JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ENVIROETHICS Archives


ENVIROETHICS Archives

ENVIROETHICS Archives


enviroethics@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS  2000

ENVIROETHICS 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Bushmeat Crisis Article and Questions

From:

John Foster <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 11 Oct 2000 08:08:58 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

I think Ronnie the questions you raise are pretty significant. I am of the belieft that they point to a conscience. In C. S. Lewis "Study on Words" he points to what 'conscience' means. He says that conscience is a form of awareness calling it by the ancient Greek name <suneidos> which also means 'awareness' or a 'privity to an awareness'. The conscience is not really known as the 'lawgiver' as it is in some modern english context, but more specifically an awareness. Secondly conscience is related to ethics, but ethics is more like 'practice' or 'habit' than is conscience. Since conscience is also related obviously to conscience, it is correct to say that the latin meaning is more like the ancient Greek 'to have knowledge with' or 'among'. 

The correct way of referring to the conscience thus to my thinking is 'what is in your conscience', et cetera. 

Lewis contrasts conscience with 'synteresis'...

"...for the most part the imperatives of the lawgiving synteresis are conditioned by the indicatives of each man's belief or 'convictions'. The two together make up what would now perhaps be called an 'ideology'.(Studies in Words, p. 201, Conscience and Conscious. Cambridge University Press). 

If that is the case, then obviously there is something wrong with extinction because some persons have the knowledge in their conscience or a privity of awareness that the species is to become extinct. 

Summary 

"This inner witness, one's own conscientia, or privity, to oneself, is already a sufficiently formidable idea. Quintillian (v, xi) quotes as a proverb 'conscientia mille testes; one's own consciring is (as bad as) a thousand (external) witnesses....It bears witness to the fact, say, that we committed a murder." (Studies in Words)

"The only faculty involved is knowing by memory. Suneidos or conscientia is rather 'a state of affairs'; knowing about your own past actions what others, or most others, do not know." (Studies in Words).

Perhaps then ethics is really more about synteresis than is conscience. The process of lawmaking, rendering a conflictual situation resolved is an ethic. Doing good is an ethic or habit that must be practiced in moderation <sophrosyne> which is the essence of wisedom (moderation in all things based on the knowledge of causes and principles).

Therefore it may also be summed up that almost all ethical delimnas can be resolved if we know in advance that the issues stem from one of two basic fundamental problems: (a) allocation, and/or (b) technology. 






>Who is responsible? I think we all are, as members of the human species. 
>Do these other beings have "economic importance"--read do we accord their 
>body parts a certain monetary value in the game our species plays? No 
>doubt. Is that where the ethical issue is located? Not quite. Why say 
>reduction to a "resource" should stop with "the Gorilla," John? Because 
>gorillas are so much like us?<

I think the ethical issue is not exactly what starving people should be eating per se, but what causes these people to eat wildlife that are endangered in the first place. Let me provide an example. In the US, and in Canada where I live, most people don’t think about what goes into their gas tanks. They think first and foremost where they can get the cheapest gas or who to vote for that will reduce the taxes on gas. Rarely if ever do they think about some starving person in Africa when they fill up at the gas pump. But if they knew that the ‘ethanol’ that is now being added to gasoline and marketed as ‘environmentally friendly’ came in large part from corn, would they make the connection that food was used to make the ethanol and thus to starving people in Africa? Not likely in my opinion. However the fact is that corn ethanol is being burned in giant RVs. This food could be sold to countries to feed people during droughts and after disasterous rainfalls that ruins crops. 

Another solution is for countries to have bilateral trade agreements that result in a two way trade in food items. For instance Mozambique could sell pineapples and coconuts to Canada, and Canada could sell Mozambique wheat and barley. It is a fact however that many poorer nations are net negative food exporters (eg. Peru) but rely on imports of staple foods if, and that is a big if, they have the cash left over after paying off debts, funding military expenditures, etc. Said another way, these countries have malnutrition, but export more food than they import. 

I don’t agree that we should be supporting any kind of trade in endangered wildlife. But for ourselves being in a position to do anything constructive about limiting the trade in endangered wildlife, we will have to do something economically beneficial for nations which allow trade in endangered wildlife. I have read many of the reports on the trade in ‘bush meats’, etc., and I am alarmed and worried. 

The solution to this problem will be resolved only if the trade in bush meats, and endangered animals, is restricted in law. But to have effective laws that are being enforced means that the nations that trade with nations (like Canada) that permit exploitation of endangered wildlife will require funds to hire law enforcement agencies. 

In BC here we still have poachers who kill black bears for their gall bladders. They leave the carcass on the roadside to rot. Since the province enacted laws restricting the killing of bears and stiff penalties for poaching, the actual numbers of illegally killed black bears has dropped dramatically. 


>What about chimpanzees, bonobos and, in 
>Asia, orangutans--also being devastated by the bushmeat trade as well as 
>by habitat destruction? For that matter, what about elephants, already 
>being viewed as a "harvestable resource," and whales, soon to be again so 
>considered? 

There is one population of indigenous peoples on a small island in the Pacific that has no other source of meat than whales. Apparently this nation has been granted an exemption from the existing whaling ban in the region. Incidentally there is a total ban in the Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean but not anywhere else. The island is not Japan. The island consists of volcanic rocks for the most part and whaling has been a traditional method of subsistence. I agree that the whales should not be harvested except in this one case. Of course the issue of sustainability is paramount. Easter Island people were wiped out because of the failure to sustain the forest on this island and as a result could not make fishing boats. They all starved because they could not raise any protein on the island. Carving statues to honour the dead took precedence over ‘common sense’. 


>On what basis, precisely, do members of our species believe 
>that we are ethically justified in consigning all other forms of life to 
>being nothing more than commodities we trade in the marketplace?--so long 
>as we can do it "sustainably," of course, which given our exploding 
>population-times-consumption is probably the biggest self-conceit of all. 
>Ronnie Hawkins

If I take a picture or study the Kermode bear, the bear is a commodity. I don’ need to have it my plate to be able to say that it is a commodity for trade. Ecotourism and scientific research are economically important alternatives. Simply preserving habitat to protect new opportunities for ecotourism is great in my opinion. I also agree with Ed Abbey that we also need ‘absolute wilderness’ where no man nor horse can go. Maybe 40 % of the earth’s remaining forests should be ‘absolute wilderness’ …I am more afraid of people than I am of Grizzly bears. I have lived around them at times and they always respected me. The dam black bears are a problem though if they get a taste of human compost. Simply do not put compost on your terrace or porch…they’ll be into it leaving paw marks on the kitchen window at night. I know first hand…I also pick my apples before they get too ripe…

John Foster
 




_______________________________________________________________________

Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! 
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html

_______________________________________________________________________



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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
May 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
October 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
July 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager