Chris, Jim and Ray - thank you for your expansion on the representation of
_Bambi_.  The discussion certainly helped me put some comments on this list
into perspective; the Lutts article was very interesting.  I suppose I never
took Bambi the movie that seriously (having only seen it once) & thought it
to be a typical Disney story & allegory on "lessons in life".  Also, being
raised without television by hippies-turned-semi-yuppies, believe it or not
I still catch myself scoffing at the idea that we are so vastly affected by
tv and image - even though I do know this to be true - at least, wherever
discriminatory skills aren't taught.

In any case, having familiarity with both the hard sciences + agriculture as
well as with the humanities/arts through academia, I've been pounded over
the head with the "evils" of anthropmorphism and the "necessity" of killing
(which requires therefore "dehumanising") animals for food and experiments;
and I've also been heavily exposed to the other side of the coin, the
'idealists' who, for example, mobilised world support for banning seal culls
through the use of cute images.  The extreme fervour of either side never
fails to intrigue me.  I don't find it that hard to empathise with both
sides, mainly because of the slippery slope that becomes apparent on
releasing either stance/ belief, in the real world.

It seems to me that maybe one way between those two rocks, as Ray & others
have indicated, incorporates "respect" - as is illustrated for example by
the customs and rituals that many traditional societies (and respectful
people today) use/d to pay homage to the kill and harvest, thereby both
consciously and subconsciously acknowledging & reinforcing the holism of the
ecosystem.  Yet how much 'respect' can exist at the abbatoir or in the
artificial/ introduced environments where populations are controlled by
humans is as usual a whole other kettle of fish.

Thanks again for the clarification as well as education.

