From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:55:59
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Nov6151836@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Nov7.003215.28152@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 7 Nov 92 00:32:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.003215.28152@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Nov6151836@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Nov6.213704.26864@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   >   In article <1992Nov6.163716.26393@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
   >   >In article <1466601882@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

   >   >>In short, it's unacceptable to act as if our goal were to shut down
   >   >>evolution.

   >   >>The acid test of ecocentrism is operational, not subjective: get
   >   >>extinction rates back down and speciation potentials back up to 
   >   >>average. Work backwards from that goal to see what has to be 
   >   >>done. 

   >   >I'd like to thank Alan for a definition of ecocentrism that is clear
   >   >and not exclusionary. Indeed, not only do I include myself without hesitation

 ...

   >   I think that this acid test is less of a definition than a goal and
   >   a test for the effectiveness and success of ecocentrism.  Alan has
   >   consistently argued the anthropocentric argument for ecocentrism - that
   >   ecocentrism is what is needed to achieve the goals listed above for
   >   humans to survive.  He essentially makes ecocentrism a moot point.
 
   >Hmm, I think you overstate Alan's argument, it is not just a
   >survival goal for humans, more an acceptance of limits to survival
   >and what might be accomplished by surviving, more of an acceptance
   >of mediocrity than out and out survival.

   I was differentiating betweens Alan's description and mine.  If he
   wants to bother arguing whether he is calling for mediocrity, thats
   up to him.
 
Isn't language wonderful. I gather you are under the impression I was
insulting Alan - actually the Principle of Mediocrity is a time
honoured one in the physical sciences, possibly the most robust of
the underlying principles :-)

   >First of all there is still the outstanding question of whether
   >limiting extinction rates is an "valued" goal, I personally tend
   >to accpet it as a general premise but there are clearly some who
   >don't and stated as an absolute goal may cause you more problems
   >than you suspect.
   >	What I find most annoying is the claim that we don't really
   >know what it takes to bring extinction rates down, but - essentially -
   >that if we all go around wishing for this _real_ _hard_ it will
   >happen. I think there is a very major question as to whether there
   >is any strong correlation between espoused values and action,
   >certainly a cursory review of historical action would suggest the
   >correlation is weak at best and economic analysis suggests that
   >human action is often determined by capability and material
   >circumstances and less by any nominal value system.

   Has human values against slavery led to less slavery?  Has human-held
   values against murder led to less murder?  Should we accept
   murder because the tools for doing it are better than they once
   were?  My examples are extreme but your dichotomy between values
   and capability (= technology) is also extreme.

Deliberately so, it's been a major unresolved point in sci.env
premises for a long time... as to your questions, well, it is
not at all clear to me that the reduction in chattel slavery
is _caused_ by a change in values, and it is certainly not
at all clear that the prohibition against murder is the controlling
factor in murder rates, at least some portion is due to evolutionary
adaptation and a portion is a pragmatic application of the golden rule.

   >	Even if ecocentrism is sufficient to achieve its aims,
   >and it is not clear to me that it is (leaving again aside the
   >question of whether those aims are really desirable - within
   >which value system and from a "meta-value" viepoint) this leaves
   >the question of whether ecocentrism is necessary - my impression
   >is that it is not, in fact that it is undesirable because of the
   >baggage it carries, there are other issues than biodiversity and
   >ecosystem health. 

   >   Even if there was no biodiversity crisis, ecocentrism
   >   could still exist as a value system without this acid test.  Many
   >   ecocentrists contend that if it was the dominant value system,
   >   then there would be no biodiversity crisis.

   >Here I would very strongly disagree; espousing a value
   >system is no guarantee that actions will have any correspondance
   >with the nominal goals. If nothing else, ecocentrism will always
   >suffer from the problem of unintentioned side-effects to (in)action
   >of any type.

   I was responding to Michael Tobis' post in which he clearly prefers
   Alan's decription of ecocentrism to mine.  In that post, it seems to
   me that he clearly supports bringing extinction rates down.  That
   others disagree is obvious, but it was not the issue. I would agree that 
   there is a reasonable debate as to whether ecocentrism  is needed to do 
   the job, assuming one believes it needs to be done.  However, equating 
   ecocentrism, which would make significant changes in the way many
   decisions about the scale of human society are made,  to "wishing real 
   hard" seems pretty silly to me and doesn't deserve a response.

Too late, you already did ;-)
I will however happily concede the point, you and Alan in
particular have a concept of ecocentrism well above the
"wishful thinking" stage, it is just that an awful lot of
people seem to think that that is all there is to being 
ecocentric...

   While it is true that a value does not guarantee a goal, it would 
   seem that to give added value to something would tend to protect
   it.  Sound reasonable?  The problem of unintentional side-effects
   exists for any type of action of inaction.  Ozone depletion and
   climate change are good examples.  _NO_ course of action is a
   guarantee against unintentional side-effects.  If environmental
   degradation and massive extinction are an unintentional side-effect 
   of the status quo, then maybe we should look at something else.  If
   someone is not convinced that there is serious environmental
   degradation or a biodiversity problem, then they obviously are
   more inclined to accept the status quo.

Yes, on the other hand one of the many quibbles against ecocentrism
is that it seems very easy to move to the extreme where every human
action causes environmental degradation or a biodiversity problem,
whether it does or not by some objective measure...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 
Newsgroups: sci.environment