From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:25:45 GMT

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:
|>    In order to create a balance between short term profit and long time risks a
|>    ecological "religion" placing an inherent value on nature may actually be of
|>    great survival value. A rational cost-benefit analysis including the cost of
|>    unknown risks would of course be better, but our society seems to be incapable
|>    of that at this point.
|> 
|> The question is whether the long-term risk of such a "religion" are
|> greater than introducing it - history would suggest so; religions have
|> a tendency to become either rationalisations for action that would
|> otherwise be opposed, or to become blind to their original intent
|> with re-examination of means and ends denounced as heresy. A
|> religion of modern pseudo-ecology ossified in orthodoxy would
|> do far more actual harm than any good, IMHO - this group being
|> a prime example of how such behaviour could develop. 

I agree about the risks with religion. Note though that humans have a genetic
programming for survival. Most succesfull religions tend to encanhce this by 
giving humans a special role in creation. Any religion (or perhaps philosophy is
a better word?) going against this instinct is less likely to be too dominant. 
Nevertheless there is a risk, and I definitely don't want to see a 
fundamentalist "ecocraty".

One must however separate the goals and how to reach them. While rational though
is good for the latter I have never seen a rational motivation for the former.
After all can anyone give a rational argument showing the value of music or art
or for that matter working eight hours a day to afford it when one could work
much less and still survive quite well?

It is these goals that might be changed, while still beeing rational about the 
way to reach them. It would replace one luxury: large consumption of
non-essential items with another: a cleaner environment. While this may seem 
arbitrary I tried to point out that it probably would increase our chance of
survival. This is of coursed mainly directed at us in the rich world. I don't 
expect the poor people of Somalia to willingly starve to death to save the
environment.

|> 
|>    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 ;-)

Most people tend to be fairly conservative, believing that they live in the
best of all possible worlds, except for some details that should be changed, we
just don't have the imagination/intelligence to see what large changes would 
imply. Thus we change one thing at time and see what happens. So while some
of your suggestions may one day be discussed seriously, today they are just the 
jokes you intended them to be.

Another factor is the cynical fact that we only uphold ethical principles 
when we can afford it. Survival goes before ethics. Perhaps we are getting wealthy
enough to afford a more generous attitude to other species?

-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se