 |
 |
chris perley wrote... >Steve is saying that in nature there is pain and death - it isn't Bambi out >there, a confederacy of the animal kingdom against the bad old hunters. If >you miscalculate, or the dice rolls against you, you die. I'm still not sure that's exactly what Steve was saying. Where does the part about the old testament fit in? But at any rate, I understand that it is not "Bambi out there." I do however believe that we have the choice of whether or not to inflict pain and death unnecessarily. And you die whether or not you roll the dice wrong. There have been many proponents of peace who have lived long lives. >I once culled (actually I killed it as well) a sheep that was obviously sick >and in pain. When we opened it up we found it had gangrene starting from an >infection in its pistle. Did I do wrong? Not that I can tell. I'm not saying that all killing is wrong. >If you take the perspective out from the individual "bits" that make up an >ecosystem to the processes that provide the ecosystem with its diversity and >life, then you HAVE to accept a sometimes very painful death for individual >structural components. Can you give an example of this? I just don't see why such a death would necessarily have to be very painful. Accepting Leopold's land ethic does not mean going >out and protect all the little bits, it means we respect the processes that >provide the ecological health. That also leads to the best chances of life >for all the bits - rather than the ones we might get all angst-ridden about >because they look cute. I agree with you here Chris. But I don't think someone like Peter Singer pushes for individual animal rights because they look cute. I trust your tounge was in cheek there to some degree. But I don't agree with Singer. I think the higher order (i.e. the ecosystem) requires priority concern. >The problem with utilitarianism is that it focuses on humans as set apart >from nature, and emphasises the individual bits of ecosystems over the >processes. It is the tool of structuralists rather than functionalists. I >believe the ethical perspective ought to come from an understanding of what >is "healthy" to the ecosystems (which involves a spatially broad and long >term perspective) rather than an emphasis on single entities in a very >narrow temporal and spatial setting. The latter inevitably results in some >valuing of some parts of a system over others. So, for instance, deer might >be allowed to live and breed to a stage where the vegetative suffers, along >with many other non-charismatic entities, leading to perhaps soil and water >"damage", and, ironically, eventually dooming the deer to a horrible, slow >death through starvation. It is counter intuitive to say so, but predation >at appropriate levels is actually GOOD for ecological processes, and that >includes the relationship between deer and the things that THEY predate - >namely plants. I agree here with your evaluation of the insufficiency of utilitarianism. However, with regards to hunting for the sake of hunting, this argument is irrelevant (not to suggest that you were just making your agrument in regard to hunting). >I also agree with Steve that the world (and universe) is largely random and >chaotic. This seems to be one of those points where neither side can say much to sway the other, but I like to point to the similarities in the forms of galaxies and also in the forms of atoms. There are many variations, but the forms are strikingly similar. Even more interestingly, the forms of atoms and the forms of solar systems are strangely similar. I don't see how it can be ignored that there is a certain order in the universe and many, many consistencies. Bryan H. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 8:18 PM Subject: RE: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods >Steve Bissell wrote >My main problem >>is the idea that nature is "kind" and "nuturing" in the human sense. >>Actually, it's damn harse and failure to follow the rules is more akin to >>old testament than the new. > >Bryan H. wrote > >I'm afraid you completely lost me here Steve. Can you repeat what you said >in more clear terms? > >Chris Perley here: > >Steve is saying that in nature there is pain and death - it isn't Bambi out >there, a confederacy of the animal kingdom against the bad old hunters. If >you miscalculate, or the dice rolls against you, you die. To illustrate - >the worse nature programme I ever saw (so far as human sensibilities were >concerned) involved the image of a pack of hyenas taking to a large water >buffalo that had become bogged. To avoid the horns, and to get at the nice >soft meat, they were feeding from the rear end. The buffalo was still alive >(and would have been for a long, long time). > >I once culled (actually I killed it as well) a sheep that was obviously sick >and in pain. When we opened it up we found it had gangrene starting from an >infection in its pistle. Did I do wrong? > >If you take the perspective out from the individual "bits" that make up an >ecosystem to the processes that provide the ecosystem with its diversity and >life, then you HAVE to accept a sometimes very painful death for individual >structural components. Accepting Leopold's land ethic does not mean going >out and protect all the little bits, it means we respect the processes that >provide the ecological health. That also leads to the best chances of life >for all the bits - rather than the ones we might get all angst-ridden about >because they look cute. > >The problem with utilitarianism is that it focuses on humans as set apart >from nature, and emphasises the individual bits of ecosystems over the >processes. It is the tool of structuralists rather than functionalists. I >believe the ethical perspective ought to come from an understanding of what >is "healthy" to the ecosystems (which involves a spatially broad and long >term perspective) rather than an emphasis on single entities in a very >narrow temporal and spatial setting. The latter inevitably results in some >valuing of some parts of a system over others. So, for instance, deer might >be allowed to live and breed to a stage where the vegetative suffers, along >with many other non-charismatic entities, leading to perhaps soil and water >"damage", and, ironically, eventually dooming the deer to a horrible, slow >death through starvation. It is counter intuitive to say so, but predation >at appropriate levels is actually GOOD for ecological processes, and that >includes the relationship between deer and the things that THEY predate - >namely plants. > >I also agree with Steve that the world (and universe) is largely random and >chaotic. Uncertainty rather than determinism is the nature of systems like >ecosystems. They "tip" to sometimes weird different "levels" or >associations, sometimes just by giving them a slight nudge (even in the >opposite direction). It is not a nonsense to say that global warming can be >the trigger for an ice-age event (whether you believe warming is actually >happening or not being irrelevant to the argument). > >CP > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%