Adam, I agree with your outcomes, but isn't "cycles" just another concept?
In this case, what else? And, the cycles are imperfect even at best. In all
cases, except water I suppose, there is a loss to do inefficiency. How is
that the bases for an ethical system? Again, I'm not disagreeing with what
the ethical system might accomplish, just with the seemingly weak basis for
it.
Steven
In the final analysis one should think only
of one single science: the science of man,
or, more exactly expressed, social science,
of which our own existence constitutes at
once the principle and the purpose and in
which the rational study of the external
world naturally comes to merge, for this
double reason that the science of nature is
a necessary constituent of and a basic
preamble to social science.
Auguste Comte
Discourses, 1884
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Autopoesis
on 10/25/00 14:16, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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?"
Fit into the cycles. Awe at the complexity and perfection of the cycles,
again: cycles of nutrients, water, energy, etc. So for example, an ethic
that stresses the importance of fitting in to those cycles when applied
would advocate such radical notions as: ensuring that human waste returns to
the soil in recognition of nutrient flows, using gray water systems and
cisterns again in recognition of the importance of not sucking our aquifers
dry with abandon, using the sun for power in recognition that the flow of
the sun's energy is our only income--and as good economists we know that we
should spend only our income, not our (natural) capital.
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|