Yuppers! You betcha I agree. The only thing alive in an ancient redwood is
the cambium and in the winter it is about one cell thick. It would take a
person the rest of their lifetime to count all the rest of the dead cells in
a living tree. Also redwood have the largest cells of any plant. Tracheids
are about the biggest they get. Altruism requires dead and alive sentience.
Of course you realize that dead things once lived and they have not been
dead for ever - I guess you know that. 

jon

>John,
>
>Let me see if I understand your claim here.  You are claiming that the
>Earth is altruistic towards its many organisms, and that sentience of
>the Earth is irrelevant to this claim.  Does this mean that a dead
>tree that provides shelter to some small furry animal is also
>altruistic?  I would think that altruism would require some level of
>sentience.  
>
>Steve

ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY FOR BUTTERFLY:  A press release from Luna Media 
Services announced the one-year anniversary of Julia "Butterfly" Hill's 
occupation of an ancient redwood tree and to protest logging of the 
remaining stands of ancient forests.  Since December 10, 1997, Julia 
has lived 180 feet above the ground in a 1000-year old redwood tree she 
named Luna.  Activists will be holding a rally on December 12, in 
Stafford, California to celebrate the anniversary and protest continued 
logging in the Headwaters forest.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network (GREEN)



>
>
>---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> The nice thing about a Nordic Trainer (R) is that you can get your
>exercise
>> without getting your tootsies wet in slushy snow. The same applies to
>> discussions as to what is individual and what is a unity, which in
>the end
>> depends on what the training is worth. [the tread mill for skiiers] 
>> 
>> Most things we perceived are particular instances of the external
>world -
>> they have some substance. As such they are subject to  individuation
>based
>> on some attribute we wish to define as a quality. This is important.
>Since a
>> discussion is meaningless and unfruitful without proper reference to
>the
>> subject and more important to the dimension or realm that the subject
>> belongs too. There is nothing illogical about ascribing value to an
>> individual planet on the basis of human action - altruism to the
>earth and
>> earth's altruism to her individual organisms whether from
>anthropogenic
>> attribution or divine attribute. Whether the earth is sentient or not
>> sentient is irrelevant - in my opinion it is partially sentient and
>the
>> amount of sentience varies spatially and temporally- the important
>thing is
>> the result of a social or group action that may arise from a
>principle that
>> ascribes perceptive ability to the earth - the earth has a teleology
>through
>> her finite organisms - or self reliance. The arguement of whether
>anything
>> is an individual or an entity composed of individuals can be flawed
>or it
>> can be correct - in this case the earth. In fact the evidence
>suggests that
>> the earth is an individual planet, the spheres of water and air and
>soil are
>> interconnected, there are no hermetically sealed compartments within
>and on
>> the surface of the earth and the earth is subject to the fluxes
>received
>> from outer space within and outside the galaxy - as well the reverse
>is true
>> of the earth regarding emissions. Most scientists and the average
>modern
>> with common sense hold these beliefs to be self evident, even more
>so than
>> democratic principles. 
>> 
>> The problem of the self - other dichotomy - vis a vis the earth - is
>purely
>> with classification and metaphysics [ego, superego]. In the first
>instance,
>> the organism may be the basic form that the the particular instance
>of the
>> individual is derived from, and from there we can extend organisms
>into
>> individual species, subspecies, and metapopulations. From species we
>> classify species by genus and on and on until we reach the phyla for
>plants,
>> animals, fungi, etc. The divisions within the classifications are not
>> static. The organism may be the basis for the principle of
>individuation,
>> but it need not be and it could be the planet earth, or it could be
>the
>> galaxy. If you are a astronomer, then the earth and her moon are the
>basic
>> instance of the individual.  The important thing is to be aware that
>life
>> has one common attribute: it is finite as far as we know from
>experience on
>> earth. Secondly organisms can intertwined to such an extent that
>they are
>> biologically interdependent, ecosystems become complex and form
>synusae. 
>> 
>> John Foster
>> 
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 09:47 AM 12/9/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Okay Bryan, lets start with the obvious.  The definition of the word
>> >individual
>> >
>> >individual adj. 1) inseperable 2) a: of, relating to, or
>distinctively
>> >associated with an individual <~ turns of phrase that identify his
>> >writing> b: being an individual or existing as an indivisable whole
>c:
>> >intended for one person <an ~ serving> 3) existing as a distinct
>> >entity: seperate 4) haveing marked individuality <an ~ style>.
>> >
>> >individual n. 1) a particular thing as distinguished frin a class,
>> >species, or collection: as (1) a single human being as contrasted
>with
>> >a social group or institution (2) a single organism as distinguished
>> >from a group b: a particular person 2) a single entity 3) a reference
>> >of a name or variable of the lowest logical type in calculus.
>> >
>> >(from Webster's New Colegiate Dictionary)
>> >
>> >then you wrote (and shouted):
>> >
>> >> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed.....    hmmm, let's see....    if
>> >i want
>> >> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a
>single
>> >> unit....   you mean like humans are single units?  or different
>than
>> >that?
>> >> oh!  i see!  you mean like a ROCK is a single unit....   again,
>your
>> >analogy
>> >> doesn't hold up....   the criteria are not conclusive in the
>> >slightest....
>> >
>> >Now from the definitions above it is possible to view rocks and
>humans
>> >individually.  Moreover, you could view various planets individually
>> >as well.  From this perspective you could call the Earth an
>individual
>> >or an individual planet.
>> >
>> >To point out that humans are single entities as is the planet is a
>> >truism and contains little useful information.  To point out that the
>> >criterion is not conclusive is exactly what I was claiming in my
