From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:18:36
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Nov6.213704.26864@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:37:04 GMT

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
   >under this definition, but I believe that this opinion could be sold
   >in a democratic context to most of the society. Indeed, it is easy to
   >maintain that opposition to this point of view is not really anthropocentric,
   >but merely short-sighted. 

   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.

   If he convinces people that ecocentrism is needed for humans to
   survive, then it is no longer ecocentrism.
   I have no disagreement with this acid test, and if people find it
   more acceptable, that is great.  

   The point is that ecocentrism is not _defined_ by a need to
   reduce extinction rates.  It is defined by valuing all
   components of the ecosystem, irrespective of their necessity to
   humans. I fail to see how this is exclusive.  Is it exclusive
   because many people don't share it?  Most people do not share the concern
   over extinction.  It may be harder to sell ecocentrism than it
   is to sell a need to reduce extinction to the general population.  
   Maybe this is why Alan focuses on this aspect.

   It seems to me that a crucial point is whether extinction rates
   can be brought down by scientific study and education.  If this
   is so, then ecocentrism is not "necessary".  Or is the
   knowledge of humans too limited to determine what we require to
   survive?  If this is so, then ecocentrism may be necessary, but
   then its justification is not ecocentric.

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.
	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.

*  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