best, sylvia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chris Perley
> Sent: June 6, 2001 11:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bambi vs ecosystems
>
>
> Comments imbedded Ray
>
> Ray Lanier wrote
>
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > I agree with most of your comments and wish to offer a point of view for
> > discussion.  Most of this is "old hat" but I wanted to try to put
> > some order
> > in my own thinking and try  to induce comments/critique.
> >
> > For clarification:  what do you mean by "patients" and why do you
> > use it in
> > "ethical patients"?
>
> I am taking the view that humans are the moral agents - and the "patients"
> are those that moral agents consider and have concern for.  I don't expect
> an ecosystem to care for me - so it is not a moral agent.  But an
> ecosystem
> can be my moral patient - or a species, or an individual fawn
> called bambi.
> My preference is for the former over the latter - for ecological reasons.
>
>
> It is not clear to me why you appear to consider
> > "landscape" as synonymous with "ecosystem".
>
> Chris P: Both ecosystem and lanscape are scale dependent.  I
> don't consider
> them synonymous.  Landscape considers perhaps far more than
> ecosystem (whose
> concern seems to imply ecology).  Landscape has abiotic and
> biotic processes
> at work - hydrology, geology - as well as social and economic.
> So to me it
> is a broader term.  However, ecosystem is often used apparently
> synonymously.  For instance ecosystem management explicitly incorporates
> social and economic processes under many interpretations.  Both Landscape
> ecology and Ecosystem management (which some have said is the operational
> end of Landscape Ecology) are very closely related.  They are
> both holistic
> and inclusive, and represent what some are saying is a major
> paradigm shift
> in environmental management.  Landscape Ecology journal is also
> excellent as
> well - for what it is worth.
>
> It seems to me that
> > "ecosystem"
> > encompasses, exceeds the notion of "landscapes" and further
> emphasizes the
> > necessity to consider the whole as an operating system.
>
> CP: I think the other way around myself - that landscape
> encompasses more -
> but as to the emphasis on the necessity to consider the whole - I agree
> wholeheartedly.
>
> >
> > To me, it is a major error to think *only* of the individual outside the
> > ecosystem.  And, to pick one important system element, it seems to me we
> > have to recognize the role of evolution in the ecosystem dynamic.
>
> CP: I agree with that as well.  This is part of a landscape/ecosystem
> context over temporal scales.
>
> For
> > example, consider one aspect of that role.
> >
> > Evolution is an ongoing process contributing to the everchanging
> > mix in the
> > ecosystem.  The predator-prey relationship, for example, continually
> > evolves; as predator becomes too numerous for the prey
> > population, there is
> > a dyoff of predator;  as prey grows in number there is a corresponding
> > increase in predator - a continuing cycle modified by all the
> > other aspects
> > of evolution within each.
>
> CP: Careful Ray that you do not confuse the natural dynamics within an
> ecosystem (such as predator:prey, succession; regeneration, gap dynamics,
> etc.) and the longer-term changes in Darwinian evolution.  Your example
> above relates to ecosystem dynamics it seems to me, rather than evolution
> along classical lines.
>
> >
> > Now it might be argued that humans as a growing predator population has
> > started to impact the ecosystem balance.
>
> CP: I'm not sure there is such a thing as an ecosystem balance.
> Ecology has
> moved beyond equilibrium theories in the last 15 to 20 years.  That is a
> pedantic point however, and I get your drift.
>
> For example, by killing off
> > predator of deer the deer population has increased beyond the
> capacity of
> > the ecosystem.
> >
> > Whether evolution has an inherent tendency toward a particular
> goal or not
> > (I don't know); we do know that humans have the capacity to choose
> > direction, choose a goal.  Given human capacity to choose, it
> seems to me
> > that we have a responsibility to look at other individual species to
> > evaluate our impact on the overall ecosystem.  Doing so suggests
> > that we can
> > and should deliberately define a goal and adjust our activities toward
> > reaching it within some ecosystem balance - direction of which
> we may also
> > influence.
>
> CP: I agree with a view that we have responsibilities toward the
> environment - but I would not put that in terms of "balance".
> But then, it
> depends on what you mean by "balance".  Most people think of
> stasis, or some
> climax ecological view.  In that sense, I reject it.  I think the
> key is to
> ensure the processes of nature remain viable - and that includes embracing
> the dynamism, as well as maintaining as many options as possible - genes,
> species, trophic levels, ecosystems, landscapes - though I
> recognise that to
> stop all extinction (just as to stop all death) is not practical - or even
> desirable.
>
> Some people use the word "health" or "integrity" as some goal.  Other have
> problems with that view because of problems in objectifying the term -
> especially when they are loaded with metaphorical meanings that
> do not suit
> ecology - eg health as homeostasis.  I don't think that problem is
> insurmountable.  It just requires a clarification of meaning - based on
> ecology.  Whatever that debate, I still think those concepts -
> based on some
> appreciation of what is the nature of the environment - are better than
> balance - which is being appreciated more and more as a romantic notion.
>
> >
> > When we choose a goal we do so within a concept of that which we deem
> > "right", "good" which, in turn, depends largely on how we view
> > the world and
> > the human role within it - how we judge the "health" of both
> ecosystem and
> > human.
> >
> > The way we "define" our own world view depends largely on the way
> > we relate
> > to the questions of "subject/object", "I-Thou".  Do we view life
> > as a unity
> > or do we think of dualities?  Do we have a "Manichean" interpretation of
> > life or not?  And, of course, many folks come to a view via religion.
> >
> > For me, this has always been a very difficult consideration.  What has
> > helped me fumble toward some kind of position were/are discussions with
> > other people, reading various authors: Camus, Buber, Swimme,
> Berry, etc.,
> > and including such work as that of Felix Salten - _Bambi_.
> >
> > What I have come to, at this point, is a profound respect,
> sensitivity for
> > the *unity* of all life.  I have come to the view that a diminishment of
> > other human/non-human life is a diminishment of my own.  All within the
> > system of Mother Nature - the dynamic ecosystem.  Predator-prey
> > is a part of
> > that system; species extinctions are also a part.  Upsetting
> the ecosystem
> > balance is the problem that humans have created; now our question is to
> > learn what we can do to minimize human disturbance of the
> natural system.
>
>
> CP: I still think you have to be careful how you interpret this
> Ray.  Every
> species - in a sense - "disturbs" an ecosystem.  The difference with us is
> that we have the power to go way beyond a normal appreciation of
> disturbance - but then again, as yet we haven't done anything quite so
> "harmful" as the Cambrium catastrophy.  To "do no harm" as humans
> I have no
> problem with - but to think that all disturbance is "harm" would also be
> very wrong.  There is an intermediate disturbance hypothesis in
> ecology that
> posits that the most biodiversity will occur where neither too little, nor
> too much disturbance occurs - so diverse structural patterns across a
> landscape are created.   If you accept that humans are a part of
> the worlds
> landscapes then you have to accept that they will "disturb".  The question
> is whether it is too much - or even too little sometimes.  I am
> not talking
> about Mt St Helens.  But much of our practices in the past were
> based on the
> idea that no disturbance was best - so remove people from the Yellowstone,
> stop fires, etc.  A strange notion when one recalls Leopold's essay on the
> atom that starts from the mountain and moves through the landscape to
> eventually reside in some ocean - from there to become the new
> mountain.  We
> are all too fearful of change it seems to me.  It seems hardwired into our
> human psyches.  Yet change is fundamental to ecosystem - and landscapes.
>
> Rather than "minimise" the issue is to "optimise" disturbance.  That
> generally means working within natural patterns - and that doesn't mean
> picking the mother disturbance events that nature comes up with
> periodically
> as a model!  But once in a while even those may not be as harmful as many
> try to present.  The phrase "ecological disaster" is voiced far too often
> for my liking.  Every time a fishing boat leaks some deisel oil SOMEONE is
> bound to say it (and I am not endorsing those acts, should someone suggest
> such a thing).  The Brent Spar was a classic overreaction, as I
> thought was
> the harp seal cull - bu such wonderfully good fundraising television.
>
> At this stage in history, I think we are disturbing too much - and we are
> living on finite resources to a large extent, and not really looking
> seriously at renewable ones as substitutes.  I don't like
> over-exploitation,
> or the uniformity created within the landscapes by intensification.  The
> backlash to the over-exploitation is to remove humanity, judge us as
> necessarily harmful, and minimise.  The synthesis between rape and
> preservation is to live within natural bounds - neither to maximise
> disturbance, nor minimise it.  Nature does better that way, and
> it gives us
> room to live a life worth living (ie above a life that is nasty,
> brutish and
> short).
>
>
> > Unless, we hold the view that the present human-induced
> imbalance will be
> > self-correcting through the natural decline or extinction of the human
> > species.  And that we further hold the view that, in the large scheme of
> > evolution, even that extinction is unimportant. ???
> >
> > This a long way around to my conclusion that literterature,
> including the
> > literary genre represented by _Bambi_, is an extremely
> important factor in
> > the way we come to decide how - or if - we act to minimize human
> > disturbance
> > of Mother Nature's ecosystems.
>
>
> CP: I would appreciate an elaboration of what you mean by "disturbance"
> Ray - and what exactly do you have in mind when you say "minimise".
> Depending on your interpretation, I might view it as another
> over-reaction.
> Thanks for the dialogue.
>
>
> > Chris, perhaps we are really saying the same thing in somewhat different
> > words?  I look forward to comments anyone would care to make.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ray
> > --------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Perley" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:58 AM
> > Subject: Bambi vs ecosystems
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> >