From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:05:20
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct13.011938.23871@meteor.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct13.052927.18862@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.052927.18862@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <1992Oct13.011938.23871@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
   >
   >The second problem is that while intuitively, I agree that nature
   >should be considered as having rights, logically I can't think of any way
   >to decide what those rights might be. If nature has the same rights as people,
   >obviously there is no moral way to live. I have to stand somewhere and eat
   >something. So I would like you to clarify your ecocentrism: what exactly are
   >the implications of believing rocks to have rights?

   The usual answer to this is that ecocentrism does not imply that the
   ecosystem must be left absolutely alone.  All participants in the ecosystem,
   including humans, may take what they need to live but should consider
   the impact _under all circumstances_ and always try to minimize this
   impact.  These considerations are not limited to economic impacts on
   humans.  Neither self defense nor predation are denied.  You can still
   kill viruses and eat meat.While the definition of what is necessary
   and what impacts are  excessive is certainly a matter of debate, the 
   suggestions
   made by Paul Barton-Davis would be a starting place for many ecocentrists.

The problem as MT noted is that pro forma the philosophy espoused
leads to paralysis. It is not even clear that the "impact" on
ecosystems is well enough defined for us to understand what sort
of "impacts" are minimal and what is unacceptable, action is
urged on the basis of superficialities and there is enormous
resistance to re-evaluation of dogma.

   Specific points about whether heavy metals would be acceptable would not
   really be decided until such decisions were needed in the future and in
   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. 
	A major criticism of modern society is that people
are still unhappy in spite of the advances made. The yuppie
claiming of working stress may be unhappy in a very real
way but in my mind at least there is a qualitative difference
of context between them and the hunter-gatherer mourning a
child dead from malnutrition.

"It's a Zen sort of thing..."

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*