By: angrysoul

angrysoul — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:11:33 +0000

Why ‘global warming aside’ Joel? Is this not the key issue in environmental concerns?
Also, why is humanism to blame for this state of affairs ?(I agree that consumerism most definitely is) Humanism affirms the equal dignity and worth of all people. Surely in this framework, damage to the environment that negatively impacts one person is a negative? And with the added insights of ecology, wouldn’t the damage to other species which improve human quality of life similarly be a negative?
Surely the ‘natural progression of things’ must be the actual progression of things, within a naturalistic framework? In which case we are still faced with the reality of an intelligent species. Why should they behave as if they were an unaware species, when it clearly flies in the face of their own self preservation. There are many examples in nature of animals who conserve, store, and prepare for future events. Humans are just the most obvious.
I would be interested what the basis is for your Mars claim. And also in what makes you sure that we have that much time to make such a transfer. Is this not just wild speculation? How is it logical to hold off on taking action for self-preservation on the basis of future possibilities?
While I agree that humans will most likely be able to adapt to an environmental catastrophe to some degree, I feel you are missing the point somewhat. That being the cost in human lives. From a self-preservation standpoint, that’s surely a reason to try to avoid it? As food prices rise, conflicts break out, extreme weather events increase, famines take place, and wars break out over scarce resources, it’s unlikely anyone will be totally able to insulate themselves from the effects. Unless you’re in the top 1% that we hear so much about (say an exec for ExxonMobil or something) you’re going to suffer. From a purely self-interested naturalistic standpoint, that is something to avoid, surely? There is no logical reason to speculate that technology will advance fast enough, and on a wide enough scale, to avoid such things. When it comes down to survival of the organism over survival of the species, (as it so often does in the natural world) it becomes entirely rational to avoid environmental damage on the basis of self-preservation.
And even disregarding the damage that wide ranging extinctions will do to ecological systems upon which humans depend (along with the atmosphere itself), there are still entirely selfish arguments for preservation of diversity. One is scientific study. There are potentially thousands of plant species still undiscovered within the Amazon. Who knows what properties they possess, what diseases they might cure, what we might learn from them that might improve our own chance of survival. Then there is the argument from human pleasure. It seems that generally speaking, we enjoy seeing a diverse range of animals (hence zoos, nature docs etc.) It is therefore in our own selfish interests to preserve them if possible.

Comments on: Does Naturalism Aid the Environment?

By: angrysoul