From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:24:12
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Oct13150814@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct14.142620.1114@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 14 Oct 92 14:26:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.142620.1114@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Oct13150814@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >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:

   >   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.

   Considering the reaction that opponents to the growth "paradigm" get, I
   feel that the term dogma applies.  Anyone who _considers_ alternatives
   is ostracized and their opinions are not considered worthy of
   examination. 

 ??? Do we live in the same world? From where I'm sitting
_the_ activity of choice is consideration of alternatives and examination
of alternatives to growth.
	Do you understand why economic (and in some eyes population)
growth is considered an imperative and why there is hostility to
the insistance that it be reversed? There is a pervasive attitude
that if the alternatives suggested by all and sundry are not
immediately embraced with open arms and universally adopted that
the cause must be either intrinsic ignorance and/or stupidity, or,
worse, some massive conspiracy of very short sighted people.
Do you really understand the implications of some suggestions?

	 This is an example of dogmatism.  The literature on
   ecocentrism and deep ecology is very argumentative and fractured.

As opposed to conventional economics? That schisms exist does not
preclude dogma, nor does the fact the opposition is dogmatic
preclude the ecocentrics being dogmatic.

   Various proponents see certain aspects very differently.  Some hate
   all technological society and others think technology isn't the
   problem at all.  The existence of such internal debates when compared
   to the silence among economists about sustainability demonstrates
   which side is more dogmatic.  I don't see how anyone who is familiar
   with this literature could remotely describe these philosophies as
   ossifying.  They are dynamic.

I honestly don't understand where you see a silence among economists
on sustainability. Certainly academic economists I know are well aware
of the sustainability arguments, and its faults. Are you suggesting
all economists switch to investigating "sustainability" or merely
that they abandon all other considerations of economic theory?

   >   >   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.

   Do you think the relationships that exist in todays society are written
   in stone?  Is the status quo unchangeable?  It is silly (IMHO) to think 
   that the _continued coevolution_ of society and its components must
   have these same relationships.  The way in which these relationships

I don't. That is actually the parallel argument to the one the
"McGowen" faction of ecocentrics uses about ecology.
You're suggesting forcing the evolution of society, which
is not inherently a bad thing to do, but you fail to apply your
own criteria of evaluating the adverse impacts of the changes you 
advocate, there seems to be a near universal attitude among the
"ecocentric" faction that they need only present the benefits
of their suggestions, while the "status quo" must be forced
to demonstrate only the adverse impact of their way. This
is rank hypocrisy. Worse, it may make things worse.

   change is impossible to predict but we simply want to "aim" them
   in a certain direction. Conversion to a more appropriate technology
   will not be absolute, nor will it be particularly planned. There is
   no concept of a "great evil and exploitation for which someone ... should
   be made to pay".  What there is is a belief that impacts should be

Oh there most certainly is. You may need feel it, but it is there.

   examined.  While some environmentalists may be of the "nimby" variety,
   ecocentrists are usually willing to live the life they propose to
   the best of their ability.  They don't claim to be able to accurately
   describe what an ecocentric society would be like in a hundred years.
   When ecocentics make mistakes about predictions for a future society,
   and these are inevitable, they will adjust.  Should an ecocentric
   society ever be achieved, it will not likely look like what todays
   ecocentrics describe.  It will, howevere, function on the general
   precepts which have been described.

Oh really? You have it all figured out already?
And you wonder why some of us are concerned?

   > 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).

   I already use alternative medicine so maybe you'll die without me :).
   A belief that impacts should be examined does not require in intricate
   knowledge of what all of those impacts are now.  When I actually
   request that a particular technology be dismantled, then these
   impacts must be examined.  I'm sure the proponents of the technology
   will not let me miss anything.  Since health care is certainly an
   important need, various impacts would be accpetable.  Is it your
   point that _every_ current technology is mandatory for health care?

No, my point is you don't know which are.
What brought that to mind was actually the recent insistance
by Greenpeace that all organochloride chemistry be banned [sic].

   More importantly, would you claim that the _scale_ of current
   technology impacts are necessary for health care?  Even if every
   technology is needed, some of those technologies which might have
   large impacts are likely to be used for other less critical needs.
   Their scale could be reduced without health care being affected at all.

It was an illustrative example. 

   >   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?

   Necessary isn't the only criteria, impact also.  Pleasures that have
   little impact should not be foresaken.  Many pleasures have essentially
   no impact.  For certain groups of people in todays society, pleasures
   are defined by high impact because expensive sometimes equals impact
   which sometimes equals status.
   This has nothing to do with puritan impulses.  It has
   everything to do with _accepting responsibility_ for the impact your
   actions have on the world.  

   >	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?

   Maybe the various differences between Alan and myself help to show
   that ecocentrism is not a dogma.  I don't agree with everything he
   says.  I _do_ agree that impacts on all aspects of the ecosystem
   should be part of a decision to do something.  This _belief_
   will not be imposed.  People will be convinced by seeing the
   affects of the current dogma make themselves visible.  If these affects
   fail to materialize, then people will not be convinced and there
   will be nothing to reverse.  Ecocentrism is not some law to be
 
Not true. Remember correlation does not imply causation.
For example, the rise in skin cancer in Australia and New
Zealand has been heavily cited in popular media as being
due to ozone depletion. Considering latency of cancers and
the pattern of ozone depletion I'd conclude the skin cancers
are symptomatic of the disco era and the cosmetic emphasis
on heavy tans among light skinned people in the 70's.
In fact the ozone scare will probably overcompensate for the
added risk and lead to a decrease in skin cancer over the next
few decades. So seeing an alleged effect is leading a change in
behaviour yet the effect is linked causally to the alleged
problem...
	a possible similar issue will arise over any global warming,
it is possible that we're entering a "younger dryas" type climate
shift or there may be a direct greenhouse effect, or a bit of both,
yet any warming will almost certainly be seen as caused by CO2
emission whether it is or not and the reaction may aggravate the
problem if the incorrect causal factor is involved.

  passed in Washington. If it happens, it will be as an evolution
   in society and the philosophy of the people who make up that
   society.  If it needs to be reversed, then it will be through
   further evolution of peoples attitudes.  Some ecocentrists, such
   as Alan (I think), believe that such an evolutionary process is too
   slow and must be sped up.  We share the same goal, but not the
   same process.  To describe this family of beliefs as a "classical
   ossified dogma enforced by a elitist autocracy" is completely absurd.
   Where is the autocracy Steinn?  Considering the difference between

Come visit Santa Cruz ;-)

   Alan and me, how can it be described as ossified?  How about the
   difference of opinion between Aldo Leopold, Christopher Manes and
   George Sessions?  Just how much have you read about ecocentrism
   and deep ecology?  Is Alan McGowen your sole source of information
   about ecocentrism?

Does the difference between Luther and the Pope mean christianity
is dogmatic? Clearly there is a spectrum of opinion, equally clearly,
as you illustrate, there is a dogmatic insistence on a basic change
in outlook.
I refer to McGowen because he's a readily accessible illustrative
example here on the net, as that is the medium it provides a good
message. 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Why must you record my phonecalls?     			*
*  Are you planning a bootleg LP? ...				*
*  I dread to think what the future will be			*
*  When we're living in gangster time        Specials, 1979	* 


Newsgroups: sci.environment