Re: [ECOLOG-L] Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

[Neil Cummins]

That is a good question.

The core of my viewpoint is grounded in science. But I am unsure of the
extent to which science can truly be divorced form non-science (all science
seems to be grounded in particular assumptions - whether one refers to
these assumptions as "religious", "spiritual", "metaphysical", or some
other word - and often these assumptions are "unquestioned"). Also,
scientific findings can often be interpreted very differently.

So, whilst grounded in the scientific, I take my view to inevitably entail
both the 'scientific' and the 'non-scientific'.

Neil

http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/


On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> Neil,
>Do you viewpoints arise from a religious perspective, a scientific
> one, or some combination?
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
>
> 2012/3/26 Neil Cummins 
>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> We seem to agree on quite a lot.
>>
>> However, I seek to persuade people in my books that the extinction of the
>> human species would ultimately lead to the extinction of all life on
>> Earth,
>> rather than a new era of evolution (although my view is compatible with a
>> very short new era followed by total extinction).
>>
>> I should point out that my claim that the human species is the pinacle of
>> the evolutionary progression of life on Earth has to do with its position
>> in the evolutionary process rather than to do with "unique
>> characteristics". All species have unique characteristics and there might
>> be species of non-human Earthly life which are more intelligent than
>> humans.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/
>>
>>
>> http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Brian West 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I will respond to both posts, but given that I have not read Mr.
>> Cummings'
>> > book.  We, as a species,
>> > are intricately involved in a series of selective evolutionary events
>> that
>> > have culminated to result in
>> > the biodiversity that we see today.  We, as well as all extant life on
>> > planet, stand on the shoulders
>> > of millions of species that have come and gone that paved the way for
>> our
>> > current biosphere.  The
>> > planet did do just fine without the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens for
>> > the last 3.8 billion years,
>> > but now that we are here, we do play an important part in it--for better
>> > or worse.  Would life go on
>> > without us?  Of course.  But if we went, in theory, so would many
>> species
>> > that have coevolved with
>> > us.  Dave, we are intricately involved in our biosphere and it is
>> > intricately involved with us.  We are
>> > a cog in the machinery of our current biosphere. We are important in the
>> > current picture of our
>> > biodiversity and biosphere.  We are but a still-shot in the whole reel
>> of
>> > the film we call life, but our
>> > still-shot is still important. We are a keystone species.  The loss of
>> > Homo sapiens as a species
>> > could cause a cascading extinction event.  But, Dr. Cummings, we must
>> not
>> > make the mistake of
>> > near-sightedness in this situation.
>> >
>> > Life on the planet would be affected by our disappearance, but it would
>> > not end by no means, but
>> > pave way for a new era in evolution (i.e. The Age of Reptiles paved the
>> > way for The Age of
>> > Mammals).  I reject the notion that we are superior to all other
>> species.
>> >  We do have unique
>> > characteristics that allows for us to stand apart, but so do many other
>> > species.  For one example in
>> > a sea of others, the polyextremophile Deinococcus radiodurans is a
>> > biological "superman" that has
>> > many characteristics that make it "superior" to Homo sapiens.  I mention
>> > this not to perpetuate the
>> > idea of superior or inferior, but to caution in using the words and
>> ideas
>> > behind superior or inferior.
>> > We are the ones who rank and order and categorize and value, which is to
>> > some extent why we
>> > treat the planet the way we do.  Dr. Cummings, we must move away from
>> the
>> > anthrocentric
>> > worldview that our forefathers perpetuated, which led to the abuse and
>> > destruction of so many
>> > aspects of our biosphere.
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

[Neil Cummins]

Thanks Todd

Your first question has a simple answer:

I seek to persuade people of this because I believe that the life that has
arisen on the Earth is wonderful and precious and I don't want it to go
extinct. I want to see it survive, thrive, and ultimately spread out to
other planets.


Your second question has a more complex answer because it has many
components:

I'll try and summarise...but much is inevitably missing from such a
summary...

