From: tilley@fsh.UUCP (Tom Tilley)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Abbey bashing.
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:19:17 GMT
Reply-To: tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale


In article <Nov17.213846.66267@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>In article <27614@oasys.dt.navy.mil> oreagan@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Oreagan) writes:
>>In rec.backcountry, trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>>!Christian sentiments asside, the loss of a snake is a tragedy.  The
>>!loss of a human is insignificant, or possibly a blessing.  (This all
>>
>>This self deprecation has always annoyed me.  The snake surely doesn't
>>think ITS demise is more desirable than YOURS.  But if you truly feel
>>that way,  Goodbye.
>
>Ah, I was waiting for the flames to ignite.  After all, you can't
>simply toss Christian sentiments aside, in a Christian culture.
>(Even the athiest reader's views are likely a product of this
>Christian Milieu.)
>
>Here's a question:  Is a single human life worth more than the lives
>of all the snakes in the world?  How about all the snakes plus all the
>mice?  Yes?  How about the snakes plus the mice plus all the chimpanzees?
>We laugh at those who once thought the earth was the center of the
>universe, yet we still believe humanity to be the center of the biosphere.

As a Christian, I view man as the steward of a planet which is God's.
We rightfully use what the world has when we do not materially diminish
the ability of the world to provide for life: we abuse our stewardship
when we do materially diminish the ability of the world to provide for
life.  Since overpopulation is currently impacting the ability of the
world to provide for life, for example, overpopulation is a serious
concern.  The fact that a lot of Christians don't subscribe to this (or
non-Christians for that matter) doesn't make such concerns "anti-
Christian".

Let's go to the "loss of a snake versus loss of a person" view.  The
practical way of determining my answer to this question is to ask: "If
I am driving to the backcountry on a two lane road, and just after
going around a curve in the road I see a snake crawl on one lane and a
person fall down on the other lane (assume I don't know the person),
and I don't have time to stop, which lane do I choose?"  Since I would
choose the lane with the snake, I say that I value the person above the
snake.

I don't think that the "all snakes versus one human" question is
related.  Whereas the loss of one snake may not be a significant impact
to life, the loss of all snakes would be an irreparable impact (same
with mice, chimpanzees, bears [I had to get that one in], etc.).

As an example of this, I do not agree with the idea that saving a few
cancer victims now in any way justifies the death of the yew as a
species (the diminution of the earth's ability to sustain life becomes
an issue).  If the survival of the yew in a given area were not at
issue, on the other hand, there would not be a problem with the bark
of the yew being used for medicinal purposes.

Tom.

#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |
Xref: sparky rec.backcountry:9113 sci.environment:12919 talk.environment:4712 alt.wolves:243