 |
 |
Ray L. wrote; 2. We talk about the fact that humans are a part of nature. And I agree. But, there has been a major change in the human over time, physically, etc., but also culturally. Humans have always used nature but at such a low level that there was little impact over time. Now, however, we with substantial increased #s, have developed tools that enable us to drastically impact nature. Wasn't it Einstein who said something like "humans have learned to use nature but have not developed mentally enough to use it intelligently" (I know that's not the quote but it gives the sense). I think I understand and agree with much that is said here about change & humans in nature. Most folks of my persuasion that I know agree. But, where we differ from much that is said here, is directly about the *way* humans interact in nature; the changes in the way and in the potential for humans to over-ride nature's evolution process. The questions that arise relate to how do we determine the limits, if any, that we should impose on ourselves; how do we determine what is "acceptable" change - how do we define it, and many related questions that we seem not to be addressing. Bissell: I don't think anyone on this list has suggested that the human induced changes we see are all good or "natural." But, I think the big issue is that some human induced changes are acceptable, others not. The idea behind environmental ethics is to figure out which is which, not just condemn everything. sb