Priorities

[Jazzratt]

A lot of confusion arose recently when Sentinel made this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66537) thread, a few people didn't understand the question or its relevance to leftism (or even both). So I think I'll start with something more basic and more in the original spirit of the thread - to recognise the clash between the two positions. In the previous thread it was posited that because a biocentric position caused incidental benefits to humanity it was somehow anthropocentric. This ignores that an anthropocentric position seeks to benefit humanity and only humanity in the most direct way possible.

So a question to those who support the assertion that there is no such thing as anthropocentrism or biocentrism (or those who don't but still wants to contribute):
In a situation where one course of action would benefit the environment at the expense of humanity or vice-versa on which side would you fall?

For some examples, consider these questions: Would you support population control so that the earth isn't "overrun" by those "filthy humans"? Would you support uncontrolled advancement, even if that meant paving the rainforest and laying waste to all beast-kind?

Naturally, of course these aren't binary choices and many may choose to go for a slightly biocentric view ("I would encourage that people reconsider having children" in the first example") or a mildly anthropocentric view ("Well, if it was a certain type of advancement, yes, but some other kinds, no." in the second example.)

Well, hopefully that's something for you to mull over. My answers would of course be that I do not support any form of population control whatsoever and I fully and unconditionally support human advancement, regardless of any environmental damage that does not affect the human species.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I have to admit that something within me rebels against the idea of making animals extinct for our advcancement, unless the advancement was a vital one.

I can't really rationalise this idea though... I suppose I just find that kind of reckless humanism a little unpalatable.

-Alex

[bcbm]

This whole line of discussion seems like a mega-false dichotomy.


Would you support population control so that the earth isn't "overrun" by those "filthy humans"? Would you support uncontrolled advancement, even if that meant knocking down vast swathes of habitat and potentially causing extinctions?

Gee, why didn't your second example get weighed down with lots of loaded words and a false characterization of some individual's positions like the first one? This is off to a good start. :rolleyes:


Naturally, of course these aren't binary choices

Now you're on to something.


I fully and unconditionally support human advancement

Unconditional support for any human advancement doesn't strike me as a thoroughly anarchist position, Jazzy, unless throwing all critical analysis out the window is central to your vision of anarchy? To be sure, you could be critical and still come out in support of "human advancement" (what a vague phrase...), but saying you support it unconditionally, period, makes it sound like you're not taking a critical view at all, you're just "buying in." Why?


regardless of any environmental damage that does not affect the human species.

Which brings a tricky point... given that the earth is a closed system, more or less, how does anything we do to the environment not affect us, in one way or another?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 19, 2007 04:02 pm
This whole line of discussion seems like a mega-false dichotomy.


Would you support population control so that the earth isn't "overrun" by those "filthy humans"? Would you support uncontrolled advancement, even if that meant knocking down vast swathes of habitat and potentially causing extinctions?

Gee, why didn't your second example get weighed down with lots of loaded words and a false characterization of some individual's positions like the first one? This is off to a good start. :rolleyes:
If you can think of a more loaded way of expressing "knocking down vast swathes of habitat and potentially causing extinctions" I would be more than happy to edit that sentence. It was meant to come of as unnecessarily callous anyway.


Unconditional support for any human advancement doesn't strike me as a thoroughly anarchist position, Jazzy, unless throwing all critical analysis out the window is central to your vision of anarchy? To be sure, you could be critical and still come out in support of "human advancement" (what a vague phrase...), but saying you support it unconditionally, period, makes it sound like you're not taking a critical view at all, you're just "buying in." Why?
Firstly I don't see human advance and anarchist analysis as being at all incongruous, unless of course every anarchist has to conform to the generally accepted stereotype/strawman of a technophobic anti-industrialist. I understand fully that if humanity is to survive we need to develop ever more complex and useful technologies - anything that stands in the way of this advance must be dispensed with. I have yet to find any examples where I would support a bioconservative position over the march of progress.


Which brings a tricky point... given that the earth is a closed system, more or less, how does anything we do to the environment not affect us, in one way or another?
Sorry, I missed out an "adversely" in my sentence. Basically my thinking is this: if we need to build, for example, a new city thanks to population growth and this necessitates the complete decimation of a forest then I would support this new building whole heartedly - the only creatures adversely affected are those in the forest. However I support replacing cars with more efficient vehicles because they take up far too much oil, and losing oil will affect humans.

[bcbm]

If you can think of a more loaded way of expressing "knocking down vast swathes of habitat and potentially causing extinctions" I would be more than happy to edit that sentence.

Paving the rainforest and laying waste to all beast-kind?


Firstly I don't see human advance and anarchist analysis as being at all incongruous, unless of course every anarchist has to conform to the generally accepted stereotype/strawman of a technophobic anti-industrialist.

I didn't suggest they were, I was merely pointing out that to support something "unconditionally" suggests to me supporting it uncritically, and I think that is at odds with an anarchist analysis, as I see it. I think, for anarchists, it is important to always maintain a critical position on everything and to continue evaluating. We shouldn't just accept anything- that's for the ideology pimps.


I understand fully that if humanity is to survive we need to develop ever more complex and useful technologies

To survive? We currently have the means to survive quite well. Not that we should just throw on the brakes, but I don't see the absolute necessity that you do. And this brings me back to "unconditional-" what of technologies that aren't particularly useful to us?


I have yet to find any examples where I would support a bioconservative position over the march of progress.

