Environmentalism or Individualism?

[MoeFaux]

http://www.econot.com/page4.html

I'm reading this right now, and it seems to be pretty great.
Anyone feel like debating about it?

[shanek]

Not really...Ordinarily I would, but I'm getting burned out from all of these "Lets-gang-up-on-shanek" threads...I'll lurk awhile and maybe chime in later.

[fishbob]

The essence of the environmentalist outlook is suggested in the title of Mr. Gore's book, and made clear in its pages. It's the view that everything in nature exists in a perfectly harmonious balance--a balance ever threatened by the activities of Man.

For many centuries, intellectuals have rejected as selfish the right of individuals to live for themselves. They have rejected as ethically bankrupt the pursuit of happiness. They have rejected as demeaning and unseemly the seeking of worldly profit, wealth, and material comfort.

My take: I found numerous statements like those above - the author's interpretation of the "environmentalist" position. This looks a whole lot like the straw man debate method, and therefore makes me suspect the validity of the article. He holds up PETA and other fringe groups as representative of a larger group he labels as "environmentalists".

I think there are some ideas worthy of consideration in the article, but taken with a healthy dose of scepticism.

[DanishDynamite]

Well, it starts out fairly benign with the author's view of the background for environmentalism. At some point it arrives at the following "startling" revelation:The ultimate goal of the mainstream environmentalist movement, therefore, is not conservation of natural resources for human use. It is preservation of nature as an end in itself.I'm personally fine with this and see nothing startling.

It then starts to degenerate and claims that rational thinking is the anethema of environmentalism:
Why? Because reason is the tool by which Man transforms his environment for his own benefit. Therefore, to environmentalists, rationality is the mark of Cain.:rolleyes:

The degeneration then becomes a veritable avalanche:
Their tactics always follow a familiar pattern. First, declarations of some new ecological "crisis," based upon the flimsiest of evidence and perversions of the scientific method.At this point (halfway through the article) I stopped reading.

Perhaps you could sum up the point of the article, MoeFaux?

[Number Six]

The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.

It is easier for people to take one particular ethic (in this case "preserve nature") and extend it to the extreme rather than step back and look at the bigger picture, where things are more nuanced and less black and white. We're here and we're both cognizant of the ecology of the planet as a whole and also capable of having an effect on it and as a result we need to decide how to proceed. But deciding how to proceed is a lot more complicated and a lot less tidy than to just say "Always do X."

[DanishDynamite]

Number Six:The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.Not sure what you mean. Are you thinking of the sun becoming a Red Giant (a few billion years) or the purported heat death of the Universe?
It is easier for people to take one particular ethic (in this case "preserve nature") and extend it to the extreme rather than step back and look at the bigger picture, where things are more nuanced and less black and white. We're here and we're both cognizant of the ecology of the planet as a whole and also capable of having an effect on it and as a result we need to decide how to proceed. But deciding how to proceed is a lot more complicated and a lot less tidy than to just say "Always do X." I agree (I think). Not sure of your point, though.

[a_unique_person]

I have tried to debate exactly this kind of thinking before, with not much of a response.

For example, the concept of wilderness. That is, areas of the earth that are left just as they are, and are held to have no economic worth. No one goes there to live. Everything is left undisturbed. What goes in goes out. Only light foot traffic of humans.

His attack on 'hubris', for one thing, ignores those who have failed from this failing in human nature. History is littered with it's victims, or those who failed to understand what they were destroying.

One of the earliest civilisations, the ancient Indians, flourished then died away. They had cities with houses, baths, arts and crafts, then just died away. It has been conjectured that this was because they cut down the forests that they used to kiln fire their bricks for building their houses. With the forests gone, they died out.

The Meditteranean was once much more fertile. On bare, rocky Greek land, you can find the remains of the ancient forests that used to florish there before they were destroyed by man.

The 'econuts' may be the equivalent of a weird cult. However, that does not mean that all people who want to preserve and respect the environment are. I try to appreciate the good we can create with the good that is already given to us.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Has anyone checked out Easter Island lately?

[Jessica Blue]

As a first step, we must challenge two false philosophical ideas at the root of environmentalism. The two fallacies are:

First, that untouched nature is valuable in itself--intrinsically valuable, apart from any benefit to human beings.

Maybe this is a fallacy, but I can't help thinking what a shame it would be if the earth was concreted over by untrammelled capitalism and all that remained were three species... Man, rats and cockroaches.

Second, that self-interested human activities--any of the things we do for our own benefit, well-being, or personal profit--are morally tainted at best, and evil at worst.

Definitely a straw-man there. Who would believe in that statement ?

[BillyTK]

I kind of flipped out and my attention flipped out with me after this particularly doozy:
Witness in our time the intellectual, economic, and political collapse of all forms of socialism, including fascism and communism
I admit I was expecting a nature vs nurture debate, but the author seems to be trying to make a polar construct out of methodological individualism (which is sucky anyway) vs. environmental conservation, which is a bit... wacky.

Here's my favourite bit:
By what standards do you claim that the human use of a natural resource constitutes an illegitimate claim [...]?

Well, by what standards do you claim that it isn't?

[a_unique_person]

Well, Moe? Cat got your tongue?

[MoeFaux]

No, the cat isn't anywhere near my tongue, I just han't finished reading this yet. I'm halfway done, so I don't know what the closing idea is yet.
I'll chime in this afternoon.

[Avatar]

About the essay at www.ecoNOT.com/page4.html:

Some folks here are criticizing the essay for exaggeration and misrepresentation of environmentalism. But its author provides an awful lot of source material--drawn directly from mainstream environmental groups, plus quotations from major spokesmen and leaders--elsewhere on his ecoNOT.com Web site, at www.ecoNOT.com/page3.html and also in his site's news archives. You can find even more on the author's separate blog, located at http://bidinotto.journalspace.com.

Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?

[Jude]

Maybe this is a fallacy, but I can't help thinking what a shame it would be if the earth was concreted over by untrammelled capitalism and all that remained were three species... Man, rats and cockroaches.

I would say capitalism has at least -some- interest in keeping animals around. People like zoos, after all.

[fishbob]

I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? The sources are OK, I have no problem with the quoted material. As I pointed out earlier, he is assigning the actions and opinions of fringe groups and nutcases to the general environmental position. Then he is taking shots at these fringe and nutcase positions as if it proves something about the general environmental position. This is cheating.

[Avatar]

I'm not sure which "nutcases" you mean. Here are some of the "nutcases" quoted in the essay and on his Web site and blog:

"Fringe groups"...like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, the Humane Society, the EPA, etc.

"Nutcase positions"...like those of Al Gore, John Muir, Paul Ehrlich, former New York Times environmental reporter Philip Shabecoff, New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof, Henry David Thoreau, Rachel Carson, biologist George Perkins Marsh, U. S. Forest Service founder Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Bill Moyers, Carl Sagan, Humane Society vice-president Michael Fox, Humane Society executive director John Hoyt, the text of the Wilderness Act of 1964, etc.

This doesn't seem to be the "extremists" and "nutcases" he's quoting, but the "mainstream" environmentalists. I think the point of the essay is that the "mainstream" environmentalists and the "extremists" believe a lot of the same crazy things. If that's the case, then the argument that he's picking on only "straw men" seems to collapse. Or am I missing something?

[a_unique_person]

I can remember the start of the series on New York on TV. The people who originally lived there were amazed at how productive and beatiful the land was. There were springs, streams, wildlife. So then they had the brilliant idea of covering it in cement. Makes perfect sense to me.

[a_unique_person]

In fact, Man himself is no longer praised as a conqueror of nature's obstacles, nor even accepted as just another part of the natural world. To many, he is an interloper, an alien presence on the planet--even nature's enemy--and his creative works are increasingly regarded as a growing menace to all that exists.



Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien.

I would liken the human race to a cancer. It is something that is natural and part of the greater body, but when it grows out of control, brings destruction.

[Avatar]

The position taken by the author of the essay at www.ecoNOT.com was that "man hatred" was a common position among environmentalists.

Just curious... Do you consider yourself a "mainstream" environmentalist, or a member of the "radical fringe"? And regardless, do you think your view of "man as a cancer" is shared by most "mainstream" environmentalists?

In other words, was the author of the essay correct in his depiction of the underlying environmentalist philosophy as rooted in "man hatred"?

Thanks.

[a_unique_person]

If you are talking to me, I don't hate man. I just can't see the point in regarding the world as being 'ours'. The attitude shown by this author, I do hate.

We share this world. It is a wonderful 'gift' to us. To just use it up and spit it out is lunacy. I posted a thread about the declining population of lions in the wild. In about 20 years their estimated population has declined from about 200,000 to 20,000, a reduction of 90%. That, to me, is something that is shameful, as it is purely the result of human actions.

[Avatar]

Well, I trust you'll forgive me for misunderstanding your words: "Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien. I would liken the human race to a cancer."

Hard to read in those words a benign or positive attitude toward man.

As for "estimated populations" of lions...like estimates of deforestation, hazards from pesticides, and a lot of other claims...I find that environmentalist literature is loaded with lots of sheer nonsense. For example, when called upon to validate its statistics about annual species loss, the much-quoted World Resources Institute backtracked and admitted it couldn't. Hasn't stopped them from repeating such claims in print, though.

You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.

Doesn't it kind of make you wonder?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Avatar


You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.



It's not PC to be critical of environmental (and other such groups) groups.

[Avatar]

To quote Steve Martin:

"Well...EXCUUUSE MEEEEEE!" <G>

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar
Well, I trust you'll forgive me for misunderstanding your words: "Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien. I would liken the human race to a cancer."

Hard to read in those words a benign or positive attitude toward man.



Man has shown in many ways in history that he can be anything but benign. I can get a list of examples if you want. I still believe that man has a tremendous capacity for good, though.

Likening us to a cancer is entirely appropriate. White blood cells are an essential and beneficial part of our body. When they grow out of control, we die.



As for "estimated populations" of lions...like estimates of deforestation, hazards from pesticides, and a lot of other claims...I find that environmentalist literature is loaded with lots of sheer nonsense. For example, when called upon to validate its statistics about annual species loss, the much-quoted World Resources Institute backtracked and admitted it couldn't. Hasn't stopped them from repeating such claims in print, though.



If the source I got the estimates from was correct, would you agree it is not good that a 90% decline in the population of lions was not a good thing?



You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.

Doesn't it kind of make you wonder?

So both sides have vested interests. You have to take both sides claims skeptically.
S

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If the source I got the estimates from was correct, would you agree it is not good that a 90% decline in the population of lions was not a good thing?



Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

That doesnt answer the question.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.bigcats.com/page1018913138.mv



Lions face new threat: they're rich, American and they've got guns
Schwarzkopf and Bush Snr mobilise opposition as Botswana moves to save its big cats

The Guardian
Chris McGreal in Johannesburg
Friday April 27, 2001

You might call the lions of southern Africa potential Bush meat. The former American president, George Bush senior, and his old Gulf War ally, General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, are pleading with the government of Botswana to be allowed to revive their old alliance, this time in pursuit of Africa's endangered big cats.

