How “Deep” is your Ecology ??
Recently we came across this interesting questionnaire in our “Literature and Environment” class (it’s a humanities elective course). It’s called the “ecological philosophy depth gauge” and it’s meant to help people take a measure of whether their views on environment issues are “shallow” or “deep“. Check it out -
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How deep is your ecology? Take a sounding. Go down until you disagree, and then go back up one level.
-
Superficial: We should take good care of our planet, as we would any valuable tool.
-
Shallow: We have a responsibility to protect Earth’s resources for our future generations.
-
Knee deep: Earth would benefit from a lessening in human activity.
-
Hip deep: The planet would be better off with fewer people on it.
-
Deep: Wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake.
-
Deeper: Wildlife has more right to live on the Earth than humans do.
-
Profoundly deep: Humans are too great a threat to life on Earth. The species should be phased out.
-
Radically deep: Human extinction now or there won’t be any later for this planet. A painless extermination is needed.
-
Abysmally deep: A quick annihilation is too good for humans. A horrible, fatal illness from outer space is only fair.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nature is beautiful – and generally it’s more beautiful from afar than from up close. That’s my opinion after living next to a “National Park” for the better part of almost 3 years.
It’s very easy to fall in love with nature. But when you start living with her or next to her – you encounter the bugs and amphibians and snakes. Then you come across the wildlife that shows its wild side by chasing you off rather than the other way round…
Well, at least we don’t have to deal with leopards.
I guess I stand somewhere between shallow and hip-deep.
Where do you stand ??
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P.S. –
In case you turn out to be deeper than Deeper Profoundly Deep – I would suggest that you contact a professional psychotherapist/psychologist ASAP…
P.P.S –
Someone deeper than Deeper (and not just any arbitrary someone – the founder of VHEMT) actually commented on the post 
– check out the comments…
Advertisement
I am at 5. Deep. I believe both wilderness and humans have equal right to earth.
But hey I also believe in survival of the fittest. Gee, I am confused.
aargh!
I am at 5..its not really about who has more right to live on this planet…both wildlife and humans have to live in tandem to maintain the much required ecological balance….and afterall..it is this unbalanced state thats causing most of our problems…
@ Sim – ??
@ Sirisha –
“both wildlife and humans have to live in tandem to maintain the much required ecological balance”
“it is this unbalanced state thats causing most of our problems” ??
it almost sounds as if you’re thinking of preserving wildlife – so as to preserve ecological balance – so as to ensure less problems for humanity…
To test whether you truly believe in preserving wildlife for it’s own sake –
consider a species which is ugly and dangerous
destroying this species would have no ecological repercussions (I know this is only possible in a hypothetical case, but still, let’s consider the same for a moment)
also – to make the choice more difficult – destroying the species will result in some sort of economic benefit…
would you still say that the species has a right to live
is your ecological philosophy that deep ?
(I am not sure whether I “pass” this test myself – hence I’m stuck at 4 at best)
@ adhok
you seem to be contradicting yourself.
What do you mean by “right to earth”, if you believe in survival of the fittest?
When I say I am confused, I thought you understood. Anyway, let me break it down for you. While I believe in survival of the fittest, I am not able to decide whether or not use of machines would qualify for the purpose.
well…i dont have a sound background in ecology… but i am certain that whether or not a particular creature is a threat to humans..or ..the extinction /destruction of which will be an economic benefit… its existence is necessary in maintaining balance…thats how earth was designed..(and we humans are smart enough to escape leopard attacks..lol)… the whole concept of having National Parks and Wildlife sanctuaries is to preserve the environment… why else do we have these national level campaigns like “save the tiger..”..etc.. its because we humans are experiencing the after-effects of destroying wildlife…
@ adhok
I understand – you were right – you are confused
@ sirisha
“its existence is necessary in maintaining balance” – agreed
Our planet and ecology are such complex systems that it’s downright absurd for anyone to claim with any amount of confidence that whatever damage we deal out to the environment won’t have any repercussions. In fact, most of the evidence we have points to the contrary.
Interesting comments. I’m at level 7.
You can download your own Eco Depth Gauge as a pdf from: http://vhemt.org/ecology.htm#gauge
OK – wow !
Wasn’t really expecting any comments from the founder of the voluntary human extinction movement
Mr Knight – As intelligent, rational, entities what is the logical course of action for human beings, as a species ?
I’ve thought about these questions and “voluntary extinction” is the probably the last answer that I would choose. But I would really appreciate it if you would share your opinions on the same…
Generally the answers offered to the above question are rational but quite short-sighted. On the other extreme – I find the answer offered by VHEMT volunteers and supporters – basically that we should let our species, the most “intelligent” species we’re aware of, “phase out” – to be quite irrational…
well…i see a rather deep thought behind what Les. U Knight has said… considering we are the smartest and sole rational entities of this planet..we are also solely responsible for environmental distress…
although “phase-out” would not be the appropriate word to use here.. reducing human population and in turn reducing human activity will go a long way….
a) I don’t like this list very much. I find number 5 something I’d agree with, but disagree pretty strongly with a few of the points below it.
b) Does the VHEMT actually exist? Somebody showed me the link and I thought it was a joke- some Darwin awards level funda. And if it does exist, I suppose every member is eligible for a Darwin award.
Anubhav, I’m not really the founder, I just gave it a name. Many have arrived at this conclusion independently. There are numerous logical courses of action for humans in addition to phasing ourselves out. Any of the noble goals we aspire to — world peace, ending hunger, preserving biodiversity, and so on — will be easier to achieve as there become fewer of us.
We consider our type of intelligence to be the highest but we have yet to prove that we are smarter than yeast in a vat of beer: increasing in number as long as there’s food and then dying off. I think we are smarter: we can see where we are headed and make rational, compassionate changes.
sirisha, VHEMT Supporters agree that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can’t be justified today, but like you, they don’t think we should go all the way to extinction.
Vinayak Sapru, a group Darwin Award was discussed: http://vhemt.org/media.htm#books
There are two premises behind VHEMT: voluntary non-breeding and eventual extinction. How would creating another of us benefit planet, people, or the new person? How can the continued existence of a species which causes so many other species to go extinct be justified?
Thank you for not breeding.
I am at “Superficial”
I took the course 2 years ago… Debated this for the entire semester… Made my point with a chain of reasoning during the final presentation
@Les U. Knight :How would creating another of us benefit planet, people, or the new person? How can the continued existence of a species which causes so many other species to go extinct be justified? – totally agreed.
@ Mr Knight, I not only disagree with you, but go diametrically opposite. It is my opinion that the world is here for the taking, and those who can, will take it. Remember that there is only one ‘true’ constant when one talks about life in any form, and that is the need to reproduce. Our genes made a mistake with us, they delegated too much of their function to the brain, so much so that we can deny our sole purpose.
What will happen when we exhaust the planet, people ask? Why, we will find some other way, maybe another planet, maybe a way to extract more out of this one. We have to, or we shall die. Personally, I am not worried. I have great faith in the human race and its capabilities, a faith which apparently, you do not share.
knee deep…
@ Vinayak – I guess your question’s been answered
@ Mr Knight –
1. I completely agree that striving for a reduction in human population given the current state of affairs is quite rational. Hence I’m at “hip-deep” almost.
2. regarding intelligence – your argument is poetic – however
- yeast are hardwired to carry out their evolutionary programming – we are not
3. looking at a more basic level – life is defined by survival – perpetuation of who we are – the same goes with intelligence – memetics – the thought of voluntary extinction still seems to be irrational.
VHEMT’s beliefs still seem irrational – would like to hear your points in case you still believe that they can be rationalized.
@ Srivats -
nice counter-point – however just one crib
you might want to consider memetics as well – the entire point of intelligence is that we are able to analyze/modify/oppose our genetic programming.
I think a purely biological Darwinist attitude towards our goal or aim as a species is no longer quite valid or sufficient.
My point is simply this… Why is the planet important? Does it have any value apart from the fact that it supports our own lives? My answer to that is a vehement NO! As far as we are concerned, the planet has one function, and one function only, to serve as home to us. Incidentally, this viewpoint stems from existentialism. Nothing has objective worth or value, therefore the only ascribable value is in relation to the observer, in this case, us.
The ONLY truly important thing is the human race, merely because we are it. If I were a tiger, and capable of such thought, I would say the same of the tiger population. Anthropocentrism is not a bad concept, it is what has sustained us, and quite paradoxically, nurtured us, through the ages.
Yes, we must protect the planet, but only because we need it. Conversely, if there comes a time when the planet is beyond repair as we know it, we must find other solutions, or perish.
