Sayonara Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 Really? I thought many extinction events in the past were due to competition between species, with weaker species surrendering to more adaptated. Yes, when you chop off half the sentence so that it means something completely different, it is bound to look a bit silly. Congratulations - you just lost all credibility. For those not paying attention, what I actually said was "Consider that no other species in history has had both the capacity to compete or predate other species into extinction or husbandry to the extent that we do". Which is, as far as we are aware, entirely true. I think the foundadions of your views are not scientific. I am using VERY simple and VERY well-established ecological concepts, and I am applying them correctly. They are indeed religious ones. Errr... no. You believe everything natural is good and every human intervention, whatever its direction and purpose, is harmful by definition. If you are going to try and tell me what I "believe", you need to show compelling evidence. I think it stems from Judeo-Christian notion of God creating perfect World and us humans spoiling it through sin and misconduct. Since I am strictly agnostic I could not care less. You contend that we should avoid any intervention in nature because we could harm ecology and aren't always able to precict the consequences of our actions. You have not been listening, have you? What I have demonstrated is the need for better understanding of systems before we interfere with them. Yet, I believe that we are entitled to manage natural processes and make our environment better for us. Ecology as a science should provide us with knowledge about ecological interrelations and the prognoses of the possible consequences of our actions, and not just wave a banner "don't touch anything cause u can spoil something" Your arguments so far have been inconsistent, and you have attempted to justify your belief using the very ecological principles that explain why it's a bad idea. I on the other hand have provided an internally consistent argument based on solid ecological principles. Now we have come to a place where your only counter-point is to call my reasoning "unscientific" and "religious". If you are not done yet, please stick to using ecological arguments to show how your plans for humanity are sustainable. If you have no more ecological arguments left, kindly concede with good grace. I think it is worth noting at this point that in the last paragraph of yours that I quoted above, it is possible to reconcile both of our arguments by adding "...as long as we first ensure we have adequate understanding of the systems we affect" to the end of it. It's also worth noting that your overall point appears to have changed a couple of times during this discussion, which is shifting the goal posts. Arguing for humans to "manage natural processes", for example, seems to be incompatible with the idea of humans "minding their own ecological business". It helps if you propose/defend one proposal at a time, or at least arrange them in a structured fashion.
Chupacabra Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 Errr... no. If you are going to try and tell me what I "believe", you need to show compelling evidence. Since I am strictly agnostic I could not care less. The fact is, people are often unaware of the real foundations of their beliefs, which are often irrational or religious. And they often get pretty nervous when being shown such foundations. You have not been listening, have you? What I have demonstrated is the need for better understanding of systems before we interfere with them. I agree with you here. Yet, haven't you implied earlier that, since we rarely have complete understanding and certainty (and no natural science can ever achieve complete certainty), we better shouldn't interfere at all? Now we have come to a place where your only counter-point is to call my reasoning "unscientific" and "religious". I was talking not of your reasoning, but of the the foundadions of your views. Science is about facts and natural laws, and not about values. For example, it can tell you how to protect a unique and beautiful forest patch or an endangered species, but rarely can prove why you should do this or should you at all. Arguing for humans to "manage natural processes", for example, seems to be incompatible with the idea of humans "minding their own ecological business". Could you show why these two ideas should be incompatible? I believe humans should mind their own ecological business, and the best thing to do it is to manage natural processes. Otherwise their own ecological business will probbly suffer losses or cruch
Chupacabra Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 Originally Posted by Chupacabra The point is, there is no such thing as "ecological standpoint". You can evaluate the situation from the standpoind of particular species and population, from the standpoind of humanity or different social groups, etc. But talking about a common all-embracing "ecological standpoin" is a complete nonsense. I can't say I'd agree with that. What's your reasoning? I'll explain. What is good for one species, can be bad for another. What is good for humans, can be bad for frogs, what's good for frogs can be bad for biodiversity, and what is good for biodiversity can be bad for aestetics. Some examples you can find in this thread. Thus I claim there is no universal "ecological standpoin", from which to make judgements.
Sayonara Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 The fact is, people are often unaware of the real foundations of their beliefs, which are often irrational or religious. And they often get pretty nervous when being shown such foundations. I strongly suggest that you don't assume I am in that group. I am quite aware of the foundations of my beliefs, thanks all the same. I agree with you here. Yet, haven't you implied earlier that, since we rarely have complete understanding and certainty (and no natural science can ever achieve complete certainty), we better shouldn't interfere at all? No. That was your inference, and it was not what I was saying. I was talking not of your reasoning, but of the the foundadions of your views. Science is about facts and natural laws, and not about values. I seem to recall stressing several times that some of the example choices given in the thread were arbitrary value judgments. For example, it can tell you how to protect a unique and beautiful forest patch or an endangered species, but rarely can prove why you should do this or should you at all. On the contrary, it can give you plenty of reasons why you should or should not do such things. The problem is that if you change the scope of the problem, the number of whys and why nots increases, and many of them conflict. A scientific approach is not a magic bullet, but it is better than nothing. Could you show why these two ideas should be incompatible? I believe humans should mind their own ecological business, and the best thing to do it is to manage natural processes. Otherwise their own ecological business will probbly suffer losses or cruch How can you mind your own ecological business and yet manage ecological processes, at the same time? They're your words, you do the showing how.
Chupacabra Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 How can you mind your own ecological business and yet manage ecological processes, at the same time? They're your words, you do the showing how. Example: if we harm our environment running for short-term economical benefit, then in the long run we will suffer a loss. If we really want to effectively run our ecological business, that is to achieve our sustainable prosperity as a species, we must be able to prognose and manage ecological processes. Sorry, I thought it is too simple to require explanation. Yet, there remains a question of goals and purposes of such management. Either we should strive to make a life better for our fellow humans, especially those currently suffering form poverty, diseases and malnutrition, or our ultimate aim should be to safeguard some ecological properties and parameters like biodiversity and trophic net structure, regardless of meaning of those parameters to us humans (or, indeed, any other species).
Sayonara Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Again I apologise for the long delay - things are very busy here at the moment. Example: if we harm our environment running for short-term economical benefit, then in the long run we will suffer a loss. If we really want to effectively run our ecological business, that is to achieve our sustainable prosperity as a species, we must be able to prognose and manage ecological processes. Sorry, I thought it is too simple to require explanation. What I am questioning is how you propose to reconcile this with your earlier comments about biodiversity, with which it seems to be at odds. Also you seem to be moving the goal posts... for the sake of clarity, what exactly did you mean by "mind our own ecological business"? Yet, there remains a question of goals and purposes of such management. Either we should strive to make a life better for our fellow humans, especially those currently suffering form poverty, diseases and malnutrition, or our ultimate aim should be to safeguard some ecological properties and parameters like biodiversity and trophic net structure, regardless of meaning of those parameters to us humans (or, indeed, any other species). This is a false dilemma. There is an entire spectrum of potential middle ground which you are choosing not to consider.
Chupacabra Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 What I am questioning is how you propose to reconcile this with your earlier comments about biodiversity, with which it seems to be at odds. It is at odds only if you assert that every decrease in biodiversity or trophic net complexity even on a local scale would necessarily harm human well-being. This is not always true. Just note that throughout the human history the biodiversity has decreased in most areas, while the human wellfare has increased. Surely, if and when the loss in local biodiversity harms humans it should be avoided, but it is not always the case at all. for the sake of clarity, what exactly did you mean by "mind our own ecological business"? Well, you introduced that expression (in your post from 06/12), you probably better know its meaning. This is a false dilemma. There is an entire spectrum of potential middle ground which you are choosing not to consider. Why should I look for some "middle groung" between concrete and sometimes pretty urgent human problems and needs, and abstract and often vaguely defined ecological parameters with unknown significance and meaning? If drying out a lake of a swamp will benefit local human population, than should it be objectable only because it will decrease local biodiversity?
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 It is at odds only if you assert that every decrease in biodiversity or trophic net complexity even on a local scale would necessarily harm human well-being. This is not always true. Just note that throughout the human history the biodiversity has decreased in most areas, while the human wellfare has increased. Surely, if and when the loss in local biodiversity harms humans it should be avoided, but it is not always the case at all.... Well, you introduced that expression (in your post from 06/12), you probably better know its meaning. So I did, my mistake. What I was responding to was the bit where you said "A thing if we as a species will do our best to mind our OWN interests, in will serve the best for ecosystems and a biosphere as a whole". You seem to be saying there that if humans look out for themselves, the biosphere benefits. However in your previous post, you quite rightly point out that as human welfare has increased, biodiversity has decreased in many places. It can't be both things at once. Why should I look for some "middle groung" between concrete and sometimes pretty urgent human problems and needs, and abstract and often vaguely defined ecological parameters with unknown significance and meaning? If drying out a lake of a swamp will benefit local human population, than should it be objectable only because it will decrease local biodiversity? Humans may have urgent needs etc, but the very cause of this is our plague-like ecological status. It is all very well saying "well we don't really know what will happen, but we need irrigation here NOW", but the simple fact is that we have seen time and time again - and this is well documented - that anthropocentric intervention into ecological systems without adequate foreknowledge and/or planning can be damaging to the local habitats, usually with consequences of some sort for the humans. What I have been very consistently saying is that we cannot know whether or not such objections as the ones you mention are scaled realistically against the need for the human intervention without a better understanding of how changes to diversity will affect the local habitat/s and the networks within it. That's not really up for debate. Whether or not people want to take notice and why they should do so (which I think is what you are asking) are different matters, and will always vary on a case-by-case basis.
Chupacabra Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 You seem to be saying there that if humans look out for themselves, the biosphere benefits. However in your previous post, you quite rightly point out that as human welfare has increased, biodiversity has decreased in many places. It can't be both things at once. Here is what I dare to blankly object to -- the very notion that something could really benefit (or harm) biosphere, or ecosystem. These consist of different species, and what is good for one species is often bad for another. Thus, human civilisation, while causing extinction of thousands of species, really benefited many others like wheat, rice, rats, dogs, and cockroaches. It's really hard (if possible at all) to assess something from non-antropocentric point of view, because than we must to clearly define a subject from which point to assess (be it some other species, ecosystem property, God's will etc.) When I early pointed out that the roots of your ecological views are religious ones, I just meant that it is irrational to put intrinsic value on nature per se. I thing the antropocentric approach is the best and, indeed, the only viable one when making decisions concerning ecology. And, surely, it doesn't confined to securing a short-term economical benefit, but involves a careful consideration of all possible consequences for all involved humans, including hygienic, aestetical, educational, etc., and also consequences for future generations, other nations and so on. The conceivable supplement to the antropocentring approach could be the protection of animal rights and, possibly, the rights of species to exist. And, if you anyway want to consider the "benefit of biosphere", recall that humans are at the top of evolution scale. The biosphere (and, probably, the Universe) has been developing for billions of years just for us to be here. And the better it's for humans, the better is for the biosphere.
ecoli Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 true, but if you consider that many actions that humans take are only immediately beneficial to humans but destructive in the long run, maybe, from an evolutionary standpoint, the anthropogenic viewpoint isn't the best way to go. Especially if have the conscious ability to make choices regarding these kind of things.
Sayonara Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Here is what I dare to blankly object to -- the very notion that something could really benefit (or harm) Which outcome are you saying you object to? The two are diametrically opposed. biosphere, or ecosystem. These consist of different species, and what is good for one species is often bad for another. Thus, human civilisation, while causing extinction of thousands of species, really benefited A benefit can often be observed. What is not always observable are the negative consequences, which may operate on a different time scale altogether. History is replete with examples - take the artificial reef built off Port Lauderdale in the 1970s as a freebie. many others like wheat, rice, rats, dogs, and cockroaches.It's really hard (if possible at all) to assess something from non-antropocentric point of view, because than we must to clearly define a subject from which point to assess (be it some other species, ecosystem property, God's will etc.) Yes, it is hard. But that doesn't mean we should just give up and act in a selfish and short-sighted manner. What I am proposing is that we should strive to achieve such a system-level understanding of ecosystems as to allow balanced decisions about how they will tolerate changes to their components. When I early pointed out that the roots of your ecological views are religious ones, I just meant that it is irrational to put intrinsic value on nature per se. If you mean irrational, say irrational. Note well that I was not advocating an arbitrary allocation of intrinsic value to nature. It is entirely possible for me to to recriminate against anthropocentric value judgements without any requirement for me to provide an alternative. If you read my arguments, what I have stated all along is that oftentimes we act without any other value-oriented basis. And if I am saying that, then it is unlikely that I am discussing any such basis as an alternative to anthropocentrism. I thing the antropocentric approach is the best and, indeed, the only viable one when making decisions concerning ecology. Where you think "best" and "viable", I think "selfish" and "convenient". Our species has a lot to answer for. And, surely, it doesn't confined to securing a short-term economical benefit, but involves a careful consideration of all possible consequences for all involved humans, including hygienic, aestetical, educational, etc., and also consequences for future generations, other nations and so on. The conceivable supplement to the antropocentring approach could be the protection of animal rights and, possibly, the rights of species to exist. This is not in the least bit consistent with your prior proposals. And, if you anyway want to consider the "benefit of biosphere", recall that humans are at the top of evolution scale. Define "evolution scale". Seriously, I'd like to know what that is exactly. Also I would like to know what any particular species being at the top of it has to do with benefiting the biosphere. The biosphere (and, probably, the Universe) has been developing for billions of years just for us to be here. There was no term for this before, so I am coining it here: meganthrophilia. And the better it's for humans, the better is for the biosphere. That is a completely unfounded statement, and all key ecological indicators from the past thousand years or so (which you yourself have indirectly commented on) say otherwise. many actions that humans take are only immediately beneficial to humans but destructive in the long run, maybe, from an evolutionary standpoint, the anthropogenic viewpoint isn't the best way to go. Especially if have the conscious ability to make choices regarding these kind of things. Exactly. Not rocket science, is it?
