The problem is "fit in" to what? If ecosystems are truly and "merely"
artificial constructs, how to we form any rational basis for "awe" and
"respect?" In awe of what? Respectful of what? That's my problem right now.
I agree that on a personal basis I can appreciate the idea of ecosystems,
but how does that allow me to formulate ethical regard? Right now in
Colorado we have two amendments on the ballot, one to limit growth in the
state and another to require background checks on buyers at gun shows. On
guns we can formulate ethical issues of all sorts; safety, health,
paternalism, freedom, etc. all formed on factual basis. On growth one of the
issues has been environmental. However, if the basis of environmental
concern are artificial constructs, how do you justify any ethical issue
raised to the level of a constitutional amendment?
Steven
"You're forgetting about God."
"He doesn't interest me. God Tolerates
the intolerable; he is irresponsible and
inconsistent. God is not a gentleman."
Arturo Perez-Reverte, 1988
The Fencing Master
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Autopoesis
on 10/23/00 09:59, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> An elk or bird
> will pass over these borders as if they do not exist, which in fact they
do
> not when you look at all the components of the ecosystem. You are using
the
> term "ecosystem" as others use the term "community." Which was part of my
> point anyway.
>
> So, my response is that the so-called "border" or "edge" is an artificial
> construct of ecology and is probably not a good basis for an ethic.
Once again I have failed to clearly state my ideas--likely because they are
unclear to me in the first place. I'll try to be brief and concise.
My statements about borders were almost more of an aside. Really I meant to
speak to the very fact that you bring up, that animals, nutrients, energy,
seeds, bacteria, pass through the supposedly defined borders of ecosystems
as a matter of course (my aside was merely to note that those passages
(borders) are necessarily vital). And it is the interconnectedness that
matters, as with the example I raised of the inland systems failing due to
the inability of salmon to pass from the "ocean ecosystem" into the "inland
river ecosystem." My idea is that the connections, the ways that beings and
materials pass through ecosystems in an endlessly intertwined fashion should
be the focus, not individual ecosystems. The flow is the key, recognizing
the cycles of nutrients, energy, water, etc. These are inter-ecosystem. And
again, I think energy, specifically the entropic nature of all processes, is
the most unassailable flow we can hang our protection on.
In this way I argue for a non-consequentialist principled approach just as I
would when it comes to animal ethics. My vision of an ethic aims to
dismantle the techno-optimists' dreams of figuring out all the ecological
interconnections just as easily as power mechanics figure out how to turn
low-entropy into forward motion. It is an ethic founded in awe, respect, and
the intent to "fit in" rather than "rise above."
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|