>From "Respect For Nature" by Paul Taylor:
>
>"It seems quite clear that in the contemporary world the extinction of the
>species Homo sapiens would be beneficial to the Earth's Community of Life as
>a whole. The destruction of natural habitats by housing developments,
>industrial complexes, airports, and other large-scale projects would cease.
>The poisoning of soil and pollution of rivers would come to an end. The
>Earth would no longer have to suffer ecological destruction and widespread
>environmental degradation due to modern technology, uncontrolled population
>growth, and wasteful consumption....Given the total, absolute, and final
>disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth's Community of
>Life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be
>enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the
>standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the
>ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a
>hearty "Good riddance!"' (p.114-115)

Well, not to play "dueling quotes" with you, but I am reminded of a review
article by Richard Watson  discussing Taylor's book that appeared in
Between the Species .  Watson dismisses as "dangerous nonsense" the
arguments that lead Taylor to express just such "death-wish misanthropy":

--"Taylor does not even consider idealism.  If he took idealism at all
seriously, he could not pander as he does to death-wish misanthropy by
saying that 'It is not inconsistent for a human to believe in all sincerity
that the world would be a better place if there were no humans in it' (52)
and that 'if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give
voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would
most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!' (115).  This shows
that metaphorical talk of taking non-self-conscious entitites' standpoints
is, after all, dangerous  nonsense.  The 'Life Community' has no
standpoint, and Taylor's own text shows that so far as we know concerning
earth's inhabitants, if there were no humans on earth, there would be no
one who could  say (or think) 'Good riddance!'  So why does he perpetrate
this cant that on the one hand supports the ideology of the 'rights' of the
state or of the 'corporate person' against individuals and on the other
hand expresses genocidal hatred of the human race!

--"Both from many religious viewpoints and from the idealistic viewpoint,
it is strictly inconsistent to say that the world would be a better place
without humans, because if there were no humans in it, for Christians, for
example, the world would have no value at all, and for idealists the world
would not exist.  I am not convinced that either of these views makes
sense, but I do not think they can just be dismissed.  Moreover we should
not forget that Aristotelians find teleological forces and goods in all
things.  Taylor is not an Aristotelian because he denies that inanimate
entities are teleological centers.

--"Taylor asks that biocentric environmental ethics be considered on the
basis of his complete presentation of it.  What his presentation shows is
the strength of the claim that the institution of morality is generated
through interactions among person-agents who have mutually agreed to abide
by a set of rules that designates reciprocal rights and duties among
themselves. In such a system, nothing is primarily morally good or bad,
right or wrong, except moral agents and their actions, and--by metaphorical
allusion--the results and objects of their actions.  Taylor agrees with
this reciprocity theory of ethics for humans and other agents, but he wants
all living organisms to be primary moral subjects.  Taylor both fails to
establish this and shows that it is not necessary.  Anything (all
'subjects') that agents want to protect other than themselves can be given
secondary stipulative rights--call them legal or moral, it does not matter
which, as long as they are respected.

--"By all means let us have respect for nature.  But as agents and as
philosophers, let us be clear about exactly what this means.  An agent- or
person-oriented ethics, as Taylor points out, is not strictly
anthropocentric even if the only moral agents we know of are humans.
Despite Taylor's talk of the standpoints or points of views, goods of the
their own, and inherent worth of all living organisms, he shows at most
that these concepts apply only to person-agents.  In his attempt to make
all living organisms into moral subjects he obscures the useful
non-anthropocentric distinction between primary and secondary moral
subjects.  It makes no sense to talk of a quasi-religious Community of Life
consisting of all living organisms that are primary  moral subjects because
they are teleological centers that have goods-of-their-own that give them
inherent worth, which means that we should respect them.  On the other
hand, it does make sense to say that living organisms--and, as far as that
goes, mountains, which Taylor denies moral subjecthood to because he knows
we cannot think like a mountain--be given stipulative, secondary  moral
status by moral agents.  Taylor does not, and with his naturalistic
foundation . . . cannot, show that more than this is possible.  Why isn't
it enough?" (102-03)

from
Watson, Richard A. 1989. What Does Respect for Nature Mean? Between the
Species (Spring): 93-103.

Jim T.





>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dennis kostecki <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:25 AM
>Subject: Re: an old question...(ENVIROETHICS)
>
>
>>Thank you for your response, Jim.
>>Indeed, some questions require more than a simple yes or no answer.
>>In my experience I have noted that a lot of "discussion" deteriorates into
>>some heavy-duty pontificating and flaming.  Some feel it necessary to do
>>both anyway. Most people appreciate the short version.
>>Sorry if you were offended.
>>
>>
>>At 12:12 PM 5/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Hi everybody, and hi Dennis,
>>>
>>>Dennis wrote:
>>>>I am curious to hear what thoughts there might be on a rather old but
>timely
>>>>(I think) question.
>>>>I hope this is appropriate for this discussion list.
>>>>
>>>>Brief, non-essay responses would greatly be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Q:  Would the Earth be better off without man?
>>>
>>>
>>>I have a couple of quick "non-essay" responses.
>>>
>>>First, the question itself smacks of misanthropic environmental
>fascism--in
>>>the sense famously elucidated by Tom Regan in The Case for Animal Rights
>>>(1983, p. 362), and well illustrated by Paul Taylor's speculations in
>>>Respect for Nature  that it would be a good thing for "Earth's Community
>of
>>>Life" if humans would just disappear (1986, p. 115).
>>>
>>>Second, and speaking simply as a "plain member and citizen" of the
>>>enviroethics-community, I wonder why you would want a non-essay sound bite
>>>in response to such a question, especially when it's posted to an
>>>environmental ethics *discussion* forum?
>>>
>>>Sorry if this sounds curt, but these are the best non-essay responses I
>can
>>>manage.
>>>
>>>Jim Tantillo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>Dennis Kostecki
>>>>http://www.artecology.org
>>>>[log in to unmask] everybody, and hi Dennis,
>>>
>>>Dennis wrote:
>>>>I am curious to hear what thoughts there might be on a rather old but
>timely
>>>>(I think) question.
>>>>I hope this is appropriate for this discussion list.
>>>>
>>>>Brief, non-essay responses would greatly be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Q:  Would the Earth be better off without man?
>>>
>>>
>>>I have a couple of quick "non-essay" responses.
>>>
>>>First, the question itself smacks of misanthropic environmental
>fascism--in
>>the sense famously elucidated by Tom Regan in The Case for Animal Rights
>>(1983, p. 362), and well illustrated by Paul Taylor's speculations in
>>Respect for Nature  that it would be a good thing for "Earth's Community of
>>Life" if humans would just disappear (1986, p. 115).
>>>
>>>Second, and speaking simply as a "plain member and citizen" of the
>>enviroethics-community, I wonder why you would want a non-essay sound bite
>>in response to such a question, especially when it's posted to an
>>environmental ethics *discussion* forum?
>>>
>>>Sorry if this sounds curt, but these are the best non-essay responses I
>can
>>manage.
>>>
>>>Jim Tantillo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>Dennis Kostecki
>>>>http://www.artecology.org
>>>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>