[at-l] OT: People, Nature and "Development"

[David Addleton]

Life is nothing but competing with entropy anyway: calling it 'profit'
doesn't make it any worse or better: it's just life as we know it . . .

The psychological argument here is a nonstarter . . . why one
rationalization deserves the adjective 'damnable' more, or less, than
another, is beyond my ken . . .

R&R's post goes from acknowledging the logical conondrum, to a political
reason for ignoring it, to deciding the limits of what other people need to
know, and calling other's arguments 'damnable' . . .

I think this means we've reached the logical end of discussion here . . .

Enough.

Philosophical presupositions deserve a philosophical board, not an AT hiking
list . . . they're off topic here . . .

I'd like some candyadienne here, about now,


On 12/30/06, RoksnRoots at aol.com <RoksnRoots at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/29/2006 10:21:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> icw at wardanddavis.com writes:
> *
> *
> *
>
> "Describe in defensible, logical terms, the
> difference between a beaver dam and Hoover Dam."
>
>           The beaver dam is part of the natural landscape which responds
> with
> natural adaptation like species that dwell and depend on the pools formed
> by
> the dam as well as flood control etc. The pond edge where the beavers take
> their trees probably receive more sunlight which in turn causes special
> microclimates and conditions for other species etc. There is probably a
> long list of
> fungi etc given life because of the extra flooding caused by the beavers.
> Most
> important is the fact that the process is all completed by means of the
> physical features of the animal.
>
>            Hoover dam involves scales well beyond the actual bodily
> abilities
> of the animals creating it. It creates large-scale examples of the same
> species adaptation conditions that are very recent as far as "natural"
> time. Where
> Hoover dam goes beyond "natural" are the changes occurring in places far
> from
> the actual dam caused by the dam itself. The electricity developed by
> Boulder
> dam allowed the creation of a vast city in Las Vegas that has sucked dry
> an
> extensive desert watertable. So the so-called parallel between
> moisture-increasing beaver dams and large human dams ends there with large
> scale drying of the
> overall environment far from the dam, but not caused directly by the
> actual
> physical, kinetic action of the dam itself. That's primarily why the human
> dam
> is un-"natural". Comparisons might be poetically or philosophically cute -
> but
> in no way are they comparable.
>
>
>
> people are just as much
> a part of the natural ecosystems of the world and universe as any other
> creature.  We are not inherently "unnatural," and what we build and do is
> just as natural from a logical point of view as that done by any other
> creature.  To me, it is important not to case important environmental
> issues
> as "us versus them," or "the natural order" versus "unnatural, polluting
> humans."
>
>            ***   This is just the predictable human defense mechanism to
> rationalize our current, ongoing vast destruction of nature at an
> exponential
> rate. Humans are great rationalizers (excuse-makers). At a time of
> increased
> concern over our destruction of nature the past few years have been
> attended by and
> acceleration of same. That's all you need to know. Yes, nature might
> destroy
> settled nature in cataclysms like asteroids or volcanism, but it is only
> man
> that destroys the entire eco-equilibrium as a matter of concerned
> practice.
> It's clear to me that a certain camp is trying to get the main
> environmental
> mainstays down to where they aren't worth saving so they can say it was
> all part
> of natural progress (and therefore they don't have to try) (and profit the
> most
> by not). They see nature in terms of competition for profits and are
> therefore competing with it (by destroying it).
>
>            It would be much more meaningful to say we are doing the Amazon
> in
> our generation and probably putting the tiger to death. If you want to
> watch
> flies on the window and call that "nature" be as poetic as you want - but
> it's
> still rationalization. And a damnable one at that. One that will work
> until
> it's all gone. Which is what it's really about...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L Mailing List.
>
> Go here to unsubscribe or change your options:
>
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l