If that isn't a loaded term, I don't know what is. What exactly do you mean by "march of progress?" Any progress? Any development? Or only certain ones?


if we need to build, for example, a new city thanks to population growth and this necessitates the complete decimation of a forest then I would support this new building whole heartedly - the only creatures adversely affected are those in the forest.

That makes more sense, although destroying too many forests will obviously lead to problems for our species.

What if there are humans living in the forest?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 19, 2007 05:00 pm
Paving the rainforest and laying waste to all beast-kind?
Edited. ( :lol: )


I didn't suggest they were, I was merely pointing out that to support something "unconditionally" suggests to me supporting it uncritically, and I think that is at odds with an anarchist analysis, as I see it. I think, for anarchists, it is important to always maintain a critical position on everything and to continue evaluating. We shouldn't just accept anything- that's for the ideology pimps.
You think this despite the fact that "unconditional" and "uncritical" are different concepts? It must be remembered that although I support the advance of humanity without limits but in specific scenarios I will of course think critically about what is best.


To survive? We currently have the means to survive quite well.
Not if we carry on the way we are, our primitive technologies are too reliant on all kinds of finite things.

Not that we should just throw on the brakes, but I don't see the absolute necessity that you do. And this brings me back to "unconditional-" what of technologies that aren't particularly useful to us?
If a technology isn't useful to us how is it an advance? Further, how do you decide whether a technology is useful or not?


If that isn't a loaded term, I don't know what is. What exactly do you mean by "march of progress?" Any progress? Any development? Or only certain ones?
The "march of progress" while certainly a phrase with more than a little of the rhetorical to it isn't something I would define as loaded, it doesn't automatically say "positive" although it does show that the person using it views progress as a positive thing (or else is using it facetiously). Bioconservative is simply a technical term, like "capitalist", "anthropocentrist" or "anarchist". And yes any progress or development. Naturally what "progress" is has to be defined and critically examined, but it must be supported.


That makes more sense, although destroying too many forests will obviously lead to problems for our species.
Eventually, maybe. That is if they actually do produce anything beneficial to us, after all they don't seem to make any net increases in oxygen (or net decreases in carbon dioxide) but doing things detrimental to a species is not "advancing" it.


What if there are humans living in the forest?
Consult them. If they refuse to move from the forest (either into the new city or into a separate enclave) then plan a new location for the city. If this is not possible then the issue becomes more complex, but it would only be a last resort to coerce the forest's inhabitants into moving.

[Vanguard1917]

So a question to those who support the assertion that there is no such thing as anthropocentrism or biocentrism (or those who don't but still wants to contribute):
In a situation where one course of action would benefit the environment at the expense of humanity or vice-versa on which side would you fall?

Nature has no instrinsic worth. It is merely a resource for human society. That is all it is.

It makes no sense whatsoever to counterpose nature to humans. Nature does not have 'interests'. There are only human interests, and nature has to be made to serve these interests.

Through historical progress, human beings learn to master nature - to learn its laws (through scientific investigation) and manipulate them in the interests of human beings. And through human industry, we set ourselves apart from nature's 'web of life' - we learn to stand above nature, as the sovereigns of nature.

When human beings were living as part of nature's 'web of life', human life was nasty, brutish and short.

It is only through increasing our mastery over nature that we make it a more suitable place for human inhabitation. We become less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature - storms, heatwaves, earthquakes, floods, droughts, diseases, and so on.

Through the advancement of human industry and agriculture, we increase our standards of living. We live longer lives. We also live healthier and safer lives. We become better equiped to deal with the threats which nature throws our way.

Industrial development allows us to work less. We have more leisure time at our disposal. We spend less time trying to survive, and more time actually living. This allows us to better educate ourselves. We become less ignorant. We become culturally richer. We also become more rational beings; the development of our mastery over nature means that we begin to look less to supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena, and more to science. Our natural environment begins to be seen as something which we can learn about and learn to control, not as something which is outside of our control.

Humanity begins to learn how to 'play god' - to learn the laws governing nature and subject nature to the will of humanity. To me, this is what the project of human progress is about. It is this project which necessitates humanity to overcome capitalism.

[chimx]

Like I said in the other thread, I think it is unwise to uncritically follow either position or exclusively lump oneself ont one side of the issue. We are a community of individuals that interacts with our local ecology. What's the purpose of drawing a line in the sand when we have intricate connections to both our environment and society? I would much rather prefer to see issues discussed on a case-by-case basis where we can examine the consequential pros and cons that would befall either ecology or society.

I mean, this analysis doesn't even take into consideration the subjective aethetical or cultural values that humans have--which i find ironic coming from an a self-described anthropocentricist. For example, in Montana we have very few people and a great deal of forests, rivers, mountains, etc. There is a cultural stigma against population growth and industrial growth due to the very human value of appreciating the aesthetic of our environment.

How can your vapid analysis ever hope to take into account the subjective and intersubjective values that we find in our species? It can't and chooses to ignore them instead.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)When human beings were living as part of nature's 'web of life', human life was nasty, brutish and short. [/b]Can I call for your restriction because of your use of a quote from one of the nastier political theorists? Hobbes, after all, called for a state that was to be all powerful, even against the interests of the people who it was oppressing (unlike Locke, who included a bit about the right to rebel, to over throw a repressive state). Anyway, on to the thread ...


Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)This ignores that an anthropocentric position seeks to benefit humanity and only humanity in the most direct way possible.[/b]Well, strike me as a fucking anthropocentric then.


