Environmentalism or Individualism?

[jj]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What do you think of Darwin, then?

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

 

[Avatar]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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:

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. ;^)

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.

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.)

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,