Chris:
> IF the environment does not change in reality - then an environmental
ethic
> that condemns change seems to have soem support. The implications for
> humans as a species are major. We breath, we eat, we excrete. Human
> ethical boundaries are too constrained if "no change" occurs in any sense.
> Every act we do is wrong because we cause an "unnatural" change.
I am sorry Chris, but ethics is not simply about what humans do as acts to
other humans, or about searching for straw bound reasons why someone has
mistaken beliefs. There are other agents in nature which act as well. For
instance, if there is a species at risk and it is not at risk because of
man's 'misbehavin', then it is ethical (BUT NOT IMPERATIVE, but it would be
best; it is mandatory only for certain individuals, not for the species) for
humans to go and assist that species if possible. Because you and I can
communicate complex and silly ideas does not mean that first and foremost I
am of the position that humans always misbehave, and you are the only one
that believes humans are the only and exceptional noble species after all.
You seem to be positioning every conscientious environmental citizen as
being hateful of Das Man. This is the typical stance of the 'rightist cult'
ideology that simply takes all beliefs and sentiments regarding nature as
worth valuing in her own right as worthless trash.
I personally think that you are unconsciouslly ensnared in the political
ideology of the Timber Mining PR industry....
> On the other hand, if we take John's view that all this flux and dynamism
> over geological scales is not *actually* change in some conceptual way
> (change only being significant if a new higher order phyla emerges - so
> species extinctions are not *significant*, nor the wiping out of one
> ecosystem because we judge it has "moved" somewhere, etc.), then how are
we
> to judge the apparently not *actual* change when humans convert forest to
> pasture on the same scale that climate did it elsewhere?
Of course if evolutinary conditions which facilitated the rise of
angiosperms was 'disabled', then evolution would cease to exist. But this
seems to be of no concern for you? I can only ask you why you are not
concerned about this?
>It seems to me
> that under this view, there are no meaningful boundaries to our actions -
> because even an asteriod hit which doesn't cause a major taxonomic change
> comes under the Foster definition of "no change".
I am not sure why you are focussing exclusively on 'our actions' which are
always placed in parenthesis. As if man is the only one that is worth
discussing. What about saving habitat and species from certain extinction
even if man is not the cause. People save individual organisms all the time
without any ideas like yours.....and this is nice and worthwhile....but you
focus is on other people, their ideas, and their knowledge. I have never
seen any expression of concern from you about endangered species and habitat
at all, except if you can log it, and then aford to spend some profits on
hiring people to go out and shoot introduced species like opposums in the
areas where you want to cut down old growth climax forests.
I know exactly why you want to advocate change. To spruce up all that
decadent old growth and save it from oppossums.
>
> Thankfully the reality is there is change, and therefore a context for an
> environmental ethic that neither a belief in either 1. no change or 2. no
> substantive change unless a major evolutionary event, can provide.
>
> Chris P
|