On 5/13/2011 10:23 PM, Chris Burck wrote:
> some define intelligence as the ability to comprehend; or to compute. to
> "grok".
>
> others like to define it as the ability to think adaptively, i.e. to learn
> from experience.
>
> those are probably the two most common uses of the word. people don't
> usually think of intelligence in terms of morality. which is why
> discussions such as this can get thorny. it's hard to keep questions of
> morality out of a discussion about raw survival; not just our own but,
> conceivably that of all life as we know it.
Yet this is precisely where defining moral conduct is crucial. I
have heard ignorant, church-going people suggest that because God gave
humanity a mandate to "fill the earth and subdue it" in Genesis 1:28,
that means we have a right to do with the earth whatever we please.
This concept not only violates the literal meaning of the Hebrew wording
(which is better translated as "be stewards over," rather than
"subdue"), it ignores many other verses which admonish people to care
for animals with kindness and tend the land so that it becomes
fruitful. This cuts to the core of motive. Why would people justify
environmental degradation using the Bible if our actions toward the
earth had no moral context? They do that to shield themselves behind
the moral authority of the scriptures, which is precisely what Ezekiel
complained about with reference to his nation's spiritual and temporal
leadership, so long ago.
If God created life, then life should be sacred and respected.
Often, the same people who object to abortion on these grounds think
nothing of polluting the planet on which the rest of the world's living
creatures depend. Whenever we degrade the natural capital that sustains
life, we are not alone in reaping the consequences. Simply stated, we
share the earth with other living things. For that reason,
environmental consciousness and morality are inextricably linked.
Besides, if we ARE so exceptionally brilliant, doesn't that gift carry
with it a responsibility to use our intellectual capacity with wisdom?
How can we separate the two?
I can't help but see this from a western perspective. It would be
helpful to broaden my understanding if some list members from the
eastern part of the world would participate in this discussion.
> it's very popular (and convenient, for the agenda-setters) to trumpet human
> intelligence and ingenuity, and leave wisdom (i began writing this last
> night, so i've been preempted by your contribution, robert) out of the
> discussion entirely. it's truly remarkable, though IMO no accident, how
> truly rarely you hear the word "wisdom" used nowadays, in almost any
> context.
How true! Wisdom means I have to constrain my desire and learn to
be content with my possessions. Our economic system absolutely depends
on dissatisfaction and unbridled lust for more stuff. Therefore,
ignoring wisdom is part of what the agenda-setters (I like that term,
Chris!) must do in order to perpetuate the current social order.
> in any case, the question of wisdom puts chomsky's proposition in an
> entirely different light. is it about sheer brain size? or the kind of
> brain? the homo sapiens brain is not the largest. it seems whales and
> porpoises (or many of them, at least), have bigger brains than us. and i've
> read somewhere that neanderthals, also, may have had more brain than we do.
Yeah, I've read that, too. However, I have a psychologist friend
who likes to say: "The size of the bucket is less important than what's
in it." I'm sure you've met your share of large-headed people who were
less than stellar in the intellect department. Likewise, I've taught
children who were certainly smaller, but much smarter than me. Size is
an inadequate measure of cognitive capacity.
> the nature/natural history programs on television like to point out that
> their brains "must have" been (read "we need to believe that they were")
> less evolved. because the art and tools they left behind indicate this.
> perhaps. but, even supposing this, does this mean they were less happy?
> less fulfilled?
>
> we know that they coexisted with humans for a time. when it was proposed,
> based on some remains that were found, that homo sapiens and neanderthals
> interbred, there were a few who accepted the proposition as worthy of
> further investigation. but many more who categorically rejected it.
We have a real problem when it comes to presuming our own
exceptionalism, and that often leads us to discount the intelligence of
other creatures. One of my cats can open a bi-fold door. She is pretty
adept at problem solving--dealing with problems that a cat needs to
solve--using the tools she has available to her. I've seen the same
kind of thing in birds, who are far more clever than most of us credit them.
> the "nays" have since been proven wrong by genetic analysis. but the
> immediacy and vehemence of their rejection of the idea was noteworthy.
> clearly motivated by a pro-human bias. they couldn't imagine themselves
> intermingling with an "inferior race", so why would early humans have done
> so? yet a few, at least, obviously did. maybe that's why we killed them
> off, you know? the oldest story in the book. "them so-and-so's is stealin'
> our women! we ain't gonna stand fer that!!"
Sigh . . . That kind of arrogance also speaks to underlying motive
and morality, does it not?
> seriously, though. interbreeding happened. but not often: how do we know
> it wasn't they who scorned us?
>
> then there's the whales. we know their ancestors were land dwellers. in
> other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them
> chose to return to the sea.
> why would they do that? this is a serious question. after all, you're
> giving up an awful lot.
>
> think about it.
How can we understand the evolutionary pressure that those
creatures faced? We weren't around to observe the environment. All we
can do is examine the evidence and draw conclusions about what actually
happened. We may never know why. But for whatever reason it happened,
I don't think we have moral justification for ruining the environment
upon which other intelligent life, like whales and dolphins, or any
other life form, depends.
robert luis rabello
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca
Crisis video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4
The Long Journey video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
