At 07:39 AM 11/26/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>John Foster writes;
>
>>For evolution to succeed as a theory and if humanism is an outcome of
>>evolution, then Aldo would be stating something remininiscent of what
>Henri
>>Bergson has said about "creative evolution". Being is about the process of
>>becoming and "must be understood in terms of a duration and a progression
>>from a before and an after." BEING rather than BEED or BEEN. If you see my
>>point, we are a verb not a noun to ourselves, mainly.
>
>No, I'm afraid I don't see what you are saying. (1) evolution has succeeded
>as a theory (I'm talking about organic evolution, natural selection,
>neo-Darwinism), (2) humanism is probably *not* a product of organic
>evolution, (3) "Creative evolution" is a redundancy. Did Bergson really say
>that? (4) "a verb not a noun to ourselves," Lost me there.

The reason that evolution is of value in solving ethical problems is that
it may explain a little more than simple vitalism. For instance, the
biological function of parturition and caring for one's young is vital for
all mammal species. It is also much more, and in human relationships,
parenting is not only vital but is a moral obligationl. In animals it is not
a moral obligation, but is vital to the species. Very few animals abandon
their young deliberately.

So in connection with what Aldo Leopold would say about evolutionary ethics,
it is a matter of speculation. Aldo went through a spiritual crises as a
result of predator control actions he organized in Arizona, riding the
landscape of wolves. He felt a great deal of concern about his actions
later, and the actions of his department, as a result of soil erosion and
high deer populations that crashed from starvation. His early writings about
wolf control were like "Mein Kempf".

Evolution as it is being discussed in the context of ethics is quite
different from what evolution is as an explanation for speciation. There are
no fossils left behind by "evolutionary ethics" which could be used to
support any of the valuations that ethicists insist on, vis a vis social
cooperation and fitness (i.e. good traits). It is just as valid to refer to
evolution as "creative" and speculate on evolution and it's possible
purpose. This is what ethicists are doing when they refer to "evolutionary
ethics". Henri Bergson used the term "evolution creatice" which is his
phrase for creative evolution. Secondly, he used the term "elan vital" to
mean or refer to the creative energy that exists in all created beings.

Warwick Fox discusses cosmic purpose ethics in "Towards a Transpersonal
Ecology" by stating that there are two types of ethics of this sort. One is
"evolutionary ethics" and the other is "ethical theism". There are no strict
definitions that separate the two types of ethics. Some examples are Murray
Bookchin's evolutionary nontheistic approach which stresses processes which
strive for greater individuation, freedom and selfhood.

Another approach is expressed by pantheistic evolutionary processes which
are fragments of a much larger reality, perhaps similar to Teilhard de
Chardin's "oosphere", or the sphere where oogenesis occurs, and the cosmic
egg speculations which have mythological underpinnings in most primitive
cultures. One way to explain this process is to consider time much speeded
up. If we were able to live much longer, say about 3000 years, our
conception of time would be much extended, reality would extend to include
our upbringing in neolithic and early metal or hunting and gathering
societies. We would be much more "holistic in our understanding". Only trees
live this long. As it is, our understanding is highly restricted to what is
the latest theory or conceptual framework, or what is the latest "vogue".
"We are as though men lost at sea without a rudder" in our understanding of
many things (Jeremiah).

One other approach taken by evolutionary ethics is the one that I succumb
to. It is the "Whiteheadian" panentheistic evolutionary approach. Here there
is a belief that there is an ultimate reality which is called God or Being.
The Hegelian term for this Being is the "indeterminant immediate", it exists
everywhere. It is a persuasive Being in that there is no coercion or
absolute decrees on conduct. It is the "ground of being" through which one,
as Warwick Fox explains, leads to the "realization of instances of ever
greater richness of experience or intensity of feeling."