Mr Bush is among prominent members of Safari Club International (SCI) who have written to the Botswanan authorities asking them to lift a ban slapped on trophy hunting of lions in February.

Arizona-based SCI describes itself as the largest hunting organisation in the world and people who do not like what it does as "animal protection extremists".

Mr Bush's former vice-president, Dan Quayle, is also among the signatories along with Gen Schwarzkopf. Both men went hunting in Botswana last year, although it is not known if they bagged lions on that occasion.

Rich Americans, Europeans and Japanese pay about £20,000 a time to kill a lion in Botswana. The government usually permits the shooting of about 50 lions a year by trophy hunters but decided to impose the ban in part because American shooters favour lions with thick manes for their walls, leading to a disproportionate killing of mature males.

The shortage of such beasts is now so great that hunters have been making use of a mane-extension service back in the US where fake hair is weaved in to give their trophies an extra flourish before they hang the heads.

Among those who campaigned for a ban on lion hunting in Botswana is Derek Joubert, the country's leading chronicler of big cats.

"I've been studying lions in northern Botswana for 20 years and watching them systematically decline in population size and health primarily, perhaps even solely, as the result of hunting," he said.

"We've also seen some bizarre situations arising. Hunters target the primary males. When they disappear the male cubs don't leave the pride, they're not chased out. So we've seen these young males breeding with their sisters and their mothers because the trophy males have been killed."

Mr Joubert estimates that the number of lions in Botswana has declined by about two-thirds in 10 years. That is average for the continent.

Exact numbers of lions are notoriously difficult to measure but there is broad consensus among conservationists and governments that the population in Africa has fallen from about 50,000 to less than 15,000 over the past decade. The surviving lions are largely confined to four viable populations in southern and east Africa.



http://www.bigcats.com/page1018913138.mv

[a_unique_person]

Lion numbers have dropped by 90% in 20 years. The other big cats are going fast. How long before all the Earth's 'mega species' disappear from the wild? By Tim Radford

*Thursday October 2, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>*

Collectively, the householders of the world could be about to put the cat out. African lion numbers have fallen by 90% in the past 20 years, according to a recent report. There are only about 23,000 alive today. That's the number of seats at Barnsley football club stadium.

The tiger is also an endangered species. At the highest estimate, there are fewer than 8,000 left. To put that number in perspective, about that many people work on Ministry of Defence sites in Wales. There are probably only 15,000 or so cheetahs in the whole of Africa. The Iberian lynx is down to about 600.

And it's not just the cats that we're putting out. The Cross River gorilla sub species, for example, which lives on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon, is down to about 200 at the most. That is fewer than the number of British men who each year develop breast cancer. There are fewer than 50 Chinese alligators surviving in China. Most books give a estimate for sperm whales of 1 to 2 million, but a paper published last year gave an estimate of 360,000. The most recent estimate for southern hemisphere minke whales is about half the total estimate of 760,000 derived from surveys in the late 1980s.

Lions, cheetahs and lynxes share certain characteristics with many other threatened creatures: they are large, they are carnivores, they are fussy about where they live, they need a large range, they have small litters and a long gestation period, and they are hunted.

This makes them natural candidates for extinction in a world in which human numbers have soared from 2.5 billion to more than 6 billion in 50 years. The planet's population grows by more than 80 million every year. There are roughly 240,000 extra mouths to feed every day



http://www.bigcats.com/page1065125682.mv

[Tony]

So, instead of answering the question, you are going to spam the board?

[Avatar]

To A_unique_person,

At risk of belaboring things...

1. If you didn't mean to cast man in an entirely negative way, why pick the "cancer" metaphor, instead of the "white blood cell" metaphor? You didn't use the latter, neutral term. You used terms like "alien" and "cancer."

2. I don't see human development of resources as bad. Is it bad when a beaver builds a dam? Why then is it bad when a man does? If a robin appropriates stuff from nature to build its nest and feed itself, why is it wrong for a man to do it? If other animals follow THEIR natures and treat their surroundings as "theirs," why is it "bad" that we humans follow OUR nature and treat it as "ours"?

3. Regarding statistics, let's assume yours about lions are correct. Okay, you say that the 90% reduction in lions is "bad." This assumes some moral notion of what is "good" and what is "bad."

So what's your morality?

4. The notion that a 90% reduction of lions is "bad" also assumes there's some sort of absolute number of lions (and every other critter) in nature that would be "good." By your measure, what objective number of lions is the "right" number?

All animal populations fluctuate over time, and some even become extinct...without human intervention. (Ex.: the dinosaurs.) So on what grounds can we say that there's a "right" or "wrong" number and variety of species? Is it "bad" that dinosaurs are gone? If so, what would be the "right" number. And if so, would it be "right" therefore to try to clone some more(a la Steven Spielberg)?

Or does your measure (or standard, or whatever) just amount to this: "The objectively right number of lions in the world is whatever number every other factor in nature will allow...except for man. Man alone isn't supposed to influence the number of lions (or whatever critter) in any way."

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

[a_unique_person]

No, I was just providing some articles indicating the lions are dying out. It was interesting that wealthy american still want to go out and shoot them. They musn't be dying out quickly enough, perhaps.

My answer stands.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I was just providing some articles indicating the lions are dying out. It was interesting that wealthy american still want to go out and shoot them. They musn't be dying out quickly enough, perhaps.


LOL

Your bigotry never ceases to amaze me. What about the wealthy Europeans and Japs? No, its always the fault of the evil americans.

My answer stands.

What answer? You didnt answer anything, you just dodged the question.

[Jessica Blue]

Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

I don't know whether the abscence of lions could make a difference or not, but not respecting the natural world in general could. Species interact...with each other and the wider environment. There is such a thing as an ecological balance:

"The world is as delicate and as complicated as a spider's web. If you touch one thread you send shudders running through all the other threads. We are not just touching the web, we are tearing great holes in it....

It has been shown that the decimation of forests on one side of world can have, sometimes devastating, climatic effects thousands of miles away in another continent. So we know that the greater the loss of animal and plant life, the more serious the consequences will be for mankind.

When man continues to destroy nature, he saws off the very branch on which he sits. The rational protection of nature is - at the same time - the protection of mankind." "

Gerald Durrell

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

When man continues to destroy nature, he saws off the very branch on which he sits. The rational protection of nature is - at the same time - the protection of mankind." "

Gerald Durrell

Good quote!!

But notice he says, "the rational protection of nature...". I wouldnt describe the typical enviromentalist as a rational person, more like a fanatic. That is why I dont consider myself one, I much more consider myself a conservationist.

[Avatar]

Where did all this "delicate web of life" stuff come from? This is a planet whose life forms managed to survive the devastating, catastrophic impacts of giant meteors. And today we trek around in forests and wilderness areas going "ooh" and "aah" at what's risen from the ashes. Within weeks of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, flowers and plants were rising from the lava fields.

"Delicate"? This green malarkey about one sneeze in Chicago causing a typhoon in Tokyo is laughable. "Delicate web of life" is lovely poetry, but insipid science. Natural climate fluctuations, natural disasters, natural extinctions dwarf the things that humans have done. And unlike other living critters, humans tend to clean up their messes afterwards--because we don't like living in them.

And think of all the things we do FOR the environment. For example, is anyone aware that there is MORE forest cover in North America today than at the start of the 19th century? Do you know whose responsible? All those evil capitalistic forestry firms, who replant trees like crazy...because of the profit motive.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. Let's hear from some others.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar
To A_unique_person,

At risk of belaboring things...

1. If you didn't mean to cast man in an entirely negative way, why pick the "cancer" metaphor, instead of the "white blood cell" metaphor? You didn't use the latter, neutral term. You used terms like "alien" and "cancer."



leukemia is a cancer



2. I don't see human development of resources as bad. Is it bad when a beaver builds a dam? Why then is it bad when a man does? If a robin appropriates stuff from nature to build its nest and feed itself, why is it wrong for a man to do it? If other animals follow THEIR natures and treat their surroundings as "theirs," why is it "bad" that we humans follow OUR nature and treat it as "ours"?



We have the ability to do much more damage. A man made dam and a beaver dam? Are you trying to make me laugh?

Just look at how overfishing is depleting fish stocks. The current 'hot' fish is the Patagonian tooth fish. At current rates of piracy, it will be all gone in a few years. The 'Orage Roughy' was popular for a few years, till it was realised it too would disappear.



3. Regarding statistics, let's assume yours about lions are correct. Okay, you say that the 90% reduction in lions is "bad." This assumes some moral notion of what is "good" and what is "bad."

So what's your morality?



What's yours? This guy is making the claim that it is immoral to stop people doing whatever they want to the planet. For me, the extinction of a species is immoral. It happens, from time to time. The mass extinction we are seeing now is wrong.



4. The notion that a 90% reduction of lions is "bad" also assumes there's some sort of absolute number of lions (and every other critter) in nature that would be "good." By your measure, what objective number of lions is the "right" number?



The 90% reduction over 20 years implies to me that there will be a 100% reduction following very shortly.



All animal populations fluctuate over time, and some even become extinct...without human intervention. (Ex.: the dinosaurs.) So on what grounds can we say that there's a "right" or "wrong" number and variety of species? Is it "bad" that dinosaurs are gone? If so, what would be the "right" number. And if so, would it be "right" therefore to try to clone some more(a la Steven Spielberg)?



If you have no sense of wonder and respect for the world, that is your problem.



Or does your measure (or standard, or whatever) just amount to this: "The objectively right number of lions in the world is whatever number every other factor in nature will allow...except for man. Man alone isn't supposed to influence the number of lions (or whatever critter) in any way."

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

strawman.

[Jessica Blue]

This is a planet whose life forms managed to survive the devastating, catastrophic impacts of giant meteors attitude.

Some life forms survived...some didn't.

Life is both strong and delicate. The earth can survive a hefty amount of battering, yet relatively minor ecological change can mean the difference between existence and extinction for some species.

Durrells cobweb description refers to the intricate balance of ecosystems. When we destroy or disrupt any aspect of an ecosystem, a lack of equilibrium is introduced into the environment. Though ecosystems naturally have an ability to stand change and adjust over time, they aren't indestructible. Ecological balance is what rational conservation is all about. It makes sense to limit human impact to a point where sustainable resource management becomes possible in a situation that would otherwise damage the ecosystem or eventually exhaust the supply of resources. What's wrong with that?

The world is made up of interacting biospheres and itself could be described as one big biosphere. I don't know why you should have a hard time believing that what we do with the environment in one part of the world could potentially affect another. Most credible scientists working in the field believe this...are they all deluded?

