Hi Elephant, Danila, All:
ELEPHANT:
> Platt would probably point out that things go extinct every day in the
> normal course of things, and he'd be right. He might add that if the global
> ecosystem has let this plant-butterfly subsystem get down to an acre and a
> half with no noticeable ill effects on the world as a whole, then there is
> nothing at stake in it's extinction. This is an attractive argument, except
> that proves too much. The acre and a half situation is something alot of
> species are on their way too with our help, so the argument I'm conjecturing
> on Platt's behalf could apply to about half the species you care to mention,
> and if you do apply it to all those species, there wouldn't be much left to
> keep the system going, or even to call a 'system'. Remember that the
> situation that we've inherited is something that's been worked up over
> millions of years, and something which we still don't completely understand,
> however great we are at landing on the moon. It's rather like an eight year
> old child (let's say he gets top marks in all his classes) being given his
> grandpa's pocketwatch as a present, and opening it up to see how many bits
> he can remove before it goes dead.
I’m flattered to have the benefit of a volunteer spokesperson,
especially one of Elephant’s stature. But, on second thought, it
looks like I’ve been set up as a strawman. Still, I think the
compliment implicit in the former outweighs the exploitation of the
latter.
ELEPHANT
> I guess Prisig was saying something similar when he talked about the folly
> of intellectuals opposing social norms just for the sake of it, as if
> soceity were something dispensible: the enemy. Instead, what we should do
> (if we want to call ourselves 'intellectuals') is remember how necessary
> social order is, and try, with proper modesty about our knowledge, to
> 'tweak' it so that is cooperates with the existence of the intellectual
> level as a whole - and not, mind you, with every crackpot intellectual
> pattern we can come up with (even facism, anti-intellectual as it is, is an
> intellectual pattern - you don't have to be consistent to be nasty.). I'd
> favour a similarly careful intellectual attitude to biology, because, if
> anything, biological order is more necessary to the intellectual life than
> social order. Erst kommt das Brot, dan kommt die Morale.
A “careful intellectual attitude” towards the lower orders is
precisely Pirsig’s advice to which I wholeheartedly concur. In fact, I
think Elephant's description of Pirsig's cautionary view of intellect
is right on the mark.
Both Elephant and Danila possess a greater concern about the
prospect of environmental catastrophe than me, but that doesn’t
mean I subscribe to the idea, “To hell with butterflies, full speed
ahead.” There are qualified scientists who say the threat of
disastrous man-made damage to the environment is
exaggerated. Others say it is worse than anyone imagines. So I
think Elephant has got it right in saying: “What does the
precautionary principle tell us to do in any specific case? Well,
that’s why the UK has such interminable public inquiries. We
ought to have more.”
Danila's proposal for state-owned property sounds suspiciously
like Communism. If we've learned anything in the 20th century it's
that statism, in whatever form, doesn't work.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:56 BST