Chupacabra Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Which outcome are you saying you object to? The two are diametrically opposed. I object to efforts to evaluate anything from the point of view of the biosphere as a whole, as if it were a conscious subject. Yes, it is hard. But that doesn't mean we should just give up and act in a selfish and short-sighted manner. Non-selfishness means caring for somebody else. To be non-selfish, for whom you gonna care? Why don't care for rats, spreading rubbish all over the streets, or for oil-eating bacteria, spilling oil over the seas? Your reasons for not doing so would be very antropocentric: rats are unaesthetic and unhygienic, and bacteria are non-visible for human eye, so even if some got extinct, you probably won't care much. Let me ask you: do you really believe that the biosphere is a conscious super-organism, and all species including humans are merely its tiny cells? Only in this case your arguments make sense. It is entirely possible for me to to recriminate against anthropocentric value judgements without any requirement for me to provide an alternative. You are arguing against antropocentrism, so you are bound to provide an alternative approach. Otherwise your argument is void. Where you think "best" and "viable", I think "selfish" and "convenient". Our species has a lot to answer for. Before whom? Rats and cockroaches should be grateful for us. This is not in the least bit consistent with your prior proposals. You constantly charge me with incosistency, which is getting a bit annoying. Please show precisely any two lines of my argument that is inconsistent with one another. When you quit smoking or other harmful habit caring for your future health, don't you act in behalf of yourself? Right the same thing is the management of natural processes to avoid future negative consequences of our activities for ouselves. It's not correct to put an = sign between selfishness and short-sightness. Define "evolution scale". Seriously, I'd like to know what that is exactly. Also I would like to know what any particular species being at the top of it has to do with benefiting the biosphere. During biological evolution animals have been developing more and more complex nervous system and with it the abilities to reflect on their environments and themselves. Humans are by far the smartest creature on that planet. I believe the appearance of humans was not an accidental event, but was prepared throughout all evolution process. Views like yours are natural for people believing in God as a being highly overpassing humans in intelligence and power, so humans are obliged to submit to his will. But for non-religious people to adhere to such views seems to be a sort of selfhumiliation. There was no term for this before, so I am coining it here: meganthrophilia. So I would coin another one: ecomasochism.
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 I object to efforts to evaluate anything from the point of view of the biosphere as a whole, as if it were a conscious subject. What a convenient side-step. Complete with its own strawman, no less. Non-selfishness means caring for somebody else. In an ecological context, "non-selfish" means taking consequences for other species into account. To be non-selfish, for whom you gonna care? Why don't care for rats, spreading rubbish all over the streets, or for oil-eating bacteria, spilling oil over the seas? It is not a matter of "caring", per se. It is a matter of understanding that all interconnections between populations transmit the effects of actions which are imposed against any one population. This is a simple principle. Your reasons for not doing so would be very antropocentric: rats are unaesthetic and unhygienic, and bacteria are non-visible for human eye, so even if some got extinct, you probably won't care much. I can't imagine what would make you think that you can predict my "choices" in such a scenario. If you have understood everything I have said so far, you should by this point be thinking along the lines of "...but Sayonara proposes that we need more information about how rats and bacteria operate in the networks we are affecting, and how those networks interface with co-located networks". Clearly this is not happening. Let me ask you: do you really believe that the biosphere is a conscious super-organism, and all species including humans are merely its tiny cells? I have put forward no case or requirement for consciousness. All species are "cells" of the biosphere only in that they are ecological components. Only in this case your arguments make sense. False condition. You are arguing against antropocentrism, so you are bound to provide an alternative approach. Otherwise your argument is void. Actually, this is untrue. I have provided reasons why the form of anthropocentrism you discuss here is ecologically unsound, and those reasons draw on ecological systematics and population dynamics from the current models. If you have an alternative model, the onus is on you to evidence it. Before whom? Rats and cockroaches should be grateful for us. If nobody sees me smashing up the car, I have still done something bad. You constantly charge me with incosistency, which is getting a bit annoying. Please show precisely any two lines of my argument that is inconsistent with one another. I already have done. You responded in a confusing manner, I queried it, you gave the non-response which is quoted at the top of this post. When you quit smoking or other harmful habit caring for your future health, don't you act in behalf of yourself? Right the same thing is the management of natural processes to avoid future negative consequences of our activities for ouselves. And without sufficient information on the interactions we are invoking in remote systems, we often find that we are avoiding your future negative consequences by swapping them for longer-term and more severe problems. This is getting tiresome now. It's not correct to put an = sign between selfishness and short-sightness. No, it's not. However they often go hand-in-hand, which was actually my point. During biological evolution animals have been developing more and more complex nervous system and with it the abilities to reflect on their environments and themselves. On its own, this is true. However it does not lend any credence to your next statement... Humans are by far the smartest creature on that planet. I believe the appearance of humans was not an accidental event, but was prepared throughout all evolution process. That is your belief and if you wish to use it in an argument against well-founded ecological principles, then it must be adequately evidenced. So far I see no such evidence - just your proclamations. Views like yours are natural for people believing in God as a being highly overpassing humans in intelligence and power, so humans are obliged to submit to his will. But for non-religious people to adhere to such views seems to be a sort of selfhumiliation. This is superfluous. So I would coin another one: ecomasochism. A rational being takes the rough with the smooth. I don't see why this should not operate at the species level too.
Chupacabra Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 What a convenient side-step. Complete with its own strawman, no less. It's not a side-step. It is an answer to the question you put to me and indeed my key argument: it's impossible to evaluate anything from the point of view of the biosphere (or an ecosystem), because there isn't such thing as an integrate point of view of biosphere or some ecosystem. If you have understood everything I have said so far, you should by this point be thinking along the lines of "...but Sayonara proposes that we need more information about how rats and bacteria operate in the networks we are affecting, and how those networks interface with co-located networks". I never argued against the need or utility to acquire such an information. The question is -- how we to use it: to improve human well-being or to preserve some abstract ecological parameters, espousing the absurd and unscientific concept of "nature conservation". I have provided reasons why the form of anthropocentrism you discuss here is ecologically unsound, and those reasons draw on ecological systematics and population dynamics from the current models. Please elaborate on this: what current ecological models speak against my views? I already have done. You responded in a confusing manner, I queried it, you gave the non-response which is quoted at the top of this post. No, you haven't. I'll summarise my point once again for your concenience. Humans shouldn't bother themselves with securing a constancy of ecological parameters (like biodiversity) with hazy meaning and significance. Instead, they should at the first place improve living standards of their fellow humans, and these requires a careful consideration of all possible consequences (including, of course, ecological ones) for all involved humans, including hygienic, aestetical, educational, etc., and also consequences for future generations, other nations and so on. If diminishing local biodiversity will be shown to harm human well-being in the short or long run, in should be avoided, if not, we shouldn't bother about it. Now please would you show where you find inconsistency here. And without sufficient information on the interactions we are invoking in remote systems, we often find that we are avoiding your future negative consequences by swapping them for longer-term and more severe problems. This is getting tiresome now. I never argued against the need or utility to acquire such an information. The question is -- how we to use it: to improve human well-being or to preserve some abstract ecological parameters, espousing the absurd and unscientific concept of "nature conservation". The modern ecology, regretably, is less of a science and more of an irrational faith. That is your belief and if you wish to use it in an argument against well-founded ecological principles, then it must be adequately evidenced. Please, once more, explain what "well-founded ecological principles" I'm arguing against. A rational being takes the rough with the smooth. I don't see why this should not operate at the species level too. No species would sacrifice it's own direct benefit for some abstract and ideological considerations. E. g., a lion will not refuse to hunt and stay hungry to preserve biodiversity.
Sayonara Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 I'll summarise my point once again for your concenience. Humans shouldn't bother themselves with securing a constancy of ecological parameters (like biodiversity) with hazy meaning and significance. Instead, they should at the first place improve living standards of their fellow humans, and these requires a careful consideration of all possible consequences (including, of course, ecological ones) for all involved humans, including hygienic, aestetical, educational, etc., and also consequences for future generations, other nations and so on. If diminishing local biodiversity will be shown to harm human well-being in the short or long run, in should be avoided, if not, we shouldn't bother about it. When you put it like that, I entirely agree. In fact this is quite similar to my own views. So many of the preceding arguments we have made turn out to be moot! No species would sacrifice it's own direct benefit for some abstract and ideological considerations. E. g., a lion will not refuse to hunt and stay hungry to preserve biodiversity. Well no, because it can't. My point was that because we can, we should at least consider that as an option. Which we can't do without sufficient information.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now