The Earth is an evolving whole, and the non-human weakening of the
homeostatic regulatory capacity (of the GMST) will (if the human species
goes extinct) lead to a jump in the GMST to a level at which complex
life-forms will not be able to survive. As the Earth continues to evolve
and the Sun's output increases the Earth would not be able to move back to
lower temperatures which could sustain complex life in the future. This
means that all of the life that has arisen on the Earth would go extinct.
Humans can prevent this from happening - can save life on Earth - by
technologically offsetting the weakening of the homeostatic regulatory
capacity (and then in the distant future by transporting life-forms to
non-Earth parts of the universe).
Neil

http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/



On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Todd Johnson  wrote:

> Neil,
>
> I am curious as to why you seek to persuade people that the extinction of
> *Homo sapiens* will cause the extinction of all life on earth? Secondly,
> how do you posit that this will happen?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd
>
>  On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Neil Cummins 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> We seem to agree on quite a lot.
>>
>> However, I seek to persuade people in my books that the extinction of the
>> human species would ultimately lead to the extinction of all life on
>> Earth,
>> rather than a new era of evolution (although my view is compatible with a
>> very short new era followed by total extinction).
>>
>> I should point out that my claim that the human species is the pinacle of
>> the evolutionary progression of life on Earth has to do with its position
>> in the evolutionary process rather than to do with "unique
>> characteristics". All species have unique characteristics and there might
>> be species of non-human Earthly life which are more intelligent than
>> humans.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/
>>
>>
>> http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Brian West 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I will respond to both posts, but given that I have not read Mr.
>> Cummings'
>> > book.  We, as a species,
>> > are intricately involved in a series of selective evolutionary events
>> that
>> > have culminated to result in
>> > the biodiversity that we see today.  We, as well as all extant life on
>> > planet, stand on the shoulders
>> > of millions of species that have come and gone that paved the way for
>> our
>> > current biosphere.  The
>> > planet did do just fine without the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens for
>> > the last 3.8 billion years,
>> > but now that we are here, we do play an important part in it--for better
>> > or worse.  Would life go on
>> > without us?  Of course.  But if we went, in theory, so would many
>> species
>> > that have coevolved with
>> > us.  Dave, we are intricately involved in our biosphere and it is
>> > intricately involved with us.  We are
>> > a cog in the machinery of our current biosphere. We are important in the
>> > current picture of our
>> > biodiversity and biosphere.  We are but a still-shot in the whole reel
>> of
>> > the film we call life, but our
>> > still-shot is still important. We are a keystone species.  The loss of
>> > Homo sapiens as a species
>> > could cause a cascading extinction event.  But, Dr. Cummings, we must
>> not
>> > make the mistake of
>> > near-sightedness in this situation.
>> >
>> > Life on the planet would be affected by our disappearance, but it would
>> > not end by no means, but
>> > pave way for a new era in evolution (i.e. The Age of Reptiles paved the
>> > way for The Age of
>> > Mammals).  I reject the notion that we are superior to all other
>> species.
>> >  We do have unique
>> > characteristics that allows for us to stand apart, but so do many other
>> > species.  For one example in
>> > a sea of others, the polyextremophile Deinococcus radiodurans is 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

[Neil Cummins]

Thanks for this.

We seem to agree on quite a lot.

However, I seek to persuade people in my books that the extinction of the
human species would ultimately lead to the extinction of all life on Earth,
rather than a new era of evolution (although my view is compatible with a
very short new era followed by total extinction).

I should point out that my claim that the human species is the pinacle of
the evolutionary progression of life on Earth has to do with its position
in the evolutionary process rather than to do with "unique
characteristics". All species have unique characteristics and there might
be species of non-human Earthly life which are more intelligent than humans.

Best

Neil

http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/


http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Brian West  wrote:

> I will respond to both posts, but given that I have not read Mr. Cummings'
> book.  We, as a species,
> are intricately involved in a series of selective evolutionary events that
> have culminated to result in
> the biodiversity that we see today.  We, as well as all extant life on
> planet, stand on the shoulders
> of millions of species that have come and gone that paved the way for our
> current biosphere.  The
> planet did do just fine without the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens for
> the last 3.8 billion years,
> but now that we are here, we do play an important part in it--for better
> or worse.  Would life go on
> without us?  Of course.  But if we went, in theory, so would many species
> that have coevolved with
> us.  Dave, we are intricately involved in our biosphere and it is
> intricately involved with us.  We are
> a cog in the machinery of our current biosphere. We are important in the
> current picture of our
> biodiversity and biosphere.  We are but a still-shot in the whole reel of
> the film we call life, but our
> still-shot is still important. We are a keystone species.  The loss of
> Homo sapiens as a species
> could cause a cascading extinction event.  But, Dr. Cummings, we must not
> make the mistake of
> near-sightedness in this situation.
>
> Life on the planet would be affected by our disappearance, but it would
> not end by no means, but
> pave way for a new era in evolution (i.e. The Age of Reptiles paved the
> way for The Age of
> Mammals).  I reject the notion that we are superior to all other species.
>  We do have unique
> characteristics that allows for us to stand apart, but so do many other
> species.  For one example in
> a sea of others, the polyextremophile Deinococcus radiodurans is a
> biological "superman" that has
> many characteristics that make it "superior" to Homo sapiens.  I mention
> this not to perpetuate the
> idea of superior or inferior, but to caution in using the words and ideas
> behind superior or inferior.
> We are the ones who rank and order and categorize and value, which is to
> some extent why we
> treat the planet the way we do.  Dr. Cummings, we must move away from the
> anthrocentric
> worldview that our forefathers perpetuated, which led to the abuse and
> destruction of so many
> aspects of our biosphere.
>

[ECOLOG-L] Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

[Neil Cummins]

I am excited to let you know about the publication of:


Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the
rest of life on Earth


http://www.amazon.com/dp/1907962522/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20


http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73



Here is the amazon info:

>From the Author
At the start of Chapter Two I quote an all too familiar view:

"The lesson we need to learn urgently is this: we cannot do without the
rest of the planet's biodiversity, but it can do very well without us."

My objective in this book is to make it clear why this contemporarily
fashionable view is completely and utterly wrong. This view has been
forwarded and propagated by a wide range of intellectuals, academics and
environmentalists. I hope that through this book, and the rest of my
writings, that these people will come to see where they have gone wrong.
Some components of the view that I forward in the book are open to debate.
However, that the human species is the saviour of life, rather than the
destroyer which the rest of life on Earth "can do very well without", is so
obvious that it shouldn't be one of these debatable components.


Book Description
Publication Date: March 15, 2012


There are many ways in which humans can conceptualise the relationship
between their species and their surroundings; these 'surroundings' can be
taken to be the rest of the life-forms which exist on the Earth, or
everything non-human that exists in the universe. In this book I focus on
various possible relationships between the human species and the rest of
the life-forms that exist (and those that have existed, and those that will
exist in the future) on the Earth. Is there no deeply significant and
meaningful relationship? Or, is the human species superior in some way? Or,
is the human species inferior in some way?

If you are familiar with my previous work you will be aware that I am
particularly interested in how the relationship we are exploring relates to
the 'environmental crisis'. I have suggested that the human species is
superior in some way, and that the environmental crisis/human-induced
global warming are positive events which indicate that the human species is
fulfilling its role as saviour of life on Earth.

I take this book to be a valuable addition to my previous writings. In it I
consider at length the opposing view that the human species is an 'inferior
destroyer' of the rest of life on Earth. I also outline the whole range of
ways in which it is obvious that technology is in the interests of life on
Earth. I also develop the view that the universe is a 'feeling universe'
whose movements/evolution is directed by all parts of the universe seeking
to move to higher states of feeling; and I explore how this plays out in
the day-to-day lives of individual humans as they seek to live more happy
and fulfilling lives. Furthermore, I describe how we live in an epoch which
can best be described as a 'birthing process'; life on Earth is bringing
forth the technological armour which will ensure its future survival. This
is a birthing process, which like almost all births, entails a lot of pain
and suffering. I suggest that this process will come to an end when the
temperature of the atmosphere is being successfully technologically
regulated. Finally, I outline the serious environmental problems that we
face on the surface of the Earth and urge that we take both technological
and non-technological actions to address these problems. If we can
successfully do this then we can forge a sustainable and harmonious future
for all life on Earth.



There are both paperback and ebook/kindle versions available.

Dr NPC

http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/

[ECOLOG-L] Publication Announcement : 'Human Specialness': The Historical Dimension & the Historicisation of Humanity

[Neil Cummins]

You might be interested to know about the publication of the above book by
Peter Xavier Price. Here is what I have to say about it in my blog:


http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.com/


In my last blog entry I quoted some text from the first journal article
(that I am aware of) which refers to my work. The first full-length book
responding to my work has now appeared. The book is written by Peter Xavier
Price who is based at the Sussex Centre for Intellectual History. Price
provides an interesting critique of my first book:

Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in
the interests of life 

His book is entitled:


'Human Specialness': The Historical Dimension & the Historicisation of
Humanity 


Here is some of what he has to say:


"What is it about humanity that places it far above other life-forms? Why
does it often perceive itself to be so unique when the natural world is
teeming with biological anomalies? Perhaps even more tentatively, can
humans truly claim to be the remedial agents destined to solve the current
global environmental crisis? In Neil Paul Cummins' recent book, Is the
Human Species Special?, the author sets out to address these very questions
by speculating that mankind is indeed special because it represents the
pinnacle of the evolutionary process. Employing a radical thesis which
bears a remarkable resemblance to the infamously distorted dictum of the
Vietnam War (i.e., that of 'destroying the village in order to save it'),
Cummins suggests that mankind has reached a paradoxical stage in its
development, whereby its imminent downfall may suddenly prove to be the
means of its ultimate redemption. Thus, in this swashbuckling
interpretation of the human response to environmental uncertainty, Cummins
paints a picture of the human condition as seemingly analogous to the
closing act in a grand, teleological narrative of biological endeavour and
primordial purpose. 'Could it be', he speculates, 'that in order to fulfil
its purpose and be the saviour of planetary life … humanity had to believe
that it was potentially the destroyer of planetary life?'.

>From the outset, it is important to note that Cummins' publication is an
accomplished work – at once entertaining as it is erudite. The author
clearly exhibits the full depth and range of his innate interdisciplinarity
as he weaves seemingly disparate strands from his economic, environmental
and philosophical background into a tightly argued and well-constructed
piece. But what, we may be entitled to ask, are the inherent pitfalls to
the bold thesis that he has constructed? Indeed, some may even believe that
it falls short at the first hurdle. For how, they might argue, can the
wiping out of a whole village constitute any sort of liberation for its
inhabitants? Yet, as valid as this criticism may appear to be on the
surface, it should be acknowledged that Cummins does in fact cover his
tracks in this respect when he proposes that it is the imminence of the
environmental disaster (rather than the purported disaster itself) that
will ultimately ensure the planet's survival. Therefore, as far-fetched as
the overarching argument may appear to be to some, it is simply wrong to
accuse the author of outright contradiction.

This essay, then, is in large part an attempt to sketch out a far more
convincing alternative to Cummins' arguments; but not, as may be expected,
to what is essentially the central argument contained therein. In doing so,
it aims to redeploy Cummins' ideas and to use them as a catalyst for
further discussion; though, perhaps, in a direction that he mostly neglects
or even ignores. At this initial stage, and in the interests of brevity, we
may wish to describe this endeavour 'an assessment of the relative absence
of history in Cummins' idiosyncratic account of human specialness'. For,
appositely, this essay also seeks to highlight the importance of
recognising humanity's unique sense of its own historicity – and, by
extension, the decisive role that this must surely play in any adjudication
of what it is to be an exceptional species. It is hoped, therefore, that we
have already gone some way towards accounting for the choice phrases (i.e.
'historical dimension' and 'historicisation of humanity') which both
comprise the frontispiece to this work. Nonetheless, what they mean in
precise terms should become increasingly transparent as the essay develops.
Suffice it to say that, having achieved this, we will then be in a much
better position to review the suppositions undergirding Cummins' work."


"Indeed, Cummins' shortcomings are even further compounded by his
exploitation of a number of schemes within his thesis which, as we have
shown, are demonstrably historical, and yet do not appear to be
historically accounted for. For it surely cannot have escaped notice that
Mandeville’s early account of wealth-creation, via the p

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Technological Progress, the Economy, and the Environment

[Neil Cummins]

All he attempts to persuade one of is that the planet has a limited amount
of resources and that therefore economic growth cannot continue
indefinitely.



