern we can come up with (even facism, anti-intellectual as it is, is an
> intellectual pattern - you don't have to be consistent to be nasty.). I'd
> favour a similarly careful intellectual attitude to biology, because, if
> anything, biological order is more necessary to the intellectual life than
> social order. Erst kommt das Brot, dan kommt die Morale.
A �careful intellectual attitude� towards the lower orders is
precisely Pirsig�s advice to which I wholeheartedly concur. In fact, I
think Elephant's description of Pirsig's cautionary view of intellect
is right on the mark.
Both Elephant and Danila possess a greater concern about the
prospect of environmental catastrophe than me, but that doesn�t
mean I subscribe to the idea, �To hell with butterflies, full speed
ahead.� There are qualified scientists who say the threat of
disastrous man-made damage to the environment is
exaggerated. Others say it is worse than anyone imagines. So I
think Elephant has got it right in saying: �What does the
precautionary principle tell us to do in any specific case? Well,
that�s why the UK has such interminable public inquiries. We
ought to have more.�
Danila's proposal for state-owned property sounds suspiciously
like Communism. If we've learned anything in the 20th century it's
that statism, in whatever form, doesn't work.
Platt
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
