From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Human-centered point of view
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:18:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.131510.4824@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Apr2112348@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr1.100951.4692@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>awerling:
>>>> First of all, I must point out that you use the word "we" an awful
>>>> lot. This is understandable.  You are a member of the human race.  You
>>>> like the idea of staying alive until a natural death.  You like
>>>> society and civilization because that is what you are comfortable with
>>>> and you probably couldn't imagine life--so to speak--without it.
>> 
>>> Interesting the way you string along from a few obvious statements to an 
>>> unsubstantiated assumption about my ability, or lack thereof, to imagine 
>>> things.  If your assumption is correct, that is, if I am unable to imagine 
>>> life without society and civilization then why am I here arguing this?  I 
>>> mean, after all, if I'm unable to concieve of the collapse of civilization, 
>>> then I wouldn't be marshalling arguments in support of its continuance.  
>>> Instead, I would be assuming that it always would continue.  The fact of 
>>> the matter is that I *can* imagine its end all to vividly.
>> 
>> My phrase, "couldn't imagine life" was ill-chosen.  The meaning of it,
>> however, is that the end of society as you know it is not desirable.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong.  If I'm right, then I'll rephrase my
>> question: why is human society worth preserving?
>
>If this is what you meant then you are correct in saying your words were 
>ill chosen.  I do find the end of society undesireable.  Highly so.
>
>In a nutshell, I think society is worth preserving because it is a system 
>whereby we regulate our behavior not by force (as is the *natural* way) but 
>by law.  We place reason, not emotion, as being paramount.  I feel this is 
>worth preserving.
>
I've always seen emotion as paramount to most people.  If reason is paramount,
shouldn't the thrust of our current society be towards the development of
self-propagating machines that have not emoion, and the destruction of
human life? 

>>>Would *you* like to go live in a cave?  Return to nature?  If so, go right 
>>>ahead.  Me?  I'll stay right here, thanks all the same.
>> 
>> O.K.  I think I understand where you're coming from.  You prefer a
>> humancentric point of view because you are human and don't want to
>> live in a cave.  I'm not being fascitious (sp?).
>
>On that you are correct, but it goes farther than that.  I look around me 
>at the world, as it currently exists, and I look back at the world as it 
>has existed in the past, and I see that human beings have flourished and 
>prospered to the degree that they have adapted their surroundings to fit 
>them, rather than adapting to their surroundings.  Being human, I wish to 
>flourish and prosper.  Therefore, I would like to avail myself of a 
>dwelling constructed especially for human needs rather than rely on 
>something that was created without any thought to human comfort.
>
Yeah, to fill the human need of architects and contractors to line their
pockets! :-)  Humans have changed things, but I don't see how they have
really changed for the better.  Why is our current technology inherently
better than pristine wilderness with no humans?

>>>> Killing a human vs. killing lobster seem to me to have identical
>>>> cosmic influence.  In either case, a being dies.  
>> 
>To equate the death of a lobster with the death of a human being on a 
>cosmic level is crap.  In all likelyhood the human being will have a far 
>greater positive or negative impact on the world if it survives than a 
>lobster will.  To state otherwise seems, to me, to say that you've not 
>given it much thought.
>
Thus the expected outcome of either life is nothing.  The human will
make a bigger change, in a random direction.  Averaged, that leads
to no change anywhere.  A lobster makes a small change in a random
direction.  Averaged, that leads to no change anywhere.

E.S.