I sense we are talking past each other.  I am not at all for "demoting"
nature - quite the reverse.  And I am not against conservation forestry in
favour of commercial, profit maximising forestry - quite the reverse.  I
thought you were against ALL human involvement in forests (other than
observation).  If I was wrong, please accept my apology for the
misunderstanding.  By "disconnection" I meant that many of the earth's
people have gained the wrong idea of the environment and our essential
connection to it - economists and environmental preservationists (ie those
that advocate "no use") included.  This is a function of a number of things,
but our urbanisation would be one driver, as would our ever shortening
outlook on life that hides nature's dynamism from our consious thoughts.

I have often argued that ethics should be grounded in an understanding of
nature - of its functions as a system, and its cause and effect
relationships - as well as the human connection to it through our history.
I certainly do not accept nature as some static storehouse over which we
have some right of dominion, which (correct me if I am wrong) you appear to
presume I represent.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foster [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, 21 February 2000 05:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Should we use something besides Wood? was [RE: Ethics of
> immunocontraception?]
>
>
> Chris writes:
>
> >We have become destructive because of our numbers, our dominant
> environmental ethic and our
> >technology applied with perhaps a decreasing wisdom.  The
> decreasing wisdom
> >is due - I would argue - to our growing psychological DISCONNECTION from
> >nature and the hence the denial of that truth of our essential
> association
> >with it (disconnection is a premise of BOTH the dominant
> ECONOMIC paradigms
> >that sees all use as "full steam ahead" benign rationality [and
> never mind
> >the horses], and the apparently reactive PRESERVATION paradigm that sees
> any
> >human involvement [other than observation] as a necessarily destructive
> >evil).
>
>
>
> It is clear you sense nature demoted by technology, and
> psychology. When you
> say 'our growing psychological disconnection' what do you mean
> here? Are you
> speaking for yourself, or all people? I thought that nature was
> everywhere.
> The psychology of 'demoting' nature is what I think you mean [Studies in
> Words, C.S. Lewis]. Man is an erruption in nature, man erupts [Hiedegger,
> Intro. to Metaphysics].
>
> "In wilderness is the preservation of the world." Thoreau
>
> Arguing for modern forestry - commercial tree improvement, economic
> optimization, and all that goes with the current scientific industrial
> forestry - and arguing against 'preservation' is - moreover - demoting the
> importance of conservation forestry, protected areas, and other rational
> uses of forests besides the preservation of private interests in
> conserving
> one or two commercial tree species for profit.
>
> We can all use the same words to describe the understanding of the other
> camp. I can say that the industrial forest paradigm with it's toxic weed
> killers, short term whole tree rotation, monocropping, clearcut
> syndrome is
> preservationist thinking in terms of profits, economic
> efficiency. Should I
> say private forest perserves for pulp harvests on a 30 year rotation?
>
> So what is wrong with natural selection based non-violent forestry, which
> demonstrates that low extraction harvesting with long rotations
> is inferior?
>
> Throwing words around and using them only one way to address
> obvious private
> motives really does not address the issue of an ethics regarding the
> conservation of biological diversity in rainforests. As it was
> pointed out,
> the ethics of mining trees to maximize profits is based on demoting nature
> to a mere single purpose for serving mankind temporarily.
>
> The word paradigm comes from <paradigmata> which is an ancient Greek word
> meaning pattern. In the Timaeus this word is used to describe how the
> demiurge (the creator of the universe) created a pattern to make
> all things
> in the universe. The universe is described as a body without
> organs since it
> does not need organs of perception nor organs of elimination. The universe
> recycles it's own wastes. However the universe is finite and so
> are ancient
> forests finite.
>
> The <paradigmata> are derivative of eternal <eidios> or forms
> that exist in
> the <nous> or eternal mind. What these <eidos> or forms are unknown by
> humanity, and humanity simply participates in their instantiations in
> nature. Nature is called <phusis> by the Greeks, which has the meaning of
> emergence. For the Greeks nature is everything that exists, and what is
> becoming, both invisible and visible.
>
> "Mind is the thinniest of substances" Anaximander
>
> Much of what does not exist alluded to as 'psychology' is derivative of
> <psuche> the ancient root word for psyche. As you can see <psuche> and
> psyche are similar, just as <sema> and <soma> are similar words
> for body and
> sign. It is the body which does the signing. Psuche and pneuma
> have a common
> root which is wind, and wind denotes movement of the spirit.
> Spiration means
> to inhale to give breath closing the separation between sign and body.
>
> Words call out for explanation as they are 'semiotic', that is
> words 'sign'
> for the 'eidos' and have a look about them that can be understood in
> conversation. The ancient Greek word for idiot is spelled a
> little different
> than the english, but what this word originally meant was not someone who
> lacked intelligence, but someone who lacked training in a skill.
> The word is
> first spoken, it can be hear, and this also closes the separation.
>
> A bird of paradise signs with its body. This is 'wau' or gift. A gift
> implies the principle of reciprocity between man and nature. With the sign
> of the other body, the gift would not exist, and the demoting of nature
> commences.
>
> Therefore to demote nature to 'storehouse' and commercial forest
> preserve is
> demote the body of the universe to one sign. This calculative rationality
> that characterizes the 'industrial paradigm' places human understanding at
> the apex of all other species. It should be self-evident that
> other species
> possess understanding if they can 'sign' with the 'body'. The
> existences of
> the modern industrial paradigm is predicated on a 'calculative
> rationality'
> which is predictive. To be able to muster the capacity of predictive
> calculative rationality requires nature be demoted to servent of humanity
> first and foremost.
>
> For instance, modern forestry likes to refer to forest zones. One
> zone will
> be a special management zone for ungulates, another for visual
> quality along
> a highway or waterfront, and another will designated a zone for the
> conservation of community drinking water. In all cases the zonation on
> forest preserved for short rotation maximized growth is understood as a
> 'constraint' by the industrial forester. In most jurisdictions the
> industrial forest enterprises considers water, wildlife, visual
> quality, and
> biological diversity as an 'external cost' of the company.
>
> No forests are too important for all life on earth to let them be
> preserved
> for short term profits that defeat the design of the demiurge that created
> the universe from paradigmata, that is an eternal pattern. The lithosphere
> of rock, sand, and clay are really more benign on life as housing
> material.
>
>
>
> John Foste, BsF, MSc Candidate [Forester and Environmental Scientist].
>
>



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