Bruce Metelerkamp writes us: > I accept the relevance of the bigger-picture argument that > looking after ourselves means looking after our environment and > such ethereal concepts such as biodiversity. But in my family's > lifetime - how can I justify attempts (human endeavour of all > kinds: time, money, labour etc) > to preserve what "was", MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF IT? > > The tradition of preserving tradition has not lasted. > > Tradition for its own sake makes no sense. Traditions evolved out > of necessity, under prevailing conditions. I am confused. On the one hand you seem to say that you understand the self-interest behind environmental stewadship, on the other you seem to see it as of no value except for its own sake or as a tradition. > How can dominant forces be wrong? Has evolution not dictated that > those who are strongest survive? Here is one possible problem. 'Evolution' certainly does not 'dictate' anything. It is a theory used to describe what we think we see in the environment. It has changed over time (somewhat) and is not a 'law' in the normal natural science sense. I consider these two sentances to be a first indication that you are anthropomophising a scientific concept about all life. >Why then the hooha over the > changes that accompany this present evolution of social culture > and civilisation? How do we know what is "wrong" when it comes to > choosing between old-growth forests and plastic furniture? The > answer is that we "just do". There is a long history of 'social evolutionist' writings about the dominance of certain races and cultures of other races and cultures. Are you subscribing to this literature? The theory of evolution is about species, not cultures. > I myself have planted my own private arboretum of indigenous > saplings, in an attempt to leave a better world (and perhaps a > small legacy to myself). Why did you limit yourself to indigenous specious? Certainly there are some exotics that could outperform many of those you planted? Are you contributing to the general decline of nature by subsidizing 'inferior' species? I suggest that a private garden is not the same as working to maintain biological diversity for the globe. > As long as each individual has taken cogniscance of the > implications and effects of his actions, and has taken > appropriate action to minimize them (recycling, consumer pressure > lobbying, etc., etc.), then that is all we can do as the human How can we be 'cogniscant of implications and effects' when we do not really understand very much about long term implications? Yet again, if we cannot be full cognizant, how can we determine 'appropriate' action? I think that it is very safe to say, that for us and our children there will _always_ be more that we can do a individuals, as a society/culture, and as a species. I do agree that we are limited in the quality of our efforts, and 'all we can do' is try to do the best as we understand it. Jim Palmer
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0