I also don't no why some, like Bidonetto, wish to interpet a concern with conservation as some sort of slur or "hatred" against mankind...I think that's a petulant and inane attitude. That's not what conservation is about.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar

And think of all the things we do FOR the environment. For example, is anyone aware that there is MORE forest cover in North America today than at the start of the 19th century? Do you know whose responsible? All those evil capitalistic forestry firms, who replant trees like crazy...because of the profit motive.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. Let's hear from some others.

You don't get it. A plantation forest is not a normal forest. It is not about diversity but monoculture. It is the Stalinist expression of nature.

[fishbob]

We don't really need lions? How do you know this? At some level, the extinction of a species will affect humans. Do you know how much effect there will be?

A few weeks ago, there was a short discussion here about the unintended and unpredicted effects of whaling in the Pacific more than 50 years ago. The great whales were depleted, so the killer whales began eating sea lions, and when the sea lions became depleted the killer whales began eating sea otters, and the sea otters became depleted and stopped eating sea urchins, and the sea urchin population grew unchecked and ate all the near shore kelp, which was habitat for various fish species that are now wiped out or have moved on, and now the human fishermen are wondering what to catch.

So, as Jessica sez so well "Ecological balance is what rational conservation is all about."

And Tony "I wouldnt describe the typical enviromentalist as a rational person, more like a fanatic." You are cheating just like the goofball author that this discussion started about - Pick a nutcase and ascribe the nutcase position to the rational conservation types, then take pot shots at the nutcase position like it proves something.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


LOL

Your bigotry never ceases to amaze me. What about the wealthy Europeans and Japs? No, its always the fault of the evil americans.

My answer stands.

What answer? You didnt answer anything, you just dodged the question.

I said, the disappearence of the lions means about as much to me as the disappearnce of the human race.

It's not my fault that the quote referred to these guys. If it had referred to Japs, I would have posted it.

[a_unique_person]

I would also take issue with the title of the thread. It is a false dichotomy. You can be an individual who cares for the environment. You can be part of a collective, as happened in the USSR, and trash it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Avatar
About the essay at www.ecoNOT.com/page4.html:

Some folks here are criticizing the essay for exaggeration and misrepresentation of environmentalism. But its author provides an awful lot of source material--drawn directly from mainstream environmental groups, plus quotations from major spokesmen and leaders--elsewhere on his ecoNOT.com Web site, at www.ecoNOT.com/page3.html and also in his site's news archives. You can find even more on the author's separate blog, located at http://bidinotto.journalspace.com.

Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?

There's an easier way; the author of the essay is arguing from a particular viewpoint (I'm kind of getting hints of laissez-faire capitalism, natural rights and a long finish of Libertarianism) and as such, sources are going to be selected and presented in a certain way to match that viewpoint. We can certainly check his references, and I would expect them to be valid, although possibly out of context. But this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article.

[Avatar]

Tony, guess you were right about A_unique_person not wanting to answer direct questions.

He denies he's a misanthrope and that he hates humans. So I challenged him on his terminology, asking him why he chose words like "alien" and "cancer" to describe the human race, rather something neutral. But when asked why he uses such nasty metaphors, his only reply is "leukemia is a cancer." So, leukemia is supposed to be GOOD?

This is pure sophistry, of course. Anyone can see that his comparing humans with aliens, cancers, or (now) leukemia only confirms that he hates the human race. He's not refuting that ecoNOT.com essay: by his own statements, he's simply providing its author with more confirming footnotes!

On the second point, I wanted him to justify his earlier claim that it's "wrong" for humans to regard nature as "ours." So I asked him why is it "right" for a robin or beaver to use the stuff of nature as "theirs," but wrong for a man to claim it as "his"?

Again, he evaded my questions of morality and of possession, and suddenly switched the subject instead to "damage." Humans, he says, do much more "damage" than critters. Okay, then: Is the beaver really "damaging" the environment in building a dam--if only a little bit? Is that "wrong"? Or is it "right"? If so, by what standard? How much "damage" is acceptable from a beaver, and why? How much from a human, and why?

Any bets I won't get a direct, coherent reply?

Third point: in logic, the onus of proof is on a person making an assertion. This guy asserts that the loss of species is "wrong," and "immoral." So I ask him to support that assertion: by what moral standard, I ask, is it "wrong"? What's your standard of right and wrong--your morality?

Again, he just ducks the question. "What's yours?" he evades. Then he simply reiterates his initial arbitrary assertion: "For me, the extinction of a species is immoral." Well, DUH! We all KNEW that's his position. What I was asking for wasn't repetition, but a justification. But he comes up empty.

The only thing I know about his ethics is that somehow, for a reason he can't or won't specify, its "immoral" for humans to cause the decline, or extinction, of ANY species--presumably of ANYTHING, presumably at ANY time or ANY place, for ANY reason. But he can't or won't tell us: WHY? (I'll specify my own standard in a separate post.)

Finally, Mr. Unique was exercised that there was an alleged 90% reduction in the lion population. So I asked him a perfectly reasonable question: If a reduction in lions (or any species) is morally "bad," as he insists, then what number of lions is the morally "right" number on earth?

Again, no answer. Again, he changed the subject. All we can divine from his answer is the unsupported assertions that "extinction" is "immoral"--though he can't or won't say why, nor what extinction has to do with the subject of ethics.

So I ask again: if man is to be condemned as Evil for reducing the numbers in a species, there must be some sort of ideal baseline number that "should" be on planet earth. Okay, so what's the ideal number of lions? Tigers? Tulips? Amoeba? Is it wrong for us to reduce their number by one? How about ten? A hundred? Twenty percent? Seventy-five percent? How many are enough, how many are too few? Where do we begin being "immoral"? And why?

Folks, before one starts slinging around moral condemnations of humans for developing nature to support human life, isn't it a good idea to first get one's moral philosophy in order--at least to be able to reasonably justify your most basic claims?

[Avatar]

Unlike Mr. Unique, I'll be glad to specify my own moral standard.

I agree with that www.ecoNOT.com essay: there can be no such thing as "moral values" without a "moral valuer." Moral values (concepts of "right" and "wrong") presuppose a moral valuer--somebody who has the capacity to grasp and make moral choices between right and wrong. And that means people--not critters--because only people can make such moral distinctions. Things are therefore "valuable" or "have value" or can be "good" or "bad" only insofar as they are related to the world's only moral "valuers": humans.

My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.

And that's also my reply to Mr. Unique's claim that there's no difference between animal and human extinction. If humans are the source of VALUES and VALUING in the world, then there's an enormous moral difference between loss to humans, and losses to anything else.

Okay, folks, I've done my bit. Now, I invite any critics to specify their OWN moral standards of right and wrong, and justify them in an intelligible way.

[Avatar]

BillyTK says there's an "easier" way to judge the validity of the claims in that www.ecoNOT.com essay than by actually checking them out to the sources it cites. But even if the sources of his claims prove to be valid and accurate, "this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article," BillyTK asserts.

Huh?

One of the main criticisms raised of the article on this thread is that its author has misrepresented environmentalism, by cherry-picking quotations only from extremists. Well, I pointed out that the author actually quoted many MAINSTREAM, highly regarded environmentalist leaders, spokesmen, and groups. So how then can we determine if that important criticism of his article is true, if we take the "easier" (lazier?) way and don't even bother to check out his sources to see if his negative depiction of environmentalism is accurate?

One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.

The author also said many environmentalists value animals and nature as much or more than they value their fellow humans. Right on this thread we have someone saying that he ranks the extinction of people with the extinction of lions, as morally equal. Is THAT a refutation of the author's point, or a confirmation?

Another major point of the essay is to challenge the notion that "untouched nature" has value in itself. Right on this thread we have had someone endorsing that notion...but simply asserting it. He never argues for it, or grapple with the arguments raised in the essay.

I could go on, but my point is this. So far, I don't think anyone here has laid a glove on that essay and its contentions. BillyTK's suggestion that it would be "easier" if we just dismiss it, without daring to come to grips with its arguments, is just an argument for intellectual laziness and dogma. Several people here have already followed that advice, and admitted that they stopped reading in the middle. That didn't stop them from making all sorts of claims about it, however--all erroneous.

That ignorant approach certainly isn't a refutation of the essay. It's simply a dogmatist's way to remain secure in his dogmas, never submitting them to intellectual challenge. At least the author of the ecoNOT essay--judging by his many footnotes to environmentalists--troubled himself to actually read his opponents' views, and to grapple with them fairly and openly.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Avatar
BillyTK says there's an "easier" way to judge the validity of the claims in that www.ecoNOT.com essay than by actually checking them out to the sources it cites. But even if the sources of his claims prove to be valid and accurate, "this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article," BillyTK asserts.
Misrepresentation. What I actually said was: "We can certainly check his references, and I would expect them to be valid, although possibly out of context."

Huh?

One of the main criticisms raised of the article on this thread is that its author has misrepresented environmentalism, by cherry-picking quotations only from extremists. Well, I pointed out that the author actually quoted many MAINSTREAM, highly regarded environmentalist leaders, spokesmen, and groups.
Context and representation. You said, "its author has misrepresented environmentalism,", so you agree with 'us', huh?

So how then can we determine if that important criticism of his article is true, if we take the "easier" (lazier?) way and don't even bother to check out his sources to see if his negative depiction of environmentalism is accurate?
Strawman; I never suggested we shouldn't even bother to check his sources. Misrepresentation by implication; your use of "lazier". However, the validity (hell, even accuracy) of his sources alone doesn't support his case; all it proves is that the people quoted said what they said (or that the quotes attributed to these people have, indeed, been attributed to said people). See also next comment on the fallacy of composition.
One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.
Fallacy of composition; the qualities exhibited by some elements in a particular set or class are not necessarily exhibited by all the elements in that set or class.

The author also said many environmentalists value animals and nature as much or more than they value their fellow humans. Right on this thread we have someone saying that he ranks the extinction of people with the extinction of lions, as morally equal. Is THAT a refutation of the author's point, or a confirmation?
No, because it's your second fallacy of composition.

Another major point of the essay is to challenge the notion that "untouched nature" has value in itself. Right on this thread we have had someone endorsing that notion...but simply asserting it. He never argues for it, or grapple with the arguments raised in the essay.

I could go on, but my point is this. So far, I don't think anyone here has laid a glove on that essay and its contentions. BillyTK's suggestion that it would be "easier" if we just dismiss it, without daring to come to grips with its arguments, is just an argument for intellectual laziness and dogma.
Strawman #2. I never suggested such.

Several people here have already followed that advice, and admitted that they stopped reading in the middle. That didn't stop them from making all sorts of claims about it, however--all erroneous.
As your claim about "advice" is based on fallacious reasoning, we can dispense with it.

That ignorant approach certainly isn't a refutation of the essay. It's simply a dogmatist's way to remain secure in his dogmas, never submitting them to intellectual challenge. At least the author of the ecoNOT essay--judging by his many footnotes to environmentalists--troubled himself to actually read his opponents' views, and to grapple with them fairly and openly.
Originally posted by Avatar
I agree with that www.ecoNOT.com essay
Oh... and welcome to the forum.

