-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Peter Singer - An Interview
>
>Steven,
>
>Is this discussion about altruism supposed to suggest that humans should
>take it in the shorts for the environment? That some humans should take
>in in the shorts for the environment and, by extension, for the human
>beings left who will have a better environment to live with?
>
>Ed Barker
>
I'm not sure if I'm "the" Steven, but the reason I posted the original
thread was because of the suggestion that morality/ethics had some sort of
evolutionary/ecological advantage for humans. If that is so, then we may be
able to develop a monist theory of ethics using evolutionary/ecological
theory. I'm not sure that means anyone taking it in the shorts. . .a phrase
I've always enjoyed, but never really understood. . .or not, but it might
mean a significant reduction in standard of living for the western world in
the interests of raising the standard of living in the rest of the world.
I've seen data to suggest that the G7 (about 30% of the world's population)
consumes 75%-90% of the worlds resources. By any ecological measure that
can't be good.
Steven J. Bissell (that Steven)
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|