From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:03:59 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Sep9111058@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Sep14.184658.12764@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu's message of 14 Sep 92 18:46:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.184658.12764@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Sep9111058@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   |> In article <1992Sep9.083951.10806@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
   |>    To avoid some flames (and probably get some other) I must add that I believe 
   |>    that the ethical argument of supporting nature for its own sake is valid. As
   |>    our wealth have increased the trend has been to include larger groups in those
   |>    with an inherent value, i.e. racism and sexism isn't very popular these days while
   |>    slavery is completely out. This is merely a continuation of that trend.
   |> 
   |> I'm continually mystified by this assertion, if this new guiding moral
   |> principle of extended rights is real then why the gradualist approach?
   |> Is it not inherently unethical to continue denying these rights to
   |> groups identified as potential future rights-groups? Do it all now.
   |> Rights for Rocks! Liberate the H-atom! Free the confined quarks ;-)
   |> 
   |> Personally I feel that with rights must come responsibilities. Most
   |> rocks I find are incredibly callous.

   A lovely turn of phrase which had me laughing aloud. Unfortunately the
   content is not of the same quality as the presentation. The connection
   of rights and responsibilities is a valuable thing to say when you are 
   handing your car keys to your teenager, but it is not universal. We accord
   rights to infants, sleeping people, people in coma, severely handicapped
   people, deranged people: none of these can be said to have responsibilities.

Yeah, there is a serious issue here, and I agree that under the
current legal system assigning rights may be the most effective
way to extend protection. I do wish another term could be found,
as "rights" is semantically loaded. What I was mainly objecting to
is that the gradual extension of rights is necessarily cumulative,
and that it is a moral principle that rights should always necessarily
be extended - conversely, if it is, and identified as such, then the
gradualist approach becomes inherently immoral, if pragmatic, no?
	I would however note that in your list above many of the
reduced responsibility groups have also reduced rights; by no
means do infants or deranged people have the same rights or privileges
as healthy adults. 

   Obviously, it is impractical to offer equal rights to any individual
   member of any species equivalent to those accorded humans: we would be
   outvoted by gnats and roaches, an outcome few would approve. However, if
   we decide to accord rights to other species, then so be it. It is a free
   choice, and the question of responsibilities is irrelevant.

Well, the question of responsibility is relevant in that we must 
live by the consequences of our decision. And, of course, rights
may be revoked, the recent historical extension is not necessarily
indefinite or monotonic! 

   I think the endagered species act is a clumsy tool, but I think we should
   accord every species the right to an environment in which it has some
         ^^^^^^?
I would disagree. I don't think a smallpox virus or polio has any right
to the environment it needs, in fact I even object to mosquitoes feeding
off me. You have to be careful making proclamations of priciple.

   chance of survival. It doesn't seem reasonable that the survival of the
   Spotted Owl should be based on whether it is classified as a species or
   a subspecies. On the other hand, it seems ludicrous to allow the
   elimination of any habitat capable of supporting it, just to keep a few
   hundred people busy for a few more years. If in this legalistic age
   assigning rights to the owl is the best way to accomplish this reasonable
   goal, then it is perfectly reasonable and consistent to do so, and 
   responsibilities of the owl are not relevant.

Maybe. It will be interesting to see...

*  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