NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/talk/environm/4994

Text File | 1992-12-14 | 9.6 KB | 203 lines

Newsgroups: talk.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!destroyer!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Carrying capacity and [in]sanity
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:12:54 GMT
Lines: 192

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>Alan McGowen Writes:
>
>>This is
>>what we have been using technology for increasingly in the past few
>>centuries -- undermining the biotic future for present consumption and
>>reproduction; -- for a one-time bonanza.
>
>Do you see any evidence that technology will not be able to maintain this
>bonanza indefinitely. You have here thoroughly begged the question of whether
>there are limited resources by calling technology a "one-time bonanza".

Do you see any evidence that technology can maintain the bonanza
indefinitely?
>
>>And it is one-time, not just because the fossil fuels will eventually run
>>out but because the biological support system has a finite capacity, which
>>arises from its evolutionary history of only photosynthesis-derived energy
>>flows, and which is being degraded, and would continue to be degraded even if
>>some other kind of energy (e.g. nuclear) were to replace fossil fuels. It's
>>not lack of energy for *us* that is limiting -- it's *too much* energy for
>>the biosphere. It's not just that we are not living within *our* means,
>>energetically speaking, -- we are not living within *its* means.
>
>Present any evidence to back this claim up. How does a person using large
>quantities of energy derived by some clean source (IE: nuclear) to power
>his lights, microwave oven, washing machine, etc.. harm the biosphere?

By reducing habitat range and reducing biodiversity.  By leaving
increasing amounts of waste in quantities that the bioshpere cannot absorb.
>
>>Now there are two fundamentally different possible responses we could make
>>to this situation.
>
>Of course, and they are freedom and slavery.
>
>>One way would be to bring our use of energy and other impacts on the biosphere
>>back down to what it can tolerate -- and help it to repair the damage we
>>have already wrought.
>
>Hmm. How would we do this? Verbal persuasion?

Sounds like a good method.  Thanks for the idea.
>
>>We would live within *its* means -- not because we were
>>technologically incapable of living beyond those means (at least for a time),
>
>Again, you thoroughly beg the question. Why do you keep claiming it is "for
>a time"? You have presented no evidence that technology cannot produce a
>(roughly) unlimited supply of energy to meet our present demands (at any
>present you care to consider).

And again, you have presented no evidence that it can.  Extrapolating
the short history of modern technological society is not adequate.
>
>>but because the price of doing so would be that we would wreck it, which we
>>don't want to do. Bringing our realized niche back into line with what the
>>biosphere could support indefinitely is a coevolutionary process -- coevolution
>>is the process whereby niches evolve in response to the evolution of, or to
>>constraints imposed by, other species or a whole ecological community -- except
>>that of course we would be doing it *culturally*, not by waiting for our gene
>>frequncies to change.
>
>By culturally, he means with guns.

Did he say that?  Whay do you think that is what he means?
>
>>This business of accepting a *realized* niche for
>>ourselves which is constrained by the ecosystems of the planet instead of a
>>*fundamental* niche which is constrained only by our technological limits at
>>the moment is what "ecocentrism" is all about: putting the needs of ecosystems
>>first.
>
>Now we have an interesting admission: "Ecocentrism" is about putting the
>need of frogs, rocks, streams, and plankton ahead of the needs of man, which
>are never even mentioned in Alan's writings.

Are not the needs of the biosphere meshed with the needs of man?
>
>>Notice that this ecocentric approach does not have to mean that humans are
>>forever confined to the Earth or must live only like Pleistocene
>>hunter-gatherers. But it does mean that we can't leave the Earth by engaging
>>in biotic deficit spending. Any technology can be pursued so long as we
>>do it in way and on a scale which is compatable with the continuance of the
>>rich diversity of life which is the biosphere -- so long as we don't step
>>out of our ecosystemic impact budget at any point along the way.
>
>Who makes the budget? How do they enforce their decision? No answer.

Scientifically.  By consensus, eventually.  Answer.
>
>>The other approach is to say "we don't need to accept any limits other
>>than those imposed by basic physics. If the biosphere is currently a
>>limit in any way, we will just develop more technology to free us from
>>that limit. Even if our own biology in some way ties us to the biosphere,
>>that is just another limit which can be overcome. We can change our biology,
>>perhaps, or become thinking machines if need be. It doesn't matter what
>>becomes of the biosphere so long as intelligence, civilization, and machinery
>>expand through the universe." This approach, which values technology above
>>the biosphere, I call "technocentrism".
>
>What a ridiculous straw man. The two choices Alan provides us are value
>technology or value ecology. What about human beings?

Are not human beings part of ecology?  Were we brought here by aliens?
>
>>Now the choice between technocentrism and ecocentrism is simultaneously moral
>>and pragmatic. Technocentrism involves willingness to gamble the biosphere
>>-- and the only life we humans have or know we will ever have -- on the
>>chance that we will be able to innovate our way out of any scrape we ever
>>get into.
>
>We have already been innvating our way out of every scrape we have gotten
>into.

Only some of them.  The new problems, such as ozone and climate change,
are much more broad than the dirty rivers that we have cleaned up.  Or
do you think that these are just myths?
>
>>Against this likelihood is that fact that every living system in
>>the history of the Earth has equilibrated to some limit.  The technocentrists
>>point to a few decades or centuries of exponential growth of technology as
>>evidence that we need not concern ourselves with what has happened to other
>>species -- we, they say (echoing religion strangely) are Truly Different.
>
>We are capable of rational thought, we are capable of moral action. Yet isn't
>it the ecocentrists who want to impose limits on man, that they impose on
>no other species? You are the ones who claim men are "Truly Different". If
>not, why not try to influence the cats to kill fewer birds, or whatever it is
>silly environmentalists do.

I think both sides admit that humans are different.  Our ability to
modify the biosphere is truly different than any other species.
Therefore, our ability to limit our own actions becomes critical.  This
is obvious to all people in relation to nuclear weapons because that
is a short-term destruction.  The suggestion is that we consider
long-term changes.  Those who say we need not be concerned with changes
that don't hurt us in the predictable short-run are the ones who are
setting humans aside as most separate.
>
>>In short, there is colossal risk involved in the
>>technocentric path -- the most colossal risk imaginable. But even beyond
>>the question of risk is a deeper question -- is that the way we want to go,
>>even if we can? Should it be the human goal to seek an indefinite expansion
>>of power, no matter what is destroyed in the process, so long as we can
>>get away with it and survive?
>
>More straw man arguments! It should be the human goal to progress as far as
>we can. To make our lives as easy, profitable, and enjoyable as we possibly
>can. To respect the property rights of others, and so on.

You totally avoid his question.  At what cost should this progress be made?
>
>>This is not a scientific or pragmatic question -- it is a moral one. At least
>>to some of us -- and I think in fact to the vast majority of people -- this
>>path is reminiscent of the dreams of a Hitler. It is tinged with psychosis.
>>It might turn out that if we followed it, it would be a blessing if we were
>>to fail and become extinct. Does the universe really need an exponentiating
>>civilization of conquering power-worshippers who cheerfully wrecked their
>>own world to get warmed up? Is that a worthy thing for us to try to become?
>
>Now we see Paul's fundamental hatred for man coming through. "Does the
>universe need us?" he asks, giving inanimate matter priority over
>rational beings.

I don't see any fundamental hatred of man here by Alan (who is Paul?).
What I do see is a human-centered perspective on your part that seems
very analogous to earth-centered perspectives of the old Catholic Church.
>
>>The other way says shrink the human
>>niche down to a coevolutionary stable state with the biosphere (at least
>>on Earth)
>
>That is, kill billions of human beings.

He didn't say kill billions of people.  This habit that some people have
to infer genocide among those who would like to see a lower population
is really tiresome.  Is it impossible to debate someone based on what
they actually say?  Is that so hard?
>
>>-- a state which is compatible with the maintenance of the Earth's
>>biological diversity and ecological and evolutionary processes.
>
>That is, in which frogs and plankton are safe.

n which the biosphere, and all of its products (including humans) are safe.
>
>---------
>
--

        dingo in boulder    ([e-mail])