This just seems to be a trivial truism (whatever view one has of
technology, and even if one has no view whatsoever concerning technology!).



The nature of what constitutes ‘environmental protection’ (which is itself
a contested and multi-faceted concept) and how this relates to
'technological progress' is not even touched upon.



Neil



*An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship Between Humans and Their
Surroundings: Geoengineering, the Purpose of Life & the Nature of the
Universe *



http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/50










On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Rob Dietz wrote:

> See this week's Daly News feature, "Technological Progress for Dummies,
> Part
> II." In this column, also called "More than One Kind of Nut," Brian Czech
> explains in plain language why the conflict between economic growth and
> environmental protection cannot be reconciled by technological progress.
> Hold onto your ratchet!
>
> http://steadystate.org/technological-progress-for-dummies-part-ii/
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>

[ECOLOG-L] The Need for Geoengineering / Humans in the Cosmos

[Neil Cummins]

You might be interested to know that I have recently set up a blog on the
need for geoengineering & the relationship between humans, the rest of life
on Earth, and the wider cosmos. I will be posting new material on these
themes frequently and hopefully there will also be some lively discussion
too.


http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.com


Best

Neil

I have pasted the first posting below:


What is the relationship between humans and the cosmos? Humans are part of
the cosmos; humans are in the cosmos; humans 'are' the cosmos. The cosmos
is an evolving entity which has brought forth humans. There are many
questions which we need to consider:


Was the cosmic bringing forth of humans 'inevitable'?

What does it mean to be 'human'? Is being human being part of a 'biological
species'? Or is being human being a part of the cosmos that has a 'special'
relationship with the cosmos?

What does it mean to say that the cosmos has a 'living part' and a
'non-living' part?

Is the notion of a 'species' purely a human conceptualisation?

Are there any 'objects' in the cosmos in-itself? The alternative being that
all objects require being conceptualised as objects in order to exist.

Is there directionality in evolution? Are there 'forces' which propel the
evolution of the non-living and the living cosmos along a particular
trajectory?

Does technology have a cosmic purpose?

Are humans the 'saviour' of life on Earth or the 'enemy' of life on Earth?

Does the environmental crisis and human-induced global warming have a cosmic
purpose?

How similar are humans to the cosmos that evolved them? Could it be the case
that qualitative feeling, and other human attributes, pervade the cosmos?

How much knowledge can humans have of the nature of the cosmos?

How many senses does a typical human have and are there senses in the
'non-living' cosmos?

What, if anything, makes humans unique?

Is geoengineering the purpose of the human species?

What does it mean for the human species, and for individual humans, to
be 'green'?


We will be considering these, and many other related issues, in the near
future...

[ECOLOG-L] The Concept of Being 'Green'

[Neil Cummins]

You might be interested to know of the publication (Feb 2011) of:  'What
Does it Mean to be Green?'


It is an exploration of the concept of what acting in a 'green' way entails.
I claim that 'greenness' ultimately has to be cashed out as the human
species acting in a way which ensures the continued existence of the life
(particularly the complex life) which has arisen on the Earth. This leads to
the conclusion that 'greenness' isn't ultimately about minimising human
impacts; contrarily, it involves a high level of human resource use.


Anyway, Book Reviews, and More Details of the book, can be found here if you
are interested in this topic:


www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1907962131/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpubl0b-21



(for the US page just delete the  .uk   and replace with  m  )


I've put the UK page as there are no book reviews on the US page yet!


Best

Neil

[ECOLOG-L] The Purpose of the Environmental Crisis

[Neil Cummins]

If you are interested in the work of Friedrich Hölderlin, or the idea that
the environmental crisis has a purpose, then you might find this following
book of interest:


The Purpose of the Environmental Crisis:  A Reinterpretation of Holderlin's
Philosophy

A Book Description and other information can be found here:


http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/the-purpose-of-the-environmental-crisis


Best

Neil

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans and the Environmental Crisis

[Neil Cummins]

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  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  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 Societ

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans and the Environmental Crisis

[Neil Cummins]

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  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

[ECOLOG-L] Humans and the Environmental Crisis

[Neil Cummins]

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:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/190796200X/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20



http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk



Best wishes

Neil

University of Reading