Hi Ray,

Ray wrote:
>It seems to me that, with the present predominant world view, we are
>condemned to live with a steady decline in the "quality"  of life.  Quality
>of life is another subject that gets minimal treatment when you folks argue
>"ad hominem" issues.  Can't you "kids" stick to serious environmental
>issues?  That's not ad hominem because your exchange is exactly beside the
>point, it is trivial in terms of the issues we face.  IMHO.

Ray, while I agree with you 100 percent that the ad hominem issue is
"trivial" in terms of the actual environmental problems that plague us, I
disagree 100 percent that the ad hominem issue itself is not a "serious
environmental issue."

In my view, the ad hominem issue is one of the *most* important
environmental issues we face: maybe not so much necessarily within academic
environmental ethics, but it is certainly one of the most important and
serious issues we face in the broader arena of environmental *politics.*

Just look at our discussions here on this list.  Time and again the threads
get diverted away from discussing an author's actual ideas to (wild) claims
about the author under consideration being "biased"; which usually means
being "biased" against the environment and/or against environmentalists.

Go to  http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/archive.html .  Look at
our discussions over the last few months:

In February we were discussing immunocontraception of wildlife.  If you
dare question the morality of immunocontraception of wildlife, for whatever
reason, you are labeled in true ad hominem fashion as an "animal killer"
and as "100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this
man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."  The result is that
productive discussion gets sidetracked and disrupted by the efforts of a
few well-intended but ultimately misguided individuals who lash out angrily
at any ideas that do not match their own.  This happens in society as well
as here.

In March we were discussing the Canada lynx and ecoterrorism.  If you
question the morality of ecotage and the motivations of people who are
willing to destroy other people's property in defense of Mother Earth, then
you are labeled an "anti-environmentalist" in true ad hominem fashion, with
the end result that productive discussion on the issues are disrupted by a
small minority of well-intended but ultimately misguided group of true
believers who react defensively to any such questioning about what they
personally hold to be "true."  This happens in society as well as here.

In April we were discussing global warming.  If you question the standard
"party line" about global warming in any way, either about the facts, the
science, the logic, the policy implications, or whatever, of the global
warming issue, you are labeled an "anti-environmentalist" in true ad
hominem fashion, with the predictable result that productive discussion
once again gets disrupted and diverted by the well-intended but ultimately
misguided eco-defensiveness of the true believers.  This happens in society
as well as here.

In May, we were talking about environmental education and the precautionary
principle.  If you dare have the audacity to suggest that the precautionary
principle may not *always* be the appropriate principle by which to guide
environmental policies, then you are labeled an "anti-environmentalist" n
true ad hominem fashion, with the result that productive discussion gets
disrupted and diverted by the well-intended but ultimately misguided
eco-defensiveness of the true believers.  This happens in society as well
as here.

Also in May, we got somewhat sidetracked onto the issue of Ayn Rand and
whether Ayn Rand is a "philosopher" or not.  Anyone who had the audacity to
suggest that Ayn Rand might be a philosopher and that  her ideas might be
taken seriously, was subsequently labeled with the epithets a) "greedy
Randian corporate apologist" and b) "anti-environmentalist" in true ad
hominem fashion.  As usual, a potentially productive discussion that might
have yielded unknown and unpredictable insights about political theory,
economics, capitalism, and the like, was prematurely cut short by a few
well intended but ultimately eco-defensive individuals who seemed not to
understand basic economics, political theory, capitalism, and the like, but
also seemed as if they didn't *want* to understand capitalism, political
theory, economics, and the like. This happens in society as well as here.

In June we got around to debatiing the merits of burning down people's
homes in defense of Mother Earth.  If you thought that this was maybe "not
such a good idea," for whatever reasons, then you were guilty of being an
"anti-environmentalist" for not supporting the good intentions of the Earth
Liberators who are simply trying to fight suburban sprawl on behalf of
Mother Earth.  Furthermore, your anti-environmentalism extended as well to
your questioning the ethics of recommending the radical depopulating of
continents like Africa as a "final solution" to human overpopulation.

Last month, we also got onto the topic of Alston Chase and the Unabomber.
Clearly some people feel Alston Chase is the philosophical antichrist; and
if you had the audacity to suggest that perhaps Alston Chase had a good
point about the Unabomber's "ethics" quote-unquote, then you were not only
also the antichrist for agreeing with Chase but also you were an
"anti-environmentalist" for not at least sympathizing with the purity of
heart that motivated Ted Kaczynski to do the things he did, which included
killing three people and wounding some two dozen more.  What's more,
Kaczynski killed someone who lobbied for the California Forestry
Association, a pro-logging trade group.  So the ad hominem reasoning could
go further: if you're for Chase, and against Kaczynski, then you must be
pro-logging.  Presto!  you are probably a "prologger" too--another ad
hominem.

