On Sat, 17 Jun 1995, Al Rushanan TAL (904)487-1855 wrote:
> Ronnie, Anne:
>
> Your thoughts are state-of-the-art, I think. Let's dig in.
>
> On value-hierarchy - I have to go with a paradox here. I think
> value-hierarchy on issues such as life forms is inescapable. We
> HAVE to make certain choices. But I do reject value-hierarchy as
> related to people, and support the unscientific principle of
> "All men/womyn are created equal."
Al--
Appreciate your response. I'm glad to hear you reject value-hierarchy at
least as it relates to people. I do think a rejection of hierarchy and
value-dualism can be taken beyond the human sphere, however, and I think
it needs to be if we are to deal successfully with our environmental
crises. I will try to answer a few of your points, with the qualification
that what I say is not necessarily to be taken as an "ecofeminist"
position, simply as my own.
> [WARNING - NOT FOR THE WEAK OF STOMACH] - Humans are not
> photosynthetic. We cannot live unless other organisms die at our
> expense. Even if you're a vegetarian, plants must die. Thousands
> of microbes die every time you take a shower. Millions of fecal
> coliform bacteria are doomed every time you defecate (they live in
> your bowels...and you NEED them...and they die outside the body).
> Is it wrong to slap a mosquito, or kill body lice, or put a flea
> collar on your dog? Is it wrong to kill rats? Etc. Etc. We HAVE
> to draw some lines. There simply MUST be a hierarchy with regard
> to life forms, or human life would be impossible. All life forms
> are not created equal. Cold, hard, inescapable (unless we all
> check out) fact.
>
I agree that a nonphotosynthetic lifeform, to live, has to make use of
other life. Given that, however, if we consider human beings in relation
to other forms of life, we see that we humans have a tremendous range of
choices as to how destructive of other life, in what ways and of what
forms of life, we will be in maintaining ourselves. As primates, for
example, we are NOT CARNIVORES (my ethics class was recently shocked to
discover this). Most primates are either completely herbivorous or
insectivorous--of our closest evolutionary relatives, the great apes, the
gorillas and orangutans are virtually completely vegetarians, and while
the chimpanzees eat some meat, including small mammals that are hunted as
a matter of social ritual, animal matter makes up only a few percentage
points of their total diet, again most of it insect material. Our own
digestive tracts are adapted for high-fiber, low-fat diets for good
reason. And I find this information a great relief, ethically--we may
have the power and the socially constructed *taste* for meat, but we are
free to choose diets that cause minimal harm to *sentient* beings--we are
certainly under no biological compulsion to cause animal suffering to
feed ourselves (unlike the true carnivores); quite the reverse, in fact.
Whether or not we need to place even plant life within a value hierarchy,
judging ourselves "superior" to it before we consume it, is, however,
very questionable. Life forms are *different* from one another. Plants
are different from animals in that, lacking nervous system development,
they (as far as we know) do not suffer. But does their lack of a nervous
system, or the lesser development of one in an earthworm, or our own lack
of wings or fins or photosynthetic ability make a particular lifeform
"inferior" on some absolute scale of value. I don't think so.
As for animals and plants that we humans carry with us into ecosystems in
some way--the kinds we are likely to call "pests," like cockroaches,
Norway rats, hydrilla, etc, and others that we would not give such a name
but that we support above and beyond our ecosystems (and sometimes to the
system's detriment), like dogs and cats--it may be that we have a
responsibility to keep their numbers within certain limits, not only for
our own good but for that of the greater "biotic community." While I
reject a lot of Aristotle's thinking, certainly his support of human
hierarchies, his raising of the question "What is the function of the
human being?" can be helpful, I think, in trying to discover an
appropriate role for us within ecosystems. And so can his emphasis on
virtue as seeking the mean between excess and deficiency. And we can find a
place within the scheme of things, *without* having to disvalue other
life in order to justify exceeding our proper boundaries.
> [snip] Trying to manage Florida's growth in a way that serves
> the citizens while pursuing environmental principles is extremely,
> extremely hard. Sometimes at hearings EVERYBODY hates you. Our
> mission is to protect Florida's environment, and the dedicated
> folks here try to do that just as much as the politicians will let
> them. But if we come out and say that all life forms are equal and
> every bug should be protected, we get ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.
>
> Florida has one of the most progressive growth management programs
> in the country. And yet, wetlands and species continue to
> disappear.
As a fellow Floridian, and one who has put in quite a bit of time going
up against the regulatory agencies for not protecting things enough
(mostly GFC!), I can sympathize. As can be seen in states like Florida
especially clearly (though this is a process going on all over the
Earth), rampant human "growth" is the primary driving force behind
habitat destruction, species extinction, and a whole lot of animal
suffering (the latter usually going unremarked). This is why I think it
extremely important that the ecological toll taken by each additional
child be brought into the discussion of birth control, family planning,
abortion. It seems a critical area for ecofeminist analysis, yet
unfortunately (from my point of view, being concerned about nonhumans) a
number of those who identify themselves as ecofeminists (I'm thinking,
for example, Ariel Salleh), being (understandably) opposed to patriarchal
"control" being imposed on women's reproduction, seem to resist fully
addressing the effects of continuing human population expansion on
nonhumans. It also often comes to feel like a "taboo" topic--against
"pluralism" in feminist circles, maybe, sort of like vegetarianism is
sometimes rejected in the interests of "pluralism" (e.g., Carol Adams's
work--also in the Gaard anthology).
> [snip] how can we move towards advertizing that gets people to
want peace and harmony
> with the earth, before it's too late? (Pitching the idea of
> insects as equal partners ain't gonna sell, folks.)
>
I agree with you that many of these ideas are not likely to "sell" to the
general public right away--I guess that's part of why there are
"academic" discussions--right now I'm interested in the integrity of the
ideas, not their estimated political popularity in 1995. At the same
time, I don't want to sell the general public short. There *can* be
social change--we don't have (institutionalized) slavery any more,
anyway--it just may be a long and difficult process. I don't know about
"insects as equal partners"--I would say that it's time we reject
anthropocentrism, whether based on our having been created "in the image
of God" or just maintained as a handy way of denying we have any need to
consider other beings at all as we chop down the forests, pave over the
dunes, drain more wetlands, put in more shopping malls. Telling ourselves
that human beings are the only beings that have value, or are at least
way more valuable than anything else, *does* presently serve to justify
our "domination" of the natural world, and perhaps also our unwillingness
to question the desirability of there being more and more of us (how can
there be "too many" of that which is most valuable? Hence the "repugnant
conclusion" of the utilitarians!). A rejection of such a "logic of
domination" at the human/nonhuman split might be one step out of this mess.
Al--I'd like to hear more about your perspective on Florida, if you want
to write to me privately.
Ronnie