Does it have any value apart from the fact that it supports our own lives? The question seems to be just asked to evoke arguments, what kind of a question is it ? It’s just that if i extrapolate that kinda attitude (which I can rightfully, cuz of your tiger argument) the person would eventually become the most self centered a***** who would go to others for help but would never help others, eventually perishing without any options! I just don’t find what’s so difficult or questionable or lack in rationale in “Live and Let Live”!
Chuckle… strong words
To present a defense in the most banal of forms; self-centeredness absolutely necessitates you be, to put it trivially and in your words, ‘helpful’. If you dont help others, they wont help you back. Simple. So, if one is truly selfish, one becomes the epitome of a ‘nice guy’. Quid pro quo.
Anubhav, I agree that “yeast are hardwired to carry out their evolutionary programming – we are not…” That’s why I added, “I think we are smarter: we can see where we are headed and make rational, compassionate changes.” Just because we have always increased in number until we exceeded the food supply and then died off doesn’t mean we always will.
You note that “VHEMT’s beliefs still seem irrational – would like to hear your points in case you still believe that they can be rationalized.”
Rationale for the VHEMT concept is presented several ways on the website. Each of us has a different perspective, so one reason doesn’t fit all. A basic appeal to justice may be found at: http://vhemt.org/ecology.htm#whyv
Srivats, you are apparently in the majority with your human-centered world view. The idea seems to be that, after billions of years of life on Earth, the reason for it all came into being: Homo sapiens. Many religions promote this view. Self-centered philosophies, as expressed by Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey, also attempt to justify our exploitation. When our ability to reason isn’t moderated by compassion, amoral approaches are the norm. Destruction of ecosystems for profit naturally follows.
I have faith that humanity can mature beyond the me-first stage and achieve a more Earth-centered world view.
Does anyone have an answer to: How would creating another of us benefit planet, people, or the new person? How can the continued existence of a species which causes so many other species to go extinct be justified?
@ Mr. Knight… “I have faith that humanity can mature beyond the me-first stage and achieve a more Earth-centered world view. ”
To what end, if I may ask?… (Incidentally, given that you made the religions point, I feel it necessary to mention that I am an atheist)
As we mature, our realm of concern expands from ourselves as infants, to our parents, to our family, community, nation-state, and to humanity as a whole. We’re still concerned about the smaller divisions of humanity when we think of the whole world as our family. The trouble is, we have a tendency to stall along the way: arrested development.
Nationalism and patriotism are instilled by most cultures as positive values, but they inhibit our advancement to the next level of empathy. As the world becomes more connected, it’s easier to relate to people in other regions, and many more than ever before are doing so.
But this is where we collectively get bogged down: our own species is the one we care about at the expense of other species.
We should mature collectively for the same reason we should mature as individuals. We learn to share toys, to not hurt the other children, to help our family, community, watershed, and so on.
If we keep on expanding our concern to include non-human species, and on to concern for Earth’s biosphere as a whole, we will stop reducing biodiversity with our redundant breeding. We’ll still care about humanity, just as we care about our families while caring about our communities and the human family.
The only “rational” reason we would sacrifice the perpetuation of an entity A (e.g. our individual self, an organization etc), if necessary, for the sake of the perpetuation of another entity B (e.g. our country, humanity) is if we identify ourselves or associate ourselves more with entity B than with A.
That is the “rationale” behind the actions of all martyrs.
Now if we consider humanity to be entity A and non-human life to be entity B – I cannot imagine how humans would identify themselves more with entity B than A.
If we consider entity B to be the set of all life forms then the identification becomes slightly less absurd – although I still cannot agree with the same. It’s not arrested development but rational development – empathy or association or concern towards most life-forms (other than humans) is not likely to be reciprocated in any way at any point of time.
Another point to be noted – in this case stating that we have to choose between the perpetuation of entity A and the well-being of entity B is a false dichotomy in my opinion.
Anubhav, determining our best path with a purely rational approach is a challenge in this case due to observer’s bias. As you say, we are naturally more concerned with whatever we identify most closely to. It’s difficult to identify with a rabbit-eared tree rat, especially now that it’s extinct.
In this case, we needn’t identify with all life to understand that the 10 to 100 million species sharing Earth’s biosphere with us are far more important to the well-being of the biosphere than we are. If one of our toes thought it was more important than the whole body, it would lack understanding. The microscopic bacteria species in the intestines of termites is critical to the web of life, while our extinction won’t leave a missing strand in that web.
Being non-essential would be an acceptable arrangement except for the fact that we are causing so many species to go extinct — a rate not equalled in the past 65 million years. I agree, it’s a false dichotomy to say “we have to choose between perpetuation of entity A and the well-being of entity B.” Actually, it’s the perpetuation of entity A or the well-being of millions of entity Bs.
“It’s not arrested development but rational development – empathy or association or concern towards most life-forms (other than humans) is not likely to be reciprocated in any way at any point of time.”
Quite true. After we’ve gone, we’ll get no thank yous from all the species we didn’t drive to extinction — the ingrates. If “What’s in it for me?” determines our actions, development toward altruism is under arrest.
Mr Knight – clearly in your case entity B is the biosphere – you identify yourself with the biosphere – you wish to see the biosphere survive, and feel that it’s more important than humanity’s survival. I cannot agree with you on the same – in my case the ultimate entity (unless we chance upon other intelligent life) will be humanity.
However you are still ignoring the possibility of mutual coexistence.
Altruism is based on the concept of give and take over a very extended time period. Srivat’s statements, although rather tongue in cheek, were quite valid in this regard.
P.S. -
I really like that statement – certainly a quotable quote.
Mr Knight – I understand that sometimes our own rules and morals and ethics dictate that we do “good” – even if there’s nothing to gain from the same and even if it costs us something we hold dear. If I take the dictates at face value (instead of questioning the rationale and reasons behind them) and I assume that they apply to all living things – the reasoning behind your stance becomes clear somewhat.
However, even if you consider humanity as “just another species” – even then, there’s no reason that humanity as a species should be made to go extinct. Even if you think of humanity as a scourge – even the scourge is a product of nature and thus it deserves to survive and to perpetuate. Just as we have no right to drive any other species to extinction – would you not agree that we have no right to drive our own species to extinction either?
Just as we have no right to decide which non-human species deserves to live and which deserves to die – similarly I don’t think we have any right to comment on whether humanity deserves to survive or go extinct…
Also – I would like to repeat – you are ignoring the possibility of coexistence – The earth can sustain a sizable human population – a reduction in population is necessary but extinction is taking things a bit too far…
@ Mr. Knight
Clearly, you disagree with a human- centered view of things, and consider us yet another species on this planet.
But does this imply that, as products of the biosphere, our ultimate responsibility should be its preservation over our own?
Also, you mentioned how several religions/ philosophies believe that all of life has existed and evolved for the sole purpose of creating humans- reasoning which may indeed be flawed. However, could we say the same about the belief that the reason for the existence of the the sun and the earth was the creation of life? Or was life just an accident, an improbability that just ‘happened’, and something which can be left at that.
To put it bluntly, is a lifeless planet less valuable than the earth?
I am at ‘Superficial’ and am strongly rooted there too.
Nice bunch of arguments there.
I don’t want to add to this conundrum, though my arguments run along those of Srivats.
Ohh.. Now I feel let’s not have opinion on everything.
This questionnaire is ehh.. hopeless in my case. I just cant make up my mind.
This discussion is refreshingly deep. I much prefer thoughtful disagreement to mindless agreement. I appreciate the courtesy of the “Mister” but we know each other well enough to be on a first name basis.
Anubhav, you wrote: “Even if you think of humanity as a scourge – even the scourge is a product of nature and thus it deserves to survive and to perpetuate.”
We are an exotic invader everywhere except the regions of Africa where we co-evolved with other species. Those creatures instinctively fear humans and have evolved ways of surviving, or they went extinct as we began to use fire. Everywhere else, a spasm of extinctions soon followed our invasion. Many island birds just stood and watched as a human walked up with a club and turned it into dinner. In Africa, our technology makes us a virtual exotic except for a few statistically-insignificant, primitive tribes.
“Just as we have no right to drive any other species to extinction – would you not agree that we have no right to drive our own species to extinction either?
Just as we have no right to decide which non-human species deserves to live and which deserves to die – similarly I don’t think we have any right to comment on whether humanity deserves to survive or go extinct…”
Species which we have introduced to ecosystems and which are still displacing native species, should be eliminated when possible. In our case we no longer have an ecosystem we are native to, unless we count human zoos. This is why I ignore the possibility of coexistence. Also, it was only about 73,000 years ago our numbers were down to fewer than 10,000 — now look.
Other species have no choice when we cause their extinction. We have a choice and could avoid our involuntary extinction.
Vinayak, you wrote: “Clearly, you disagree with a human- centered view of things, and consider us yet another species on this planet. But does this imply that, as products of the biosphere, our ultimate responsibility should be its preservation over our own?”
Not necessarily. It’s not so much that our responsibility is to preserve the biosphere as it is our responsibility to stop destroying it. The biosphere could get along without us but we can’t get along without it.
Regardless of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, it exists. We are free to ponder whether a lifeless planet less valuable than the earth or not, but I don’t think that’s a decision we have a right to make for the biosphere.
Woaah..!! This has turned into one high funda discussion forum. Getting a break from crippling exams, it leaves me some time to really ponder and hold on to one eco dogma, which is to say here is a tough task. Well going by the questionnaire, I’m at knee deep.
I’m not that far-sighted to have Humanless outlook. A few years ago I had come across this popular non-fiction The World Without Us and I pretty much didn’t like that Earth. Definitely, Yes, what we are doing at present is annihilatory but silent slaughtery is not the only way out. Even if it was, it would be to be opinionated to great extent. We need to work on, fight back our obnoxiousness than dying out and for that following stringent rules at this hour is one exigency.
I guess Human extinction is one pessimistic idea of voluntary cessation which says that now nothing can be done and everything is beyond our reach and means so let’s put up the white flag up. Extremist and Defeatist at the same time. I have always been told that its not always the result, the method should be wise too.
Sustainable development over Silent Slaughtery is my say. This is how I perceive it.
@ Tulika – Thanks
I don’t think it’s possible to frame this in a better manner. A short, honest and very well-worded opinion that really brought a smile to my face as I read it.
@ Les
- taking your last argument – where does natural stop and artificial begin ? Hasn’t human expansion – especially early human expansion – been a natural expansion of sorts (without any “external” or “artificial” aid) – species tend to expand their territory whenever possible – in the process they displace other species – isn’t that natural ?
The migration or expansion of non-human species has often resulted in mass extinctions amongst “native” species of the lands being invaded. I find no difference between such events in natural history and the analogous events in our own prehistory – the australian and north american mass extinctions.
Whenever the ecological balance in a region is “destroyed” by such occurrences, a new balance is quickly re-established (generally involving a reduced human population surviving in a relatively desolate region) – this is how nature and evolution work. Very frankly I don’t think we need to worry about whether life on earth would survive or not – I think the entire reason we need to worry about environmental issues is -
1. in the current scenario – it’s possible that we might not survive the imbalance we’re creating.
2. we do not want the species we empathize with, and the environs we cherish, to die along with us due to the imbalance we’ve created.
I think in a way it would be perfectly “natural” for us to destroy most other life-forms on this planet and then die out ourselves due to the resulting ecological imbalance. The only thing is, most of us don’t find that a very tasteful proposition. Hence we try to go against our “nature” to ensure that we, and the species and environments we cherish, survive on the long run.
Hi Anubhav,
It was very interesting to follow the threads in this discussion. And I think “empathy” – a word you have used in your post is of key importance. The idea here is that we recognize that other living beings- including the nonhuman others- share our human intersts, so that in thwarting their interests we end up harming our own.
The process of identification is ironically anthropocentric but I think it leads to the Kantian notion of “beautiful actions” which fuse together ethical obligation and the pursuit of personal interests.
Tulika, suggesting that we phase ourselves out could be seen as pessimistic and defeatist, giving up on Homo sapiens, but I think it’s optimistic and ambitious. Reproductive freedom and gender equality won’t be gained by giving up. Also, there is much that needs to be done in addition to ceasing our redundant breeding: preservation of what’s left and restoration of what’s been converted to human habitat.
I agree, “its not always the result, the method should be wise too.” The way we go extinct is important: voluntary or involuntary.
“Sustainable development” leads to “Silent Slaughtery,” because what we consider development is not sustainable.
Anubhav, you ask, “where does natural stop and artificial begin?”
Just being “natural” doesn’t make our actions okay. It’s unnatural for men to gain consent from a woman before sex, but in most societies we recognize it as a crime not to. Yes, occasionally in the past, exotics entered ecosystems and disrupted the dynamic balance, perhaps causing extinctions. According to the “super predator” theory, occasionally a predator evolves to be so efficient that it kills off its food supply and goes extinct. These are natural processes of evolution.
“I find no difference between such events in natural history and the analogous events in our own prehistory – the australian and north american mass extinctions.” These are good examples of nescient exotics causing extinctions. Today we know better and have no excuse.
“Whenever the ecological balance in a region is “destroyed” by such occurrences, a new balance is quickly re-established (generally involving a reduced human population surviving in a relatively desolate region) – this is how nature and evolution work.”
Quickly re-established on a geologic time scale, anyway. Ecosystems of North America haven’t recovered from the loss of mega-fauna like mammoths, and we’re not finished reducing biodiversity yet. Human-centered concerns thwart wolf re-introduction, and so on. Even when a new balance establishes itself, an extinct species is gone forever. After surviving and evolving for billions of years, their existence has been terminated.
Your sentiment, “…I don’t think we need to worry about whether life on earth would survive or not” except that we, and the creatures we like, might not survive, sums up the depth of our society’s environmental concern.
“I think in a way it would be perfectly “natural” for us to destroy most other life-forms on this planet and then die out ourselves due to the resulting ecological imbalance. The only thing is, most of us don’t find that a very tasteful proposition. Hence we try to go against our “nature” to ensure that we, and the species and environments we cherish, survive on the long run.”
Exactly. Rather than giving up and letting humanity run its natural course — overshoot and collapse — we could use our intelligence, guided by compassion, to stop the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth. A path that is extremist and ultimately defeatist.
Many are pessimistic about humanity’s ability to behave more wisely than mindless yeast in a vat of beer, but I don’t think we should give up on our species. Just because we’ve always exceeded the carrying capacity and suffered a dieoff doesn’t mean we always will. Let’s not throw in the towel and raise the white flag just because most people only care about their own interests. We can expand our sphere of empathy to include all life if we try.
Also, there is much that needs to be done in addition to ceasing our redundant breeding: preservation of what’s left and restoration of what’s been converted to human habitat.
I find a big contradiction in above sentence.
There’s much to be done in addition to ceasing our redundant breeding..? Yes? Preservation for what..? Restoration and why..? And now that we really restore and preserve and then disappear ourselves..? Then what’s the need to go extinct ..? Preservation and restoration will give the desired results (which I have the freedom to apprehend optimistically). But this is what we are not doing TODAY effectively. Sad. Actually, Thanks, you gave me the two word solution. Restoration and Preservation is what we need and NOT extinction.
The way we go extinct is important: voluntary or involuntary.
Why should one go extinct? One makes efforts that other species don’t go extinct. So why such dogmatic Humanless outlook? The way we go extinct is again not important for the ones who know there are solutions which can avoid both (i.e. to say Voluntary and Involuntary).
You said sustainable development become silent slaughtery. Yes, definitely it would. If one wants to prove and mould things from one mental attitude, fit everything in one mould, and stop looking for arduous measures to work for results. We need to BROADEN our viewpoint in measures that would serve in restoration and preservation.
Do you really think that we really need to restore what’s been converted to Human habitat in addition to going extinct? Nature will reclaim Earth very quickly once mankind perishes. This is what scientists say.We don’t need to underestimate its potential. And this makes me think Man considering himself ultimate master to overpower nature thinks that nature would only survive after his own elimination. This is one more “I am Ultimate” frame of mind.The fact is just not to inflict Nature so it is forced to kill you. Care for it and it will care for you. Reciprocation is just the right solution.
I want to be the one who’s a spectator to wilderness and be a part of civilization.
@ (Swarna) Ma’am – Thank-you for the comment.
I found that point quite interesting. However as you said yourself “it leads to the Kantian notion of “beautiful actions” which fuse together ethical obligation and the pursuit of personal interests.” Even if we adopt an anthropocentric perspective, even then, protecting and preserving the environment and non-human living beings is what we need to do.
@ Les – don’t get me wrong
I’m not “pessimistic about humanity’s ability to behave more wisely than mindless yeast in a vat of beer”
neither do I think that “we should give up on our species.”
