I'm coming into this debate late because I'm not sure if I have more than
disconnected philosophical snippets to contribute; that is, questions rather
than answers.
It seems to me that this is really the old universals question of the Middle
Ages, to which a satisfactory resolution has never quite been developed. My own
stance here is the sort of conceptualism or "soft" nominalism one would
associate with Abelard or, indeed, Ockham himself. The great irony is that the
typical modern observer with some engagement with the issue of the environment
is likely to applaud Ockham's supposed progressiveness while unconsciously
harbouring distinctly hyperrealist views of such things as the human species,
i.e. the exact opposite of Ockham's position.
Let me begin therefore by casting a nominalist stone in the bush, and denying
that the human species is substantively real in itself. I think the pervasive
and unconscious idea that the species is philosophically prior to the specimen
is causing untold damage to our understanding of our place in the scheme of
things. I am not denying the existence of the human species: it exists; but the
mode in which it exists is that of a concept. It arises from myriad strands of
similarity between discrete human beings and likewise shared points of
difference to other sorts of beings, and as such it is an extremely useful
concept. It may even be that it is impossible to understand our individual
selves without reference to the common concept of humanness - at least in this
life. But it becomes a problem as soon as we cease to recognize the concept of
the species as a concept.
Of course this casts a different light on the idea of the survival of the
species. This is an idea distinct from the idea of the survival of a perpetual
next generation, which is in turn different from the consideration of the
quality of life of individuals of that next generation ("next generation" being
itself a concept rather than a substantive reality). That is, do we proceed
from
the observation that life is inconceivable without the social presence of
younger and indeed much younger individuals, or do we proceed from the supposed
inner force which compels the species to seek its survival? To me the former
seems infinitely better rooted in reality.
So, if the species itself has a conceptual sort of existence, its survival
drive
is at best a secondary concept. That leads me seriously to doubt if
intelligence
has anything to do with the survival of the species. The suggestion seems
fantastic.
If we likewise conceive intelligence as a concept by which to understand what
we
observe, a workable view results. Intelligence is as much the ability to be
understood as the ability to understand. Our relationship to those non-human
beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors, not
least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of
looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us. They
literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one another; and
that
makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that,
because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is
slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful engagement with
various sorts of birds. The point is, intelligence has as much to do with my
understanding of an intelligent being as with the inner condition of that
being;
and that makes it more and not less important to keep in mind the limits of my
understanding of that being. It is just as respect between human persons rests
to a very great extent on always remembering that the other has an inner being
of almost infinite complexity, the precise nuance of which can never really be
grasped.
Conversely disrespect between humans is most often a case of summing the other
up too simply: you are this or that and that is all there is to you. And so too
between humans and others. But importantly we do not invert this. We don't
really care if a squid respects our inner subtlety when we meet one.
I for one accept that it is not able to do so and that it is perfectly good
that
this should be so. But then like Robert I take the view that we humans are not
only specifically charged with stewardship but also uniquely damaged. We are
none of us as we should be: the other creatures are, all of them, no matter
what
any human has done to them, in their basic being exactly as they should be.
But that we all share the task of stewardship and all share the Fall of Man
does
not mean that the species is philosophically - or spiritually - prior to the
specimen. (Ockham has indeed something to say about this, perhaps best
accessible in Fr. Frederick Coppleston's commentaries. CS Lewis comes to much
the same idea from the other end: that we are in our spiritual essence not
bound
by type but individually unique.)
Again, the idea of a creature doing something that works because it was created
with Divine wisdom is different to the idea of an intelligent being. I am not
preferring one to the other; I am insisting on the distinction in the interest
of retaining useful concepts to think with. As it happens I think the former is
probably far more important in the scheme of things: but my job involves being
intelligent. And I don't think it has much to do with the survival of the
species, at least not directly.
I came to the environmental movement not from cosmic-biological but from
socio-political considerations. That is to say, not from shock and horror at
what has been done to the planet, but from noticing that what is supposedly
being done about it is often used as leverage to consolidate the very power
that
caused the damage in the first place, and that a tyranny is being built as a
result. And the problem of tyranny is a deeper problem than the problem of
extinction.
Liberty is a spiritual category and therefore prior to the physical, never mind
the social. Liberty is not something we grow to prefer as soon as we have a
society: it is at least cognate with interpersonality and, I should say, even
more basic. Liberty is not a response to authority (except to that Authority
who
demands of us that we exercise liberty); and it is always creative liberty.
(Dorothy Sayers wrote a wonderful essay in which she points out that, when the
book of Genesis confronts us with the idea that we are created in the image of
God, we have at that point been told nothing about God except that He has
created.)
It is not enough that the "species survive". Indeed that seems to me a
ludicrous
project. It is more important that subsequent human lives happen: there is no
such thing as Life, but only lives. And that is to say nothing of non-human
lives; not that that is the point right now. But note how "Life" and "lives"
are
different sorts of ideas. It is of only secondary importance that a life
involve
"Life", a sort of prolegomena to the main thing even if it is the source of all
morality around killing. It is more important that lives are able to unfold in
terms of their purpose, which is to exercise creative liberty, therein to endow
importance which manifests in acts of love, which are always and necessarily
acts of liberty.
Anything else, no matter how necessary we are told it is for the survival of
the
species, is tantamount to inducing coma at birth. We all sense that that is no
solution, just like killing the poor is not what we mean when we talk of a
solution to the problem of poverty. Without creative liberty we might as well
not exist at all: and if survival means the abolition of creative liberty I
should gladly go down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case.
A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but is built on
creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at all. But it involves
different acts to much of what is happening now.
Regards
Dawie Coetzee
________________________________
From: bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thu, 19 May, 2011 2:46:01
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment
Greetings all,
Re whales "choosing" to return to the sea. The statement seems
to turn natural selection on its head. My understanding of evolution is that
it's a question of adapt or die out. As the environment changes the more
adaptable in a species live and thus reproduce ever more adaptable
offspring, while those that fail simply die off.
The changes are totally random, due to the chromosome scatter which occurs
with each birth i.e no offspring is an exact copy of its parent, hence each
is a mutation of some degree. Some of this mutation is adaptable, some
irrelevant, some not and some harmful.
If the mutation increases survivability in a changing environment the
possessor will survive to produce more offspring with similar mutational
trends. In this way we have species change, some so vast that it seems
counter intuitive to link modern species such as the hyrax (rock rabbit) to
the elephant. Yet the link is there.
The changes are incremental and often miniscule, occurring on time scales of
hundreds of thousands and even millions of years, hence the outcome surely
cannot be attributed to choice.
As for warm blooded sea creatures such as whales, is there not a possibility
they are simply a link on the chain going the other way i.e. out of the sea
and onto land?
Regards,
Bob.
<snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110519/7a113a55/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
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/
