http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/DrengEcophil.htmlThe Practice of ecophilosophy is an ongoing, comprehensive, deep inquiry into values, the nature of the world and the self.
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
Industrial culture represents itself as the only acceptable model for progress and development. However, application of this model and its financial and technological systems to all areas of the planet results in destruction of habitat, extinction of species, and destruction of indigenous cultures. The biodiversity crisis is about loss of critical species, populations and processes that perform necessary biological functions, and it is also about loss of multitudes of other values which are good in themselves and depend on preservation of natural diversity and wild evolutionary processes.
so long as we can agree that ethics is a negotiation of values between subjects, — unenlightened
Firstly, I'm thinking this is going to be a problem. If ethics is just a negotiation between subjects, then how does the non-human (non-speaking) world take part in that negotiation? — Pseudonym
in the main this isn't the case as most animals have little to offer us. — Kenshin
It's not a problem with infants. We understand their wants and needs as best we can, and speak and act and legislate for them. Sometimes we do the same for refugees that cannot speak our language We know quite well that bats want insects and cave like roosts and so on. We can see how they flourish. — unenlightened
Firstly, I'm thinking this is going to be a problem. If ethics is just a negotiation between subjects, then how does the non-human (non-speaking) world take part in that negotiation? — Pseudonym
There is lots more to be said, but I think that is probably sufficient irritation for an op. — unenlightened
In the US, there is a common legal mechanism by which trustees are assigned by the government to speak for the environment. Under the Superfund law, various governmental agencies are authorized to act as Natural Resources Trustees. — T Clark
We have many similar systems here in England. I've had cause to argue with their version of 'what nature wants' on quite a number of occasions. — Pseudonym
The point I was trying to make is that it's not the 'rights' of the environment that get protected or negotiated, it's still what the humans empowered to speak want of it. Some may want the environment to be nothing but a source of raw materials, others may want to enjoy its aesthetics, its potential for future harvesting, its peace, even knowledge of its mere existence, but all the time its still just humans arguing about what they want from it. No-one is really speaking for it. — Pseudonym
As we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, aggravate global warming, vast ecological changes (like the acidification of the oceans or spread of parasites and diseases into the northern conifer forests), we are endangering ourselves, as well as many other creatures to whom much is owed. — Bitter Crank
The point I was trying to make is that it's not the 'rights' of the environment that get protected or negotiated, it's still what the humans empowered to speak want of it. Some may want the environment to be nothing but a source of raw materials, others may want to enjoy its aesthetics, its potential for future harvesting, its peace, even knowledge of its mere existence, but all the time its still just humans arguing about what they want from it. No-one is really speaking for it. — Pseudonym
As we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, aggravate global warming, vast ecological changes (like the acidification of the oceans or spread of parasites and diseases into the northern conifer forests), we are endangering ourselves, as well as many other creatures to whom much is owed. — Bitter Crank
I'm taking this to be undisputed, that our way of life is destructive, and in the long run self- destructive. But what we do comes out of the way we think, so we need to think differently. And that is the business of philosophy to investigate. — unenlightened
The suggestion is that what humans want, whoever they are, is not the only consideration. At the moment I am more interested in justifying and working out the philosophical implications of this. — unenlightened
Also, I'm not sure how this approach helps us to resolve conflict between what different aspects of the ecosystem and wants. How do we consider the wants of both bats and insects when those wants will be contradictory? — Pseudonym
It it our anthropocentric distance that causes the problems we all seem to agree exist. I think what's needed is not further distancing by abstraction, but getting closer to the fact that we need the ecosystems we rely on. — Pseudonym
I think too many people have 'communion' with nature in an abstract way and too few have skinned and gutted a rabbit for dinner. — Pseudonym
Love is the basis of all morality. Love for oceans and forests flourishes among those who have been emancipated from hunger. There is no evil ideology here. Just Nature itself.However, the mainstream of Western thought has diverged from this to the extent that Nature has been conceived and treated as an enemy to be conquered, and a blind and dumb mechanism to be exploited. — unenlightened
Love is the basis of all morality. Love for oceans and forests flourishes among those who have been emancipated from hunger. There is no evil ideology here. Just Nature itself. — frank
And you just did it. You wanted to de-hitch the topic from practicality and then you brought up practical concerns (such as the world we inherited).
Disconnecting moral concerns from practical ones is like demanding that we hear about Juliet's family and totally ignore Romeo's. It's a pretty meaningless play. — frank
Hunger trumps love. Almost always. — frank
This fact is all you need to know about Global Warming. — charleton
You mean that whole thing about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas? Whose to say? Why, I once heard that there's one scientist somewhere that someone heard about that disagrees. It's all so uncertain. (My compliments to those who don't take me seriously here.) — javra
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.