-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: gentlemen?
>In a message dated 11/8/98 10:14:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask]
>writes:
>
><< what is there is a fierce "wildness." The value of that is
indisputable,
>even
> though it is a value that is not carried adequately by the concept of
> rights. There is an independent integrity in the wild life, and humans
ought
> not to violate this without justification."
> Holmes Rolston, III. >>
>
>I'm late to this thread, but I wanted to comment in some way, because of
the
>subject. Even here, we might consider "caring" or letting-be depending on
the
>nature of the species involved in "a fierce wildness." Do these same
concerns
>apply to both species-populations in the wild having evolved in the wild,
and
>domestics gone "wild"? Then there's the confusion between animal "rights"
and
>species-populations in the wild.
>
>Having evolved in the wild, pain and suffering play a vital role in
evolution
>of a species. If an environmental ethic, feminist or not, seeks to soften
>pain and suffering in the wild, then isn't this the same as intruding with
a
>chain saw?
>
I think that preventing intrusion is impossible, all organisms alter their
environment in large and small ways. If by intrusion you mean "protecting"
wild organisms from harm, then I'd say it depends. If the harm in question
is a result of human culture and is not necessary for basic survival, then
prevention of harm is probably acceptable. If by prevention of harm you mean
"protecting" wild things from all harm, human and otherwise, then it is
probably not even rational. And, I don't feel that the main stream
ecofeminist ethic is trying to prevent all pain and suffering, but that
could be said of much of the animal rights ethic. For that reason, I'm much
more enclined to agree with those who think that ecofeminism may be an
essential part of a unified environmental ethic. I'm dubious, however, about
animal rights as even being environmental.
We've been down this road before, but it's been awhile.
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|