The Philosophy Discussion Forum

The fundamental equation for sustainabiity is usually shown as:

Total ecological production = per capita standard of living (consumption) times number of persons (population)

But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet? None left for the rest of Nature? So I propose the ethical question for us to discuss. What fraction of the total ecological production should we humans be taking and thus what fraction left for the rest of Nature? Sure, there are SOME species that do well in the human modified landscape, even thrive in it. But most do not.

I suspect that we have a wide range of opinions on this, because of course, there are implications for the maximum product per capita consumption times population. If we choose to leave a fraction for wild Nature, then that product is reduced.

I'll start off by proposing 50%, that we humans take half and leave half for the others. After all, we are only one species among many. The planet doesn't belong JUST to us.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm The fundamental equation for sustainabiity is usually shown as:

Total ecological production = per capita standard of living (consumption) times number of persons (population)

But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet? None left for the rest of Nature? So I propose the ethical question for us to discuss. What fraction of the total ecological production should we humans be taking and thus what fraction left for the rest of Nature? Sure, there are SOME species that do well in the human modified landscape, even thrive in it. But most do not.

I suspect that we have a wide range of opinions on this, because of course, there are implications for the maximum product per capita consumption times population. If we choose to leave a fraction for wild Nature, then that product is reduced.

I'll start off by proposing 50%, that we humans take half and leave half for the others. After all, we are only one species among many. The planet doesn't belong JUST to us.

You you base ecological responsibly on the parasitical model? How simplistic. I will do my best to fix my microwave oven so that I can start drying my hair with it too.
You cut me deeply, implying that I am human.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet?

Why not?

We're told we're just animals. Animals do whatever animals do. You can't blame them if they do what they do. They're animals. They do stuff.

What "fairness" could we possibly owe to the mosquitos, the paramecia, or the carcinogenic viruses? Are they not also part of nature? Do they not also do what they do?

On what basis would you tell the story any differently?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:03 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet?

Why not?

We're told we're just animals. Animals do whatever animals do. You can't blame them if they do what they do. They're animals. They do stuff.

What "fairness" could we possibly owe to the mosquitos, the paramecia, or the carcinogenic viruses? Are they not also part of nature? Do they not also do what they do?

On what basis would you tell the story any differently?

How many magnetron tubes did you burn out microwaving your hair dry?
So, are you brain damaged, or are you proud of you 80 ish I.Q.s?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:03 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet?

Why not?
We're told we're just animals. Animals do whatever animals do. You can't blame them if they do what they do. They're animals. They do stuff.
What "fairness" could we possibly owe to the mosquitos, the paramecia, or the carcinogenic viruses? Are they not also part of nature? Do they not also do what they do?
On what basis would you tell the story any differently?

STOP IT -- your belief that a seculdoes not have a basis for morality is not relevant in TWO ways.

1) The most obvious, not what you believe about whether secularists have a reason to be concerned about morality but whether they do.

2) The second is more closely related to the ethical question posed. You have NO REASON to suppose the people responding to it are in fact secularists. Do you have some REASON for supposing that a person who says (as I did to start things off) perhaps 50% for us humans is fair has to be secularist? That radical environmentalists are all secularists? What basis do you have for such a silly notion. Yes, they are perhaps be unlikely to hold such religious beliefs as you do. But there are a lot of different religious beliefs out there, many/most not so concerned in the fate of the soil in some imagined afterlife as yousr is.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 1:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2026 2:03 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2026 11:42 pm But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet?

Why not?
We're told we're just animals. Animals do whatever animals do. You can't blame them if they do what they do. They're animals. They do stuff.
What "fairness" could we possibly owe to the mosquitos, the paramecia, or the carcinogenic viruses? Are they not also part of nature? Do they not also do what they do?
On what basis would you tell the story any differently?

STOP IT --

I'm merely repeating the secular narrative...so if anybody has to "stop it," it's the secularists.

...your belief that a secularism does not have a basis for morality...

It's not a mere "belief." It's an established fact.

I have repeated put forward the offer to all of the secularists here to name just one thing -- just one, and of their choosing -- that a secular person is morally obligated toward, and they haven't been able to suggest a single one. Not one. Not ever.

And if you think you can do it now, go ahead. Do it your way, in fact: pick an imperative about the environment, and show that secularism demands that the secularist adhere to it for rational reasons. Fire away.

...is not relevant in TWO ways.

1) The most obvious, not what you believe about whether secularists have a reason to be concerned about morality but whether they do.

You're quite wrong about that. The issue is this: "can secularists give a rational basis for a moral precept, or is the only kind of morality they practice an entirely arbitrary one, one unworthy of belief, since they cannot provide any rational basis for it?" And that answer is quite clear.

2) The second is more closely related to the ethical question posed. You have NO REASON to suppose the people responding to it are in fact secularists.

I don't suppose they are. Most people are not. But I'm talking about secularists at this moment. Somebody who is not a secularist may face a different critique, perhaps; this one is for secular moralists.

It sure does stick, though.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 1:58 am But I'm talking about secularists at this moment. Somebody who is not a secularist may face a different critique, perhaps; this one is for secular moralists.

WHY are you talking about secularists and your belief about whether secularists are rational? They have no need to bother convincing you that they are rational. They do not care whether people who think like you do believe they are rational or not.

BUT -- this has nothing tom do with the topic at hand. What do YOU think a fair division of the ecological resources of the Earth between the human and the non-human and why do you think that? If youn want to discuss other thins, GO ELSEWHERE.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 4:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 1:58 am But I'm talking about secularists at this moment. Somebody who is not a secularist may face a different critique, perhaps; this one is for secular moralists.

WHY are you talking about secularists and your belief about whether secularists are rational? They have no need to bother convincing you that they are rational.

They can't convince anybody they are...not even themselves. They can't rationalize even one moral precept from secularism.

I notice that you haven't even tried. Or maybe you did, and found out that what I have been saying is entirely true. Either way, secular moralizing can't be made rational. That much is demonstrably true.

What do YOU think a fair division of the ecological resources of the Earth between the human and the non-human and why do you think that?

There is no "fair" concept in secularism. Nothing, according to a secular worldview, has guaranteed a secularist "fairness."

Again, if you think otherwise, prove it: show that some conception of "fairness" can be rationalized from secularism. Or if you think secularism isn't true, then show how you rationalize your own conception of fairness, based on your own worldview suppositions. Go for it.

You see, Mike, the problem you have is this.

Mike: "Everybody...we owe it to lower animals to give them fairness."

Woman Passerby: "Young man...what makes you think I owe lower animals anything?"

Mike: "I have no idea."

Teen Passerby: "Which animals? Just the cute ones, like seals and puppies? Or do you mean mosquitoes, coconut trees and amoebas, too?

Mike: "Um...well, I guess they're all part of nature, so..."

Old Man: "What do you mean 'fairness'"?

Mike: "Well, whatever they...I mean...well, what do you think?"

Old Man: "What I think? Young man; don't expect me to explain your point to you. I have no way to know what you think is fair."

Mike: "Hmmm...

Your own claim is not well-thought-through. You claim we have some sort of moral duty to the environment, but won't say why you think we do. You don't know which animals we owe any duties to, or if they're all the same, or why we ought to care for any. And you don't provide any conception of fairness to which we can even react -- instead, you're asking us to do your work for you.

But we can't. There's no obvious reason why, in the sort of world supposed by secularists, we could possibly have any moral duties...let alone to animals and plants. There's no obvious reason whether we should care about them all equally, or equally not at all. And fairness is not a concept that defines itself...it needs to be defended rationally, if you have any conception at all in mind.

You don't listen well. This is NOT about whether secularists can satisfy you that they are rational. Why should they as you don't seem to understand what rational/logical means. It means IF premises/postulates THEN conclusions and NOT justification of the premises/postulates. Did you never study pain geometry in HS? You never ask "what is the rational basis for the postulates?" That is a nonsensical demand. The justification is that together they yield geometry on a plane. You should know that alternatives to the parallel postulate yield geometry on positively or negatively curved surfaces.

The secularist is doing likewise, justifying his/her moral postulates by claiming thy result in a moral system by which one can live.

Now go away until you are prepared to discuss the topic at hand.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 3:04 pm You don't listen well.

I listen very well. I just don't let others dictate to me what I'm allowed to talk about.

This is NOT about whether secularists can satisfy you that they are rational.

Actually, it is. Because if you're not coming from a secular perspective, then you owe us to say what metaphysic you're relying on when you command us to care about "fairness" and "sharing with non-humans." So far, you've got no basis for any such moral claim...at least, none you've made manifest to us. So secularism it is, until further notice.

But you can change this by simply giving us your metaphysic explicitly. Then we will be able to judge the authority behind your alleged moral concern for the environment.

Why should they as you don't seem to understand what rational/logical means. It means IF premises/postulates THEN conclusions and NOT justification of the premises/postulates.

Do you not know that the hypothetical syllogism (i.e. the one that begins with an "if") is only one type of syllogism, and by far the weakest? Maybe it's your own understanding of logic that needs filling out, if that's what you think.

A proper syllogism, a strong one, begins with two premises KNOWN to be true, or REASONABLY SUPPOSABLE as true. But you won't even tell us what your first premise is, in a strong syllogistic form. So yeah, somebody's struggling with being logical here, but it isn't me.

You never ask "what is the rational basis for the postulates?"

In logic, you certainly do. You always have to secure two premises before any conclusion is even supposable. Absent that, you can have a syllogism that may have valid form, but it has no truth-value, and hence is condemned as "unsound" to believe.

And that's where you are in your demand that people should care about the environment: without basis -- at least explicitly. Though again, you can prove otherwise, if you wish.

The secularist is doing likewise, justifying his/her moral postulates by claiming thy result in a moral system by which one can live.

The secularist is being very silly, then. For he's failed to "justify" anything. How can he know what "result" is required or "moral"? He doesn't even believe in such things. And if "one can live" in the situation is enough to "justify" it, then there's no additional claim that the lower animals need to benefit.

He's just shooting nonsense.

Now go away until you are prepared to discuss the topic at hand.

Nope. I'm precisely on topic. You're avoiding doing the hard cognitive work you really owe your listeners to do. You're asking them to just believe for no reason that they have some duty of "fairness" to the "non-humans" and "environment," and when they ask you where you're getting that from, all you can say is "go away"?

Nice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 4:14 pm A proper syllogism, a strong one, begins with two premises KNOWN to be true, or REASONABLY SUPPOSABLE as true.

You believe there are ANY premises KNOWN TO BE TRUE (or reasonably so) except tautologies. Why? For what reason do you suppose your starting premises are any more reasonable than those of the secularist? To a secularist they would be very silly/unreasonable?

And no, you do not get to make assumptions about the metaphysical basis of the person presenting the initial proposal. You could ask, but you KNOW (should know) I will present these from multiple perspectives, unspecified. Why do you assume a secularist rather than say a Jain, a Pantheist, a traditional Native American religion (say "Longhouse" of Handsome Lake), a Neo-Pagan, etc. Silly to ask me "what hat are you wearing today?" You should know that religions like that would accord the natural world "standing".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 7:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 4:14 pm A proper syllogism, a strong one, begins with two premises KNOWN to be true, or REASONABLY SUPPOSABLE as true.

You believe there are ANY premises KNOWN TO BE TRUE

Do you think water is wet? Do you think gravity is real? Do you think eating cynanide is a bad idea? Do you brush your teeth in the belief they will be less likely to decay?

Of course you do. So let's not play silly games.

And no, you do not get to make assumptions about the metaphysical basis of the person presenting the initial proposal.

That's pretty funny. Actually, I get to assume whatever I find reasonable to believe. And unless you provide contrary data, I have no reason to do otherwise.

So what is your metaphysic? If you won't name it, what am I to conclude but that you actually have none. And "secular" is as good a label as any other, then.

You are being ridiculous since you know (should know) that I am not secular.

So let's say I am presenting that starting point "fairness" proposal from the Jewish principals of Bal Tashchit and Tikun Olam, etc.

And stop saying secularists don't know morality exists. They learned there were right ways and wrong ways to be human the same way you did, when potty trained and trained to wear clothes (and note that in the Biblical story of how humans gained moral knowledge the first example is about not being naked). So you knew there was right and wrong long before you knew about any god or gods.

But just for the record, I deny the non-existence or inferiority of the morality of secularists

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 9:42 pm You are being ridiculous since you know (should know) that I am not secular.

So let's say I am presenting that starting point "fairness" proposal from the Jewish principals of Bal Tashchit and Tikun Olam, etc.

Let's say that, then. You're Jewish. Your conception of "fairness" then comes from Judaism.

What, then, is your basis for defining "fair share" for "non-humans"? Torah portrays lower animals as...lower: not worthless at all, but lesser beasts to be tended and cared for by the higher, which is the human race. And in that arrangement, only the higher is morally conscious, and thus responsible to Hashem.

Why is Torah wrong about that?

And stop saying secularists don't know morality exists.

Stop saying things I didn't say. I didn't say they don't know that morality exists; I said they have no grounds in their worldview for thinking it does.

And that's verifiably true. If I'm wrong, you can disprove me with one stroke: just give me one moral precept that every secularist is obligated toward by nature of being secular.

You can't. Because there isn't one.

But they sense morality exists. They just have no ability to explain its existence from their secular assumptions. Their worldview denies them any explanation for what they know to be true...that objective morality does exist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 11:48 pm [

So let's say I am presenting that starting point "fairness" proposal from the Jewish principals of Bal Tashchit and Tikun Olam, etc.

Let's say that, then. You're Jewish. Your conception of "fairness" then comes from Judaism.

What, then, is your basis for defining "fair share" for "non-humans"? Torah portrays lower animals as...lower: not worthless at all, but lesser beasts to be tended and cared for by the higher, which is the human race. And in that arrangement, only the higher is morally conscious, and thus responsible to Hashem.

Why is Torah wrong about that?
[/quote]

Might I humbly suggest you not jump to conclusions about what Totrah saws to Jews. For example, read Genisis 1 more carefully. Did you notice God declared creation good before humans were added? Did you notice what was given to humans for food (Jewish vegetarianism uses that. But like I said, I was going to use Bal Tashchit and Tikun Olam. I don't care whether you believe Jewish environmentalism exists on a sound basis and see no reason to defend that,

And I am going to stop bothering to defend secular morality, let their own words suffice instead. Accessible to you should be the principles of the Ethical Culture Society. They make clear enough their starting points (and BTW, they are not moral relativists). They don't have to tell you where they got their starting points from. You would have to shoe wrong, inconsistent or the resulting moral system coming up with wrong answers for moral questions.