From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:08:14
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Oct13110520@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct13.185041.8730@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 13 Oct 92 18:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.185041.8730@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   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,


   >urged on the basis of superficialities and there is enormous
   >resistance to re-evaluation of dogma.

 ...lots deleted...

   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.

False, they are explicitly creating dogma, indeed already have,
further the dogma is ossifying right before our eyes.

   >   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. 

   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

You seem to think the capabilities can exist in in isolation.
To reverse the analogy, today's society, in particular technoplogical
society is a very complicated system that coevolved to its present
form, it is not clear that all the nasty bits can be trimmed away
just like that leaving only low impact "appropriate" technologies.
Certainly most "ecocentrics" appear to have absolutely no concept
of what is involved in creating and maintaining their lifestyle
and even less the historical path by which it occurred, beyond
some vague notion of great evil and exploitation for which 
someone, anyone but them, should be made to pay.
 For all the insistance that the full impact of actions must
be taken into account when deciding upon a course of (non)action
the "ecocentrics" seem incredibly reluctant to face the full
implication of the course of action they propose, a point Prof
McCarthy has made repeatedly.
 Can you for example tell me what part of modern industrial 
infrastructure can be dismantled without crippling medical
technology? (If anyone wants to use "alternative" medicine
they're welcome to, just don't expect the rest of us to
die with you).

   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?  

Sure they "could", if you can convince them it is inevitable and
make sure that there is no visible rump ostentatiously enjoying
the benefits forsaken. But, should people forsake such pleasures
as travel if it is not necessary? Is there an inherent puritan
impulse to forsake all these sinful pleasures whether needed or
not? How do you determine, and convince people, that these benefits
must be forsaken?
	What if you're wrong? Given the dogma developed can it be
reversed? Certainly as presented on sci.env the development
pattern would seem to result in classical ossified dogma enforced
by a elitist autocracy. After all, Alan McGowen seems to think
that the "technocrat" objections to some of his cuter ideas
are simply due to incurable ignorance... and you wonder why
we object?

	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

Not at all, the new models are more energy efficient and 
environmentally friendly after all ;-)
If you can propose a workable economic model where 
surpluses of essentials are generated and shared
that does not involve the luxrious frills please invite
me to Stockholm ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*