[email protected]
Well, hopefully that's something for you to mull over. My answers would of course be that I do not support any form of population control whatsoever and I fully and unconditionally support human advancement, regardless of any environmental damage that does not affect the human species. Even when that population control is for the benefit of humanity as a whole? (It isn't good when there is a larger population then resources to sustain it...)


Vanguard1917
Nature has no instrinsic worth. It is merely a resource for human society. That is all it is.

It makes no sense whatsoever to counterpose nature to humans. Nature does not have 'interests'. There are only human interests, and nature has to be made to serve these interests.Etc.


My position on this is an ethical position, to a certain extent anyway ... Humans to me are no more better then other animals. Well they are, but only because of certain traits, not simply because they are human (as such, other animals or even aliens, with these traits should, in my opinion, be treated equally). It is irrational to treat humans as some how special, simply because they are human. Bah, I'm wandering again... I'll just post this now and skip the rest of my rambling thoughts.


(And a random article about diet of "primitive" people compared with people today. No, not a vegan diatribe. You can skip the first bit if you want, to get to the juicy goodness explaining how meat and fat are "needed" in our diets ... http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_di...tish_short.html (http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html) )

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:28 am
You think this despite the fact that "unconditional" and "uncritical" are different concepts? It must be remembered that although I support the advance of humanity without limits but in specific scenarios I will of course think critically about what is best.
I don't really follow how you're separating them if you will support it without any limitations or conditions and only occasionally think about it (while not allowing the result of your thoughts to interfere with your unconditional support?).



Not if we carry on the way we are, our primitive technologies are too reliant on all kinds of finite things.

That's true, we couldn't carry on at first-world levels of consumption.



If a technology isn't useful to us how is it an advance? Further, how do you decide whether a technology is useful or not?

Well, given that most development is controlled by capitalists, even advances can be detrimental to our class. As for useful, um... the same way you determine how most things are useful I would imagine- if they serve any purpose for you.



And yes any progress or development. Naturally what "progress" is has to be defined and critically examined, but it must be supported.

That logical process doesn't follow...



Eventually, maybe. That is if they actually do produce anything beneficial to us, after all they don't seem to make any net increases in oxygen (or net decreases in carbon dioxide) but doing things detrimental to a species is not "advancing" it.

Eh? Plant life is pretty essential to maintaining our atmosphere at a place where we can survive.

---------


When human beings were living as part of nature's 'web of life', human life was nasty, brutish and short.

Actually, that was following the agricultural revolution. Almost all modern research currently suggests that your 18th century view of that period in history is absolutely false.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 19, 2007 10:56 pm
I don't really follow how you're separating them if you will support it without any limitations or conditions and only occasionally think about it (while not allowing the result of your thoughts to interfere with your unconditional support?).
I unconditionally support progress because progress is a good thing (yes, that is a tautology.).

However "progress" must be defined and what is most progressive for humanity in a given situation must be thought about.

Understand?


Well, given that most development is controlled by capitalists, even advances can be detrimental to our class. As for useful, um... the same way you determine how most things are useful I would imagine- if they serve any purpose for you.
The class interest problem is an interesting and difficult one, I may need to come back to you on that.

As for "usefulness" no matter how it is defined (what purposes are useful, or is it simply enough that it serves a purpose, for example) it should be noted that progress is only the advancement of useful technologies - otherwise it's just scientific mental masturbation that takes us in circles.


That logical process doesn't follow...
Something must be defined before it is supported, what part does not follow?


Eh? Plant life is pretty essential to maintaining our atmosphere at a place where we can survive.
What chemical process is this? During the day they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen (as is well known) but during the night, and when they die or any in any number of circumstances (lot enough sunlight for example) they actually do the reverse, meaning that the net increase of any of these chemicals is near enough 0. Unless you're arguing that they are realising nitrogen into the air to prevent it becoming too oxygen rich or something else like that (the nitrogen thing was just some bullshit I came up with by the way.).

[bcbm]

I unconditionally support progress because progress is a good thing (yes, that is a tautology.).

However "progress" must be defined and what is most progressive for humanity in a given situation must be thought about.

Understand?

So let's define it.


What chemical process is this?

I'm not that familiar with plants, but I thought they were important in turning the carbon dioxide given off by animals in to oxygen?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 20, 2007 12:39 am
So let's define it.
I don't know about you but a lot of how I think of progress is contextual but in very broad terms I would define it as follows:

Anything that makes life easier, more comfortable or fairer for humans. Alternatively anything that makes such advances easier to achieve.

Comments, criticisms?


I'm not that familiar with plants, but I thought they were important in turning the carbon dioxide given off by animals in to oxygen?
Not as much as you would think. Also consider that if you destroyed a forest there would be considerably less animals about. (Obviously I don't advocate destroying all the forests/rainforests - a lot of progress could still be facilitated by studies in there.).

[chimx]

Personally, as a historian, I am opposed to any position which seeks to advocate a progressive view of history, or a regressve view. To sit back and say that due to industrialization, agriculture, nanotechnology, etc. human society is better than it was X amount of years ago is to erroneously apply contemporary values to an anachronistic context. We are no better or worse than our primitive ancestors or our future generations. To apply moral judgements on the advancement of history and civilization is inherently fallacious because it is inherently biased, and often ethnocentric. I have said it before, human history is not progressive but processive.

[Vanguard1917]

To sit back and say that due to industrialization, agriculture, nanotechnology, etc. human society is better than it was X amount of years ago is to erroneously apply contemporary values to an anachronistic context. We are no better or worse than our primitive ancestors or our future generations. To apply moral judgements on the advancement of history and civilization is inherently fallacious because it is inherently biased, and often ethnocentric. I have said it before, human history is not progressive but processive.

:lol:

In primitive, hunter-gatherer societies life expectancy was around 20 and half of all children born died before reaching the age of 1.

Today, life expectancy worldwide is around 64 and the child mortality figure is around 57 children per 1,000. In the developed world, life expectancy is around 76 and the child mortality rate is around 7 per 1,000 children.

I call that progress.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Libertarian1917
I call that progress.

Clearly, but it remains a subjective value judgement which is ultimately dependent on contemporary cultural trends and ethics.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx) Personally, as a historian, I am opposed to any position which seeks to advocate a progressive view of history, or a regressve view. To sit back and say that due to industrialization, agriculture, nanotechnology, etc. human society is better than it was X amount of years ago is to erroneously apply contemporary values to an anachronistic context.[/b]

Personally, as an anarcho-communist, I think you're full of shit.


Chimx - Emperor of the Subjective
Clearly, but it remains a subjective value judgement which is ultimately dependent on contemporary cultural trends and ethics.

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Thanks to industrial society, one is considerably less likely to die of a rotten tooth, appendicitis, be eaten by a wild animal, catch cholera, die of a curable disease, become enslaved, die of overwork, and so on so forth. How is not experiencing the nastier aspects of pre-industrial society (of which there are many) remotely a subjective value judgement?

You can't just rubbish all the gains made by industrial society by saying that better life expectancies and such are the result of contemporary mores when they have objective benefits.

[Oedipus Complex]

My position on this is an ethical position, to a certain extent anyway ... Humans to me are no more better then other animals. Well they are, but only because of certain traits, not simply because they are human (as such, other animals or even aliens, with these traits should, in my opinion, be treated equally). It is irrational to treat humans as some how special, simply because they are human. Bah, I'm wandering again... I'll just post this now and skip the rest of my rambling thoughts.

First off I don't think anyone here has claimed humans are "better" than animals inherently but humans however, are more important as far as our relations with one another more than our relations with animals concerning humans. Anything that will directly facilitate/benefit human kind whether acquired through animal testing or not should be used. Anthropocentrism isn't for the arbitrary mistreatment of animals as some would want you to think. In addition I would consider it a near purposeful mistreatment of human beings if we would not help human life because we didn't want to employ medical treatment on one animal. But what really exasperates me most about anti-anthrpocentrism is that its opponents often rely on sensationalistic emotionally based arguments to win people over.

Nature while important should never be held more important than human needs which biocentrism seems to ignore.

[LSD]

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to answer this question as it assumes the existance of a made-up concept, namely "nature".

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Oh you know exactly what it means to say "nature" LSD, just answer it. :rolleyes:

-Alex

[chimx]

You can't just rubbish all the gains made by industrial society by saying that better life expectancies and such are the result of contemporary mores when they have objective benefits.

I'm not rubbishing them at all. I am quite happy to use the products of industrialization. I'm vaccinated, I use soap, program on a computer, read books. I like it all a great deal. However, I'm not arrogantly ethnocentric enough to say I am better than my ancestors--nor am I self-loathing enough to say I am worse off than future cultures. Both progressive and regressive history is laughable. It is a cultural value straight out of the 19th century that has been abandoned by any serious historian.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:04 pm

You can't just rubbish all the gains made by industrial society by saying that better life expectancies and such are the result of contemporary mores when they have objective benefits.

I'm not rubbishing them at all. I am quite happy to use the products of industrialization. I'm vaccinated, I use soap, program on a computer, read books. I like it all a great deal. However, I'm not arrogantly ethnocentric enough to say I am better than my ancestors--nor am I self-loathing enough to say I am worse off than future cultures. Both progressive and regressive history is laughable. It is a cultural value straight out of the 19th century that has been abandoned by any serious historian.

So you're seriously saying that a clean, well-educated 21st century man who doesn't beat his wife and kids or worship some mystical sky pixie is no better than his forebear of less than 200 years ago who was brutal, ignorant and easily manipulated by his leaders because he didn't know better?

Or to go on another level, is it better for society to live by 21st Century secular humanist morality or by 15th century Christian morality?

The fact that I need to ask these questions is bad enough.

[Palmares]

Just wondering, but has anyone thought that there may be some sort of reciprical relationship between what could be termed as the binary of humanity and nature?

I think to say that the current mode of society and its technologies have benefits to society inherent to them, misses the link to given levels of environmental capacities. A technology is beneficial in a given context with the current level of the environment, but perhaps loses effectiveness if the system (or perhaps even the technology itself?) is not sustainible.

I simply think its really hard to create a seperation between humanity and nature, because in my opinion there isn´t one. And i think this relationship is beyond the explanation of the comtemporary age of technology, as i think we are still a long way of truly understanding how we relate to nature, whether it is from creation with it or perhaps or destruction with it...

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:21 pm
In primitive, hunter-gatherer societies life expectancy was around 20
Uh... no it wasn't. Citation?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+May 21, 2007 02:14 am--> (black coffee black metal @ May 21, 2007 02:14 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:21 pm
In primitive, hunter-gatherer societies life expectancy was around 20
Uh... no it wasn't. Citation?[/b]
That particular estimate is from The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Of course, estimates vary. But most agree that, before the 20th century, world life expectancy was no more than half what it is today.

This is from the Wikipedia article on life expectancy (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-2)):

Humans by Era Average Lifespan
(years)
Upper Paleolithic 33
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age 18
Classical Greece 28
Classical Rome 28
Medieval Britain 33
End of 19th Century Western Europe 37
Current world average 67

We see that life-expectancy did drop after the Paleolithic period, with the introduction of agriculture (i.e. humans working closer with animals and thus being more vulnerable to animal diseases) and the increase in the size and density of human settlements.

