From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:50:41 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct13110520@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.052927.18862@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Oct13.011938.23871@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>   >
>   >The second problem is that while intuitively, I agree that nature
>   >should be considered as having rights, logically I can't think of any way
>   >to decide what those rights might be. If nature has the same rights as people,
>   >obviously there is no moral way to live. I have to stand somewhere and eat
>   >something. So I would like you to clarify your ecocentrism: what exactly are
>   >the implications of believing rocks to have rights?
>
>   The usual answer to this is that ecocentrism does not imply that the
>   ecosystem must be left absolutely alone.  All participants in the ecosystem,
>   including humans, may take what they need to live but should consider
>   the impact _under all circumstances_ and always try to minimize this
>   impact.  These considerations are not limited to economic impacts on
>   humans.  Neither self defense nor predation are denied.  You can still
>   kill viruses and eat meat.While the definition of what is necessary
>   and what impacts are  excessive is certainly a matter of debate, the 
>   suggestions
>   made by Paul Barton-Davis would be a starting place for many ecocentrists.
>
>The problem as MT noted is that pro forma the philosophy espoused
>leads to paralysis. It is not even clear that the "impact" on
>ecosystems is well enough defined for us to understand what sort
>of "impacts" are minimal and what is unacceptable, action is
>urged on the basis of superficialities and there is enormous
>resistance to re-evaluation of dogma.

Since the request is to examine all impacts, paralysis could result, and
be espoused, if the actions being considered refuse to consider
impacts that are non-economic.  As long as a developer wants to
avoid examination of impacts not related to direct human economic
impacts, ecocentrists will oppose the development because they
believe that the development has not been "properly" examined.
We do not need to know what the exact impact will be, although that
would be preferable.  There will always be gray areas where the level of
impact is unknown and will be difficult to compare to the utility
of the project.  Not all decisions can be "objectivised".  If the
criteria of inherent value is accepted, then the debate over whether
to do something that has an impact takes place in a different framework.
Paralysis is the result of a lack of consensus about this framework.
Deciding not to build a ski resort that serves a recreational
purpose for humans because it has a major imapct on an ecosystem
that is of no obvious economic value is not paralysis, it is a
different decision.  There will be some "paralysis", better described
as indecision, when needs more essential than ski resorts are
considered.  

As far as dogma goes, I claim that anthropocentrism is the
current dogma.  Economic growth (especially in physical throughput)
is the dogma.  Ecocentrists and supporters of sustainability are
challenging dogma, not creating it.  With this in mind, there
certainly is an enormous resistence to re-evaluation of dogma.
Any economist who dares challenge the dogma of infinite growth
is quickly ostracized.
>
>   Specific points about whether heavy metals would be acceptable would not
>   really be decided until such decisions were needed in the future and in
>   the context of the available technology of the day.  The more central
>   question is can people really be happy in a significantly less materialistic
>   society.
>
>No, this is a non-question. People can be "happy" while being utterly
>miserable. A direct way of understanding this is that the range of
>emotions people are capable of is limited and happiness and
>unhappiness is ultimately relative. The pain of losing a child
>is lessened if many children die, if misery is expected it does
>not always lead to unhappiness. Even more simply, people will
>be content, even happy, provided they do not know that there
>is a "better" way of life. 
>	A major criticism of modern society is that people
>are still unhappy in spite of the advances made. The yuppie
>claiming of working stress may be unhappy in a very real
>way but in my mind at least there is a qualitative difference
>of context between them and the hunter-gatherer mourning a
>child dead from malnutrition.

Your comparison of life in current technological society with
historical hunter-getherer societies is not the issue.  In
discussing his alternative lifestyle, Paul Barton-Davis has
clearly said that many of todays advanced capabilities would
still be used.  I would suggest that these are technologies
with relatively low impacts and relatively high utility.  I
could rephrase my question: Could todays people be happy in a
less materialistic society with full knowledge of what they have
left behind or foresaken?  The "health" of the US economy is tied
to consumer spending.  The politicians and economists want people
to go out and buy new cars and washing machines, even though the
ones they have still work, in order to jump-start the economy.  In
this context, the advertising industry is central to the success
of the US economy.  We don't need this to prevent malnutrition
and disease.  This is a difference between essential needs and
frills.
>
>"It's a Zen sort of thing..."
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment