Many economists talk about the change in the world that you mention in this
way: the old world was an open one with frontiers where we believed in the
myth of superabundance; the new world is a closed one, no more frontiers,
where are old myths of superabundance run hard against the reality of
scarcity (and thermodynamics).

That scarcity takes many forms: 1) we have to use less and less efficient
energy sources--compare using windfall gathered by hand and burned in the
stove to nuclear 2) we have to use less efficient sources of
protection--collecting skins from dead animal was only reasonable in the old
open world where there were more "animals" than humans. Look at the
progression: skins, wool, cotton, polyester/acrylic. Each less efficient
than the former due to scarcity.

The first world view that the world and everything in it is ours to exploit
for short-term pleasure has everything to do with the prevention of the
development of a land ethic.

The inability to place intrinsic value in the world is at the heart of it.
Ever since Bacon we have decided that without turning the world into market
material it is valueless.

Some philospers (e.g., Regan) contend that the developement of an
environmental ethic is downright impossible without the acceptance of
intrinsic value in the world. It is my conviction that the reason Leopold's
land ethic is still as marginal as it was when first proposed is that his
view expects that we can develop an ethic toward the whole biotic community
without first acknowledging that animals are different from plants. Again, a
land ethic will not come about until we acknowledge intrinsic value in the
world; that step entails first acknowledging that the animals in the world
are "different" than the plants. Most people will find it easier to
recognize worth in, say, a deer than in a fern. And we want them to say the
whole forest is morally significant? For most people, the animals inside the
forest aren't morally considerable in the first place. The land ethic then
is a logical impossibility as it stands.

Adam

>Good morning folks,
>
>Steven wrote on 21 Feb:
>>
>> Ray Lanier wrote (in part)
>>
>> "I think it is anachronistic to relate present day hunting to that
>practiced
>> by earlier folk, even to those in the 19thC, to say nothing about our
>> "hunter-gatherer" ancestors."
>>
>> Bissell here:
>> Why? As I understand the word, you mean that hunting is "out of place" in
>> the present time or at this stage of history. But how can you know that?
>> Isn't that a judgement which can't be made at the moment, only with
>> hindsight? At least that is how I understand it.
>
>Ray here:
>I didn't mean that hunting was "out of place in the present time".  I meant
>that it seems to me that our way of thinking about hunting gets stuck in an
>earlier time when most of the population was rural and very dependent of
>hunting and even "gathering" in some ways (I remember we used to gather wild
>dandilion greens for the pot).  But the world has changed drastically even
>since the 20's/30's.  I don't need to go into the specifics.  It seems to me
>that in the process of change, our relationship with the world (and its
>inhabitants) has also changed.  Perhaps we need to rethink who we are in
>ourselves and also in our relationships.  Our scientists, geneticists and
>other intellectuals, have learned so much that perhaps ought to be given
>more critical review and interpretation.  What can we learn from that new
>knowledge in particularly as applied to the conditions of being human, about
>our relationships to plant, animal, world...?  Is there a "new world view"
>that puts our discussions of, for example, environmental ethics in a
>drastically different frame?
>
>Some time back, when we were talking about hunting, Jim gave us an excerpt
>from someone who suggested that the way we view the world is an important
>determinant of the way we develop an ethic.   I believe this is true and
>think that that difference of view among us contributes substantially  to
>our continuing disagreements.
>
>I wish someone, with more knowledge than the little I think I have, would
>provide us with some guidance on this issue.
>---------------
>
>>
>> Ray further writes; "I am not arguing that there should *not* now be some
>> form of "predator/prey
>> management" given the enormous insult we humans have given to the natural
>> system.  And I well know that there are folks who depend on access to
>> wildlife for subsistance who should be given the means to efficiently
>hunt,
>> even - perhaps especially - in the modern society where the rich get
>richer
>> and the poor get poorer. The problem, imho, are the rich dudes who like to
>> play the role of big-game
>> hunter while sitting in a stand well seeded to attract their prey.  Or
>those
>> folk who think it is sporting to sit in a blind waiting to shoot ducks on
>> the water.  Back in the 30's when we were all poor, we kids were taught
>that
>> an
>> honorable hunter only shot ducks on the wing.  Ethical standards have gone
>> to hell since those days."
>>
>> Bissell here:
>> Statistically hunters are only slightly above the mean in income in the
>US.
>> Hardly "rich folks." However, I agree that there are ethical problems with
>> hunting, but not hunting per se. Up until the 1980s it was illegal to
>shoot
>> ducks on the water. The law was changed because of the difficulty of
>
>Ray here:
>Sure wasn't illegal in southern California during ww2 - I was there and saw
>it.  And I think that those who don't need the meat should leave it for
>those who do, even support them in that activity.  Well, I almost think so
>sometimes! :-)
>--------------------
>
>> enforcement. However, most duck hunters still practise "wing shooting" as
>> the "proper" way to hunt.
>>
>> But, returning to the point, the metric to measure that problem should not
>> be either income or "need." In modern society it is difficult to justify
>any
>> sort of experience with nature as a "need." I don't "need" to go hiking or
>> birdwatching or scuba diving in any sense other than my "need" for close
>> contact with nature.
>
>Ray here:
>And isn't that "need for close contact with nature" sufficient in itself?  I
>think that is precisely the most important element missing from our
>urbanized, congested society.  And it may help account for many of our
>social ills.  More reason, imho, for rethinking the fundamentals of our
>world view(s).
>
>> Just some observations.
>> steven
>>
>
>As always, your observations are most suggestive.
>
>Ray
>
>
>


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