G'day Sylvia,

Since I am one who raises the Bambi name too often, perhaps I should very
briefly give a context.  The issue, I think, relates to the ethical
"patients" with which we are primarily concerned.  I say primarily as an
operative word.  My view is that the part (the individual deer, or even the
individual speceis) cannot be fully appreciated unless viewed from the
perspective of the landscape/ecosystem (call it what you will).  That
doesn't mean we ought not to have regard for individuals, but just not
primarily.

In terms of environmental concern I am in favour of an ecosystem/landscape
perspective as the context of ethical judgement rather than a perspective
that looks at species, or - worse - individual animals/trees/etc. from
OUTSIDE an ecological context.  That view leads to real problems in my
view - most famously perhaps the event of animal rights people releasing
mink from farms in Britain to the wild where they can, presumably, be "free"
or "happy" - or people killing wolves because the kill, or not killing deer
(however over-populated) because they are "cute", or supposedly "harmless"
(thereby harming the whole vegetative and geological system on which they
themselves depend - through a chain of cause and effect that leads to
starvation and suffering far greater than what someone might have been
trying to avoid).

I have no problem with people being concerned for individual animals -
especially if some cruelty is involved which need not occur - however, where
people take a Benthamite view of animals outside the context of the
ecosystem the results can be environmentally devastating.  Leopold realised
this, and summed up the perspective very well in his essay "Think like a
Mountain".

Taking an ecosystem/landscape view means a number of things in my view: the
focus becomes one of looking at processes and functions as a primary
consideration - leading automatically to a broad spatial and temporal scale.
It involves a systems perspective, rather than a focus on individual
entities within that system (this helps avoid the error of "saving" the mule
deer only to have them kill off - say - white pine regneration - and suffer
a far crueler "natural" death sometime later in Pontius-Pilate-land).  It
accepts that many of the functions and processes that impact on the greater
system involve humans (ecologically, socially, economically) - ie that we
are a part of these systems whether we like it or not (leading to other
corrollaries such as an acceptance of human use that can be seen as a
natural process which need not be harmful to ecosystem health (Tantillo just
fell of his chair) - and perhaps even a reappraisal of the role of
preserves).  The ultimate human position in my view is to have the ethics of
one who is truly native to a place.

I guess the upshot is that an understanding of landscape ecology as well as
an understanding of our own influence on, and perceptions of, the
environment (through environmental history as one arm of that understanding)
is IMO a far better environmentally ethical perspective than one that
focuses on individual animals as the PRIMARY ethical patients.

I know this leads to particular problems - like what about the sanctity of
the lives of individual humans within an ecosystem context - but that is a
dilemma I have not got my head around yet. Worse is to take the view that
all individuals (animals, plants etc.) have some right to "life" that
deserve to be considered in isolation (as it seems to me Bentham would have
it).  In ecology life and death are inextricably intwined, and - from my own
perspective - Bambi (at least the movie) only reinforces the view that 1.
humans are set apart, 2. humans necessarily harm and are judged cruel and
even evil; and 3. death is anathema to the natural world.  All do
immeasurable harm to a sustainable future in my view because they are not
remotely related to reality.

I intended to be briefer

Chris P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of sylvia
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2001 6:42 p.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bambi
>
>
> I find this history on Bambi intriguing, Ray.  I am curious about the
> relatively frequent references to Bambi on this list.  I have no problem
> with the anthropomorphisation of animals - if only because it reminds us
> that there are other physical entities (with some kind of nervous system -
> etc) out there aside from ourselves.  Perhaps those who require or deny
> animals 'sentient', let alone 'feeling' status would have the most to lose
> if such beings were considered to be more than automatons.  Respect along
> with responsibility is certainly a crucial mix in relation to
> these kinds of
> issues: I would say that Bambi notwithstanding, it doesn't take a
> child long
> to understand that "Violence" exists as an increasingly common
> force in the
> world; and that it occurs most generally where there is no
> respect - perhaps
> almost as a semantic definition.  IMHO the whole Bambi
> representation might
> be the least of the problem...
>
> thanks, sylvia
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
> > Sent: June 5, 2001 6:06 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Bambi
> >
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > There was some discussion about _Bambi_ a few days ago.  I
> thought that it
> > might be of interest to offer a few bits of information.
> >
> > The book was written by Felix Salten (1869-1945) and first
> > published in 1923
> > for *adult* consumption.  Salten was an Austrian Jew who fled Vienna in
> > 1939.  Bambi was written right after WW1 as a commentary, an
> allegory, on
> > the human condition, particularly on the nature of the maturing
> > human child
> > to adulthood.  While the deer in the story were
> anthropomorphized, it was
> > generally considered that the story reflected the maturation of a
> > deer in a
> > increasingly "civilizing" world.  And it was a harbinger of the
> change in
> > the human/nature relationship we are experiencing today.
> >
> > I got a copy for Xmas about 1930+.  Books were a valued present in those
> > days.  While I was too young to capture the full implications
> that Salten
> > intended; nevertheless I think that it has helped me be more
> sensitive to
> > the human condition, the human/nature condition than might have happened
> > otherwise.
> >
> > As I have said elsewhere, violence is always wrong.  However
> the nature of
> > life is such that we are all in a predator-prey relationship.
> > The question
> > is: how do we relate to that situation, how do we survive as a predator
> > (which we are, whether carnivourous or herbivorous) and still
> maintain  a
> > deep sensitivity and respect for life, for Mother Nature in her
> > magnificent
> > splendour?
> >
> > I believe that young people should be encouraged to read _Bambi_,
> > reflect on
> > interpretations, and consider just what it means to be human,
> to grow from
> > childhood to adult, to be an integral part of nature, a
> > participant not just
> > a taker.  And we should listen respectfully to the children when
> > they bring
> > us the inspiration they glean from such work; try to help them
> > reconcile the
> > ideals and the practice yet retain ideals.
> >
> > Thomas Mann brought _Bambi_ to the attention of Hollywood in an
> attempt to
> > help the refugee Salten.
> >
> > Well, so much for an old man's maunderings.
> >
> > Ray
>