However, with the expansion of industrial, technological and scientific development in the 20th century, life expectancy worldwide more than doubled - from around the 30 mark to more than 60 (64-67, depending on the study).

[socialistfuture]

i think both, tho nature can survive without humans, but humans cant without nature.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:36 pm
i think both, tho nature can survive without humans, but humans cant without nature.
That's not at issue smartarse. Do you "defend" nature because humans benefit from it or do you defend it for sentimental reasons?

[socialistfuture]

by sentimental do you mean the life of other species? and functioning ecosystems?

[socialistfuture]

i defend nature coz it feeds me.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:40 pm
by sentimental do you mean the life of other species? and functioning ecosystems?
Well, life of non-useful species (Pandas for example) or the function of non-essential ecosystems.

[socialistfuture]

that depends on the definition of usefull and non essential.
for example if a mining corporation wants to mine gold and the effects damage the water of nearby towns the defenition will be different between effected parties and non effected parties. the company and anyone who works for them but doesnt live nearby might not think its a big deal, but sumone whos water supply has been poisoned and who's essential ecosystem is degraded will be at a loss.

it could be argued any species is non usefull or all are usefull.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

it could be argued any species is non usefull or all are usefull.

Well, mosquitoes for example don't seem to have any function apart from spreading malaria. I would not mourn their extinction.

[chimx]

So you're seriously saying that a clean, well-educated 21st century man who doesn't beat his wife and kids or worship some mystical sky pixie is no better than his forebear of less than 200 years ago who was brutal, ignorant and easily manipulated by his leaders because he didn't know better?

the intersubjective qualities of any generation's cultures shouldn't be judged as worse or better than the qualities of the contemporary period. How about we turn this around on you? Do you think you are better than a Xhosa male of southern Africa? How about an underdeveloped tribe of the Amazon? Are you better than the Aborigies of Australia?


Or to go on another level, is it better for society to live by 21st Century secular humanist morality or by 15th century Christian morality?

It is better for a society to live by the morality of its own time. I would have thought that was obvious.

[chimx]

That's not at issue smartarse. Do you "defend" nature because humans benefit from it or do you defend it for sentimental reasons?

Sentimentalim is a unique value to humankind, and we take benefit from aesthetics, sentimentalism, etc. I, a human, like climbing mountains and walking in the forest. I just did it this weekend. I have a vested interest in the environment that is based entirely on human values.


Well, mosquitoes for example don't seem to have any function apart from spreading malaria. I would not mourn their extinction.

Mosquitoes act as food for other organisms. When you play god with the ecosystem in such a way, it is impossible to understand all the consequences given the elaborate network of organism relationships -- i.e.: ecology.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:35 pm

That's not at issue smartarse. Do you "defend" nature because humans benefit from it or do you defend it for sentimental reasons?

Sentimentalim is a unique value to humankind, and we take benefit from aesthetics, sentimentalism, etc. I, a human, like climbing mountains and walking in the forest. I just did it this weekend. I have a vested interest in the environment that is based entirely on human values.
Whether it's a human value or not is not in question. Biocentrism is a human idea, a stupid one but human none the less. It just doesn't advance human interests.

[chimx]

But it advances my interests, and countless interests from other people in my community.

[Jazzratt]

Your community isn't all of humanity. Also you probably benefit a hell of a lot more from having clean running water, electricity and all those other conveniences.

[chimx]

Your community isn't all of humanity.

You're god damn right! unlike my "species" i have an emotional connection to my community.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:28 pm

So you're seriously saying that a clean, well-educated 21st century man who doesn't beat his wife and kids or worship some mystical sky pixie is no better than his forebear of less than 200 years ago who was brutal, ignorant and easily manipulated by his leaders because he didn't know better?

the intersubjective qualities of any generation's cultures shouldn't be judged as worse or better than the qualities of the contemporary period. How about we turn this around on you? Do you think you are better than a Xhosa male of southern Africa? How about an underdeveloped tribe of the Amazon? Are you better than the Aborigies of Australia?
As people living in the developed parts of the world, we are not better than these people. But we sure are better off than them.

Anyone who denies that is an apologist for poverty and underdevelopment.


Mosquitoes act as food for other organisms. When you play god with the ecosystem in such a way, it is impossible to understand all the consequences given the elaborate network of organism relationships -- i.e.: ecology.

What about malaria? Do you agree with EF founder Dave Foreman when he says that malaria-carrying mosquitoes are needed to maintain the balance of the delicate ecosystem?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:27 pm

Your community isn't all of humanity.

You're god damn right! unlike my "species" i have an emotional connection to my community.
Why is your emotional connection relevant to a decision that affects everyone? Doesn't relying on something so capricious scare you?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 21, 2007 10:37 pm--> (Jazzratt @ May 21, 2007 10:37 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 10:27 pm

Your community isn't all of humanity.

You're god damn right! unlike my "species" i have an emotional connection to my community.
Why is your emotional connection relevant to a decision that affects everyone? [/b]
When you abondon rationality, you rely more and more on emotion-based arguments and justifications for your politics.

[chimx]

As people living in the developed parts of the world, we are not better than these people. But we sure are better off than them.

Anyone who denies that is an apologist for poverty and underdevelopment.

Firstly, there is a significant difference between considering oneself better, and considering onesself better off. The former was being discussed, as my quote shows. It is these kind of value judgements that give-way to ethnocentricism.

Secondly, I agree that I am better off that a Xhosa male of southern Africa. I've hung out with Xhosa men in southern Africa and I don't particularly like living in thatch-roofed houses that are infested with spiders. The problem is, neither you nor I have the right to make the same value judgements for them. While you may appreciate industrialization coming from a first-world country, to assume that others would blindly follow your line of thinking borders on ethnocentricism, as it ignores cultural values different than your own -- in particuar a cultural identity and history that is unique from yours. Certainly I am in favor of open access to technological development throughout the world, but only if it is in the communities self-interest. And like I have said, community self-interest is subject to subjective values.


When you abondon rationality, you rely more and more on emotion-based arguments and justifications for your politics.

I have not abandoned rationality, and you have yet to explain how I have. I have advocated the materialistic superiority of self-interest over idealistic abstractions such as anthropocentricism or biocentricism. If you believe things such as "altruism" or "the good of the species" that's fine, but you are believing in some mystical hogwash that is akin to most theism of the worst kind.


Why is your emotional connection relevant to a decision that affects everyone? Doesn't relying on something so capricious scare you?

Because I am an emotional human. I live in a community of other emotional humans. We collectively act in accordance to our intersubjective value systems. Still, sometimes we disagree on things for personal, often subjective reasons. We create ways of addressing these problems when they occur.

We call this society. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[Vanguard1917]

Secondly, I agree that I am better off that a Xhosa male of southern Africa. I've hung out with Xhosa men in southern Africa and I don't particularly like living in thatch-roofed houses that are infested with spiders. The problem is, neither you nor I have the right to make the same value judgements for them. While you may appreciate industrialization coming from a first-world country, to assume that others would blindly follow your line of thinking borders on ethnocentricism, as it ignores cultural values different than your own -- in particuar a cultural identity and history that is unique from yours. Certainly I am in favor of open access to technological development throughout the world, but only if it is in the communities self-interest. And like I have said, community self-interest is subject to subjective values.

So if living in poverty is not good enough for you, why should it be good enough for them?

Africans have been fighting for many years for development - because they desperately need development. Who are you to patronise them and tell them that industrialisation is not in their best interests - that industrialisation is for Westerners but not for Africans?

This is what pomo cultural relativism amounts to: patronising the world's poor and apologising for world poverty and underdevelopment.

[chimx]

Lolz. I hope anyone with a brain can read what I said and see that you are slandeing me. You are the one patronizing them with your own values. I said it should be up to the community in question as to how they choose to develop or not develop.

[Vanguard1917]

Lolz. I hope anyone with a brain can read what I said and see that you are slandeing me. You are the one patronizing them with your own values. I said it should be up to the community in question as to how they choose to develop or not develop.

Do you actually believe that there's people in Africa that will choose not to develop if the option existed?

[chimx]

I think there are people in Africa that cherish their cultural history and strongly use it as their defining chacteristic, given the globalization of trade and culture surrounding them.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:16 am
I think there are people in Africa that cherish their cultural history and strongly use it as their defining chacteristic, given the globalization of trade and culture surrounding them.
And you actually believe that this involves African people choosing poverty over development?

Is this really happening? Or is it in fact just a bit of wishful thinking on your behalf? In other words, you wish that Africans would not demand development and industrialisation and that they should learn to be happy with backwardness and degradation - since these things are central to their 'cultural identity' and should be preserved.

[chimx]

And you actually believe that this involves African people choosing poverty over development?

I believe different cultures define poverty differently


Is this really happening? Or is it in fact just a bit of wishful thinking on your behalf? In other words, you wish that Africans would not demand development and industrialisation and that they should learn to be happy with backwardness and degradation - since these things are central to their 'cultural identity' and should be preserved.

I never said that. You have libelled twice now. Please desist.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:00 am

And you actually believe that this involves African people choosing poverty over development?

I believe different cultures define poverty differently


I'm talking about material poverty. Do you believe that African people would choose to live in material poverty over material abundance?



Is this really happening? Or is it in fact just a bit of wishful thinking on your behalf? In other words, you wish that Africans would not demand development and industrialisation and that they should learn to be happy with backwardness and degradation - since these things are central to their 'cultural identity' and should be preserved.

I never said that. You have libelled twice now. Please desist.

You implied that backwardness ('thatch-roofed houses that are infested with spiders') is part of an African 'cultural history' which African people 'cherish'.

Do they really cherish this backwardness? Or is it in fact just people like you who are doing the cherishing (from the comfort of your Western homes)?

[socialistfuture]

As people living in the developed parts of the world, we are not better than these people. But we sure are better off than them.

Anyone who denies that is an apologist for poverty and underdevelopment.

since when did development mean all come out of poverty, in many developments tho who develop get rich and benefit, and those who do the grunt work - the workers and sumtimes the communities gain little or even lose out.

I enjoy camping and spending time outside of modern comforts, and would consider living outside them. tho like many environmentalists enjoy them (ie the use of the internet, aspects of modern production, etc).

To think everyone wants to live by the consumer life of western capitalism i stupid. tho society has many benefits it also suffers a great many ills from development for example the proposed Pascua Lama project in Chile, deforestation of the Amazon, mining in West Papua by multinationals by force, the Resource War in Iraq.

[socialistfuture]

also the world cannot sustain the current population emulating american lifestyles of luxury (If china had the amount of cars per person america did... ). For everyone to live convenience lives requires vast resources, planet earth has finite resources.

