Ted here.  Again, apologies for not responding promptly to this one. It is hard to
keep up.

Last Tuesday, Maria-Stella wrote:

> Ted wrote:

> > >Hey, -- what could possibly be ethically wrong with humanity being absent from
> > >major parts of  this planet's Nature?   That is the way it has been for 3.5
> > >billion years, and it was good.
> >
> > Ted, I'm curious about your claim here, "and it was good."  Is that a
> > scientific, philosophical, or theological assertion?  just wondering how
> > you see it.
> > Jim T.

What did I have in mind? Well, what's the story of this planet over the past 3.5
billion years? We have the hard evidence that thousands of kinds of organisms
evolving from mere buzzing matter into"living stardust."  Many of these organisms
enjoyed living (they were sentient like so many today). Many others (trees, for
example reproduce their own kind, heal their wounds, defend themselves (or try to)
against insect or fungal attacks, etc.).  So, the rational for "..and it was good"
runs something like this: Assuming that organisms had *not* evolved on this planet,
what would all those molecules (atoms, elements, etc.) that made/make these organisms
be doing today? Why they would all be at some earlier form of "pre-organismic" state
somewhere on this planet. So, with the emergence of organisms the planet itself
became alive (hence "the living Earth") and has had all that stuff humming along for
eons, getting ever more complex (self-realizing its future destiny without being
aware of what was happening), but possibly doing this "autonomically" over the eons),
and becoming ever more diverse in line after line in marine, freshwater and
terrestrial ecosystems.  It is essential to recognize that organisms would not exist
without the misnamed "inorganic or abioitic" part of which they are a part, and it a
part of them.  The emergence and complexification of organisms (in thousands of
different and distinct taxonomic groups) would not and could not have happened had
not the so-called "physical" systems been "provided by" or present on the Earth
itself - land, water, air, gravity, electomagnetic waves, etc.  And, of course, the
energy from the burning sun.  Thus, we now know that organisms acted to create the
early Ecosphere, and as the Ecosphere became organically modified, it then was able
to cause the emergence of wholly new kinds of organisms (e.g. ones dependent on
oxygen, for example). I think we make such a conclusion (about all this being good)
from the evidence to date (and not from some mere belief system, or a socially
constructed cyber-idea).  No one human can  logically argue that "this does not
matter," or can rationally state that "there is neither good nor bad".  For a person
to sit in an armchair and prognosticate about whether this all was good or bad  and
whether "value" existed back there when humans existed in a simpler form is silly,
social constructivism. As I said in another post - any doubters should study  the
story of Earth and go out and kick a rock, and just think of the spans of time that
have gone by.  And remember - *you yourself were there,* albeit in a different form.
So, the fact that humanity as such was absent for 3.5 billion years was "ipso-facto"
good (the world of Nature came to be).  Another reason:  if "we" had been present,
the Earth and its systems would almost certainly have been demolished a very long
time ago. So, that is what I mean when I perceive that 'it was good.'

And Jim T asks "is it a scientific, philosophical or theological assertion?"   The
only sensible answer would appear to be that the assertion is *based* on the findings
of science (as noted above), and not on the thinking or findings of philosophy or
religion.

> Maria-Stella here (again):
> (I answer because i was thinking about the same):
>
> According to Budiansky, (first part of the book), scientifically speaking,
> this is irrelevnant and down to human values. According to his thought,
> there is no reason for believing that something is good or bad.

As they used to say in England: "this is pure poppy-cock." What, would Budianski
rather be - a stone? (scientifically speaking, of course).  Human values?  Prime
values existed long before humans became Homo sapiens. Otherwise, we could not even
discuss value theory today.   Again, I will repeat it here --  back there, over the
billions of years, long before humans emerged as the species that we are, the
Ecosphere and its ecosystems with their organisms had already been co-evolving and
that's good in itself, no?   Just visualize a giant, self organizing mega-symbioisis
going on for all that time, a powerful creative, mysterious dynamic phenomenon on the
surface of this planet. In those eons, neither Budianski, nor any other human even
thought (or could think) - because we did not exist in our present form.  But the
stage was being set for a species to emerge that could actually form a thought and
express it in language. Hence, we suddenly recognize "value" in a more limited and
specialized way. To say that value did not exist before humans came along and
developed  'value theory' is pure nonsense, since we would not be here to
prognosticate on what is valuable had not that great and wonderful past been there.
I could go on, but surely, all of you on this listserve must admit that all this
"Earthly buzz" has been good.  And surely, the deliberate or inadvertent
extinctification of species by humans is a negative for the Ecosphere (i.e. "bad"
because it forecloses absolutely the opportunity for these unique kinds to evolve on
their own terms into the future). One would have to be entirely disconnected
intellectually from the Earth and its systems to claim otherwise - like living in a
bubble out there in cold black space, for example, or maybe on one of Jupiter's moons
(anyone want to try Venus)?  Or, like being a perfect solipsist (the strange abstract
idea that nothing exists or is real, except the self).  O.K....more next time.

