Environmental Ethics

[Metadigital]

Not those particular species, but some other species. Let's recall, the same process that created life out of non-life is still at work.

This is true, but what are the chances of it happening again? Who knows? Do we want to find out?

Well, at some point in our species destruction spree, we will be the next to go, and that will solve the problem.

Perhaps, though I suspect that we'll do just about anything to survive...

Everything will be rebuilt from whatever species we missed.

...which makes me wonder about this.

Imho, environmental ethics should start with an understanding of the process whereby we experience reality as a division between "me" and "everything else".

"Everything else" includes even our own bodies. We will take drugs we know damage our own bodies, jump out of airplanes, etc etc in order to serve the needs of the "me". This points to something deeper than our world view.

It's not the content of thought that is at the heart of the issue, but thought itself. The tool we are using to examine environmental ethics is itself the chief environmental problem.

I agree, though I noticed that you removed a little of what I said in the quote. There are several ways that ecology addresses this, but your appeal is metaphysical.

Let's say that we assume that humans have intrinsic value (I doubt this is much of a leap for anyone). Now, we blue the line between "me" and "everything else" (as you discussed). Something interesting happens. That intrinsic value that we at first only applied to "ourselves" spills over into "everything else". That, in a nutshell, is one of the many possible inferences gained from ecology. The metaphysical one, at least, as proposed by J. Baird Calicott. This method gives us a device through which to spill intrinsic value onto animals, plants, and even the land itself. It reminds me of Alan Watts looking at nature and saying, "That's the real you." It also brings back memories of Carl Sagan, who said that we were a way for the universe to know itself. Maybe I'm just sentimental to this idea.

You don't have to appeal to metaphysics to extend value beyond the "self", of course. Like you, though, I'm critical of anything that attempts to make the distinction too rigid. Luckily, environmental philosophers tend to be aware of it.

[Typist]

This is true, but what are the chances of it (life arising from non-life) happening again? Who knows? Do we want to find out?

Somebody said that energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes form. One perspective could be that the boundary line between life and non-life is more conceptual than real, another invention of our divisive dualistic minds.

Environmental ethics seems an attempt to cling to a particular pattern of forms, within the context of an eternity of endless change. I'm entirely agreeable to this process, as that is what life is.

There are several ways that ecology addresses this, but your appeal is metaphysical.

Hmm. I see it more as an engineering analysis. That is, starting with the stated problem, species extinction and environmental degradation etc, and tracing it back to it's source.

We had a mystery plumbing leak here this week. We had to follow the trail, and figure out where it originated. Same thing.

Let's say that we assume that humans have intrinsic value (I doubt this is much of a leap for anyone).

As philosophers we have to be clear we are assuming this value, inventing it. Once that's taken care of, I'm agreeable, willing to join with you in the assumption.

Now, we blue the line between "me" and "everything else" (as you discussed). Something interesting happens. That intrinsic value that we at first only applied to "ourselves" spills over into "everything else". That, in a nutshell, is one of the many possible inferences gained from ecology.

Yes, agreed, ecology is a method for seeing the illusory nature of the conceptual boundaries we create. A field test is to simply hold one's breath. This brings us directly to the point with great efficiency, without need of philosophy and intellectual abstractions etc.

This method gives us a device through which to spill intrinsic value onto animals, plants, and even the land itself.

Agreed again. The fact is we are alive, and the nature of being alive is to try to stay separate. Part of doing that effectively is to understand we aren't separate.

Only humans would make it this complicated, but that is who we are, and so we should honor the gymnastics.

You don't have to appeal to metaphysics to extend value beyond the "self", of course.

Yes, agreed. And practically speaking, it's probably better that we don't, as then we will immediately begin arguing over whose metaphysics is the correct one, leading to a holy war which involves great environmental damage etc.

PS: Another way to feed an environmental ethic.
http://nature-talk.com/photos/directory ... y-home.cgi

[Metadigital]

Somebody said that energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes form. One perspective could be that the boundary line between life and non-life is more conceptual than real, another invention of our divisive dualistic minds.

Environmental ethics seems an attempt to cling to a particular pattern of forms, within the context of an eternity of endless change. I'm entirely agreeable to this process, as that is what life is.

You're thinking of the energy model of ecology, such as the food pyramid (or chain). You're also blending in ideas from physics (matter is energy). I agree that it's very hard to separate patterns of energy into distinct entities. Yet, our brains are good at recognizing patterns, and even if the edges are blurry, I wouldn't completely deny the existence of them in the confusion of their components.

Hmm. I see it more as an engineering analysis. That is, starting with the stated problem, species extinction and environmental degradation etc, and tracing it back to it's source.

We had a mystery plumbing leak here this week. We had to follow the trail, and figure out where it originated. Same thing.

Somewhat. The idea of the "self" expanding into the environment is still hotly debated in philosophy. It's a disagreement of metaphysics, or theory of reality, since it's not a strictly empirical investigation. Your previous comments, for example, though inspired by science, were at their core metaphysical. Just because a claim is metaphysical doesn't mean that it's automatically invalid or has to do with supernatural or immaterial claims.

Yes, agreed. And practically speaking, it's probably better that we don't, as then we will immediately begin arguing over whose metaphysics is the correct one, leading to a holy war which involves great environmental damage etc.

That has been true some of the time (with regard to religion), but most metaphysical systems have been peaceful. I'd say that perhaps the most damage done in terms of world views has been the 20th century rejection of metaphysics by Positivism and the impact that had not only on academic philosophy (which was reduced to analytic philosophy), but science (which struggled to justify its theoretical aspects).

Anyway, that's perhaps a topic for another thread. The tricky thing about environmental ethics is how it not only touches ethics, but epistemology, aesthetics, political philosophy, language and metaphysics.

[Typist]

Your previous comments, for example, though inspired by science, were at their core metaphysical.

Ok, I likely don't understand the term metaphysical very well, and so stand corrected. Perhaps you can help me understand the term better?

I'm just trying to say in my own amateur way that all the environmental problems we are discussing can be traced back to a central source, the nature of thought.

As example, the word "tree" conceptually divides a holistic reality in to parts. That's how language works.

While this is extremely useful in many regards, it also introduces a significant distortion in our relationship with nature, and everything else.

We think of "tree" as being separate from earth, sun, water and ourselves, and thus treat it as being separate, when the reality is that everything is connected to everything else.

The heart of this division distortion is the concept "me". From the "me" arises the desire for endless more, which is a key driver of our impact upon the environment.

As example, let's imagine that tomorrow we discover an endless supply of free clean energy. Fantastic!

And then what happens? The economy booms, we accelerate our quest for more, and thus begin burning through other limited resources at an ever faster pace, still on the path towards excessive development, war, crisis etc.

Nothing has really changed, because our minds, the engine of the whole process, have not changed.

Although I have no fantastic solutions to offer, I'm trying to move from periphery of the problem (species extinction etc) to the source of the problem, because that would seem to be the point of greatest leverage.

As it is now, it seems we are trying to address a plumbing problem by mopping the floor. No matter how earnestly we mop, the water keeps coming.

That has been true some of the time (with regard to religion), but most metaphysical systems have been peaceful.

Well yes, probably a topic for another thread. Imho, all metaphysical systems arise from the divisive nature of thought too, and thus are in conflict with other systems inherently. Even a philosophy of open minded acceptance and inclusion is in conflict with narrow minded judgmental outlooks etc.

If we wear pink sunglasses the entire world will look pink. When we view the world through thought, everything will appear divided and divisive. To me, that's the heart of the environmental issue.

[Metadigital]

Ok, I likely don't understand the term metaphysical very well, and so stand corrected. Perhaps you can help me understand the term better?

I think there's a lot of confusion about metaphysics these days. I think it's a reaction against superstition and religion, both of which rely strongly on metaphysics, and are often legitimately criticized. Metaphysics, plainly put, is any theory of reality. That is, it is composed of claims about the true nature of reality. Examples of metaphysics in philosophy are common, but the really interesting thing to me is the metaphysics that's snuck into science. These includes entities such as waves, atoms, quarks, photons, gravitons, dark matter and energy, etc. All of these, though they have some scientific basis, are ultimately good examples of metaphysical entities that are commonly believed to exist.

I'm just trying to say in my own amateur way that all the environmental problems we are discussing can be traced back to a central source, the nature of thought.
...

The heart of this division distortion is the concept "me". From the "me" arises the desire for endless more, which is a key driver of our impact upon the environment.

I agree, and that's addressed in ecology (especially in Deep Ecology). The idea is an ego-centric one, where you expand yourself to include everything else and continue doing things that favor "yourself".

As example, let's imagine that tomorrow we discover an endless supply of free clean energy. Fantastic!

And then what happens? The economy booms, we accelerate our quest for more, and thus begin burning through other limited resources at an ever faster pace, still on the path towards excessive development, war, crisis etc.

Nothing has really changed, because our minds, the engine of the whole process, have not changed.

I agree. This is sounding a lot like Deep Ecology, so I wonder if that's what you're drawing from. I would certainly be in same camp that claims that world views influence our interactions with our environment. I think it would be nonsense to suggest otherwise. The trouble is that reassessing these beliefs is painful, slow, and controversial.

Although I have no fantastic solutions to offer, I'm trying to move from periphery of the problem (species extinction etc) to the source of the problem, because that would seem to be the point of greatest leverage.

As it is now, it seems we are trying to address a plumbing problem by mopping the floor. No matter how earnestly we mop, the water keeps coming.

Yes, Deep Ecology called this "Shallow Ecology", the action of treating the symptoms rather than the cause. The call was, then, to address the cause (which they believed to be the world view). Of course, how we do that is certainly the hardest part. Deep Ecology, as a movement, was crushed mercilessly under its critics and hasn't been heard from since. The rest of ecology, especially the biocultural perspective, preserves this criticism and seems to be offering better solutions to the problems (even though bioculturalism is a very new field itself).

If we wear pink sunglasses the entire world will look pink. When we view the world through thought, everything will appear divided and divisive. To me, that's the heart of the environmental issue.

Sure, it's also at the heart of reason. We can only understand the world through conceptual lenses. These lenses divide us, ultimately. That's why I think it's wise to become adapt at seeing the world through a variety of these lenses, gaining deeper understanding and appreciation for the values we find in viewpoints we might otherwise dismiss as inferior.

[Aetixintro]

Just the two links:
Ecosophy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosophy.

Deep ecology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology.

Note especially, "4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease." from Deep Ecology!

Also the other ecological discussion on this forum: Ecology... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=691.

(I don't bother to repeat myself more than this. I hope this disc. goes far as well!)

[Typist]

Sure, it's (thought) also at the heart of reason. We can only understand the world through conceptual lenses.

An "environmental ethic" implies healing a division between ourselves and nature.

What is the source of this division? What causes it?

I believe this is best answered by a real world field test. Let's take a walk in the woods, at the beach etc. Let's actually do it, and watch what happens.

As we walk through the woods, are we really attending to nature, uniting with it?

Or is our attention usually elsewhere?

[Metadigital]

Just the two links:
Ecosophy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosophy.

Deep ecology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology.

Note especially, "4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease." from Deep Ecology!

I was just reading Naess this morning. Let's see, it's an article from Philosophical Inquiry 8, 1-2 (1986). In it he mentions the population problem:

It is recognized that excessive pressures on planetary life stem from the human population explosion. The pressure stemming from the industrial societies is a major factor, and population reduction must have the highest priorities in those societies.

In general, I agree with his diagnosis, but I'm not sure I'm in line with the treatment. Recently industrialized societies have by far the largest population growth, where as post-industrial ones are tapering off or even declining (such as Sweden, Italy, or Japan). If I were to recommend a course of action, it would be to handle with more care how we give aid to developing nations, keeping an eye on the population explosions that are inevitable when we introduce new technologies.

Also the other ecological discussion on this forum: Ecology... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=691.

I replied some time ago to it. I'll leave a discussion of rising populations for that thread rather than continue it here, but I did want to give you a comment.

An "environmental ethic" implies healing a division between ourselves and nature.

What is the source of this division? What causes it?

If you were to ask me this question, I would blame a whole lineage of thought tracing back through Bacon and Descartes to the Abrahamic religions, landing finally (and controversially) in the laps of Plato and other early thinkers who first began to suppose a mind / body dualism. I don't think this severage was complete until Judaism, but I wouldn't land the blame on any one particular person of belief system in that long chain.

I believe this is best answered by a real world field test. Let's take a walk in the woods, at the beach etc. Let's actually do it, and watch what happens.

As we walk through the woods, are we really attending to nature, uniting with it?

Or is our attention usually elsewhere?

That's the approach that Aldo Leopold did in his legendary Sand Country Almanac, which has become a sort of bible in environmental ethics. Most of the book is composed of his thoughts while experiencing the wildlife near his farm. Near the end it becomes a philosophic book, but at it's core, everything is inspired by nature. He reminds me a lot of A. N. Whitehead and the Romantics like Thoreau (both in his writing style and message).

Personally, it's where I got my inspiration. Like a good Texan, I grew up between a cattle ranch and an emu farm. I got to see that emu farm turn into suburbia and that cattle ranch covered in cement and concrete. They now call it Dell Computers Corporate Headquarters. I used to play in a place called the blackland prairie, which I'm not even sure exists anymore. When I was a kid there were only about 20,000 square miles of it left in the world. So, I suppose I learned to be sensitive to nature. I think that comes from the sense of loss you get when it's gone.

[Nikolai]

Hi metadigital

When I was a kid there were only about 20,000 square miles of it left in the world. So, I suppose I learned to be sensitive to nature. I think that comes from the sense of loss you get when it's gone.

There's a side of me that loves what you write, and what inspires you. I too grew up playing in nature and it was discovering Thoreau as a teenager (he's not well known in the UK) that got me thinking.

But there is a huge, huge problem with so much of what you write and I think Typist has been hinting at it. A concrete Dell headquarters is nature just as much as Blackland prairie is.

I'm not saying that you might have an individual preference for prairie over Dell - many would share it with you. But you cannot make preservation of some aspects nature into a universal ethic. Everything is nature; a computer headquarters is as much Gaia's creation as a rainforest - this is the holistic view.

You talk about holism a lot, and yet with everything you write you actually separate humanity from nature in a way that is completely unjustified. You are also making constant divisions where none can be made - not least, you seem to think that there is an actual division between life and not-life when the division is a purely intellectual one.

Your conceptual distinctions between nature/humanity and life/not-life seem to be so arbitrary that I can't help but worry about the hideous perverted actions they might lead you to entertain in the name of conservation. By relegating human colonies and nests to something 'sub-natural' I dread to think what you might have in store for them in order to preserve 'nature'.

For what its worth, I think that unless we learn to accept, with equanimity, the ever-changing face of the planet without always calling everything 'man's destruction' we are doomed to pursue ham-fisted interventions that will make us feeling even worse. It is only by learning to love nature so deeply that we love our own place in it, Dell headquarters and all, that we might achieve a tranquility that, who knows, means that we don't feel the need to be chasing around in 'polluting' automobiles. I know this sounds very Taoist, but by not trying always to save the planet we might end up with the outcome that we wanted to achieve.

Many worry about the fate of the human species more than they do the planet. Earth shall survive, they say, but I can't bear the thought of our children's children dying out. With this too, we must learn to accept the mortality of our species with the same serene acceptance as our own individual mortality. If we don't we're going to end up squabbling anyway over who is polluting more than others - at an international level there is already signs of this happening.

Best wishes, Nikolai

[Typist]

An "environmental ethic" implies healing a division between ourselves and nature. What is the source of this division? What causes it?

If you were to ask me this question, I would blame a whole lineage of thought tracing back through Bacon and Descartes to the Abrahamic religions, landing finally (and controversially) in the laps of Plato and other early thinkers who first began to suppose a mind / body dualism. I don't think this severage was complete until Judaism, but I wouldn't land the blame on any one particular person of belief system in that long chain.

Yes, we have conducted an extensive real world field test that we can learn from.

Billions of people in a wide variety of cultures all over the world have experimented with many different philosophies over thousands of years.

The entire human race (not just the west) has done a vast amount of philosophical work over a very long period of time, and we have yet to find a philosophical world view that we can all agree on, or that will prevent us from warring upon ourselves, each other, and the environment.

If thousands of years of work in every culture across the globe have shown we can't create a philosophy that will prevent us from killing each other, upon what basis do we conclude we can create a new environmental ethic philosophy that will prevent us from killing the environment?

Thousands of years of philosophical work has not delivered us from chronic crisis. How do we explain this?

One theory is that the fundamental error is looking at thought as the solution, when actually it is the problem.

Most of the book is composed of his thoughts while experiencing the wildlife near his farm.

If we actually go out in to nature, and try to really experience wildlife, we will see that thought is the obstacle that's in the way.

Like a good Texan, I grew up between a cattle ranch and an emu farm. I got to see that emu farm turn into suburbia and that cattle ranch covered in cement and concrete.

Same thing here. Explosive growth in our area over the last 40 years. What used to be "way out in the country" is now the center of town. Sometimes I'm happy to be pushing 60, because I'd rather not be here to see Florida 40 years from now.

[Metadigital]

Whew, beware, this is a long post.

There's a side of me that loves what you write, and what inspires you. I too grew up playing in nature and it was discovering Thoreau as a teenager (he's not well known in the UK) that got me thinking.

But there is a huge, huge problem with so much of what you write and I think Typist has been hinting at it. A concrete Dell headquarters is nature just as much as Blackland prairie is.

I'm not saying that you might have an individual preference for prairie over Dell - many would share it with you. But you cannot make preservation of some aspects nature into a universal ethic. Everything is nature; a computer headquarters is as much Gaia's creation as a rainforest - this is the holistic view.

You talk about holism a lot, and yet with everything you write you actually separate humanity from nature in a way that is completely unjustified. You are also making constant divisions where none can be made - not least, you seem to think that there is an actual division between life and not-life when the division is a purely intellectual one.

Of course, and I agree somewhat. I do distinguish between human and non-human environments. The separation isn't strictly that simple, though. It's, I hope, a little more refined.

The environment of asphalt and concrete is uninhabitable for most life. You don't want to stay there long, anyhow, even if you're a human being. There's no food or water, just hot (or maybe cold if you're further north), dry, barren man-made wasteland. Really, if another race had created such an environment at such a scale, we'd all be dividing nature up between what they create and what they don't. The problem with Dell Headquarters and other places like it is simply that it's an unpleasing environment both from the perspective of habitability and beauty. The little life you find in places like that are small monocultures, who's existence is managed at great cost of resources. These monocultures are not sustainable, they'll die off once the vast amount of energy required for their well-being is no longer available (for whatever reason). There's no such thing as an "ecosystem" in a business center, urban area, parking lot, or warehouse. You could say that these are part of a larger ecosystem, and ecologists call this the "human ecosystem". My criticism of this is simply that it's yet another unsustainable monoculture that doesn't really offer a lot of depth to the overall picture and yet comes at too high a price.

Your conceptual distinctions between nature/humanity and life/not-life seem to be so arbitrary that I can't help but worry about the hideous perverted actions they might lead you to entertain in the name of conservation. By relegating human colonies and nests to something 'sub-natural' I dread to think what you might have in store for them in order to preserve 'nature'.

