From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 05:06:02 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct15.202424.145@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>This, in my opinion, is a very strong statement, you claim to have
>>stated the general precepts on which future ecocentric societies
>>will function. The only way I could see this as a reasonable claim
>>is if you say that any society not functioning along these precepts
>>is by definition not ecocentric, in which case I suggest no ecocentric
>>society will develop.
>
>All that statement says is that an ecocentric society will be based
>on ecocentric principles.  A society not based on ecocentric
>principles will not be an ecocentric society.  A shrewd probe into
>the depths of the obvious, Steinn.  My point was that I am not
>predicting the details of implementation of the ecocentric society.
>What I am doing is trying to convince people that the _criteria_
>are good.

How are we to conclude that the criteria are good if you can't show us what the
results of using those criteria are?  Perhaps we can agree that the criteria are
good in principle, but that doesn't mean they should be adopted, unless we can
also conclude that they're good in practice.

>I leave the implementation up to the time if/when a
>consensus exists about this.  I would also argue that the issue
>is not whether an ecocentric society _will_ develop, but whether
>an ecocentric society _should_ develop.

And without the ability to predict the consequences of an ecocentric society,
that question is unanswerable.

>   is fundamentally different than understanding what the results of
>   applying that criteria will be.
>
>>Are the two separable? That is a very serious question and I'm not
>>certain I know the answer.
>
>I think they are.  I once again offer the slavery analogy.  Does the
>economic impact on slave-owners even a consideration in supporting
>emancipation?

Suppose the emancipation had resulted in the deaths of all former slaves (yes,
I know that wasn't one of the consequences, but your point, and Steinn's, is
that we are not currently able to predict the results of adopting your proposed
ecocentric society).  Should that have been a consideration in supporting
emancipation?  If one of the consequences of your ecocentric society turns out
to be that, despite short-run ecological improvements, it may, in the long run,
fail in such a fashion as to cause great harm to the environment, is that a
consideration in deciding the value of your proposed criteria?  I think that
it's a very real possibility, and that it DOES demand consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.