From: tigger@nbrwh72.bnr.ca (Jeff Skinner)
Subject: Mother Nature (was : Vegetarianism) 
Reply-To: tigger@x400gate.bnr.ca
Organization: Northern Telecom Public Switching, Bramalea Product Tech. S908
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:38:27 GMT



In article <1993Jan26.025033.8579@news.eng.convex.com>, Peter Cash writes:
_]In article <1993Jan25.215131.22811@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello) writes:
_]...
_]
_]>You talk as if the "environment" is some sort of being with its own
_]>desires.  
_]
_]Exactly. I think that this is what lies behind the "green" movement--good
_]old Mother Nature--though she has adopted pseudonyms like "eco-system" and
_]"the environment". 
_]
_]>"Environment" just means "surroundings".  Surroundings have
_]>to surround someone, namely the person uttering the word "environment".
_]>This person is the one who has desires.  If this person can change his
_]>environment, drastically, to better serve his desires, isn't that a
_]>good thing?
_]
_]You're right, of course--that's the sensible, though prosaic, way to look
_]at it. But you won't find the greens agreeing with you. On the face of
_]it, their convictions seem odd to you and me--why should a merely physical
_]system somehow have its own value, its own justification; why should "the
_]environment" be a good in itself, quite apart from man?
_]
_]>Put another way, you seem to think that the environment has value
_]>which is maximized when the environment is completely unaffected by
_]>humans.  But for something to have value, there has to be someone who
_]>values it.  Humans value their environment more than any other animals
_]>do, because humans make the most use of it.  Therefore, the value of
_]>the environment can be increased by the efforts of humans.
_]
_]>To show that humans are "damaging" the environment, it is not enough
_]>to show that they are changing it drastically.  You have to show that
_]>they are changing it into something that is less valuable *to them*.
_]
_]Again, quite right--but you're not going to convince anyone who thinks that
_]man is fundamentally in opposition to Nature, and that Nature is of itself
_]the highest good. I am convinced that this is the way the "greens" think.
_]Consider it a form of mysticism--a revival of pagan nature-worship. For
_]them, Nature is self-justifying and perfect--and any alteration of
_]Nature by man must be a dimunition of this perfection. The logical
_]conclusion is, of course, that the planet would be best served by the
_]extinction of the human race.
_]
_]One can only wish they had the courage of their convictions...

I am not without sympathy for your position on greenism. In its most
obnoxious form (EcoNazis) it is just another fundamentalism, which
, to me is the most terrifying of all human tendencies. Include in
this group all forms of radical Political Correctness, TV Evangelism
, Shia Islam and the remaining quaint remanants of Marxism/Leninism
and you have a horrifying phenomenon. It is characterized by a
confidence in a local direct access to "reality", literal salvation
through whatever means (and only the means) the cult prescribes, and
generally confusing metaphor with verifiable day to day phenomena
(commonly called "fact", a term I prefer to avoid).
 
 I can't, however, accept your assessment that the environment is
no more than a thing to be casually manipulated for human convenience.
By the environment, I mean our planetary eco-system. You may already
be aware of the Gaaian hypothesis and I suspect if you are , you
probably don't buy it. This is fair enough as the idea that Earths
biosphere is a living SENTIENT entity cannot be established by
any simple logical process, but it has been considered by thinkers
with good scientific/philosophical credentials (e.g. Gregory Bateson)
and deserves serious consideration. Not all of the Green persuasion
can be dismissed as enviro-Ayatollahs. 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc