From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 08:42:50 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov3.151028.6445@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

 > There has been plenty of substantiation in this thread so far.  Obviously,
 > they aren't convincing you.  Do the statements of Steinn and Paul
 > represent your disagreements with them?

NB: This has ended up quite lengthy; if anyone wants to get on with
reading something else, please do.

I apologise if my comment (above, now deleted here) was unclear. I am
not referring to the world-views of the particular individual humans
posting to this thread, but to those of humans as such. We are already
rather familiar with the attitudes of the industrialised nations to
the planet, and what they do toward managing their impact on it, We
are also familiar with the attitudes of many other cultures and
societies, which differ quite markedly from those expressed in this
thread.

The greatest hurdle to be overcome in convincing me of any substance
to this thread is how those particular attitudes represent in any way
at all the attitudes of any other humans anywhere else, toward any
sort of understanding of the reality out there.

 > I plead guilty to emphasizing the bipolar construct between ecocentrism
 > and anthropocentrism.  I have done this to emphasize the philosophical
 > aspects of the _criteria_, as opposed to the application.  I should
 > not be surprised that this has not gone over well in a sci group.  

OK. We have a philosopher posting to sci.anthropology as well, and it
has taken quite some effort to have him address the discourse of
Anthropology in order that we can make sense of what he is saying, and
I would hope benefit from.

 > Ecocentrism affects the way people make decisions that affect their
 > relationship to wilderness areas.  Whether one chooses to place
 > inherent value in all aspects of ecosystems because they are
 > deserving or because it is a necessity for humans, giving such value 
 > clearly affects the dynamics of human impacts.  If one accepts that
 > speciation and extinction rates must change radically, then one
 > must also ask what vehicle will do this?  New technology?  New
 > attitudes?  Both?  Ecocentrists believe that attitude must play
 > (at least) a significant role in bringing about such changes.

Paul, which people do you refer to here, making what decisions? What
humans are you talking about? I am sorry, but you are stepping out of
your field here, and reasonably I expect that you would pass doubts
over the question to a colleague for their input.

My own opinion is that among those cultures which base their world-view
on the integrity of the terrestrial domain (if that is what you mean
by "ecocentrism"), such as those inheriting the Buddhist traditions
for example, there is simply no issue to discuss. The facts of the
matter are simply given, and the process of learning about it is one
not of questionning the fact but of realising it. I am making such a
comparison to those of celestial orientation already known to regard
the earth and nature as having fallen from grace, to be dominated and
exploited, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, or even to those of a
purely technocratic disposition who may not think about life or living
things at all.

The notion you are pursuing here is probably incomprehensible outside
your own frame of reference, and you can only share it by passing on
to the listener of another culture some idea of how you yourself see
the world a priori. Even the most cursory glance at the structure of
your discourse reveals the cultural-specific distinctions you make
peculiar to your own world-view and its consequences. What do you
refer to as "wilderness areas", and how do those differ from what I
guess you would relate to as something like "human areas"? What
variables which can be observed and tested differentiate the two,
and in what aspects are they similar?

What would cause you to make such distinctions to start with? Are
there no humans in the wilderness areas, and wildlife in the human
areas? Even John McCarthy is as likely to have pubic crabs as any
of his "Africans".

The distinction between something I find somewhat romantic you have
referred to as ecosystem "deservedness" and something else you refer
to as human "necessity" simply does not hold any water, and I can
still find no scientific, theological, philosophical or any other
basis for your pursuing it. Of course, if you just want to talk about
anything you feel please do proceed. It is just that if you proceed
here in sci.environment you are likely to be challenged for evidence.

 > This does not deny the role that technology will play.
 > The analytic basis for this claim is that science and technology
 > are too ignorant about natural systems to define what the
 > relationship should be.  Speciation and extinctions rates are the
 > indicators that the impact is too large.  The non-analytic basis
 > is that animals _deserve_ such value and that criteria of sentience
 > or human-scale intelligence are not appropriate for giving value.

I wonder whether a more reliable way of expressing this is to say what
role people will play with the technology at their disposal? Is the
technology we have at present adequate to whatever job someone might
have in mind for it? Would it be appropriate to develop a higher
technology, or return to more traditional technologies, or to abandon
technology altogether? To what end?

What impact is "too large"? What activity do you want to engage in
yourself which may have to be curtailed because its impact may be too
large? Is it too large for you, who will be paying for the curtailment
through loss of freedom, or too large for someone else who has had
their own options diminished that you can be more free than they, and
who probably do not care about you one iota anyway? Have you thought
of discussing the matter with them, or do you still deploy an army
between them and you to underwrite your freedom?

 > I am not familiar with Catastrophe Theory.  What does it
 > contribute to this discussion?

Rene Thom's work in mathematics is now well known, as is the work of
others since on its applicability in a number of fields. I expect your
library search would produce references very quickly.

Catastrophe Theory itself contributes to this discussion by providing
a reliable model for monitoring stress levels in the environment caused
by the impact of any given series of events too rapid to allow the
ecosystem to recover adequately before the impact of the next event,
before perhaps some small trigger event (ie, in plain English, the
straw that broke the camel's back) brings about a massive and sudden
systemic collapse.

Far be it for me to be a scare monger, which I am not, but what no
scientist or anybody else understands yet is how such a catastrophe
might bring about the sudden collapse of the entire biosphere, and
humans as a species and everything else with it.

BTW, the Gaia Theorists also hold catastrophe as a possibility, but
in doing so themselves posit a conservative management strategy on
the side of caution. Something further to think about while you engage
your discussion on whether the ecosystem "deserves" to be protected.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *