Greening the Gadfly

[Philosophy Now]

Paul Keeling on why we need environmental philosophy now.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/87/Greening_the_Gadfly

[spike]

As I was reading this article I was thinking, there are probably few on this forum interested in subject. They are too rapped up in their little existences and petty desires to care much.

Anyway, it is only in the last 40 odd years that we have truly grown concerned about the environment, since the first Earth Day. In the scheme of things that is not very long to care about anything. Yet in the interim, surprisingly, we have not been sitting on our hands doing nothing but have made some efforts to improve things.

[tbieter]

Derrick Jensen is a provocative fellow. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/15/ ... jensen_the His thought, however, has reached the conclusion that civilization (the city) will necessarily destroy the environment. I think that he implicitly rejects sustainability is a solution.

"Endgame is about what he describes as the inherent unsustainability of civilization. In this book he asks: "Do you believe that this culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?" Nearly everyone he talks to says no. His next question is: "How would this understanding — that this culture will not voluntarily stop destroying the natural world, eliminating indigenous cultures, exploiting the poor, and killing those who resist — shift our strategy and tactics? The answer? Nobody knows, because we never talk about it: we’re too busy pretending the culture will undergo a magical transformation." Endgame, he says, is "about that shift in strategy, and in tactics."[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen#Writings

[spike]

In his article "Greening the Gadfly" Paul Keeling writes that we are more interested in philosophizing about consciousness, the mind and less pressing issues than about the environment.

People tend to live in their own bubbles. Thinking about consciousness and one's own mind and body is more personal than the environment. Also, many think the environment is to vast as to be impossible for one individual to do anything about. It is so daunting.

I believe we progress in perverse ways, meaning that we don't resolve problems by directly dealing with them but through circuitous routes. For instance, philosophizing about consciousness and other trivial matter is perhaps the means by which we will learn to solve environment problems.

Dealing with the environment is a systematic task. It takes time to build a systematic consensus about it. This is one reason why environmental philosophers are having such a hard time convincing people and building a momentum so that people together become more environmental conscious.

[tbieter]

When I studied philosophy, I discovered that each of my professors had areas of interest. Most had one, their speciality. Some had a few. And they published only in those areas. Often, I was amazed at their broad ignorance (lack of ordinary general knowledge) in areas that were not of their interest. (especially, religion)

I'm sure that many philosophers simply have no professional interest in environmentalism as a subject of study.

[spike]

Speaking of consciousness, a study has shown that our brains are hard-wired in a bias manner, negatively. Brain activity has been shown to be more active when negative thoughts arise. So I am thinking, perhaps there aren't enough philosophers wired this way, with a cognitive negative bias, so as to be concerned with the environment. They don't see changes in the environment as a negative, but just as evolutionary.

Philosophers, I have noticed, are not that interested or aware of systems. Philosophers are generally niche thinkers. They tend not to dwell on the broad scope of things. So that could explain why there are not more environmentally concerned philosophers, which would require then to think in a systemic way.

[Arising_uk]

When I studied philosophy, I discovered that each of my professors had areas of interest. Most had one, their speciality. Some had a few. And they published only in those areas. Often, I was amazed at their broad ignorance (lack of ordinary general knowledge) in areas that were not of their interest. (especially, religion)

Would do you mean by this? What would you call 'general religious knowledge'?

I'm sure that many philosophers simply have no professional interest in environmentalism as a subject of study.

That'll be because its not a subject but a political stance. But I'm sure if asked then the ethics philosophers would have something to say, as would the political ones and I suspect the philosophers of science and epistemologists might have a word or two about it.

[Arising_uk]

Speaking of consciousness, a study has shown that our brains are hard-wired in a bias manner, negatively. Brain activity has been shown to be more active when negative thoughts arise. So I am thinking, perhaps there aren't enough philosophers wired this way, with a cognitive negative bias, so as to be concerned with the environment. They don't see changes in the environment as a negative, but just as evolutionary.

What do they mean by a 'negative' thought? What do they mean by a 'thought'?

Why on earth would 'evolution' come into this?

Philosophers, I have noticed, are not that interested or aware of systems. Philosophers are generally niche thinkers. They tend not to dwell on the broad scope of things. So that could explain why there are not more environmentally concerned philosophers, which would require then to think in a systematic way.

Which ones have you noticed? As for vast swathes of philosophy its been systems building?

Do you mean "systemic" rather than "systematic"?

[spike]

you are right. it is systemic.

[spike]

Speaking of consciousness, a study has shown that our brains are hard-wired in a bias manner, negatively. Brain activity has been shown to be more active when negative thoughts arise. So I am thinking, perhaps there aren't enough philosophers wired this way, with a cognitive negative bias, so as to be concerned with the environment. They don't see changes in the environment as a negative, but just as evolutionary.

What do they mean by a 'negative' thought? What do they mean by a 'thought'?

Why on earth would 'evolution' come into this?

Philosophers, I have noticed, are not that interested or aware of systems. Philosophers are generally niche thinkers. They tend not to dwell on the broad scope of things. So that could explain why there are not more environmentally concerned philosophers, which would require then to think in a systematic way.

Which ones have you noticed? As for vast swathes of philosophy its been systems building?

Do you mean "systemic" rather than "systematic"?

Arising is trying to prove my point that many philosophers are just micro-thinkers by asking questions like, what to you mean by this or that word. They are hair splitters.

[Arising_uk]

Unlike many it does not escape the philosophers notice that we are not mind-readers, as such language is the primary way we communicate. We also like to get to the assumptive roots of things.

What do you mean by "environmentalism"?

[keithprosser2]

Is the environment a philosophical problem, really? I suppose everything is a philosophical problem in a way, but if there were philosophers on the Titanic, one suspects they did not quibble over the definition of 'iceberg', or 'lifeboat'. Or perhaps they did, who knows!

It is very likely that any step or measure taken will result in a trade-off. Choose any example of hundreds; Increase aviation fuel costs - less air pollution (good), freedom of movement is reduced (bad). It doesn't take a philosopher to point out the obvious, so what possible role for an 'environmental philosopher'?

That said, we do need to think about our priorities. We do need a debate about how much we value biodiversity and non-human animals against our own narrow interests, for instance. There are different views on what our priorities are. Essentially, what we have to do is re-engineer an entire planetary ecosystem and hard decisions have to be made. Not everyone is going to be a winner. In that debate philosophers have a role, but so does everyone else.

When it comes to real and urgent issues like the environment we don't need a philosophy, we need a policy.

[Thundril]

Is the environment a philosophical problem, really? I suppose everything is a philosophical problem in a way, but if there were philosophers on the Titanic, one suspects they did not quibble over the definition of 'iceberg', or 'lifeboat'. Or perhaps they did, who knows!

It is very likely that any step or measure taken will result in a trade-off. Choose any example of hundreds; Increase aviation fuel costs - less air pollution (good), freedom of movement is reduced (bad). It doesn't take a philosopher to point out the obvious, so what possible role for an 'environmental philosopher'?

That said, we do need to think about our priorities. We do need a debate about how much we value biodiversity and non-human animals against our own narrow interests, for instance. There are different views on what our priorities are. Essentially, what we have to do is re-engineer an entire planetary ecosystem and hard decisions have to be made. Not everyone is going to be a winner. In that debate philosophers have a role, but so does everyone else.

When it comes to real and urgent issues like the environment we don't need a philosophy, we need a policy.

The discussion is ongoing. Philosophers, professional and armchair alike, have a valid contribution to make. For example; Before we can begin to formulate a policy, we need to define the question more clearly. What exactly is our interest narrowly or broadly defined, and what is not? Hair-splitters can help here, I reckon.

[Arising_uk]

... one suspects they did not quibble over the definition of 'iceberg', or 'lifeboat'. Or perhaps they did, who knows!

That'll be because there would have been no issue about the definitions of such things, now who was going-in them may have arisen as a topic of conversation.

[spike]

That'll be because there would have been no issue about the definitions of such things, now who was going-in them may have arisen as a topic of conversation.

That's what you think. There were plenty of people on board the Titanic that hadn't heard of or seen an iceberg, especially the part under the water.