> But in the last half book (about), this is reversed, and people are
> NECESSRY for the ecosystem if we want to sustain what we have (again human
> values). That's what has not been explained in his thinking.

I have not read the book, and had never heard of Budianski before subscribing to this
listserve in July. The above sounds like simple anthropocentrism to me. The knowledge
that ecosystems evolved and existed for all those eons, and that only *after* humans
evolved, did we suddenly become *necessary* for the ecosystem is just preposterous. I
suppose he would say that only the preservationists among us are necessary, since we
are the only ones trying to save the Earth <joke>. The notion that people are
*necessary* for ecosystems if we want to sustain human values is odd. Where have "we"
done a good job? I am reminded of Chapter 6  in a book by Lewis Thomas (The Lives of
a Cell; Viking Press 1974) and entitled "Autonomy." in which he makes fun of the
desire of so may humans to control autonomic functions.  (In this case it is the
evolved autonomous functions of the Gaian heirarchy that these humanists insist that
we have the great wisdom to control).  It's that dangerous and arrogant old
anthropocentrism/ humanism again, the "we are little Gods" fallacy, for whose worth
and validity there is not a shred of evidence.

> If nature is ruled by chaos and randomness, if determinism is just a
> stupid construction (which may well be), why then so much hussle to start
> burning the few forests left in order to manage them (why= ethically i
> mean, not scientifically). There is absolutely no reason to do prescribed
> burning on ethical grounds.

Interesting question.  We could all do well to read  more on systems theory,
complexity theory, chaos theory and the idea of the self-organization
(self-realization?) of matter. I know this sounds odd for a long practicing research
biologist and ecologist but  I continue to be puzzled at the idea that "Nature is
ruled by chaos and randomness" - as the system is so complex, harmonious and
cooperative) - see <http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/MosqEcoFun5.html> for an intro
to the functioning of the Ecosphere.   There have to be some better explanations for
the complexity, great harmonies, symbioses, etc. of all that stuff out there, and
ourselves too (i.e. Nature). Just mutations and selection theory alone don't seem to
provide an adequate explanation. Notwithstanding, while environmentalists,
preservationists and some scientists are saying: "let's have some restraint here" the
vast majority of humans carry on with the raids and rape of the Earth. There is
enough science to conclude that it is dangerous to all (and hence wrong) to destroy
the Earth's systems and all those species, and I for one find that the pervasive
anti-preservationism sentiment to be grossly unethical in the most fundamental
sense.  Like - eating the mother who has just given birth to you. (suitable emoticon
needed here).

> I agree with Ted, and to rephrase his quick note and avoid
> misunderstandings, i believe that with 'good' he meant GOOD for the
> organisms that survived and lived. There is no evidence that if humans had
> been invented earlier the world would be 'better' today. Is your question
> to Ted meant to imply that without humans life on earth was worse? I don't
> think so. Then what is the question leading to?

Thanks Maria. OK, but you state only part of the answer, or at least the statement is
not sufficiently clear because you need to include the precursors of "the human"
among the organisms that survived and lived. If our animal ancestors had not existed,
we would not be here and when we were in our "precursor" form, we were relatively
benign and part of the great megasymbiosis of the Ecosphere. We were not parasitic,
like today.  Maybe philosopers need a new word, such as "philosophical precursor" in
order to discuss "human value?" But if we are to consider whether Earth without human
life now would be better or not, that we can do. In this regard, the evidence seems
overwhelming that without humans  almost all  organisms of this planet would be
better off.  If today, all organisms could vote on whether humans should be
exterminated, they would almost unanimously vote in the affirmative because, after
all, we do them and the ecosystems which made and keep them great harm, and continue
to exterminate ever more of them and their felow earthlings.  The only ones that
*might* vote in our favour are domesticated cats and dogs, etc., (those that are
treated as family pets or that help humans do things while not being mistreated).
Also, all "our" domesticated animals and plants (pigs, chickens, cows, horses,
turkeys, wheat, corn, soybeans, plantations etc. etc.) * might* vote in the negative
(i.e. to let us continue as a species) on the grounds that they actually get to live
for a moment under he sun, until the moment we get to eat them or cut them up well
before their natural life would come to a normal end. And this does not even get into
the cruelty to sentient animal issues.

Cheers to all,
Ted
--
Ted & Linda Mosquin, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada
http://www.ecospherics.net (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%