Philosophy Now Forum

Hi MD,

Metadigital wrote:I think the most challenging and rewarding field of ethics today falls in respect with environmentalism. Nothing has the power to change how you interact with nature, technology, and your society and challenge the fundamental assumptions with how you should behave in your environment as this field of study.

I'd have thought that the field of study called environmentalism is a set of fundamental assumptions about how one should behave 'in your environment'.

There are two main trains of thought when it comes to environmentalise]m that causes a lot of debate and tension, and that divide exists between systems based on the individual and those based on the whole.

You mean direct action and green-politics?

Personally, I stand on the holistic side of things, seeing environmental issues from the perspective of ecosystems rather than individual organisms. Animal rights, for example, focuses on individual members of a community. Ecology focuses on the entire system.

So if the 'ecosystem' required the death of millions of human primates you'd consider implementing the policy?

Another divide comes from seeing the world in mechanistic or organic terms. That is, seeing nature using the metaphor or a machine or an organism. Personally, I reject the mechanistic outlook, leaning more to organicism. I'm critical of the "super-organism" concept, that is calling an ecosystem an organism, but I think it's a better metaphor than a machine can provide us.

And logic could lead us to the earlier question. Could we then be considered a problem?
Is this not a simplistic view of both machines and organisms. As Life appears to be computational?

I hold a very ecologic view, influenced heavily by the science of ecology (and evolution).

I'm not making this thread to prove a point or propose an argument, I'm merely seeing if there's any interest in the subject. Maybe someone here would like to stick up for the mechanistic metaphor or the individualistic ethical basis that I just can't seem to accept.

Could you describe the individualistic ethical basis of environmentalism first please, as I may agree with it but I'm not sure what it is? Is it the Darwinist idea of Hobbes? As after all, most species that have ever existed are now extinct, and a good few eco-systems.

Maybe, like any good philosophy forum, we can just throw a bunch of jargon and talk past each other for 20 pages. I'm just interested in what people have to say about their environmental views (and maybe even practical applications of them).

These are good forums? What do mean by "environmental views"?

For some background, I'm studying philosophy at the nation's leading environmentae]l ethics college, where the field of study was born (by Baird Calicott and Pete Gunter, two wonderful professors). Though I focus more on the philosophy of science, I love environmental works (thanks in large part to brilliant works of Aldo Leopold, who is my main influence). I'm finishing up my degree soon and will be working on my master's in a year (hopefully teaching soon after).

Good luck.

Whew, okay, a lot to try to reply to.

Typist wrote:Second, my guess is that the nature respecting cultures you refer to were/are rooted in a direct daily experience of nature.

I think this is a big issue. It's almost hypocritical to talk about nature if one hasn't really been in it. Our modern ethics really do reflect the fact that they emerged from a "technosphere", or one dominated by our technology rather than those that emerged from natural processes (notice the unavoidable division again, it's just a limitation of our language).

Typist wrote:We might chew on this. Just about everybody now knows that global warming is a serious threat generated by human activity. In spite of this widely held knowledge, we continue to earnestly mass produce entirely frivolous luxury consumer items, at ongoing cost to the atmosphere. You know, we're like drug addicts that know we're killing ourselves, but we can't help but continue shooting up.

This suggests a theory that the problem is deeper than swapping out one philosophy for another.

Some argue that it's a problem of world views (Like Leopold or Lynn White). Others (like the pragmatists) disagree. I'm not sure where I stand. Looking at how the rest of nature, from bacteria to wolves, overpopulate beyond their resources... I'm just tempted to assume that that's just the way things work. Then again, you can still trace my influence (Darwin) back to Thomas Malthus who essentially said the same thing.

Typist wrote:As things stand, there's not much chance billions of people in urban populations are going to develop a deep personal relationship with nature, given that our minds are flooded with a distracting tidal wave of thought we seem unable to control.

I think, historically, that's untrue. It seems to be a unique characteristic of a particular chain of thought in the West that caught on and dominated other cultures (sometimes it's called the Colonial Culture) that led to this artificial division of man from nature. Given it's relatively brief history and popularity in the world, I'm more inclined to think that it would be harder to hold on to it than to help it change. Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I tend to see unsustainable beliefs as... well, not long lasting.

Typist wrote:Perhaps the moral of the story is that your generation should stop hoping my generation is going to hand you a clean world. It's probably time to shove us aside, grab the reigns of power, and create your own future. You don't really have the time to wait for us boomers to grow up. If that was going to happen, it would have already.

Ha! It's ironic what has become of the people who were young in the 60's and 70's. It's like a whole generation just gave up. That's always been a mystery to me.

Arising_uk wrote:I'd have thought that the field of study called environmentalism is a set of fundamental assumptions about how one should behave 'in your environment'.

It's a convoluted complex of epistemic, metaphysical, ethical (and often meta-ethical), and even aesthetic claims. Sure, the intent is to create a new framework for how we should interact with one's environment, but the process to get there is labyrinthine

Arising_uk wrote:You mean direct action and green-politics?

I'm not sure what that means. If you're talking about degrees of green, individualistic systems tend to be "less green" than holistic ones. As far as the politics, I have no idea. Sadly, the politics of environmentalism are more about politics than philosophy (avoiding, of course, political philosophy).

Arising_uk wrote:So if the 'ecosystem' required the death of millions of human primates you'd consider implementing the policy?

That's called "environmental fascism", and I can't think of any philosophy that actively endorses it (though it is a common criticism of holism). All I can say to that (it's a large topic actually) is that most holistic perspectives also have an individualistic side to them. That is; you won't find a purely holistic system that completely abandons the value of an individual member. It works in reverse, of course, as you likely won't find an individualistic perspective that completely ignores the needs of the whole.

Arising_uk wrote:And logic could lead us to the earlier question. Could we then be considered a problem?
Is this not a simplistic view of both machines and organisms. As Life appears to be computational?

I think the consensus is that we can be considered a problem, though I don't think many are misanthropic enough to appeal to our extermination. Certainly, there's a cry for radical changes.

I'm not sure what you mean by life as computational. That, to me, seems like another metaphor for mechanism.

Arising_uk wrote:Could you describe the individualistic ethical basis of environmentalism first please, as I may agree with it but I'm not sure what it is? Is it the Darwinist idea of Hobbes? As after all, most species that have ever existed are now extinct, and a good few eco-systems.

Well, you can have a Hobbesian individualism, sure. You can take it in many directions, though. It could be inspired by Hume, for example, or feminism. The individual perspective just places value on each individual member of a community, not imaginary concepts like "species" or "ecosystems". Peter Singer is a good example of this. I just don't know how you can justify eating animals (or plants) if you believe each individual organism has just as much value as yourself. To avoid that, I tend to think of things more in terms of these imaginary concepts. Of course, you can't ignore one for the other, as I said above. The individual still matters to the holist, he or she just isn't the prime center of value.

Arising_uk wrote:These are good forums? What do mean by "environmental views"?

Are they not? Environmental views are views about one's environment and one's place in that environment.

Arising_uk wrote:Good luck.

Thanks.

It's almost hypocritical to talk about nature if one hasn't really been in it.

If direct contact with nature is required for the nature respecting philosophies we are referring to, perhaps the question becomes, how is that direct contact maintained in vast urban populations which are the defining characteristic of 21st century civilization?

Typist wrote:As things stand, there's not much chance billions of people in urban populations are going to develop a deep personal relationship with nature, given that our minds are flooded with a distracting tidal wave of thought we seem unable to control.

I think, historically, that's untrue. It seems to be a unique characteristic of a particular chain of thought in the West that caught on and dominated other cultures (sometimes it's called the Colonial Culture) that led to this artificial division of man from nature.

I dunno. If I could be so rude, perhaps your outlook on this question of nature psychology would perhaps be enhanced by less time in the graduate library, and more time out in the woods.

Or, perhaps the beach this time of year. Put down the philosophy books. Go to the beach. Walk down the beach. And observe what happens closely and honestly, like a good scientist. Collect some real world data.

Your body is now walking down the beach. But where are you, your mind, your attention?

As you walk down the beach, is your attention on the sand crunching beneath your feet with each step down the beach? Or are you lost in thought, immersed in an internal universe of conceptual abstractions?

Take a lawn chair and lunch out in to the woods at dawn. Sit in one place until dusk, and watch one day of your life in nature. Observe what it is that urges you to get up and go be "productive" after about an hour.

If you actually do this field work repeatedly, I believe you'll see that it's not "Colonial Culture" that is obstructing your experience of nature, but thought itself.

Ha! It's ironic what has become of the people who were young in the 60's and 70's. It's like a whole generation just gave up. That's always been a mystery to me.

Let it be prophetic lesson for your generation. Learn from our mistakes if you can. Keep in mind, we were adamantly SURE, completely positive, the "giving up" would never happen to us when we were young too.

I predict a minor revival of a sort for my generation before it's over, but I wouldn't bet your future on it.

I just heard this on National Public Radio, seems relevant.

According to the NPR story, 18% of all C02 emissions come from the meat industry.

According to a little-known 2006 United Nations report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” livestock is a major player in climate change, accounting for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4264

I thought this example fit here, as it illustrates how quickly and easily individual action (no laws, international agreements or corporate action needed) could impact global warming in a significant way.

1) We intellectually understand the global warming problem.

2) We see how we personally can address the challenge in a meaningful and substantial way, right now, today, with no help from anybody.

3) We see that eating less or no meat would both make us healthier, save us money, and help the environment.

4) Seeing all of this, most of us don't act.

This example seems to illustrate the scale of the challenge involved in building a new environmental ethic.

Typist wrote:If direct contact with nature is required for the nature respecting philosophies we are referring to, perhaps the question becomes, how is that direct contact maintained in vast urban populations which are the defining characteristic of 21st century civilization?

By protecting natural and wilderness areas.

Typist wrote:I dunno. If I could be so rude, perhaps your outlook on this question of nature psychology would perhaps be enhanced by less time in the graduate library, and more time out in the woods.

...

If you actually do this field work repeatedly, I believe you'll see that it's not "Colonial Culture" that is obstructing your experience of nature, but thought itself.

I don't agree that thought gets in the way of an appreciation of nature. I think it can add a sort of intellectual pleasure on top of the experience.

I'm not sure why you'd try to claim that I'm too lost in thought to appreciate nature, though. I think that's just an unjustified accusation. Maybe that's how you feel when you're at the beach or in a forest? I can't imagine what I would have said that would make you come to that conclusion about me. There's a time and place for philosophy, and the rest of the time is just time to be human.

Typist wrote:Let it be prophetic lesson for your generation. Learn from our mistakes if you can. Keep in mind, we were adamantly SURE, completely positive, the "giving up" would never happen to us when we were young too.

Oh, I doubt my generation will learn anything from it. That would imply learning, and learning is something that my generation on the whole doesn't value. It's up to the individual. When you get down to it, most environmental issues are cause by a very very few people. It would only take a few dedicated people to start to turn it around.

Typist wrote:I predict a minor revival of a sort for my generation before it's over, but I wouldn't bet your future on it.

I don't think anyone is sitting around waiting for the previous generations to fix the problems they created. It's always the burden of the next generation to clean up after the last one. It's sad, because it shows the short-sighted egoism of each generation. Mine won't be any different, on the whole.

I don't agree that thought gets in the way of an appreciation of nature.

In order to come to this conclusion, we would have to have time in nature without thought, in order to make a comparison.

I think it can add a sort of intellectual pleasure on top of the experience.

Ok, I agree.

I'm not sure why you'd try to claim that I'm too lost in thought to appreciate nature, though. I think that's just an unjustified accusation.

My apologies, I'm trying to comment on the human condition in general, and shouldn't have introduced the distraction of using a specific person as an example. Poor writing, my bad.

We're both trying to address the same thing, aren't we? Perhaps we should refocus on that?

How do we as individuals and a culture change our heads, so that we actually act on the information that is available to us?

Does that question generally describe your interest in an "environmental ethic"?

I don't claim to have the answer to this question, I'm just trying to contribute something to the conversation, by exploring different angles than other posters.

Generally speaking, our response to the environmental challenge does not match our intellectual understanding of the issue. Why?

Typist wrote:In order to come to this conclusion, we would have to have time in nature without thought, in order to make a comparison.

Meditation, or maybe just some heavy drinking? Seriously, though, I think we give thought too much credit. That is, I think it's something people escape from on a regular basis, just aren't aware of it. How would they be?