[chimx]

Do you believe that African people would choose to live in material poverty over material abundance?

Of course not. Don't be so dim-witted. Rarely do people have the choice to live in poverty or live in abundance. But because different cultures define poverty differently, even "material poverty", its importance to a particular group is entirely subjective to that communities cultural values. Again, I have been saying this for the entire thread. How many times do I have to repeat it before you start to comprehend that humanities values are not synonymous with one another. If you think that cultures are not multi-dimensional, than I strongly urge you to enroll in a sociology 101 class at your local college and work on abandoning your illogical ethnocentricism.


You implied that backwardness ('thatch-roofed houses that are infested with spiders') is part of an African 'cultural history' which African people 'cherish'.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted something so simple to understand. Thactch-roofed houses infested with spiders was something I personally recall about my travels to Africa that I particularly loathed. I hate spiders, and they had these large spiders who had bodies the size of quarters that could slip into the smallest cracks as fast as lightning. It was entirely unpleasant and I used this as an example of why I appreciate living where I do where homes are more sealable and I have easy access to bug killer.

Now, clearly Xhosa culture is far more complex than the type of roofing systems they use. I hope you realize this. Many people throughout the world often strongly identify with their cultural heritage inspite of changes to production because it gives communities a sense of shared identity and dignity. I don't have to look to South Africa to see this. It is present in my own home town in Montana.

[socialistfuture]

Is the Iraq war a war for progress? because it is about getting a resource needed for 'the march of progress', is deforestation of the amazon progress?

can sum of u World Bank developers give me ure definition of 'progress' and to who is progressing (short term/long term).

the term bioconservative was used, i think neo liberal almost suits the progress at any cost position that (what may be considered dystopian technophiles to some) advocate. its like there is pride in their distaine for ecosystems and non human lifeforms.

I dont think this debate can aviod going into resource wars and western domination, colonialism and imperialism including corporate domination both of enviroments and societies.

what may be progress for indonesia is cultural death for west papuans, same with tibetans, the genocide of indigenous peoples often coincides with the exploitation and destruction of their habitats.

just because u call ureself revolutionary does not mean u can avoid such topics. i think the word progress needs some anylasis and context. from whos point of view is the 'progress?

[Vanguard1917]

Of course not. Don't be so dim-witted. Rarely do people have the choice to live in poverty or live in abundance. But because different cultures define poverty differently, even "material poverty", its importance to a particular group is entirely subjective to that communities cultural values.

Then, arguably, Africans are not actually poor? They're only poor from the perspective of Western cultural values - from a Western definition of poverty.

So the lack of development in Africa is not caused by things like the legacy of colonialism, severe lack of investment, imperialist domination, Western 'structural adjustment' programmes, etc. You're not even taking the old reactionary line that the lack of development is caused by the lack of natural resources in Africa.

Instead, what you're saying is that the lack of economic development in Africa is caused by culture. There are cultural barriers to development in Africa. Africa is not developed like the West because concepts of industrial progress are specific to a Western paradigm and alien to African 'cultural values'.

You are even saying that a level of poverty which is not acceptable for Westerners might be fine for Africans - because they have a different conception of poverty, which means that what Westerners see as poverty may not be seen in the same way by Africans.

This pomo cultural-relativist position is deeply reactionary. By rejecting a universal conception of prosperity and development, such a view ultimately serves to legitimate poverty and underdevelopment.

It is also not too different from the old racist explanation for underdevelopment in Africa. The old colonial racists said that Africa is not developed like Europe because African people are not like European people. They're racially different.

Your cultural-relativist position says something quite similar: Africa is not developed like the West because African people are not like Western people. They're culturally different.

[Vanguard1917]

Here's a 4-minute documentary about the consequences of underdevelopment in Ghana and the Ghanaian people's desperation for industrialisation and urbanisation. It shows that the Ghanaian people are certainly not the ones cherishing and romanticising rural life:

I'm a subsistence farmer get me out of here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywRw_ORj-Q)
As Westerners celebrate nature and moan about malls and consumer lifestyles, many in the developing world yearn for the comforts of modernity. Subsistence life means mud-huts and mind-numbing toil. As this telling short doc reveals, Ghanaians want so much more.

[socialistfuture]

sorry but Africa has had a lot of development and still remains deeply in poverty. development has not fixed things. massive corruption has def played a big part as well as exploitation by imperialist nations (the legacy of colonization), trade policies and multinational corporations.

no one is advocating the life of a humble priest who chooses to live in poverty, but development has lead to of uneven trade. its not a case of all development is either good or bad. that you always support 'progress' or oppose it, its not your choosing how sumone lives anyway.

tho the blessing of abundant resources have turned to dark curses at times for africa with blood diamonds and other resources. you seem to be constantly implying unless sumone has modern good and luxury they are missing out. not everyone want large bank accounts, fancy clothes, mc donalds..etc.

people still are homeless and hungry in the west. often development leads to very unequal distribution of wealth, specially on large developments. workers often get crumbs compared to what is made.

a couple of good films showing darker sides of development are -
the devils miner on child working in the mines in south america

the constant gardener

and mediocre is blood diamond

and an old one about brasil called the emerald forest

not all that glitters is gold, vanguard.

[socialistfuture]

i would think the REDISTRIBUION on wealth and re allocation of resources would greatly help those in extreme poverty.

there are people suffering from development processes too.

[chimx]

Originally posted by VG1917

Of course not. Don't be so dim-witted. Rarely do people have the choice to live in poverty or live in abundance. But because different cultures define poverty differently, even "material poverty", its importance to a particular group is entirely subjective to that communities cultural values.