In fact – I’m saying the very opposite thing – we can coexist with non-human species in various environments around the world without adversely affecting the environment or the ecosystem. I agree that this would only be feasible if we reduce our population. I believe we are smart enough as a species to manage this – hence we need not drive ourselves to extinction.
one more point – by saying –
“I don’t think we need to worry about whether life on earth would survive or not” what I’d meant was -
either –
1. we fail to achieve a balance – we drive ourselves and a lot of other species to a painful extinction – life continues after us and eventually nature recovers from our onslaught. (and yeah, when you’re talking of ecosystems and nature in general – geological time scales makes sense)
2. we are able to achieve balance and are able to coexist as described above (by reducing our population etc) – in which case we need not drive ourselves to extinction.
If people are not smart/sensible enough to achieve state #2 then VHEMT will fail anyway due to lack of support.
If people are smart enough to achieve state #2 – then phasing ourselves out after state #2 has been achieved does not make sense.
@Tulika, ecosystem restoration is impossible without negative population growth. Nuclear power plants and dams won’t be decommissioned until we reduce demand. As it is, more power plants and dams are in the works, and nuclear plants will likely run years beyond their life spans. True restoration includes rewilding of areas now used by humans. An area the size of South America is used for our agriculture.
“Restoration and Preservation is what we need and NOT extinction.” If we could restore and preserve without going extinct, that would be great. Do you have a rough estimate for the number of humans Earth could tolerate?
“Why should one go extinct? One makes efforts that other species don’t go extinct. So why such dogmatic Humanless outlook?”
Wherever we live, not much else lives. How many visible, non-domesticated species are in the room you’re in right now? I count one in mine. Wait, there’s an ant — there was an ant. How many species are in the immediate area outside? Biodiversity today is a small fraction of what it was before we moved into the neighborhood.
“Do you really think that we really need to restore what’s been converted to Human habitat in addition to going extinct? Nature will reclaim Earth very quickly once mankind perishes. This is what scientists say.We don’t need to underestimate its potential. And this makes me think Man considering himself ultimate master to overpower nature thinks that nature would only survive after his own elimination. This is one more “I am Ultimate” frame of mind.”
I see it as cleaning up after ourselves like our moms taught us. You’re right, nature will restore ecosystems once we’re gone, even if we don’t do responsible things. However, with diversity diminished and ecosystems under stress, the added damage of leaving radioactive waste and standing dams could take out a few more species. We aren’t likely to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch before we go, so plastic-eating bacteria will have to evolve. Maybe we could speed that process along.
“The fact is just not to inflict Nature so it is forced to kill you. Care for it and it will care for you. Reciprocation is just the right solution.” Again, we are in agreement, although we’re only one species to reciprocate for the tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands. We may be taking a few more with us which only live in and on us, though the crab louse might jump species.
“I want to be the one who’s a spectator to wilderness and be a part of civilization.” Most of us like to look at wilderness but not actually live in it. That’s understandable and I’m not finding fault with this orientation — we’re only human. In the mountains of Oregon, rich people build vacation homes that include huge entertainment rooms because they find the wilderness quite boring when they’re not sliding around in the snow as fast as they can.
@Swarna, I agree, “The process of identification is ironically anthropocentric.” I don’t think empathy requires identification. I don’t identify with endangered species, but I empathize with their situation.
@Anubhav, perhaps “we can coexist with non-human species in various environments around the world without adversely affecting the environment or the ecosystem.” Just because we never have doesn’t mean we never will — with a much improved population density, as you say.
“I believe we are smart enough as a species to manage this – hence we need not drive ourselves to extinction.” Like living without adversely affecting ecosystems, this remains to be demonstrated. Will we stop increasing voluntarily, or because we are forced to by shortages of food and water? So far it’s the latter, but I think we both are hoping for the former.
Your two possible futures seem reasonable. The most likely is that we continue as we are until collapse of civilization, and possibly of the biosphere, which would mean our extinction. The alternative includes a paradox which you describe: “If people are smart enough to achieve state #2 – then phasing ourselves out after state #2 has been achieved does not make sense.”
This is why so many in VHEMT consider themselves Supporters and not Volunteers. Human breeding today can’t be justified, but if we are able to achieve a sustainable population size some day and live without causing extinctions, maybe we could continue existing. I think that’s too dangerous but none of us will be around then to say.
By choosing not to procreate, we will be helping to bring about state #2, and if that fails we won’t be sentencing someone to life in state #1.