One of the problems with discourse via an hoc process, and in everyday
conversation, is that we tend to make statements which are actually
'over-generalizations'. This is a part of 'everyday irrationality'. If were
we to read Sextus Empiricus, we would be more cautious about making
conclusions, and forming judgements.

However, I do not disagree completely with what Brad wrote; it is an
opinion, and opinions as such are situated somewhere between the truth and
falsehood; that is as Plato wrote, "between being and non-being" and it is
for the discretionary and critical mind to determine which part of the
judgement is true.

In fact in litigation involves opinions from both sides, and neither is
presumed to the truth, but rather a version of the truth. The actual truth
will fall somewhere in between; when there is really no doubt about the
opinions, then sometimes there is no trial (cf. finding of temporary
insanity).

 One generalization, the human species has had little significant affects on
the general ecology of the earth perhaps for at least 2.5 million years.
However sometime after the last ice age, there have been noticeable changes
in the regional ecology where humans have lived, most notably Europe, et
cetera. Since about the last 3000 years humans have significantly impacted
some regional ecosystems; and over the last 200 years, have begun to have an
impact on several global scale ecosystems: ocean fisheries, forests, and
atmosphere.

The problem to is that there are some folks who believe that norms
(normative values) can be taken from the science of ecology, ie. that it is
good to have species diversity, ecosystem resilience and integrity. I tend
to be a supporter of this later idea that science can create new values,
norms, etc. When that happens, then it is often difficult to see eye to eye
with the other who often lacks the ken normally attributed to the
specialists to appreciate the norms and values. When an attribute which is
indicated to be essential to system, for it to function, then that attribute
should become the basic support for a norm and an ethical value.

Most of the natural history in the 19th century was lacking in the
appreciation of the fundamental laws of ecology; so why would there be any
need for policies to conserve and protect, save and except?

john







----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Global Warming Anyone?


> Brad wrote: "There is now a broad consensus in the scientific
> community that human population is degrading the
> environment, which includes causing climate change."
>
> Bissell here: Am I the only one that sees this logic (sic); "scientific
> consensus says human populations are degrading the environment, climate
> is part of the environment, therefore human populations are the cause of
> climate change (negative I assume)" as full of holes?
>
> Steven
>
> Even errors must be respected
> when they are more than
> two thousand years old.
>                  Sangharakshita