Hi Mark Thanks for this. There is one thing that you say that I am not totally convinced of...
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Dixon, Mark <mark.di...@usd.edu> wrote: > Hi Neil, > > > > Thanks for your response. In the context of global warming, I guess the > “should” is more straightforward. Even if we did not have some greater > purpose beyond ourselves, then it would be in our own self interests to > minimize the negative effects (on us, at least) of global climate change. > On some other issues, where the “should” involves saving other species, etc. > because it seems morally right to do so (above and beyond our self > interests), then to me it really invokes the “specialness” of humans. If > humans are not special in some way, then actions and motivations that are > not clearly in our self interests don’t make much sense to me. > I am not convinced that there is a link between 'being special' and 'having non-self-interested actions/motivations'. If the human species is 'special', then, by definition, all non-human planetary life-forms are not special. However, I think that it is at least plausible that some non-human planetary life-forms can have 'non-self-interested actions and motivations'. I should say that I am using the term 'self-interested' to refer to the 'interests of the species' (which, I assume, is what you had in mind). However, if we move to the level of 'planetary life' then what are 'non-self-interested' actions at the 'species level' could possibly be in the interests of 'planetary life', and so, in a sense, actually be 'self-interested actions'. (i.e, what is 'non-self-interested at one scale is 'self-interested' at another scale). Perhaps, your view is grounded in a particular perspective at a particular scale (a particular biological view at the species level)? Whereas, my view is more complex because of the consideration of different scales. > > > But, I think I misunderstood your original post and the intent of your > book. My original comment was really just “off the cuff”, without having > really looked more closely at your book, and was under the assumption that > you were arguing that humans are not special. But, based on your email > response and a quick glance at the description of the book, I see that you > are indeed arguing that humans are special and have a purpose. I guess I’ll > need to read the book to get a better understanding of your full argument. > I thought this might have been the case... I should make it clear that I only believe that humans are special because I believe that the human species has a purpose. Neil U.S. http://www.amazon.com/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20 U.K. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl0b-21 http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk > > > Regards, > > > > Mark > > > > > > Mark D. Dixon > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Biology > > University of South Dakota > > Vermillion, SD 57069 > > Phone: (605) 677-6567 > > Fax: (605) 677-6557 > > Email: mark.di...@usd.edu > > > > *From:* Neil Cummins [mailto:neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, December 06, 2010 6:22 AM > *To:* Dixon, Mark > *Subject:* Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans and the Environmental Crisis > > > > > Hi Mark > > > > I believe that the "should" that you are referring to is the how we "should > deal with global warming". > > > > This "should" should probably be a "could". The "should" assumes that it is > desirable for the human species to minimise the deleterious effects of > human-induced global warming (effects on both humans and non-human > life-forms). > > > > However, one could believe, for some 'strange' reason, that such > minimisation is not desirable, if so, then it should be a "could" rather > than a "should"! > > > > So, I outline a view in which the human species is special because it has a > 'purpose', but this doesn't necessarily entail that the human species > "should" minimise the deleterious effects of human-induced global warming I > suppose (I just assumed that such minimisation was desirable and therefore > "should" be aimed for). > > > > Neil > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Dixon, Mark <mark.di...@usd.edu> wrote: > > Neil, > > I haven't read your book, although it sounds interesting. But why should > there be a "should" if humans are not in some way special? > > Mark D. > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ > ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Neil Cummins [ > neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 10:13 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans and the Environmental Crisis > > > This might be of interest: > > > Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be > in > the interests of life > > > By approaching the environmental crisis from the perspective of the issue > of > whether the human species is special (if the human species is not special > then it would be just another species of animal) the, perhaps surprising, > conclusion is reached that human-induced global warming could be in the > interests of life. > > In the first part of the book I consider the question of why it is that > humans consider themselves to be special. I make a distinction between a > singular cause of this 'sense of specialness' and the plethora of > rationalisations that humans make as to why their species is special. I > propose that all of these rationalisations are erroneous (assuming, for the > moment, that the universe is not purposive). In the second part of the book > I develop an account in which the human species is special because of the > place that it occupies in the evolution of life on Earth, and I locate the > environmental crisis and human-induced global warming within this > evolutionary progression. In the absence of a 'purposive' universe the > human > species would not be special. > > This unique perspective on the human species and the environmental crisis > has implications for how we should deal with global warming. There are, of > course, many potentially negative effects of global warming, and a proposal > is made as to how these negative effects can be minimised. > > > More details can be found here: > > > > U.S. http://www.amazon.com/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20 > > > > U.K. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl0b-21 > > France http://www.amazon.fr/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl08-21 > > > > Germany http://www.amazon.de/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl03-21 > > > > Italy http://www.amazon.it/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl0c-21 > > > > Canada http://www.amazon.ca/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl08-20 > > > > Elsewhere > http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781907962004/?a_aid=cranmorpubl > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > Neil > > University of Reading > > >