Oh, I don't consider humans "sub-natural". We're distinct because that's the perspective we're coming from (unavoidable), and we are really at the core of this issue. It's the idea that we're separate from nature that disturbs me. Of course, just because we're a part of nature doesn't mean that we can't distinguish between human and non-human activities anymore than we can distinguish between beaver and non-beaver activities. Our actions just have much farther reaching consequences than beavers.

For what its worth, I think that unless we learn to accept, with equanimity, the ever-changing face of the planet without always calling everything 'man's destruction' we are doomed to pursue ham-fisted interventions that will make us feeling even worse. It is only by learning to love nature so deeply that we love our own place in it, Dell headquarters and all, that we might achieve a tranquility that, who knows, means that we don't feel the need to be chasing around in 'polluting' automobiles. I know this sounds very Taoist, but by not trying always to save the planet we might end up with the outcome that we wanted to achieve.

The most memorable belief in Taoism that for me were the concepts of yu-wei and wu-wei. Maybe you're familiar with them, but the basic lesson is that doing too much is actually harmful. The secret to living in harmony with nature and those around you is to simply not do too much. I think there's great wisdom in this, but I'm in a country that would vehemently disagree with me (and the Taoists, I imagine). Capitalism demands doing too much, and rewards those who do the most. Businesses couldn't survive in a capitalist market under the principals of wu-wei. They would be stomped under the feet of competition, either being bought or going bankrupt. How can you convince such a system to slow down? It's no easy task, but it certainly involves a little action along the way. A lot of environmentalism isn't this enlightened, though, like the kind you'll see in government programs. These tend to be more harmful than good, which goes to show you that you can't fight yu-wei with even more yu-wei.

Many worry about the fate of the human species more than they do the planet. Earth shall survive, they say, but I can't bear the thought of our children's children dying out. With this too, we must learn to accept the mortality of our species with the same serene acceptance as our own individual mortality. If we don't we're going to end up squabbling anyway over who is polluting more than others - at an international level there is already signs of this happening.

Well, it would be sad if this is how we had to go, as a species. I'm remaining optimistic, but realistic. There are solutions out there, we just have to be willing to accept them. I don't think that many of the lessons we need to learn are new. We have just forgotten them in our rush for comfort and convenience.

If thousands of years of work in every culture across the globe have shown we can't create a philosophy that will prevent us from killing each other, upon what basis do we conclude we can create a new environmental ethic philosophy that will prevent us from killing the environment?

That's simply not true. I pointed to a very specific Western line of thought in identifying the problem. It was more specific than it might have appeared, leaving out environmental thinkers such as St.Francis of Assisi or Rousseau.

There are examples, all over the world, of cultures that have environmental philosophies. In fact, it's more of a "default position" for humanity. The strange thing is that we don't still have one today, thanks to our unique Western heritage.

I can't possibly name all of the environmental cultures around the world, but to stress the fact, I'll name a few; Lakota, Ojibwa, Maori, Hawaiian, Taoist, Yahgan, Ancient Greek, Koyukon, Tukano, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Kayapo, Yoruba, Confucianism, Jainism, and many others even including some interpretations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The truth is that there are over 6,000 languages still alive in the world today. 90% of these languages are spoken by less than 1,000 people. So, the idea that these ideas don't exist is largely based on our own ignorance. I mentioned a culture probably no one here would recognize, the Yahgan, of which only two native speakers (both grandmother) survive. Their culture has a tragic history, but they were around just long to help inspire Darwin to reconsider our relationship to nature. Modern ecologists are also turning to native cultures for inspiration, as they have a lot of the answer we're seeking.

If we actually go out in to nature, and try to really experience wildlife, we will see that thought is the obstacle that's in the way.

I disagree. That is, I think thought is important. I do agree that it isn't the only or even best method of understanding.

Same thing here. Explosive growth in our area over the last 40 years. What used to be "way out in the country" is now the center of town. Sometimes I'm happy to be pushing 60, because I'd rather not be here to see Florida 40 years from now.

