From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:32:15 GMT

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
>   >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.

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.
>
>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.

>	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.

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.

>
>*  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)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.backcountry