On Sun, 18 Jun 1995, Al Rushanan TAL (904)487-1855 wrote:
> On the value-hierarchy thing: a couple years ago a young child in
> Florida was killed by an alligator. The alligator was hungry -
> just doing its thing. If humans aren't put above alligators,
> what's the right thing to do in such a situation? Let the
> alligator eat your child because "its got as much right to life
> (sustenence in this case) as the child"? Yikes!
Actually, this is a good example. Why did the media never carry much
about the responsibility of the parents who let their child wander down
to the water? And, in the larger picture, the fact that the incident was
a result of human beings invading what had been the gator's habitat? I'm
interested in issues of *responsibility* in regard to how humans,
individually, should live their lives in relation to other forms of life,
and *justice* as they pertain to this latter point--is it right, that our
species should continue to take over more and more of the land surface,
forcing other species right out of existence? What we are doing differs
from the "natural" process of species extinction in several ways: for
one, the rate of the process is several hundred to a thousand or more
times faster (see E. O. Wilson); in "natural" extinctions, species go out
because they are replaced by other species, whereas in anthropogenic
extinction, habitat is wiped out and the species lines are simply
terminated, replaced by nothing (except maybe shopping malls); and, most
importantly, we humans, the agent of such changes, are *moral agents,*
and can decide otherwise. Can decide, for example, to limit our invasion
of the habitat of other species--not lash out in shock and disbelief
when, very occasionally, one of the lifeforms whose home we've taken over
just happens to *hurt* one of us. Oh, how dare that nasty thing challenge
our human hegemony?!--quick, blow it out of the water to show just who's
the boss here!
Also, I'm afraid you have missed the point about understanding that
beings can be different from each other without needing to postulate
differences in value, "superiority" and "inferiority." Of course I don't
mean to suggest that people feed their children to alligators. I do,
however, think they should use their much-prized rational abilities to
try to understand what alligators, as a different kind of being, are
like, and live around them (perhaps not too closely around them!)
respectfully aware of their differences from us.
Now here's a case
> where a dwindling population of an endangered species was brought
> back through regulatory measures. The gator population in Florida
> is thriving now. And with it came a greater risk to children and
> small dogs at the water's edge. (Similar situation going on in the
> West with the reintroduction of wolves?...) After that incident,
> the way the State officials talked, you'd think they were more sad
> for having to kill the alligator than for the dead child.
Actually, in my experience with GFC, now that killing "nuisance" gators
is allowed again, some officers seem to go to it with great glee. I know
people that have had gator "problems" but would not consider reporting
them to GFC simply because they know the immediate response will be "just
kill it," and they'd rather try to find some other solution.
> I DO condemn the slaughter of Minke whales and baby seals, etc.
> Those are animals that aren't hurting anybody, and we don't need
> their meat or furs, really. I'm opposed to allowing them to be
> hunted. But not because I think they're equal to humans, but
> because saving them for the spiritual enjoyment of future
> generations is a human thing to do.
>
Maybe they're not "hurting anybody" right now--but I'll bet already there
are those who can claim, for one reason or another, that human interests
are being violated by not permitting a slaughter. What about when we
start to invade the polar regions in ever-greater numbers, if it comes to
that eventually--shall we then declare war on, e.g., polar bears, since
they *can* "hurt" humans? I'm curious--on
what do you base your conviction that nonhumans are not "equal" to humans--
how do you conceive of the "value" that human beings have, and what's it
based on? (There are standard answers that can be given to support
anthropocentrism, of course, but I want to know what you use--I think
it's at least important to make these beliefs explicit, not just appeal
to the unquestioned assumptions of our society. Belief in women's supposed
inferiority is/has been maintained that way, too.)
> On overpopulation - it's quite easy to demonstrate how uncontrolled
> population growth is bad for humans. The Cornucopians are dead
> wrong. Look at the collapse of ocean fisheries all around the
> world. Major, heavy-duty problem. And look at cities for the
> psychological effects of overcrowding - quality of life
> considerations that economists fail to factor into their equations.
> No, anyone who argues that unlimited population growth is good is a
> jughead. Even based solely only on human considerations,
> value-hierarchy or no value-hierarchy.
Yes, of course. Maybe you should drop a line to Julian Simon (and his
many ditto-heads).
The thing is, the destruction of many forms of life may not *directly*
produce bad consequences for human beings. Is it still wrong? I think it
is. And I think that, as long as we assume the
great-value-for-human-life, little-or-no-value-for-nonhuman-life
dichotomy holds, we will have that much less incentive for limiting our
population and our destructiveness--which just happen *also* to be
desirable goals where our own self-interest is concerned.
Good talking to you.
Ronnie
