Adam;
Cycles are inefficient, they are not issues of entropy. Entropy is a factor
of the natural loss of energy available to do work in a closed system.
Cycles are inefficient because, well because they are inefficient. The loss
of energy in biological (open) systems is *not* entropy. Most of that energy
is still available to do work in other ways. I think, however, that you have
made me think about why this concerns me in so far as environmental ethics
are concerned.
Your use of "entropy" to describe ecological cycles is not, I think, unique.
The problem it shows is that ecology, or maybe more specifically,
conservation biology, are empirical sciences. They describe nature without
any attempt to develop general theories of nature. For example, they cycles
you mention are descriptions of how things seem to work. They cannot, it
seems, be generalized to other systems. As descriptive science they are
valuable in understand how things work, but not of much use in prescribing
how we "ought" to react to nature. Isn't this Hume's "naturalistic fallacy?"
You cannot logically derive an "ought" from an "is." If ecology is "merely"
an empirical science, it gives us very little in the way of developing a
meaningful ethic. We can prescribe behavior which will keep the elements we
describe working as they presently are, but this doesn't necessarily mean
that it is "right" or "wrong."
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Autopoesis
on 10/26/00 09:35, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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?
Steven,
That entropy penalty for all phenomena is in fact I think a very good basis.
In the end, the solar-thermal input is the essential, overriding fuel/food
that keeps this whole beast/earth moving and running right. Therefore, of
course, _all_ the cycles, hydrologic, nutrient flows, etc., are "directed,"
if that's a good word, by "energy", loosely defined.
When we burn our earth-bound fuels (long-long-term solar in the form of
petroleum and gas deposits, medium-term photosynthetics (trees), short-term
photosynthetics (crops)), too quickly and without directly using solar the
to the extent we could (or in the ways we used to), we disrupt all the other
cycles. Burning causes the worst entropy penalties by far, of all
processes...a gasoline engine is maybe 10% efficient, "efficient" diesel
engines are maybe 13% efficient. The penalties can be thought of simply
(simplistically?) as pollution, and end up taking various forms, unclean
water, unclean air, acid rain, soil erosion, loss of habitat, "climate
change" (what a euphemism) etc.
Ultimately I'm leading to this still highly unrefined idea of mine that a
new criterion for moral considerability (beyond the faulty intelligence and
sentience criteria), whether regarding animals, ecosystems, human
communities, etc., might have the consideration of entropy at its core.
An ethic stemming from this stuff may look different but I don't believe it
would end up being a weaker basis. And as with all things philosophical, can
be phrased in slightly different ways to radically alter the implications.
For example, we could say, "We should use only as much non-solar-direct fuel
as is necessary for a decent life," or we could say, "We should not use more
earth bound fuel-type capital than is necessary for a decent life," the
first positive, the second negative. Human-to-human, this gets at the
expropriation of raw materials from poor to rich. Regarding animals, this is
related to habitat loss. Regarding eco-systems, this is related to the flows
between them and the cycles which can be/are being disrupted., etc.
Of course, somewhere along the line, we will have to encourage the continued
examination of what a "satisficing" quality of life is, and to be frank
about what is "needed" and what is "luxurious" for our lifestyles.
Just some more thoughts,
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|