This month, we finally got around to talking about some academic
environmental ethics.  Our discussions about Ben Minteer's analysis of
foundationalism seen in the work of J. Baird Callicott, Holmes Rolston, and
Eric Katz have been some of the best we've seen on the list in a long time.
But the same distracting tendencies of a few committed individuals have
unnecessarily diverted our attention in this discussion as well.  If you
sympathize with Minteer's critical remarks about Callicott et al, or
mention the fact that Minteer addresses potential anti-democratic problems
with these philosophers' work, then you are once again against all
environmental philosophers somehow, and thus are once again obviously an
evil, corporate sponsored, brainwashing, federally planted, government
conspiracy "anti-environmentalist."  Once again.  In true ad hominem
fashion.  Forget Minteer--forget productive discussion--forget any real
issues that are raised in any subtle, sensitive examination of three
environmental philosophers' thinking.  It's all about mind control and
keeping the rest of the planet oppressed, while the rich
corporate-sponsored American anti-environmental conservative philosophical
establishment keeps nursing at the teat of the Enlightenment and tossing
about fundamentally irrelevant references to Aristotle.

Why just this morning we've received some more of the same:

>Ray asks:
>>And I have to wonder why professors from prestigious universities feel that
>>they have to denigrate the environmental movement that tries, perhaps
>>ineptly, to bring attention to the absurdity of our present
>>human-nature-relationship.
>
>John answers:
>They often get funding from coporations like Monsanto, etc. and there are
>these PR firms and lobbyists that work 24 hours per day in the battle for
>minds.
>
>Corporations don't sleep. They are simply indifferent to everything except
>money...
>
>For instance Cornell University receives a lot of research funding from the
>agriculture industry (Ohio is in the corn belt and has the best soils in the
>United States.

Despite the fact that Cornell University is in New York state and not Ohio,
I'm not sure that it's fair to simply *assume* that anyone who works in one
of our "prestigious universities" is likely to be underwritten by corporate
funding from Monsanto--which funding John apparently feels comes along with
numerous mind control strings attached, e.g. in the form of Monsanto's
mandatory 200 hours of corporate brainwashing and values inculcation prior
to having your grant monies released in order to conduct your research.

Furthermore, RAY, I have a slight bone to pick with you.  Why is it that
"professors from prestigious universities" are necessarily "denigrating"
the environmental movement by pointing out the gross inaccuracies and the
ACTUAL ad hominem attacks that are made month after month by the kinds of
so-called "environmentalists" that I refer to above?  Why, if I didn't know
you better, Professor Emeritus Lanier, I would accuse you in true ad
hominem fashion of being "anti-education" and "anti-intellectual."  How is
that pointing out the actual falsehoods that *clearly* exist in many
environmentalists' arguments is a form of denigrating the entire
"environmental movement" as you seem to suggest?  Is it because this is a
violation of the pro-environmentalism hippocratic oath, which states
somewhere that "Thou shalt never speak ill of another environmentalist" and
"Thou shalt especially never speak ill of another environmentalist's
argument."  Can't you see Ray?  you yourself *right here* are deliberately
confusing the matter by diverting attention AWAY from the substantive
criticisms (which emanate from prestigious universities, apparently, in
your view) that are being made about *some* environmentalists' views, and
distracting us with anti-intellectual ad hominem irrelevancies about
"professors from prestigious universities."  WHY DOES IT MATTER WHERE THE
CRITICISMS COME FROM, RAY?????

Now I'm actually starting to get pissed again.  Maybe I should let this go
for now and come back later.

jt





>
>Is it not possible to live within our own ecological system without
>destroying it?  To do that, it seems to me, that we need to rethink what it
>means to be human in the context of a "natural system".  Recognizing that
>the "natural  system" is in a process of change.  I have had more that 100
>stray dogs over the last 20+/- years; they have never shit in their own
>space if they had a choice.  Why is it that humans shit in their own space?
>Not up to dog standards?
>
>Or is it that some few folks with money & power can live pollution free (as
>they did in the beginning of the industrial revolution) and the rest of us
>have to live with their leavings.  They seem satisfied to live in a
>manufactured, zoo-type  environment.   And leave the rest of us in a totally
>barren system, taking their leavings.
>
>And I have to wonder why professors from prestigious universities feel that
>they have to denigrate the environmental movement that tries, perhaps
>ineptly, to bring attention to the absurdity of our present
>human-nature-relationship.
>
>If anyone believes that the enviironmental situation is not of concern, in
>my view that person should *clearly* say so and provide supporting material.
>Of course, I trust that no one here is arguing a position just for "fun",
>just to get things stirred up.  Those folks I find contemptible.  I believe
>in the author Martin Buber when he said that one needs to say/live truth; if
>one does not, there is no basis for criticizing the "others" response.
>
>Ray



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