What's amazing is that I'm half your age and have seen the exact same thing in 20 years. This expansion is exponential, and that troubles me.

[Typist]

Our actions just have much farther reaching consequences than beavers.

NO! Beavers are on the march!

Largest Beaver Dam Seen From Space
The dam in northern Canada spans 2,800 feet and has likely been under beavers' construction since the mid-1970s.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/beave ... space.html

[Typist]

I can't possibly name all of the environmental cultures around the world, but to stress the fact, I'll name a few; Lakota, Ojibwa, Maori, Hawaiian, Taoist, Yahgan, Ancient Greek, Koyukon, Tukano, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Kayapo, Yoruba, Confucianism, Jainism, and many others even including some interpretations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Ok, good point, well put. I do agree we should study these cultures, and learn what we can. Please be our cultural instructor.

A few thoughts to keep this ball rolling...

First, it seems worth observing that these philosophies have not competed successfully against what is now a globally dominant free market consumption based culture, such as we see in full bloom here in the U.S. Perhaps the two best examples of this are the giant countries of India and China that seem eager to abandon their traditional philosophies to become ever more like us as quickly as possible.

So, it seems we are swimming upstream against the tide of history if we think we are going to learn Hawaiian nature philosophy, and then sell it to the world.

Second, my guess is that the nature respecting cultures you refer to were/are rooted in a direct daily experience of nature.

Given that the planet is increasingly urban (now over 50%) it's perhaps questionable whether the insights of these nature based cultures can be translated to vast urban populations that don't have the nature experience the nature respecting philosophies arise from.

I'm not sure where that leaves us.

We might chew on this. Just about everybody now knows that global warming is a serious threat generated by human activity. In spite of this widely held knowledge, we continue to earnestly mass produce entirely frivolous luxury consumer items, at ongoing cost to the atmosphere. You know, we're like drug addicts that know we're killing ourselves, but we can't help but continue shooting up.

This suggests a theory that the problem is deeper than swapping out one philosophy for another.

If we actually go out in to nature, and try to really experience wildlife, we will see that thought is the obstacle that's in the way.

I disagree. That is, I think thought is important. I do agree that it isn't the only or even best method of understanding.

I agree thought is important too, which is why I keep ranting about it. Thank you for your patience as I struggle with the topic.

Is this helpful?

Suppose we traced the source of all pollution back to electricity.

If that were the case, we would undergo a massive shift of focus to the study of electricity.

We can't simply abandon electricity, as it's central to modern civilization. So simple solutions are out.

But, if electricity was discovered to be the source of all pollution, we would study it with great earnestness. We would invest billions in to learning how to better manage electricity. We would overhaul our entire relationship with this element of nature.

That's what I'm struggling to say about thought. Thought is an element of the natural world, and it is the source of the environmental crisis.

We are highly unsophisticated in our understanding and use of thought. We don't even know where the on/off button is.

As things stand, there's not much chance billions of people in urban populations are going to develop a deep personal relationship with nature, given that our minds are flooded with a distracting tidal wave of thought we seem unable to control.

What's amazing is that I'm half your age and have seen the exact same thing in 20 years. This expansion is exponential, and that troubles me.

That's sobering, and educational, to read. You see, I depend to significant extent on the "get out of jail free" card which comes as a privilege of age. No matter how weird things might get, I can check out at any time, knowing I've had my share, which nobody can take away.

Your comment reminds me everybody isn't is this situation. The fact I should need such a reminder is somewhat embarrassing.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that your generation should stop hoping my generation is going to hand you a clean world. It's probably time to shove us aside, grab the reigns of power, and create your own future. You don't really have the time to wait for us boomers to grow up. If that was going to happen, it would have already.

[Metadigital]

I'm not ignoring you, I'll give you a reply within a week. I'm finishing up a thesis on top of attending a few events this weekend, so I'm really short on time.

[Typist]

No worries Meta. I'm taking some time off the Net myself, so perhaps others will continue on without us for a bit. Good luck with all your projects!