>> >earlier posts pointing out it is a false analogy.
>> >
>> >Here is exactly what you wrote (and despite your claims otherwise I
>> >never *ever* commented on something you [Bryan Hyden] wrote without
>> >your comments appearing somewhere in the message--that is a blatant
>> >untruth!):
>> >
>> >_____
>> >>Not that open,
>> >>Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with
>googols
>> >of
>> >>individual organisms is an individual.
>> >
>> >sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
>> >
>> >why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
>> >googols
>> >of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
>> >individually....
>> >
>> >bryan
>> >______
>> >
>> >Clearly Steven's argument is not sufficient, but neither is your
>> >counter argument.  You then claim I misrepresented your argument,
>> >which I did to some degree in my first post (although your exact
>> >comments were in the message and there for all to see--go check the
>> >damn archive!), however that does nothing to change the fact that
>your
>> >statement above is a false analogy.  It is a flase analogy because,
>it
>> >points to the fact that humans and the planet share a trait and that
>> >humans can be treated altruistically so why not the planet as well?
>> >
>> >Your initial claim was that the planet is an individual and can be
>> >treated alturistically.  Steven Bissel responded that it (behaving
>> >altruistically) is an individual to individual action, and by
>> >implication that the planet is not an individual.  You are correct
>> >that the planet is a single entity and in that sense of the
>definition
>> >is an individual.  However it is far from clear that the planet is
>> >deserving of being treated altruistically (or that it even can be
>> >treated altruistically--e.g. can one treat a can of tuna
>> >altruistically?) on just that basis alone as I point out we can view
>> >rocks individually and yet we do not talk about treating them
>> >altruistically.
>> >
>> >As for this:
>> >
>> >> >> bad assumption...  can we only be altruistic to humans? [Bryan
>> >Hyden]
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>> >planet? [me]
>> >
>> >Sorry, I misread your statement.  I switched the 'can we' to 'we can'
>> >which of course dramatically changes the meaning of your sentence. 
>It
>> >was unintentional.
>> >
>> >I suppose one could pose the following quesiton.  If the Earth can be
>> >treated altruistically then why not another planet such as Mars?  Why
>> >not treat Mars altruistically?
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >P.S.  Bryan's original message is found below in its entirety so no
>> >more of this crap about not including the other person's message.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> bad assumption...  can we only be altruistic to humans?
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>> >planet?
>> >> 
>> >> steve, i think you should read more carefully...  as in, actually
>> >try to
>> >> understand what i am saying.  ok, scroll back up, to what i just
>cut
>> >and
>> >> pasted, and read what i wrote and then what you wrote three times
>out
>> >> loud....   go ahead...   three times....   ok, in case you didn't
>do
>> >it,
>> >> i'll write it again....   i said, "can we only be altruistic to
>> >humans?"
>> >> AS IN.....  "can we not also be altruistic to other things (i.e.
>> >animanls,
>> >> individuals, ect; and NOT necessarily ROCKS!)"  your question
>> >implied that
>> >> what i had said above was somehow different than an allusion to the
>> >idea
>> >> that we can be altruistic to the planet... if you do not understand
>> >this, so
>> >> be it....
>> >> 
>> >> >> yes....    it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly
>as
>> >> >the first
>> >> >> time....
>> >> >
>> >> >No its not, it is what you put forward.
>> >> 
>> >> you can try to tell me what i *didn't* say all you want to....  but
>> >the
>> >> least you could do would be to go back and find exactly what i
>said,
>> >then
>> >> cut and paste it to include it in your agrument... otherwise you're
>> >blowing
>> >> hot air....
>> >> 
>> >> >As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
>> >> >itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because
>it
>> >> >shares a similar trait with humans.  This is a perfect example
>of a
>> >> >false analogy.
>> >> 
>> >> nope, wrong again.....  i wasn't using that analogy to conclude
>that
>> >the
>> >> planet was an individual....   I WAS USING THAT ANALOGY TO SHOW
>THAT
>> >YOU
>> >> CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PLANET IS *NOT* AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON
>THAT
>> >> CRITERIA.....  again, you ought to both read more carefully and go
>> >back and
>> >> cut and paste, much like i do....  (i.e. if you are going to
>comment
>> >on
>> >> something i said in a post previous to this one, you should go back
>> >and find
>> >> that material).
>> >> 
>> >> As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
>> >> >an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like
>we can
>> >> >talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine,
>swell,
>> >> >wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
>> >> >with out a more substantial arguement.
>> >> 
>> >> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed.....    hmmm, let's see....    if
>> >i want
>> >> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a
>single
>> >> unit....   you mean like humans are single units?  or different
>than
>> >that?
>> >> oh!  i see!  you mean like a ROCK is a single unit....   again,
>your
>> >analogy
>> >> doesn't hold up....   the criteria are not conclusive in the
>> >slightest....
>> >> I NEVER SAID THAT I COULD, NOR DID I EVER, GIVE ANY PROOF OR
>> >REASONING AS TO
>> >> THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE PLANET....   however, i did say time and
>> >again that
>> >> it could not be proven either way by any means that *i* know of....
>> >and
>> >> certainly no one here has changed my mind about THAT!    let me
>> >state that
>> >> it is my believe that the earth is sentient, and an individual to
>> >which we
>> >> can act altruistically...   and also that i have no proof of such
>to
>> >> offer....  but i delight no end in posing contradictions to
>anyone who
>> >> argues that it isn't....
>> >> 
>> >> bryan
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________
>> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
>> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>         
>> 
>> 
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>



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