Typist wrote:How do we as individuals and a culture change our heads, so that we actually act on the information that is available to us?

I'm not sure. Many think that education will do the trick. I tend to agree, generally speaking, but it has to be combined with more than education alone.

Typist wrote:Does that question generally describe your interest in an "environmental ethic"?

Well, that's just the application side. What I'm more interested in is, on a personal level, gaining an deeper understanding of the facts about reality that environmental (and ecological) thought reveals.

Typist wrote:Generally speaking, our response to the environmental challenge does not match our intellectual understanding of the issue. Why?

Because, on the whole, it is not our intellectual understanding of the issue. At least, not where it matters. The minority that are causing 99% of the problems will have nothing to do with environmental thought. There's a dominant way of thinking out there that sees the world in an economic and mechanistic way, and that worldview has a tendency to destroy whatever doesn't have economic value, and a lot of nature simply doesn't have any economic value.

Seriously, though, I think we give thought too much credit. That is, I think it's something people escape from on a regular basis, just aren't aware of it.

Yes, agreed. Perhaps "environmental psychology" is a different subject from "environmental ethics"? Not sure. What say you?

Typist wrote:How do we as individuals and a culture change our heads, so that we actually act on the information that is available to us?

I'm not sure. Many think that education will do the trick. I tend to agree, generally speaking, but it has to be combined with more than education alone.

I'm not sure either. But yes, something more than education is clearly needed. Climate change, vanishing species etc, it's all just too abstract, too intellectual, to have real impact upon our behavior. Well, at least behavior change on the scale and schedule that is required.

That's the heart of it, yes? We're on the right track generally, but our mindshift conversion is not keeping pace with the physical reality, and thus we need to be smarter about mindshifting?

What I'm more interested in is, on a personal level, gaining an deeper understanding of the facts about reality that environmental (and ecological) thought reveals.

Ah, ok. Can you expand on this? What have you come to understand so far, what are your remaining questions, etc?

The minority that are causing 99% of the problems will have nothing to do with environmental thought.

Who are we speaking about here?

There's a dominant way of thinking out there that sees the world in an economic and mechanistic way,

Why is this way of thinking dominant? As example, why did European culture crush Indian culture in North America?

Thanks for the ongoing conversation, enjoying it. I have found proof of intelligent life on the planet Texas!

Metadigital wrote:...
Ha! It's ironic what has become of the people who were young in the 60's and 70's. It's like a whole generation just gave up. That's always been a mystery to me.

We didn't give-up, we lost the argument for Socialism. That and that the youth of the 80's and 90's preferred the excitement of single-issue politics, e.g animal rights and the 'environment' rather than the nitty-gritty of improving the proles lives.

greedy human nature disappointing the progressive collectivists who try to play the same game under the lie of environmentalism...

everybody wants to rule the world

if only everyone would be a collectivist slave...

nature triumphs over nuture

-Imp

Metadigital wrote: Another divide comes from seeing the world in mechanistic or organic terms. That is, seeing nature using the metaphor or a machine or an organism. Personally, I reject the mechanistic outlook, leaning more to organicism. I'm critical of the "super-organism" concept, that is calling an ecosystem an organism, but I think it's a better metaphor than a machine can provide us.

I reject the false dichotomy.
Lifeforms are organic machines. I wouldn't go as far as the ecosystem being a single organism, but it is one family whith a common ancestor.

i blame blame wrote:I reject the false dichotomy.
Lifeforms are organic machines.

What is an organic machine?

Metadigital wrote:

i blame blame wrote:I reject the false dichotomy.
Lifeforms are organic machines.

What is an organic machine?

Something that is made of organic molecules and gets work done, by converting other forms of energy into it. Of course not all possible organic machines would be necessarily be alive.

i blame blame wrote:Something that is made of organic molecules and gets work done, by converting other forms of energy into it. Of course not all possible organic machines would be necessarily be alive.

I don't see how this is distinct from mechanism.

Metadigital wrote: I don't see how this is distinct from mechanism.

What do you mean by mechanism? Processes that obey the laws of quantum mechanics (or some, as yet unknown higher-order physical law) that are "materialistic"? then I'd say it's not distinct from it.

Also, not all conceivable lifeforms are organic. They could be silicon-based, artificially intelligent etc.