From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:33:54
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Oct14142412@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct14.231139.7026@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 14 Oct 92 23:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.231139.7026@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Oct14142412@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >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:

   >   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.

   But not among establishment economists.  They are very disconnected
   from the real world.  did you see how an American won the Nobel Prize
   for economics by showing that people include economic considerations
   when making a decision?  What about the economist who

Considering the recent furor over whether EIS's should be allowed
to include consideration of economic impacts maybe that is not
such a stupid thing to worry about. You do understand the need
to verify hypotheses, in particular simplifying ones?

   postulated asexual repreduction for humans because his models didn't
   work otherwise.  Just because we discuss it here doesn't mean they
   will even consider it.

Dingo, sustainability and limits to growth issues are questions
that establishment economists are very much aware of, you want them
to accept a different paradigm as the basis of their study and you
do not seem to understand _why_ it is that not all economists are
running around tearing their hair out because of unsustainable
practises.

   >	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?

   It sounds like you are convinced by the dogma.  Do you understand
   the implications of infinite and indefinite growth in throughput?

Yes. I am not convinced by dogma, if I were I'd hit "u" and have
a quiet giggle. Are you completely incapable of understanding
that people disagree with you for genuine reasons that have
been considered and critiqued for decades? 

   Rather than intrinsic ignorance or stupidity, I suggest dogmatism...
   Once again you present the extreme to support you argument.  There
   are plenty of economists who are prepared for a reasoned debate
   on the subject who don't talk about immediate and universal
   embracing or ignorance and stupidity.  If they even suggest the
   subject, they are ostracized.

How do you define "ostracized"? Daly not winning a Nobel?

   >	 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.

   True, but it does preclude it from being ossified, as you claimed.
   Some proponents certainly are dogmatic, but not all, so the
   philosophy is not dogma.

It does? I'd describe the catholic church as fossilised, and it has
had some rather heated disagreements historically.

   >   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?

   There is no silence, there is ostracism and scorn.  You may believe
   this scorn is deserved, but the people heaping the scorn do not
   consider sustainability worthy of consideration.  This is
   dogmatism.  Maybe you are one of the dogmatists.

Well, you originally said silence, now it is scorn.
 Is it dogmatism to scorn people if they remain strident
even when wrong, even when wrong given their assumptions?
 Is all critique tantamount to scorn?

   >   >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.

   Are you suggesting that the criteria is good but
   the application of the criteria is bad?

No, I'm suggesting that have a criterion it should be
applied honestly and consistently. Deciding whether
the criteria are good or bad is a separate issue
although the applicability is certainly a factor.

   I don't doubt that some ecocentrics have
   suggested removing some technology without knowing what the
   impact may be.  They may be wrong.  They can be corrected.  The

Some? Maybe it is just a case of empty barrels rattling loudly,
or maybe simply that I've been looking at the union of the set
of technologies objected to rather than the intersection,
but I very seriously question whether many econcetrics can
be corrected if proven wrong, indeed, granted some of their
assumptions they can't be proven wrong, hence the frequent
charge of religion.

   criteria is the issue here.  The standard analysis of impact
   and benefit only applies to human impact and benefits, more
   recently including intangibles, but still for humans only.   Its
   true that the full range of impacts are not as fully investigated
   by many as they should be.  This is because they spend more time
   defending their criteria than their specific calculations.  If,
   over time, ecocentrism becomes mainstream, this will change.  The
   initial form of a new philosophy will always be crude and need
   refinement.  The application will improve when more people
   work on it.

 Not necessarily, I'd say that if the entire set of Jesuits worked
on determining the number angels dancing on pinheads the applicability
remains zero.

   >   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.

   Its there for some, not for others.  The books I have read do not 
   talk of blame or punishment.  They simply talk about what they 
   think is better.

You should read more books.

   >   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?

   Above I said "They don't claim to be able to accurately describe what 
   an ecocentric society would be like in a hundred years." so why do
   you ask if we have it already figured out?  Understanding a criteria

"It will, howevere, function on the general precepts which have been
described."
 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.

   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.

   >   > 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 an 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].

   No, I don't.  I never claimed to know specifically.  If you want to
   debate on what technologies will fit into a ecocentric society, I
   need to go to the library.  This discussion has previously been a
   discussion of ecocentric criteria.  You are trying to change it
   to what would result from this criteria.  While this may be a valid
   question, I don't think it can be answered by either of us now.  
   You may be claiming that no criteria can be evaluated without
   knowing what its general impact may be but I think that is like
   saying that the economic impact of emancipation a good argument for slavery.

Well, how do you define "good"? There is a class of economic
historians that in fact argues that slavery and its abolition
were more or less completely determined by economic impact.
I like to think they're wrong but I can't prove it.

   Do you know just what the effects will be or do you assume they will
   be catastrophic?  By the way, Greenpeace wants to ban this
   because of effects on humans, not for ecocentric reasons.  The last
   I heard about the chlorine debate is that some German magazine said
   they couldn't print their magazine without these processes so
   Greenpeace printed a test fake edition for them.  I haven't examined
   the facts about organochloride usage yet.  Have you?

There is a tad more to halo-organic chemistry than bleaching paper
and PBCs. 

   >   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. 

   A very good one.  One of the most critical industries does not
   require the entire baggage of the current industrial system. 

Actually, so far we have not determined which part if any is unneeded,
although I'm sure with some substitution some capacity could be
eliminated, but that is simply one activity among many.

   In the long run, I suspect that scale will be the larger issue.
   And I do believe that alternative medicine will replace allopathy and
   lessen its impact but I would never force this change on anyone.
   Maybe we can discuss acupuncture and homeopathy after we are done
   with ecocentrism!

Not on this newsgroup, please. My blood pressure probably
could not handle a discussion on homepathy. Perhaps the
psychology of placebos...  :-)

   >   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...

   This is a micro example.  The evolutionary change I suggest is
   qualitatively different.  It is always possible that it will
   happen by mistake, but anything else could.  What if we continue
   with the status quo and find that it is wrong?  We can only do
   what the preponderance of evidence and beliefs tell us to do.
   There is no guarantee against mistakes.

True.

   >   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 ;-)

   I'd love to.  Its a beautiful place.  Whats your addess?
   Whoops, missed the smiley. [Debating these things over the net
   is very tiresome eventually.]

Oh, everybody should visit SC - very nice place, has a couple
of nice pubs ideal for these discussions...

   >   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. 

   Dogmatism is the representation of opinion as fact.  A schism in a 
   church which leads one faction to throw the other out probably
   is an example of dogmatism.  If, however, disagreements in a
   philosophy exist and are debated, then it is less likley to be
   dogma.  Insistance on change is not dogma.  Insistance that one

Tut, tut, in fact insistance on change can be a dogma in and
of it self, not as bad as the dogma of no change no matter what
though.

   cannot possibly be wrong when no proof is offered is dogma.  While
   some ecocentrics may be dogmatic, not all are.  Depending on the
   opinions on one person for a view of a philosophy is, too say the
   least, inappropriate.   Have your read A Sand County Almanac?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 



Newsgroups: sci.environment