[MoeFaux]

All right, I finished reading this.
It was a long way about it, but I seem to agree with everything he says.

It's time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.
It's time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.
It's time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children's needs as less morally important than Bambi's.

I find his closing statements to be especially strong, much stronger than the rest of the essay where he just seems to ramble on using as many big words as possible. While his writing style may not be the best, the gist of what he's saying seems perfect.

I am sick of hearing "environmentalists" whining about "animal rights" and "conservation". It seems to me that 80% of what environmentalists are for is bullsh*t. In my opinion, they're just spewing crap that they have no idea about. Have they any idea the impact not only on the economy but to our lives the way things would be if PETA or Treesitters had their way? Are they blind?

Aren't are lives more imortant than a tree? When did we become so stupid that we could question which is more important - an animal being saved from "cruel" animal testing or a cure for cancer?

Treesitters do nothing but put poor loggers out of work. They are not "winning" anything. Logging companies have fantastic measures in place where they replant trees for every tree they chop down. And that regrowth is important to the ecosystem. How hard is this to figure out? Even in area's where NO MAN has come in contact with, nature has a cycle that destroys old forests and regrows new ones. Lightning hitting a tree and starting a forest fire is a GOOD thing.

I'm for animal testing. I'm for logging.
I am however, NOT for things being harmed for no reason. Hunters killing animals for pleasure - no. Hunters killing animals for pleasure AND food - yes.
Protected land or unpopulated areas being destroyed just in case we may need to build one day - no. Being leveled because of a pressing need for more space - yes.

I would like there to be areas preserved. Yellowsone Park is wonderful. The Everglades, fantastic. But when someone wants to keep a park when there's no more room to build and people need homes, it has to go. That Yellowstone would ever turn into a land of condos is highly unlikely. We still have plenty of room, we can fit millions of people in with the land we have, and still have protected areas.

The belief that human interests are inherently in conflict fails to take into account human creative intelligence. We aren't fighting over a fixed or dwindling amount of resources, or an economic pie of fixed size. That's because we aren't just pie consumers: we're pie producers. By using our creative intelligence to develop previously idle resources, we create a bigger pie--then more pies--then better pies--then cake, as well.

The history of human progress is that Man takes things from nature, and by using his reason, transforms them into ever-increasing abundance. He does so with ever-greater efficiency, too, creating more values with fewer resources.

This too, is a very good point. "Mr big bad company man" isn't so foolish to not realize that there's a point to which was can use nature. Things run out after time. Their interest is at stake, and therefore they will find new and better was to drill oil, log, build homes. We recycle, we replace, we find a way to help nature and by doing so we help US. I don't think industries are given enough credit. They have money at stake. Of course they'll find a way to make things better.

Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

[Avatar]

Re BillyTK:

What then did you mean when--in response to my urging that people actually check out the essay's sources--you wrote "There's an easier way"? What exactly were you suggesting that people do?

The structuring of your comment, with those words immediately following my suggestion, could only seem to mean to me: No, folks--you don't really have to check out that essay's sources for accuracy or context; "there's an easier way."

Well, WHAT way?

You then immediately started to describe what you glean to be some of the philosophical premises of the essay; but that hardly seems related to your comment that "there's an easier way" to evaluate the merits of the essay. So what are you saying is the "easier way"? Are you implying that, simply by your labeling the philosophic perspective of the essay, that's sufficient for anyone to judge its merits? Or are you recommending something else? If so, what?

As for the "fallacy of composition." Never my intention to suggest that all people who call themselves "environmentalists" share the misanthropic perspectives of several people posting here. Several critics of the essay have made clear that they do NOT share this view. Neither does that essay suggest such a thing; quite the contrary. Its author distinguishes, for example, between "conservationism" and "environmentalism." I was merely trying to suggest (perhaps clumsily) that there is evidence even on this thread for the essay's claims about rampant misanthropy among environmentalists...not that all environmentalists are misanthropes.

Still...on that point, the essay quotes a lot of leading, famous, mainstream environmentalists saying some pretty awful things. If THEY don't define and represent "environmentalism," who does? Is it a "fallacy of composition" to conclude something about the general thrust of a movement, when so many of its founders, leaders, and major organizations state such viewpoints?

If it is, then let's try another approach: What is your definition of "environmentalism"--a definition that you think is broadly representative of what its "mainstream" leaders and groups believe and advocate?

BTW, thanks for your welcoming me to the forum. (I think...) <G>

[dsm]

Ahh. You started out in this thread pretty good, but you seem to be going downhill in your position.

Originally posted by Avatar
Unlike Mr. Unique, I'll be glad to specify my own moral standard.


His standard was well stated -- you're just not paying attention.


My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.


And if some of the humans of the world choose to value the presevation of animal life in order to further human life, are their values misplaced? Why?


Okay, folks, I've done my bit. Now, I invite any critics to specify their OWN moral standards of right and wrong, and justify them in an intelligible way.


By who's definition of "intelligible"?

:rolleyes:

[Avatar]

1. You'll have to excuse my inattention or blindness, but please help me locate that "moral standard" of his that is supposed to be so glaringly evident.

2. You posit as a value "the presevation of animal life in order to further human life." Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as "ends in themselves," but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans. So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a "good" thing?

3. "Intelligible: capable of being understood; comprehensible. Philos.: apprehensible by the mind only; conceptual." -- Random House Dictionary of the American Language.

In short, an attempt to provide a rational justification. I don't mean I have to agree with someone's justification or reasoning--only that it be intellectually coherent and basically responsive to the question at hand, providing some reasons rather than pure assertions. I think I've been trying to do that.

[dsm]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

Aren't are lives more imortant than a tree?


If you're a logger, then your life in no more or less important than a tree. Cut down the last tree and you no longer have a life.


Logging companies have fantastic measures in place where they replant trees for every tree they chop down. And that regrowth is important to the ecosystem. How hard is this to figure out? Even in area's where NO MAN has come in contact with, nature has a cycle that destroys old forests and regrows new ones. Lightning hitting a tree and starting a forest fire is a GOOD thing.


Are we qualified enough to know when destroying a forest is a "good" thing? Also, remember that nature has a MUCH longer timescale in mind than man does. If cutting down an old-growth forest would provide loggers with jobs, but devastate the nearby towns because of changes in water runoff (etc.), is it still a GOOD thing? Do we know all the potential devastation we may do to ourselves by making such large-scale changes to the environment.


"Mr big bad company man" isn't so foolish to not realize that there's a point to which was can use nature.


Or maybe they'll simply say it's a big world with a global economy and, if the forest runs out in (say) Thailand, they'll simply move to Malaysia regardless of the elephants (aka loggers) they put out of jobs. After all, unchecked by environmental concerns, it's cheaper for companies to simply move to a better location and leave it to the locals to fix the problems so that they can return at a future time.


Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.


Hmmm. With an attitude like that, people may not have learned to look beyond themselves to come up with words like "we can either all hang together or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Avatar
Re BillyTK:

What then did you mean when--in response to my urging that people actually check out the essay's sources--you wrote "There's an easier way"? What exactly were you suggesting that people do?

The structuring of your comment, with those words immediately following my suggestion, could only seem to mean to me: No, folks--you don't really have to check out that essay's sources for accuracy or context; "there's an easier way."

Well, WHAT way?
"Easier way" doesn't mean "only way". If you choose to interpret it in that way, you're quite welcome, as long as you're clear that is a matter of your interpretation and don't try to represent it as the author's intention. Look, referencing is important, but good referencing alone doesn't prove a case, it only shows that that the sources actually the content an author attributes to them.

You then immediately started to describe what you glean to be some of the philosophical premises of the essay; but that hardly seems related to your comment that "there's an easier way" to evaluate the merits of the essay. So what are you saying is the "easier way"? Are you implying that, simply by your labeling the philosophic perspective of the essay, that's sufficient for anyone to judge its merits? Or are you recommending something else? If so, what?
Critical analysis (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/langc/skills/conc-det.html).
As for the "fallacy of composition." Never my intention to suggest that all people who call themselves "environmentalists" share the misanthropic perspectives of several people posting here. Several critics of the essay have made clear that they do NOT share this view. Neither does that essay suggest such a thing; quite the contrary. Its author distinguishes, for example, between "conservationism" and "environmentalism." I was merely trying to suggest (perhaps clumsily) that there is evidence even on this thread for the essay's claims about rampant misanthropy among environmentalists...not that all environmentalists are misanthropes.
(My italics)
Originally posted by Avatar
One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.
See also Confirmation bias (http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html)
Still...on that point, the essay quotes a lot of leading, famous, mainstream environmentalists saying some pretty awful things. If THEY don't define and represent "environmentalism," who does? Is it a "fallacy of composition" to conclude something about the general thrust of a movement, when so many of its founders, leaders, and major organizations state such viewpoints?
It's fallacious when trying to generalise about a range of groups covering a range of positions. Quoting Al Gore? :roll: I mean, really...

If it is, then let's try another approach: What is your definition of "environmentalism"--a definition that you think is broadly representative of what its "mainstream" leaders and groups believe and advocate?
How is this relevant?

BTW, thanks for your welcoming me to the forum. (I think...) <G>
It was a sincere welcome. Disagreement shouldn't interfere with civility.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Avatar
1. You'll have to excuse my inattention or blindness, but please help me locate that "moral standard" of his that is supposed to be so glaringly evident.


Still not paying attention, huh? It's simply that nature should have rights as well as understanding and not upsetting the "balance of nature" is important to the survival of man.


2. You posit as a value "the presevation of animal life in order to further human life." Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as "ends in themselves," but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans. So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a "good" thing?


Still thinking like a one-dimensional human, huh? This is mere sophistry on your part to try to build a case for "environmentalist = radical".


3. "Intelligible: capable of being understood; comprehensible. Philos.: apprehensible by the mind only; conceptual." -- Random House Dictionary of the American Language.


Another words, fitting into your belief.


In short, an attempt to provide a rational justification. I don't mean I have to agree with someone's justification or reasoning--only that it be intellectually coherent and basically responsive to the question at hand, providing some reasons rather than pure assertions. I think I've been trying to do that.


The paper pushes the point "environmentalist = radical" to the extreme. In so doing, it brands itself as radical in that it's applying a broad brush to a group rather than focusing on what the individual problems are and, in the process, alienates the people that it's trying to reach. Right-wing conservatives will embrace the doctrine without understanding all the details that led up to its creation. Left-wing radicals will dismiss it as having no real substance and missing the point of the environmentalist movement. Moderates will see points on both sides, but, because of its incendiary approach, will tend to dismiss the paper as politically incorrect.

In short, rationality is not possible in this politically charged environment.

[Avatar]

BillyTK,

Now what do I have to do to get a simple, direct answer to a question here?

I asked you, quite sincerely, to tell me what you meant when you said there was an "easier way" to analyze the essay than by going through the references. You say that interpretation of your words is mistaken; but you never explain what you meant by "an easier way." Instead, you respond with more verbal shuffling and rope-a-dope misdirection than Mohammed Ali in his prime, and chide me because I "choose" an interpretation of your words that seems, on its face, to be pretty straightforward.

Sorry, but sending us to a footnote reference on the nature of critical analysis is no substitute for a simple answer to a simple question. I'm asking you again, politely, just to explain your words, amend them, withdraw them...but to be responsive to a direct question about what you meant by "easier way." Is that an unfair request?

Another point. In an early post, I cited the names of MANY leading and famous environmentalists and mainstream environmental groups which were quoted in the essay. In your latest response, you condense all of these down to one name: Al Gore...adding a laughing smilie. As if the essay, or I, had only quoted him!

Now come on: play fair, fella. YOU were the one who raised the issue of "composition fallacies." Don't you think you're doing the same thing by ignoring all the many individuals and groups quoted in the essay, and which I named, and instead cherry-picking only ONE to ridicule? (One who, incidentally, wrote a bestseller quoted, hailed, and promoted by the entire environmentalist mainstream and the media as a major movement manifesto.)

Finally, I asked you to explain your conception of what environmentalism means. If you think its so wrong to cite the beliefs and positions of leading greens because that supposedly distorts the REAL meaning of environmentalism, then I asked you to tell me: What IS the real meaning of environmentalism? Your enlightening reply? "How is this relevant?"

I am still waiting, waiting, WAITING for any self-defined environmentalists here who want to engage in a truly responsive discussion about that www.ecoNOT.com essay. Civility is more than just a tone; it is a respect for substantive engagement. So can we please stop all the sophistry, the evasive bobbing and weaving, the ducking of simple questions, and actually start addressing the positions set forth in the ecoNOT article?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

As a general rule most reasonable persons are going to say that people are more important than "other stuff" be it rocks or trees or whatnot. I at least hope so.

Problem is that general principle can lead reasonable people to different (or even opposing) viewpoints on a particular issue when trying to decide what is best for people when dealing with stuff.

For example, if a particular enviromental measure, call it "X" is in place it will immediately lead to the death of 100 more or less identifyable people(Lets say the 100 will come from the class of professional poker players). However, there is reason to believe X may make it 25% less likely that a future (say in 10 years) tragic event will occur killing 10,000 random people.

There are arguments to be made for or against X independent of the above principle, that people are better than stuff. Those for X may argue the math, that in theory X "saves" 2500 people for a cost of 100. Opponents may say that there is a moral objection to killing members of an identifyable class in order to "gamble" for a larger later benefit (how 'bout my wry irony w/r/t choice of class?) However, this disagreement as to practical application does not necessarily imply a disagreement as to the core principles.

However, sometimes labels are placed and accepted that obscure the moral point. Most people who favor enviromental causes do on the basis that action now makes life better in the long run. Those who oppose mainly do so believing that the present cost outweighs the future benefit. It is simply a cost argument, not one having to do with political philosophy of "individualism."

Of course, there are those that elevate "stuff" over people, and I disagree with that in a pretty basic way. However, taking an particular incident where someone chooses a policy that values "stuff" over people does not idicate that person values the "stuff" over people. It is just as likely that the policy is chosen for the reason that more people will benefir from a pro-stuff stance on that particular issue.

These kinds of articles give me the sense that some people just can't grasp the idea that all differences in "what to do" do not automatically imply a difference in core beliefs.

[jj]

Originally posted by Number Six
The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.


Besides, we ARE part of nature.

His version of environmentalism is obviously pure propaganda, and his attack on it regarding its goals is nonsense from any number of directions.

[jj]

Originally posted by Avatar
Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?

Whose definition of "Mainstream"?

Green Peace? The EPA? James Watt? The ALF?

I think it's utterly distorting the whole point to assert that there is a "mainstream".

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


It's not PC to be critical of environmental (and other such groups) groups.

Tony's statement is exactly and precisely an example of the new right-wing mean spirited "conservative" PC.

Tony's statement is an exemplar of PC, is a call to make some comments un-PC, and is the veriest epitomy and example of using PC to silence opponents. In short, it is a call to discount anyone who doesn't accept Tony's PC view of the world.

Pot, Saucepan.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

Was it your intent to take a species-traitor point of view there, or not?

[jj]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

"giving up wellbeing for a tree" seems very much like a false dichotomy to me.

[Avatar]

DSM,

You say that I'm not paying attention to A_Unique_Person's words--that he offered a clear-cut moral standard which you describe thus:

"Still not paying attention, huh? It's simply that nature should have rights as well as understanding and not upsetting the 'balance of nature' is important to the survival of man."

Sorry, my friend, but you aren't quoting him, and for good reason: those words don't appear anywhere in his posts. That may in fact represent his position, or yours, or your interpretation of his; but I don't know that, because he didn't SAY that -- and he didn't respond when I asked for his own words. So unless you can point to where he said that was his "standard," I don't think it's fair to accuse me of "not paying attention."

Second, let's address the following passage of mine, which you quote. I wrote:

"You posit as a value 'the presevation of animal life in order to further human life.' Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as 'ends in themselves,' but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans." --Avatar

Don't the words "in order to further human life" simply mean that the author of those words was justifying animal preservation "in order to further human life"? What else COULD they mean?

And if, in fact, animals should be preserved "in order to further human life," then doesn't it logically follow that it's morally right for us to use animals for our own benefit?

I simply drew from that person's formulation the obvious logical conclusions; I wrote: "So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a 'good' thing?"

Do I have to spell this out in a formal syllogism?

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.

Yet your response is first, mockery, then an accusation of "sophistry." But where's the sophistry? You didn't explain.

In fact, it's precisely these logical implications of the major premise that have led some people to posit (out of cloth) "animal rights" and the "rights of nature" as their logical escape clause, to prevent humans from using the rest of nature for their own well-being. And the logic of THAT leads environmentalists right down the slippery slope to the "extremism" you say you reject: the extremism of PETA, ELF, ALF, and the like, who simply take "animal rights" and "the rights of nature" to its logical dead end: opposition to any human activity that affects nature and animals.

But what exactly does it mean to say "that nature should have rights"? What are these "rights"? How are they defined? Where do they emerge from? How are they justified?

[DanishDynamite]

Avatar:My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately it is either too simplistic in itself or you have just expressed it too simplistically.

Given your view, it would seem that the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species. Some consequences:

1. Phytoplankton in the oceans produce the majority of oxygen available for breathing in the atmosphere. If a country or corporation decided to intensively harvest this source of food (so intensely that they might become extinct) in order to "feed poor starving humans", would that be OK with you?

2. The full interaction of the various species in regard to maintaining a viable eco-sphere (sorry, bad word, I know) is not well known at the moment. Given your moral philosophy, this is presumably of no importance. Hence, the dedicated extermination of all non-domesticated lifeforms or lifeforms currently viewed as unimportant to human welfare, would presumably be OK in regard to your moral philosophy. Correct?

3. The fact that a majority of species on this Earth have yet to be discovered and/or categorized and that many life-saving drugs of one kind or another stem from plant/animal species in the wild, would likewise be viewed as inconsequencial in your view. Correct? If not, kindly state where the line is drawn.

4. Lastly: Your moral philosophy impinges on mine. Given that the human species covers all continents, numbers of 6 billion and is in no immediate danger of dying out, I see no a priori reason that they must continue to increase their numbers. Especially when this unfounded expansion leads to the removal of habitat for other living species, and hence their extinction, at an accelerating rate. So, how do you feel that this impingement should be resolved?

[Avatar]

DanishDynamite,

THANK YOU for a post that is civil, philosophical, and responsive! How refreshing!

I have to do some stuff this evening, but I'll definitely reply in detail very soon.

[dsm]

Still not paying attention... :)

Originally posted by Avatar

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.


You don't see how one-sided this "logic" is? :(

This is an "nature exists to serve man" logic rather than "nature and man share a single world" logic. The laws of nature mean that we must use nature (breeding, raising, capturing, etc.) in order to survive -- this happens all throughout nature. However, the natural order is to use what is needed and nothing more. You seem to be willfully ignoring this idea and, thus, your arguments are sophistry.

Logging an old-growth forest when new materials exist or new-growth forests can be grown is an example of overuse with potentially severe local effects and is merely done to keep loggers working. Indescriminate fishing (both sea and lake) may be unnecessarily killing off species of fish and, thus, killing off the food sources of other animals with unknown consequences. Overhunting for lions (and the like) is changing the ecological balance causing some species to run wild and others to die off as well (with downrange effects still to be determined).

These are just a few examples of where environmentalists are saying not only do we need to conserve earth resources, but we also need to preserve the earth's ecosystem because we don't know the full extent of the consequences if we don't.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Avatar
BillyTK,

Now what do I have to do to get a simple, direct answer to a question here?
Well, for starters, don't misrepresent someone's statements; it won't exactly endear you to them.

I asked you, quite sincerely, to tell me what you meant when you said there was an "easier way" to analyze the essay than by going through the references. You say that interpretation of your words is mistaken;
No, I said that attempting to pass off your interpretation of my position as my position is erroneous.
but you never explain what you meant by "an easier way."
I'll repeat my answer for you-critical analysis.
Instead, you respond with more verbal shuffling and rope-a-dope misdirection than Mohammed Ali in his prime, and chide me because I "choose" an interpretation of your words that seems, on its face, to be pretty straightforward.

Sorry, but sending us to a footnote reference on the nature of critical analysis is no substitute for a simple answer to a simple question.
I gave you a simple answer—critical analysis; how much simpler and clearer can I make this?—the link (not a footnote by the way, but a basic primer) was there to explain what this entails.
I'm asking you again, politely, just to explain your words, amend them, withdraw them...but to be responsive to a direct question about what you meant by "easier way." Is that an unfair request?
Well, yeah, when I've already answered your question. Heck, some might even consider it down right rude.
Another point. In an early post, I cited the names of MANY leading and famous environmentalists and mainstream environmental groups which were quoted in the essay. In your latest response, you condense all of these down to one name: Al Gore...adding a laughing smilie. As if the essay, or I, had only quoted him!
From the essay, eigth paragraph down, first line:
"[W]e are threatening to push the earth out of balance," warned former Vice President Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance. "Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet's ecological system. The ferocity of its assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response."


Now come on: play fair, fella. YOU were the one who raised the issue of "composition fallacies." Don't you think you're doing the same thing by ignoring all the many individuals and groups quoted in the essay, and which I named, and instead cherry-picking only ONE to ridicule? (One who, incidentally, wrote a bestseller quoted, hailed, and promoted by the entire environmentalist mainstream and the media as a major movement manifesto.)
I'm ridiculing Al Gore for the sake of ridiculing Al Gore. That is not a composition fallacy.

Finally, I asked you to explain your conception of what environmentalism means. If you think its so wrong to cite the beliefs and positions of leading greens because that supposedly distorts the REAL meaning of environmentalism,
Which I don't, I've nowhere claimed any such thing. What I did was illustrate the fallacious nature of generalising a particular set of characteristics to all members of a group, particularly one as disparate as the environmentalists.
then I asked you to tell me: What IS the real meaning of environmentalism? Your enlightening reply? "How is this relevant?"
Bearing in mind that, as you reveal here, your line of analysis was based on a flawed assumption, how else would you expect me to reply?

I am still waiting, waiting, WAITING for any self-defined environmentalists here who want to engage in a truly responsive discussion about that www.ecoNOT.com essay. Civility is more than just a tone; it is a respect for substantive engagement. So can we please stop all the sophistry, the evasive bobbing and weaving, the ducking of simple questions, and actually start addressing the positions set forth in the ecoNOT article?
Sorry, but at the moment I'm too busy correcting the assumptions you keep making about what I'm saying. Look, you've had a bit of a baptism of fire here; if you want to shake hands and wipe the slate clean I'm happy to do that and we can start afresh. But please if you're not clear on what I've said, just ask okay? And using the quote function might help when responding to other posters' points.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


"giving up wellbeing for a tree" seems very much like a false dichotomy to me.

The same point I have made.

The whole premise of his essay, which he never states, is the familiar 'libertarian' one. Nothing is allowed to get between me and my profits.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar
Tony, guess you were right about A_unique_person not wanting to answer direct questions.

He denies he's a misanthrope and that he hates humans. So I challenged him on his terminology, asking him why he chose words like "alien" and "cancer" to describe the human race, rather something neutral. But when asked why he uses such nasty metaphors, his only reply is "leukemia is a cancer." So, leukemia is supposed to be GOOD?



White blood cells are good, when they go cancerous they are bad. When humans live one way they are good, another, they are bad. My analogy to a cancer is that when humans just grow out of control and take over everything, they are behaving badly.



This is pure sophistry, of course. Anyone can see that his comparing humans with aliens, cancers, or (now) leukemia only confirms that he hates the human race. He's not refuting that ecoNOT.com essay: by his own statements, he's simply providing its author with more confirming footnotes!



I like humanity and nature. Don't create a false dichotomy.



On the second point, I wanted him to justify his earlier claim that it's "wrong" for humans to regard nature as "ours." So I asked him why is it "right" for a robin or beaver to use the stuff of nature as "theirs," but wrong for a man to claim it as "his"?

Again, he evaded my questions of morality and of possession, and suddenly switched the subject instead to "damage." Humans, he says, do much more "damage" than critters. Okay, then: Is the beaver really "damaging" the environment in building a dam--if only a little bit? Is that "wrong"? Or is it "right"? If so, by what standard? How much "damage" is acceptable from a beaver, and why? How much from a human, and why?



I was replying to your analogy. Don't blame me if I do so.

Every living thing affects it's environment. Human beings, with their invention of tools, have developed the ability to affect the environment much more than any other animal in history.

This ability to affect the environment has been shown, in the past, to destroy eco-systems.



Any bets I won't get a direct, coherent reply?

Third point: in logic, the onus of proof is on a person making an assertion. This guy asserts that the loss of species is "wrong," and "immoral." So I ask him to support that assertion: by what moral standard, I ask, is it "wrong"? What's your standard of right and wrong--your morality?

Again, he just ducks the question. "What's yours?" he evades. Then he simply reiterates his initial arbitrary assertion: "For me, the extinction of a species is immoral." Well, DUH! We all KNEW that's his position. What I was asking for wasn't repetition, but a justification. But he comes up empty.



I am sorry to dissapoint you. I just believe it is wrong to have a world that will only have as it's megafauna man and some animals in zoos.



The only thing I know about his ethics is that somehow, for a reason he can't or won't specify, its "immoral" for humans to cause the decline, or extinction, of ANY species--presumably of ANYTHING, presumably at ANY time or ANY place, for ANY reason. But he can't or won't tell us: WHY? (I'll specify my own standard in a separate post.)



Perhaps it is something that can't be quantified. I believe there is a lot more to the world than that that can be measured. That old coffe cup inscription of "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" shows a mindset that is incredilby narrow.



Finally, Mr. Unique was exercised that there was an alleged 90% reduction in the lion population. So I asked him a perfectly reasonable question: If a reduction in lions (or any species) is morally "bad," as he insists, then what number of lions is the morally "right" number on earth?

Again, no answer. Again, he changed the subject. All we can divine from his answer is the unsupported assertions that "extinction" is "immoral"--though he can't or won't say why, nor what extinction has to do with the subject of ethics.

So I ask again: if man is to be condemned as Evil for reducing the numbers in a species, there must be some sort of ideal baseline number that "should" be on planet earth. Okay, so what's the ideal number of lions? Tigers? Tulips? Amoeba? Is it wrong for us to reduce their number by one? How about ten? A hundred? Twenty percent? Seventy-five percent? How many are enough, how many are too few? Where do we begin being "immoral"? And why?

Folks, before one starts slinging around moral condemnations of humans for developing nature to support human life, isn't it a good idea to first get one's moral philosophy in order--at least to be able to reasonably justify your most basic claims?

Your position reminds me of the one from the Bible, that the earth is here for man to do with as he pleases. I think that a view of man like this shows an obsolete and barbaric view of the world.

Man is not the measure of all things.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Tony's statement is exactly and precisely an example of the new right-wing mean spirited "conservative" PC.

Tony's statement is an exemplar of PC, is a call to make some comments un-PC, and is the veriest epitomy and example of using PC to silence opponents. In short, it is a call to discount anyone who doesn't accept Tony's PC view of the world.

Pot, Saucepan.


Huh? Whose a$$ did you pull this $h!t out of?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



Huh? Whose a$$ did you pull this $h!t out of?

Yours?

[a_unique_person]

It's time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.


And if our nature is self-destructive? The human race was a product of the a different era. In that time, humans literally had to fight for their survival. We lived very short lives full of pain and suffering. Women often died in childbirth. There were no medicines. The average life span IIRC, was about 30 years. Half of your children did not make it to adulthood.

The human population hardly grew for hundreds of thousands of years.

Marshall McLuhan referred to the phenomenon of things 'flipping'. Assumptions and ways of acting suddenly get turned on their head. His example was the zip fastener. It was designed to be an invisible connector for clothing. Over time it has changed. You can now see it as the actual fashion statement on clothing.

The human race has changed from being one more species struggling for survival, to the species that controls the earth. We literally have the capability, right now, to destroy most life on the planet. No other species has anything that ability.

However, we still operate on the assumptions and morality of a different time.



It's time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.



Ludicrous, emotive, strawman.


It's time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children's needs as less morally important than Bambi's.


Another ludicrous, emotive strawman.

Also, it's all being done for our children. Yeah, right.

[Avatar]

Re "A_Unique_Person's" latest:

Recall I asked this self-described "philosopher" to provide what I had already provided: a specific moral standard at the root of his moral claims. His reply:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I am sorry to dissapoint you. I just believe it is wrong to have a world that will only have as it's megafauna man and some animals in zoos.

So my request for philosophical elaboration = the claim that I want a world consisting of only men and zoos. The term "straw man" has been used here a lot. I'd say this ridiculous caricature more than qualifies.

Next, instead of a rational response, he compounds "straw man" caricaturing of my position with name-calling:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That old coffe cup inscription of "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" shows a mindset that is incredilby narrow.

And then again:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Your position reminds me of the one from the Bible, that the earth is here for man to do with as he pleases. I think that a view of man like this shows an obsolete and barbaric view of the world.

Look hard, folks. Nope, not an argument to be found here; just evasion and name-calling.

Fella, after repeated opportunities, you've shown that your intellectual cupboard is bare. I'm moving on to discussions with people who at least make an attempt to respond with civility, and who try to offer some reasons and justifications for their assertions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar
To A_unique_person,

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

We are able to manipulate the world to an extent that no other species can. We could blow the whole place up, right now, if we wanted to. No other species has anything like the power that we posess.

[a_unique_person]

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.



Conclusion, animals must be measured in terms of their utility to man.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Conclusion, animals must be measured in terms of their utility to man.

And why is that bad??


(let's watch him dodge this one)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


And why is that bad??


(let's watch him dodge this one)

Our morality is ours. It is a human construct. Why does the rest of the universe have to be judged in our terms? I like to think of existence of the universe in terms of it being this thing that we are a part of of, not as something that we define.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

And why is that bad??


Because, much as we'd like to believe so, we are not God nor, in the end, are we any more special than his other creations.

(Note: this does not mean I believe in God.)

[Avatar]

Hey there, Tony,

Have you noticed that some folks here love to sling around moral terminology, telling us why it's "wrong" and "bad" and "immoral" and "barbaric" for humans to do this or that with animals and the environment...while they simultaneously deny that there is even any objective basis for morality in the first place?

Isn't this just a wee bit logically incoherent and inconsistent?

If there's really no objective basis for ethics, then it's logically inconsistent to use any moral concepts and terminology, such as "good" and "bad," to describe the behavior of humans toward animals, nature, or even each other. On the grounds of such relativism, all moral notions are devoid of content, meaning, and force. To be consistent, then, the moral agnostic or relativist has to abandon any notions of right and wrong, and simply conclude that just as animals may do whatever THEY want, so may WE. But if so, then their moral case for the "rightness" of environmentalism collapses.

On the other hand, if there IS an objective basis for ethics, why don't they tell us what it is? You certainly won't find it in the answers provided so far. I've repeatedly been asking some of these folks to identify (let alone justify) their ethical principles by reference to some standard of right and wrong. And we've all seen the vacuous responses to my questions. It's "immoral" to do this or that to animals and the environment, they declare. And why is it "bad" or "immoral"? No answer.

No, Tony, I'm afraid you'll never get a coherent answer here to your question about animal use: "And why is that bad?" Some of these folks want to use the language of morality against things they don't like; but they either can't or won't answer any questions about the basis of their moral claims.

As far as I'm concerned, until they do, their moral denunciations of human use of nature and animals can simply be ignored as arbitrary assertions, carrying no ethical weight.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Avatar
Hey there, Tony,

If there's really no objective basis for ethics, then it's logically inconsistent to use any moral concepts and terminology, such as "good" and "bad," to describe the behavior of humans toward animals, nature, or even each other. On the grounds of such relativism, all moral notions are devoid of content, meaning, and force. To be consistent, then, the moral agnostic or relativist has to abandon any notions of right and wrong, and simply conclude that just as animals may do whatever THEY want, so may WE. But if so, then their moral case for the "rightness" of environmentalism collapses.


Morality and ethics are subjective. In my subjective system of morality, it includes the notions of good and bad. One of the bad things is killing off species.

If you want to have a discussion on the philosophy of morality, the R&P forum may be what you are looking for. It is not my area of expertise, which is why you are probably tiring of toying with me already.

There is a guy there called 'Franko' you should meet.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Avatar

As far as I'm concerned, until they do, their moral denunciations of human use of nature and animals can simply be ignored as arbitrary assertions, carrying no ethical weight.

Look hard, folks. No position, just rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by dsm


Because, much as we'd like to believe so, we are not God nor, in the end, are we any more special than his other creations.

(Note: this does not mean I believe in God.)

How does not being a nonexistant myth have anything to do with this argument?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


How does not being a nonexistant myth have anything to do with this argument?

I think he is referring to the attitude that the world is there to do with as we want.

[dsm]

Originally posted by jj

How does not being a nonexistant myth have anything to do with this argument?

Therefore, our omniscience is not (yet) up to the level of knowing all the damage we do and it is hubris to believe we are somehow "above" the other creatures of this world.

[jj]

Originally posted by dsm


Therefore, our omniscience is not (yet) up to the level of knowing all the damage we do and it is hubris to believe we are somehow "above" the other creatures of this world.

What do you think of Darwin, then?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


What do you think of Darwin, then?

He was a pretty smart guy. Evolution creates more advanced lifeforms. It has even made one that is self aware and able to think in abstract and symbolic terms.

Does that mean we should not be concerned about what appears to be the imminent demise of lions in the wild?

[fishbob]

Moe sez: I am sick of hearing "environmentalists" whining about "animal rights" and "conservation". It seems to me that 80% of what environmentalists are for is bullsh*t. In my opinion, they're just spewing crap that they have no idea about. Have they any idea the impact not only on the economy but to our lives the way things would be if PETA or Treesitters had their way? Are they blind?

Aren't are lives more imortant than a tree? When did we become so stupid that we could question which is more important - an animal being saved from "cruel" animal testing or a cure for cancer?

Treesitters do nothing but put poor loggers out of work. They are not "winning" anything. Logging companies have fantastic measures in place where they replant trees for every tree they chop down.

1 - You hear PETA and the tree sitters whining. You are doing the same thing that your author does - ascribing extremist opinions to the general environmental community. Naughty.

2 - It is not death of a tree vs death of a human. It is loss of a tree vs x dollars in wages for a logging company. Mis-characterization of the situation. Naughty.

3 - There is another current thread around somewhere that points out that logging is the most dangerous profession in the US. So maybe a logger out of a job is a logger that survives.

It's time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.
It's time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.
It's time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children's needs as less morally important than Bambi's.Sound byte conclusions that ignore the fact that this, like many other issues, has no simple answer.

[dsm]

Originally posted by jj

What do you think of Darwin, then?

"More evolved" and "above" are two different things.

[Avatar]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Given your view, it would seem that the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species.

Note closely your formulation: you said "the well-being of any human." Where I would take issue with what follows is that your examples don't describe activities that would contribute to anyone's "well-being," but to self-destruction.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Some consequences:

1. Phytoplankton in the oceans produce the majority of oxygen available for breathing in the atmosphere. If a country or corporation decided to intensively harvest this source of food (so intensely that they might become extinct) in order to "feed poor starving humans", would that be OK with you?

No, it wouldn't be OK to me. Nor to THEM.

First, nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others--including the right to breathe!

Second, though, the example is ridiculous, in many respects. For one thing, do you have any conception how much phytoplankton there is, and how much harvesting it would take to drive it to extinction? In addition, economically, as phytoplankton (or any overused resource) became more and more scarce, its price would correspondingly increase. This high price would (a) compel many consumers to seek alternative foods, while (b) the promise of higher profits would attract producers to find ways to generate MORE phytoplankton. We'd NEVER reach extinction, or anything close. But finally, you're proposing a thought experiment in which business people are supposedly going to try to make a buck by GETTING RID OF THEIR OWN AIR SUPPLY! That's absurd.

Remember the premise you cited at the top of this message? I was speaking of individuals seeking "well-being," which is the opposite of suicide. Don't you think that as oxygen diminished, these Evil Corporations and countries (which, after all, are run by people with lungs) might begin to notice? And stop their suicidal course?

Your next two points have a common premise which I'll challenge below:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

2. The full interaction of the various species in regard to maintaining a viable eco-sphere (sorry, bad word, I know) is not well known at the moment. Given your moral philosophy, this is presumably of no importance. Hence, the dedicated extermination of all non-domesticated lifeforms or lifeforms currently viewed as unimportant to human welfare, would presumably be OK in regard to your moral philosophy. Correct?

3. The fact that a majority of species on this Earth have yet to be discovered and/or categorized and that many life-saving drugs of one kind or another stem from plant/animal species in the wild, would likewise be viewed as inconsequencial in your view. Correct? If not, kindly state where the line is drawn.

With regard to your formulation of point (2), I'll first note, and reject, the implication of your loaded terminology ("dedicated extermination") because it's a straw man. I know of no one "dedicated" to such an idiotic project, certainly not me. Second, I don't recall ever saying that only domesticated lifeforms were important to human welfare. Nor did I say that there aren't human pleasures and values to be gained from animals and life "in the wild," including aesthetic pleasure. I only said that the "value" of such life stems from human appreciation, and isn't inherent in nature itself. Third, if a lifeform is truly unimportant to human welfare, there would be no reason to sustain it...but also no reason to exterminate it, unless it got in the way of something that truly IS vital to human welfare. I would hope you'd agree with me that if some lifeform (the AIDS virus? Malaria-carrying mosquitos?) became a threat to humans, we ought to exterminate it.

But my basic disagreement with both points (2) and (3) is their common epistemological premise: that human actions should be governed not by what we know, but by what we DON'T know. You hypothesize unknown biospheric interactions, unknown species, unknown medications, etc., I assume to suggest that our lack of omniscience ought to pose a barrier to certain human activities. The implication of your formulations seem to be that, because we aren't omniscient and can't know what ALL the consequences of our actions may be, we shouldn't act.

This premise--the basis for the so-called "Precautionary Principle" promoted by environmentalists, incidentally--undermines the whole relationship between human thought and action. Rather than act on our best knowledge--on what we DO know--we are supposed to halt new exploration, new experimentation, new probing of nature, etc., until we somehow manage to know every conceivable "down-range" consequence.

Need I point out that if this premise had been followed religiously by our distant ancestors, man would never have emerged from his cave? Everything we do inevitably has consequences--some good, some bad, some mixed, some we can foresee, some we can't. But if we DON'T act, we die. So we must act on what we KNOW--not on what we don't yet know. We do the best we can to get as much information as possible, so that our decisions are as rational and beneficial as possible. But we can't stop exploring, inventing, and using nature, because of any wildly imaginative scare scenarios that we can concoct, about things we don't even know may exist.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite

4. Lastly: Your moral philosophy impinges on mine. Given that the human species covers all continents, numbers of 6 billion and is in no immediate danger of dying out, I see no a priori reason that they must continue to increase their numbers. Especially when this unfounded expansion leads to the removal of habitat for other living species, and hence their extinction, at an accelerating rate. So, how do you feel that this impingement should be resolved?

My moral philosophy certainly doesn't impinge on you in any way. There is nothing I advocate that would "impinge" on your protecting habitat for other living species--with your own money, and on your own property. You, and the millions who believe as you do, are free to donate to conservation projects that buy up and preserve wilderness areas, and which foster the protection of species you wish to preserve. Millions of you already are doing so, and in fact vast tracts of land around the world are already off-limits to human development.

But note I said "with your own money." My philosophy is that you can do as you wish with your own property...as long as you aren't "impinging" on mine. If you mean to employ FORCE, however, to get your way--if you would use the power of laws, taxation, and police to force your vision of an ideal world on me--or compel ME to participate in funding your vision--then I would point out that it's YOUR philosophy, not mine, that's doing all the "impinging."

As for the numbers of people on the planet, I am not so arrogant as to play God with prospective mothers and fathers, telling them (or forcing them) to have the number of children I think they should have. So long as they keep their kids off my property, I could care less if they have none or twenty.

Thanks again for a well-formulated, philosophical, and responsive post. Hope mine has been the same for you.

[DanishDynamite]

Avatar:Note closely your formulation: you said "the well-being of any human." Where I would take issue with what follows is that your examples don't describe activities that would contribute to anyone's "well-being," but to self-destruction. I was trying to clarify what you meant when you said that your moral philosophy was human life. Although you take issue with my examples, do you agree that my formulation "the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species" accurately describes your philosophy?
No, it wouldn't be OK to me. Nor to THEM.

First, nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others--including the right to breathe! No one is infringing any rights. A natural food source is simply being harvested.
Second, though, the example is ridiculous, in many respects. For one thing, do you have any conception how much phytoplankton there is, and how much harvesting it would take to drive it to extinction? The example is not ridiculous. The North American passenger pigeon was at one point the most common bird in the world. Yet it was hunted to extinction in less than 50 years.
In addition, economically, as phytoplankton (or any overused resource) became more and more scarce, its price would correspondingly increase. This high price would (a) compel many consumers to seek alternative foods, while (b) the promise of higher profits would attract producers to find ways to generate MORE phytoplankton. We'd NEVER reach extinction, or anything close. Rhino horn commands an ever increasing price as their numbers dwindle. How many rhino farms do you know off?
But finally, you're proposing a thought experiment in which business people are supposedly going to try to make a buck by GETTING RID OF THEIR OWN AIR SUPPLY! That's absurd.There is no requirement that business people should be rational or that they should care about the long term consequences of their business on the environment. Witness the overfishing which has depleted stocks to dangerously low levels.
Remember the premise you cited at the top of this message? I was speaking of individuals seeking "well-being," which is the opposite of suicide. Don't you think that as oxygen diminished, these Evil Corporations and countries (which, after all, are run by people with lungs) might begin to notice? And stop their suicidal course?See above.
With regard to your formulation of point (2), I'll first note, and reject, the implication of your loaded terminology ("dedicated extermination") because it's a straw man. How is it a strawman when I simply asked a question regarding the nature of your philosophy?
I know of no one "dedicated" to such an idiotic project, certainly not me. Which is irrelevant. At the risk of being declared a producer of strawmen I will ask the question again: The dedicated extermination of all non-domesticated lifeforms or lifeforms currently viewed as unimportant to human welfare, would presumably be OK in regard to your moral philosophy. Correct?
Second, I don't recall ever saying that only domesticated lifeforms were important to human welfare. Nor did I say that there aren't human pleasures and values to be gained from animals and life "in the wild," including aesthetic pleasure. I only said that the "value" of such life stems from human appreciation, and isn't inherent in nature itself. I agree.
Third, if a lifeform is truly unimportant to human welfare, there would be no reason to sustain it...but also no reason to exterminate it, unless it got in the way of something that truly IS vital to human welfare. I would hope you'd agree with me that if some lifeform (the AIDS virus? Malaria-carrying mosquitos?) became a threat to humans, we ought to exterminate it.I agree that a virus or bacteria which actively targets and kills humans should be eradicated.
But my basic disagreement with both points (2) and (3) is their common epistemological premise: that human actions should be governed not by what we know, but by what we DON'T know. You hypothesize unknown biospheric interactions, unknown species, unknown medications, etc., I assume to suggest that our lack of omniscience ought to pose a barrier to certain human activities. The implication of your formulations seem to be that, because we aren't omniscient and can't know what ALL the consequences of our actions may be, we shouldn't act. On the contrary, it is precisely because we are now better informed about the subtle interactions of various lifeforms on each other and on the environment that we should act.
This premise--the basis for the so-called "Precautionary Principle" promoted by environmentalists, incidentally--undermines the whole relationship between human thought and action. Rather than act on our best knowledge--on what we DO know--we are supposed to halt new exploration, new experimentation, new probing of nature, etc., until we somehow manage to know every conceivable "down-range" consequence.No. We should explore, experiment and probe nature to our hearts content. We should however be very mindful of the possible consequences on the environment in whatever endevour we engage in.
Need I point out that if this premise had been followed religiously by our distant ancestors, man would never have emerged from his cave? Everything we do inevitably has consequences--some good, some bad, some mixed, some we can foresee, some we can't. But if we DON'T act, we die. So we must act on what we KNOW--not on what we don't yet know. We do the best we can to get as much information as possible, so that our decisions are as rational and beneficial as possible. But we can't stop exploring, inventing, and using nature, because of any wildly imaginative scare scenarios that we can concoct, about things we don't even know may exist. Exactly. We should use the knowledge we now have. We now know that importing rabbits to Australia was a bad idea. And that the importing of African bees to Brazil was a bad idea. Etc, etc.
My moral philosophy certainly doesn't impinge on you in any way.Yes it does. If your philosophy is as I stated above, i.e. that "the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species", it impinges. I don't feel this way, not by a longshot. Your philosophy means that if the last member of some species, a pregnant female let's say, could instead be the main course at the wedding dinner of some human family, you would have no problem with this, whereas I would. Immense problems.
There is nothing I advocate that would "impinge" on your protecting habitat for other living species--with your own money, and on your own property. You, and the millions who believe as you do, are free to donate to conservation projects that buy up and preserve wilderness areas, and which foster the protection of species you wish to preserve. Millions of you already are doing so, and in fact vast tracts of land around the world are already off-limits to human development.And how exactly should I buy up large tracts of ocean to protect the Phytoplankton?
But note I said "with your own money." My philosophy is that you can do as you wish with your own property...as long as you aren't "impinging" on mine. If you mean to employ FORCE, however, to get your way--if you would use the power of laws, taxation, and police to force your vision of an ideal world on me--or compel ME to participate in funding your vision--then I would point out that it's YOUR philosophy, not mine, that's doing all the "impinging."So if a law was passed to restrict the harvesting of Phytoplankton, you would presumably be against this?
As for the numbers of people on the planet, I am not so arrogant as to play God with prospective mothers and fathers, telling them (or forcing them) to have the number of children I think they should have. So long as they keep their kids off my property, I could care less if they have none or twenty.And if the numbers increased to the degree that it was impossible to keep them off your property, what then?
Thanks again for a well-formulated, philosophical, and responsive post. Hope mine has been the same for you. Thank you and I hope the civility continues.

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


Because, much as we'd like to believe so, we are not God nor, in the end, are we any more special than his other creations.



Ok, like AUP you failed to answer the question.

Why is it bad?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Avatar

No, Tony, I'm afraid you'll never get a coherent answer here to your question about animal use: "And why is that bad?" Some of these folks want to use the language of morality against things they don't like; but they either can't or won't answer any questions about the basis of their moral claims.

As far as I'm concerned, until they do, their moral denunciations of human use of nature and animals can simply be ignored as arbitrary assertions, carrying no ethical weight.


I agree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think he is referring to the attitude that the world is there to do with as we want.


The world is here to do as we want, because, in the end, who is going to stop us?

[Avatar]

DanishDynamite:

There are many sets of issues being raised here. My focus in this thread was set by the essay--"Environmentalism or Individualism?" at www.ecoNOT.com/page4.html--which started the debate here. That essay's focus was on the philosophical basis for environmentalism (which would include political and legal issues), and that was the basis for the debate here. I've tried to keep the focus there.

But many folks have been injecting scientific and economic issues into the debate as well. I think it would be prudent, if only for manageability's sake, to try to stick to the philosophical/political questions. If we can make progress dissecting one set of issues (assuming that's the goal of contributors here), then perhaps we can take up all the other matters in turn. But jumping from issue to issue isn't going to be productive of mutual understanding, only a lot of chaotic shrieking at each other.

So rather than debate every conceivable scientific or economic assertion that you or others raise, I'll try to confine my responses in those areas to directing interested readers to sources that would clarify my approach to those questions, and provide answers. Fair enough?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I was trying to clarify what you meant when you said that your moral philosophy was human life. Although you take issue with my examples, do you agree that my formulation "the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species" accurately describes your philosophy?
No one is infringing any rights. A natural food source is simply being harvested.

My answer is that ethically, human well-being takes precedence over the well-being of any other species. But this is a generic response. Because of definitional "borderline cases," I would tighten your formulation this way: "The well-being of a human takes moral precedence over the well-being or survival of any non-human living species, assuming (1) that the human in question lives in a cognitively normal (e. g., human-level, non-vegetative) state of consciousness, and (2) that the non-human species in question is not itself vital to human survival."

I put the qualifiers in because (1) a person in a vegetative state is not functioning on a human level, and therefore human "rights" don't apply, and (2) no person has a "right" to violate the rights of other people--i. e., to deprive fellow humans of something in nature that's vital to their survival.

Sticking to philosophical questions for the moment, you ask:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
At the risk of being declared a producer of strawmen I will ask the question again: The dedicated extermination of all non-domesticated lifeforms or lifeforms currently viewed as unimportant to human welfare, would presumably be OK in regard to your moral philosophy. Correct?

Incorrect. My moral philosophy embodies a huge respect for life in its many forms. Proponents of that philosophy would condemn anyone who would "dedicate" himself to exterminating living things. (Aside: Those who know me know I mean that.)

The question of someone's right to destroy other lifeforms is another matter. But here, another aspect of my philosophy kicks in: the political side. I am a firm believer in individual rights, including property rights. The only places where such a creep would have the right to do any such thing would be on his own property. And just as you say it's impossible to buy up all the phytoplankton on the planet, I would point out that--for the very same reason--it would be impossible for anyone to buy up an entire species for purposes of extermination.

Property rights, fully recognized and enforced, are our best protection against any such nihilistic effort. In fact, if you look at where environmental degradation, overuse of resources, and threats to species are worst, you'll find that it's occurring on "the commons"--on public property and in the areas where resources are unclaimed and unowned, including oceans, rivers, and air.

When a resource is owned, people tend to take care of it and increase its stock (witness private forests). When it isn't, you have "the tragedy of the commons": overuse and abuse, precisely because the resource belongs to "everyone," but its care and well-being is the responsibility of NO one.

If you really care about doing something about endangered species, pollution, and the overuse of resources, you should investigate the creative new ideas being implemented all over the world to apply property rights to unclaimed resources. You can start your quest by clicking here:

http://www.perc.org/privatesolutions/private.php?s=3

Why, you may even find some examples of rhino farms and the like!

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There is no requirement that business people should be rational or that they should care about the long term consequences of their business on the environment. Witness the overfishing which has depleted stocks to dangerously low levels.

Yes...which has taken place on "the commons": oceans and rivers. When everybody "owns" them, nobody cares about overuse.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I agree that a virus or bacteria which actively targets and kills humans should be eradicated.

Good that we agree on that. But microscopic organisms are an easy case. Just to see if you extend this up the food chain, what about getting rid of malaria-carrying mosquitos? A rabid dog that's chasing your loved one?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
On the contrary, it is precisely because we are now better informed about the subtle interactions of various lifeforms on each other and on the environment that we should act.

Only when the science is clear. For example, take pollution emissions from a factory. It's now possible to place "tracer" gases in smokestacks that allow us to trace the path of emissions. If such emissions can be traced to their source, and if they are causing demonstrable harms to others "downstream," then it's perfectly right to go after that polluter by law, and compel him to pay for the damage and mitigate his activity.

But many claims from environmentalists have been sheer "junk science" nonsense, aimed at scaring the public in order to increase their own funding and power. Claims about vast numbers of species extinctions caused by man, figures tossed out about deforestation, statistical assertions about "predicted" future cancer deaths caused by miniscule pesticide residues on food, etc., etc., are DEMONSTRABLE rubbish. (I can supply sources to your heart's content, if you wish them.)

So the issue of knowledge is this: Are actions going to be based on science, or on manipulative claims from people with an axe to grind? Environmentalists love to claim that industries and scientists have "vested interests" in their data. As if the greens don't! You don't raise money and members by telling people, "You know, things aren't really that bad." If you're in the environmental bureaucracy in government, you don't get a bigger budget by telling Congress the same thing. Don't these folks have a vested interest in painting worst-case scenarios? Think about it.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
We should explore, experiment and probe nature to our hearts content. We should however be very mindful of the possible consequences on the environment in whatever endevour we engage in.

I totally agree.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Your philosophy means that if the last member of some species, a pregnant female let's say, could instead be the main course at the wedding dinner of some human family, you would have no problem with this, whereas I would. Immense problems.

I have no problem at all. And under a political system which rejected the socialism of nationalizing land and resources, the likelihood of this happening would be vanishingly small. That's because there's no profit to anyone in eliminating a stock of resources that constitutes one's livelihood. But there's no roadblock to "the tragedy of the commons" when they belong to anyone, and no one.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And how exactly should I buy up large tracts of ocean to protect the Phytoplankton?

A cheap way to start would be to click on the earlier link. ;^)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So if a law was passed to restrict the harvesting of Phytoplankton, you would presumably be against this?

Not necessarily. Within a regime that recognized property rights to such resources, there could well be an overall quota. Again, click the link for some sources.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And if the numbers [of kids on the planet] increased to the degree that it was impossible to keep them off your property, what then?

(Sigh.) Won't happen. The big problem of so-called "overpopulation" is in the Third World. As poor people become wealthier, they have FEWER kids. But environmentalists, quite stupidly, try to place all sorts of roadblocks in the path of people trying to improve themselves economically. (A subject for another time.)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Thank you and I hope the civility continues.

Me too. However, I've been spending an inordinate amount of time here the past few days. I hope everyone understands that if you see less of me, and don't get timely replies to comments, it isn't because I've chickened out, or have nothing more to say in response to criticisms. I have to make a living, you know...

Best,