From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:00:17 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

> Each time we build some telescope or golf- course in the home of other
> species we kill them, individually and mathematically. Something sacred dies,
> whether there is an Apache council present to stand for its loss, or not. 
Sacred?  The concept of "sacred" is no more than a human construct.  Therefore,
you are saying that whenever something that has a human value is lost,
something with a human value is lost.

> A place in nature which is sanctified and which allows evolution to continue.
> What is the alternative? Shall we replace all of nature with artifacts?

Replacing naturally evolved plants with human engineered ones doesn't bother
me; is one inferior to the other?  If one is inferior, which one is it?  Is the
difference (if any) a universal truth or merely the perspective of one human at
one point in time?  Similarly, is a world without sentient life universally
superior or inferior to one in which most natural life forms have been replaced
by forms engineered by sentient beings?  If your answer is yes, please explain
why you feel it is superior.

> Shall we continue the war to dominate nature and replace her with artifacts,
> with machines? Or shall we accept the fact that -- no matter what *else* we
> are -- we are first and foremost an animal life, a citizen of the land
> community, one of the carvings of the Inuit Goddess' knife of natural
> selection?

That "animal life" which you seem to hold in such high regard would have no
qualms about wiping out the entire human race--or any other species--if it had
the opportunity.  It would then likely be wiped out itself, by eliminating its
food source, but that's part of what we call evolution.  We apply the term
"evolution" to the average result of a process; it is not a guided process that
"knows better" than to wipe out a food source species.

Actually, species follow this pattern routinely, multiplying at the expense of
other species, driving both species to near extinction, failing only because
enough individuals of each species survive to continue the cycle.  Perhaps it
is human self-interest, which you seem to present as anti-nature and evil, that
will allow humans to avoid the "consume to near extinction" cycle, and thus be
superior to non-sentient animals, which are doomed to repeat that cycle until
they become sentient themselves.


> This is a clear choice: do we dedicate our energies to replacing nature or to
> assisting her, in the sense that other species and human cultures which
> augment biodiversity do?

Anthropomorphizing nature (implying a benign motherly being) is a powerful
tactic...if you have convinced yourself that you are right and the end
justifies the means.  If you can't provide a real argument for preserving
nature, try to twist the argument so that anyone who disagrees with your goals
can be portrayed as a callous, self-centered person who shoves kindly mother
figures out of their way.  The argument presented in your message ranks up
there with Mulroney's portrayal of anyone who is against the latest
constitutional deal as someone who desires to suppress natives, is an
anti-French bigot, hates Canada, etc.

ps.  I think the natural environment is worth preserving.  Humanity doesn't
need  to clearcut the world's forests; it could produce all its wood product
needs with genetically-engineered trees and plants (ie. hemp) on plantations
covering a relatively small area.  All human commercial activity could proceed
while leaving sections of unspoiled natural environment large enough to support
the native life.

A lot of human activities could be carried out without a serious impact on the
natual environment.  For example, migrating birds could get used to feeding on
a seashore despite humans suntanning on a beach, as long as humans present no
more threat than deer, crocodiles, etc.  We can share that beach with the
birds.

While I do agree with preserving nature, I disagree with your debating tactics
and arguments (or replacements for valid arguments).

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca