>Okay Bryan, lets start with the obvious.  The definition of the word
>individual

my intention was to put forth the possibility that the earth is a *sentient*
individual, unlike a rock.  i did mention that a couple of times...

>To point out that humans are single entities as is the planet is a
>truism and contains little useful information.

i still think you misrepresent me here....  steve bissell said that the
planet could not be an individual because it was covered by individuals...
i stated that humans are covered by indivduals and yet we still consider
them individuals...  if that is a truism then it was necessary, and i
believe effective, for my argument...   which is that the earth may be an
individual (and a sentient one at that, which was not a part of this part of
the argument).

To point out that the
>criterion is not conclusive is exactly what I was claiming in my
>earlier posts pointing out it is a false analogy.

right, the criterion for sb's argument was not conclusive, and i
intentionally extended his criterion to that impossible analogy to make my
point...

>Here is exactly what you wrote (and despite your claims otherwise I
>never *ever* commented on something you [Bryan Hyden] wrote without
>your comments appearing somewhere in the message--that is a blatant
>untruth!):

ok, on december 5th at 1 am i wrote the following.  i will introject where
you commented and also show the part you left out...

[i wrote]
yes....    it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as the first
time....   [you wrote here, "no it isn't, it was what you put forward," and
you conveniently left out my explanation as to why your perception was
skewed] ...it wasn't even me who started the organism argument...   bissell
proposed that the earth is not an 'individual' due to its condition of being
covered by (other) individuals....  at that point, i simply pointed out the
inconsistency in that logic when one considers a human to be an individual
though he or she is also covered with (other) individuals/organisms...  i
wasn't saying that the earth is human....  i was saying that the earth may
be seen as an individual, just as humans are...   the state of being
considered an individual is shared across many classifications of life, not
just with humans.... [end of quote]

>Clearly Steven's argument is not sufficient, but neither is your
>counter argument.

yes, my arument IS sufficient....  for my only intention was to show that
his argument was insufficient....  now, i was not doing this simply to be
deconstructivist....  i had origionally put forward a possibility, that the
earth is an individual, and he provided criteria to the contrary... i simply
pointed out that his criteria was insufficient to prove anything....  and
i've already stated time and again that i cannot prove what i have put
forward...  i simply put it forward...   i cannot prove that i exist, yet i
believe it and will tell people so....

(although your exact
>comments were in the message and there for all to see--go check the
>damn archive!)

i shouldn't have to check the fucking archive.  if you are going to address
something which i have wrote, you should put up or shut up.

It is a flase analogy because, it
>points to the fact that humans and the planet share a trait and that
>humans can be treated altruistically so why not the planet as well?

i didn't make the analogy to point to anything except that sb's criteria for
the earth not being an individual was nonconclusive... i do hope i've made
that clear by now...

>Your initial claim was that the planet is an individual and can be
>treated alturistically.

mostly correct....  i said that the planet *may* be an individual and that
if that is the case, that we can treat it altruistically (and again, not an
individual in the sense of a rock, but in the sense of a sentient
individul)...   that happens to be what i believe, i claim no ability to
prove it...

.  However it is far from clear that the planet is
>deserving of being treated altruistically (or that it even can be
>treated altruistically--e.g. can one treat a can of tuna
>altruistically?) on just that basis alone as I point out we can view
>rocks individually and yet we do not talk about treating them
>altruistically.

i'll repeat, i make no claim to be able to prove this... you are right that
it cannot (to my knowledge) be proven (that the earth is a "moral patient",
so to speak).

>I suppose one could pose the following quesiton.  If the Earth can be
>treated altruistically then why not another planet such as Mars?  Why
>not treat Mars altruistically?

ah, a good question...   i, for one, propose that we perform altruistic acts
towards Earth...  i do not, for one, propose that we perform altruistic acts
towards Mars....  part of my reasoning for this is that we live on and are
affected by this planet (and i understand that this would be more like
reciprocal altruism).  but the main reason that i think we should be
altruistic to the earth and not to mars is simply because we can.  it
doesn't seem like we can do much for mars from where we are...  but for the
earth, well, we can stop burying radioactive garbage inside of it, we can
stop polluting the atmosphere, etc., etc., etc....

bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?


>Okay Bryan, lets start with the obvious.  The definition of the word
>individual
>
>individual adj. 1) inseperable 2) a: of, relating to, or distinctively
>associated with an individual <~ turns of phrase that identify his
>writing> b: being an individual or existing as an indivisable whole c:
>intended for one person <an ~ serving> 3) existing as a distinct
>entity: seperate 4) haveing marked individuality <an ~ style>.
>
>individual n. 1) a particular thing as distinguished frin a class,
>species, or collection: as (1) a single human being as contrasted with
>a social group or institution (2) a single organism as distinguished
>from a group b: a particular person 2) a single entity 3) a reference
>of a name or variable of the lowest logical type in calculus.
>
>(from Webster's New Colegiate Dictionary)
>
>then you wrote (and shouted):
>
>> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed.....    hmmm, let's see....    if
>i want
>> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
>> unit....   you mean like humans are single units?  or different than
>that?
>> oh!  i see!  you mean like a ROCK is a single unit....   again, your
>analogy
>> doesn't hold up....   the criteria are not conclusive in the
>slightest....
>
>Now from the definitions above it is possible to view rocks and humans
>individually.  Moreover, you could view various planets individually
>as well.  From this perspective you could call the Earth an individual
>or an individual planet.
>
>To point out that humans are single entities as is the planet is a
>truism and contains little useful information.  To point out that the
>criterion is not conclusive is exactly what I was claiming in my
>earlier posts pointing out it is a false analogy.
>
>Here is exactly what you wrote (and despite your claims otherwise I
>never *ever* commented on something you [Bryan Hyden] wrote without
>your comments appearing somewhere in the message--that is a blatant
>untruth!):
>
>_____
>>Not that open,
>>Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with googols
>of
>>individual organisms is an individual.
>
>sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
>
>why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
>googols
>of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
>individually....
>
>bryan
>______
>
>Clearly Steven's argument is not sufficient, but neither is your
>counter argument.  You then claim I misrepresented your argument,
>which I did to some degree in my first post (although your exact
>comments were in the message and there for all to see--go check the
>damn archive!), however that does nothing to change the fact that your
>statement above is a false analogy.  It is a flase analogy because, it
>points to the fact that humans and the planet share a trait and that
>humans can be treated altruistically so why not the planet as well?
>
>Your initial claim was that the planet is an individual and can be
>treated alturistically.  Steven Bissel responded that it (behaving
>altruistically) is an individual to individual action, and by
>implication that the planet is not an individual.  You are correct
>that the planet is a single entity and in that sense of the definition
>is an individual.  However it is far from clear that the planet is
>deserving of being treated altruistically (or that it even can be
>treated altruistically--e.g. can one treat a can of tuna
>altruistically?) on just that basis alone as I point out we can view
>rocks individually and yet we do not talk about treating them
>altruistically.
>
>As for this:
>
>> >> bad assumption...  can we only be altruistic to humans? [Bryan
>Hyden]
>> >
>> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>planet? [me]
>
>Sorry, I misread your statement.  I switched the 'can we' to 'we can'
>which of course dramatically changes the meaning of your sentence.  It
>was unintentional.
>
>I suppose one could pose the following quesiton.  If the Earth can be
>treated altruistically then why not another planet such as Mars?  Why
>not treat Mars altruistically?
>
>Steve
>P.S.  Bryan's original message is found below in its entirety so no
>more of this crap about not including the other person's message.
>
>
>
>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >> bad assumption...  can we only be altruistic to humans?
>> >
>> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>planet?
>>
>> steve, i think you should read more carefully...  as in, actually
>try to
>> understand what i am saying.  ok, scroll back up, to what i just cut
>and
>> pasted, and read what i wrote and then what you wrote three times out
>> loud....   go ahead...   three times....   ok, in case you didn't do
>it,
>> i'll write it again....   i said, "can we only be altruistic to
>humans?"
>> AS IN.....  "can we not also be altruistic to other things (i.e.
>animanls,
>> individuals, ect; and NOT necessarily ROCKS!)"  your question
>implied that
>> what i had said above was somehow different than an allusion to the
>idea
>> that we can be altruistic to the planet... if you do not understand
>this, so
>> be it....
>>
>> >> yes....    it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as
>> >the first
>> >> time....
>> >
>> >No its not, it is what you put forward.
>>
>> you can try to tell me what i *didn't* say all you want to....  but
>the
>> least you could do would be to go back and find exactly what i said,
>then
>> cut and paste it to include it in your agrument... otherwise you're
>blowing
>> hot air....
>>
>> >As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
>> >itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because it
>> >shares a similar trait with humans.  This is a perfect example of a
>> >false analogy.
>>
>> nope, wrong again.....  i wasn't using that analogy to conclude that
>the
>> planet was an individual....   I WAS USING THAT ANALOGY TO SHOW THAT
>YOU
>> CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PLANET IS *NOT* AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON THAT
>> CRITERIA.....  again, you ought to both read more carefully and go
>back and
>> cut and paste, much like i do....  (i.e. if you are going to comment
>on
>> something i said in a post previous to this one, you should go back
>and find
>> that material).
>>
>> As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
>> >an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like we can
>> >talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine, swell,
>> >wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
>> >with out a more substantial arguement.
>>
>> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed.....    hmmm, let's see....    if
>i want
>> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
>> unit....   you mean like humans are single units?  or different than
>that?
>> oh!  i see!  you mean like a ROCK is a single unit....   again, your
>analogy
>> doesn't hold up....   the criteria are not conclusive in the
>slightest....
>> I NEVER SAID THAT I COULD, NOR DID I EVER, GIVE ANY PROOF OR
>REASONING AS TO
>> THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE PLANET....   however, i did say time and
>again that
>> it could not be proven either way by any means that *i* know of....
>and
>> certainly no one here has changed my mind about THAT!    let me
>state that
>> it is my believe that the earth is sentient, and an individual to
>which we
>> can act altruistically...   and also that i have no proof of such to
>> offer....  but i delight no end in posing contradictions to anyone who
>> argues that it isn't....
>>
>> bryan
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>





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