From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:40:31 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Nov6175559@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>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:
>
>   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 :-)

The net can be a difficult place in which to discuss conmplex issues.
>
>   >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.

Your point was that human action is more the result of capabilities
than values.  In what ways has the capability to own other human
decreased?  Certainly the tools with which to murder have improved.
In the case of large-scale murder (war), murder has increased.  And
how does evolutionary adaptation fit into values vw abilities?  Is
it so instinctive that it isn't a value?  
>
>   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...

This is the straw man argument.  It emphasizes debates of the
extreme rather than the middle - exactly the complaint that we
all seem to share about press coverage of climate change.
That some people will support an
extreme is not an argument against the basic philosophy.  It is
more of an argument that one should support the middle.  In my
activist efforts, I do run into various forms of extremist
attitudes.  My response is not to reject the entire system, but
to attempt to move it to a more middle ground.  I have read an
ecocentrist who believe that: "Technological society is lethal
to the environment from which it spawned."  This is essentially
an anarchistic argument.  This person feels that total collapse
is imminent and that those humans left will be hunter-gatherers.
If the appropriate response then to reject all ecocentrism because
this person supports ecocentrism?

>
>*  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 * 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)