I would agree that in terms of evolutionary experience, descending from the
simple single celled protazoan and culminating in the higher order primates
that the increased sensory experiences are the "ground for much of our
being", but not Being, which is the being of all created things, inorganic
and organic. Ethics is about the inorganic, the ideal, and it is only
relevent to humanity, not to anything else in the universe, except insofar
as it impacts human impacts on the unviverse; and it is essential that it
remain anthropogenic/homocentric. Ethics leaves no fossils (Singer). That is
why we can use the term "creative evolution" to explain views ideal
ecological conduct, existence, increasing sensory and emotional experience.
There is spiritual support for higher order primates to live simply so that
others can simply live. Why would a theocratic belief develop a taboo on
killing animals, all animals rather than only other members of one's
species? Darwin has not explained this. Is it always better for the
strongest to be selected for as a species? To me this makes no evolutionary
sense. Maybe the ends of evolution is to become an extinct species through
speciation. Is the rare butterfly that dies because a volcano wipes out its
habitat any less fit than a species that has two habitats where one is
spared? The theory of evolutionary fails to explain the "saddest" of
phenomena and the most"beautiful" of phenonmena when there is a catastrophic
or psycho-spiritual cause.

My comment on Darwinianism is that it fails to explain why all beautiful
things in the world die, and why people often do not want beautiful things
to die. This is not explained by Darwin. In fact there is no evolutionary
reason for extinction other than perhaps the lack of adaptation to predation
and the environment. Darwinian evolutionary theory does not explain the
success of species like humans who evolve to generate symbolic and
scientific knowledge that can cause cascading extinctions. Humans could
destory life on earth as we know putting a final blow to Darwinian
evolutionary theory since the theory only refers to existing species and
attributes of their success. Of course all the mega-extinction that have
occurred in various continents as a result of men, are also no explained.
Why would a species kill off vast numbers of potentially beneficial species
such as peleolithic food animals?

Evolutionary processes only explain why some species exists through two
complementary attributes: selection and adaptation. There is nothing moral
about the two processes unless one makes it so. Is extinction morally bad if
the species cannot adapt to climate change or is climate change bad because
it is caused by men and therefore can be prevented?

John Foster

>(snip) Teilhard de Chardin also speculated about the role of evolution,
>>morally. Evolution is a widing, ever widing circle (progressus adinfinitum)
>
>As much as I admire de Chardin's writing, he was advocate of "orthogenesis"
>or "directed evolution," a concept with no rational validity except an an
>apology for deism.
>
>(snip)
>
> Evolutionary ethics in this sense could mean this:
>>
>>The porcupine is "...an epiphany of value. Still at the edge of a moonlit
>>clearing, he is a miracle of being standing out against the ever-pressing
>>sense of nothing, a witness....Joy or enjoyment is noninstrumental. The
>>experience it describes serves no purpose beyond itself, it is not a
>>function of the experiences which led up to it. It breaks out of the entire
>>instrumental chain of as a moment of encounter between a human and an
>Other,
>>be it an entity, an act, a person, in cherishing, appreciation, enjoyment.
>>It is precisely the experience of eternal reference."
>>
>
>John, are you advocating evolution "guided" by God(dess, Gods, whatever)?
>Evolution, in the sense that Darwin and others stated it clearly does away
>with the *need* for a God(dess) or any guiding hand. Darwin showed how
>simple, natural processes explained speciation without recourse to devine
>will or vitialism. That was the point of "Origin of Species..." and why it
>caused so much uproar, not evolution per se.
>
>I can see how "guided" evolution can easily encompass ethical evolution, but
>what's the difference in that from just saying that all morality always
>comes from God(dess)? Evolutionary ethics as espoused by Kropotkin and now
>perhaps E. O. Wilson evolved because it confered reproductive success on
>populations. These are two very different concepts.

Reproductive success is only one measure of success. There was a very
wonderful TV (Discovery channel) program on people that have lived in the
Indian desert recently. The people living there are poor and have a
spiritual love for some very beautiful ungulate species with striking
antlers. They have been know to defend these animals from outside hunters
who simply want to eat them and take their antlers. The people have been
killed in defending these very beautiful animals. Success here cannot be
measured in terms of continuing the genes of one's body, but of the other
species. There are taboos on the taking of animal and plant life around the
world. This is in contrast to any theories of the selfish gene.

John
>
>Steven J. Bissell
>http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
>http://www.responsivemanagement.com
>Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal
>in a social, omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of
>a slow-breeding, large, intelligent primate.
>To shatter our population structure, to become abundant
>in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological
>relations with the rest of nature, it sets the stage
>for our mass insanity.
> Paul Shepard
>
>
>
        



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