Then, arguably, Africans are not actually poor? They're only poor from the perspective of Western cultural values - from a Western definition of poverty.

They most certainly are poor if we judge them by our own western value system. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they themselves consider themselves impoverished. I don't doubt countless peope do, but it is unwise to make blanket statements for subjective values.


So the lack of development in Africa is not caused by things like the legacy of colonialism, severe lack of investment, imperialist domination, Western 'structural adjustment' programmes, etc. You're not even taking the old reactionary line that the lack of development is caused by the lack of natural resources in Africa.

No, the lack of development in Africa is probably caused by arbitrary European division, investment problems, imperialist exploitation, racial economic barriers, etc. Don't get carried away with yourself. Cultural values are simply one facet.

Let me give you a more concrete example of what I'm talking about. The largest fresh water lake west of the Mississippi is Flathead Lake in Montana. It is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation. It was built in the 1938s by the American government to provide power to the Missoula area as well as local farmers. You see, at this time the fedeal government had established a policy for non-Indians to purchase agricultural land on reservations, which resulted in the Salish people being kicked off their own land. A dam was erected to service this growing agrarian economy in Montana's north west.

The Salish people were completely opposed to its construction. The didn't care about farming or irrigation. They valued their own way of life over that of white "developed" life because it was what they identified with. It was their history and provided them with dignity. There are stories of the Salish people symbolically firing their rifles at the dam in hopes of preventing the destruction of their river.

This is what I mean. Development is not always wanted because it has the potential of trampling on the cultural values and customs upheld by some communities. Like I said before, in an ideal world, people should have open access to the benefits of technological advancement, but don't be arrogantly ethnocentrc enough to assume that your cultural benefits are seen as benefits by everyone on this earth.

[Vanguard1917]

No, the lack of development in Africa is probably caused by arbitrary European division, investment problems, imperialist exploitation, racial economic barriers, etc. Don't get carried away with yourself. Cultural values are simply one facet.

So you actually believe that African culture is a reason for the lack of economic development in Africa?


This is what I mean. Development is not always wanted because it has the potential of trampling on the cultural values and customs upheld by some communities. Like I said before, in an ideal world, people should have open access to the benefits of technological advancement, but don't be arrogantly ethnocentrc enough to assume that your cultural benefits are seen as benefits by everyone on this earth.

People want to live life free from material poverty. This is not a desire particular to 'Western culture' - it is a universal human desire.

People in economically developed parts of the world live in less material poverty than people in the economically underdeveloped parts of the world. This is an objective reality - it has nothing to do with subjective or cultural 'meanings and values'.

It is, therefore, no mystery that people in Africa demand economic development. It is no mystery that literally millions of people from economically underdeveloped countries are eagerly trying to migrate to more economically developed countries every year - sometimes even risking their lives in order to do so.

These people desperately yearn for the standards of living which those of us lucky enough to live in the West take for granted. Indeed, why should economic underdevelopment be good enough for them if it is not good enough for us?

The underdeveloped world don't want poverty. They want economic development. The single most appalling defect of global capitalism is that it cannot provide the economic development that billions of human beings desperately need. And, in a most despicable way, some people in the West - people who would even call themselves 'leftists' - are doing everything they can to justify economic underdevelopment, even telling the poor that they should celebrate and cherish what is essentially their poverty.

[chimx]

So you actually believe that African culture is a reason for the lack of economic development in Africa?

There is no single culture of Africa.

As far as everything else you said, you completely ignored my entire post. Tell me what you would have told the Salish people of Montana in th 1930s and 1940s. Stop being manipulative and address the issues being presented.

[bezdomni]

I would say the two are rarely if ever in actual conflict.

[chimx]

What about poor people in Venezuela being pushed of their land for agrarian development? Logging in the Amazon that displaces indigenous peoples?

Hell, what about this poor Chinese guy that was displeased with urban development around his home???:
http://www.ananova.com/images/web/916474.jpg
:)

[socialistfuture]

I think any system that oppresses people, and recklessly destroys - both lives, communities and eco systems deserves to be resisted- and that doesnt just mean capitalism!!!

despite by green idealism, I do think that cities will have to be adapted because so much of the worlds human population lives there and earns their living there. they are immensly un sustainable tho, and sprawling beyond control.



Earth First! we'll log the other planets later

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)There is no single culture of Africa.[/b]

Don't use pedantry as an excuse to dodge his questions. Try re-reading it as "cultures" instead.


socialistfuture
despite by green idealism, I do think that cities will have to be adapted because so much of the worlds human population lives there and earns their living there. they are immensly un sustainable tho, and sprawling beyond control.


Cities are far more sustainable than scattered communities - for one, you do not have to expend so much energy travelling around a city, and it is easier to implement efficient public transport in a city.

[chimx]

Don't use pedantry as an excuse to dodge his questions. Try re-reading it as "cultures" instead.

Then yes, without question.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:49 pm

Don't use pedantry as an excuse to dodge his questions. Try re-reading it as "cultures" instead.

Then yes, without question.
You're saying that a reason for African societies being less economically developed than Western societies is related to cultural differences.

In other words, 'African cultures' have played a role in keeping Africa economically underdeveloped. A reason for economic poverty in Africa is the culture of African countries. These cultures are partly to blame for the lack of economic prosperity in Africa. They have acted as a barrier to economic development. They have helped keep Africans economically poor.

The view you're espousing is not much better than the old racist explanations for Africa's poverty: black people are not able to reach the heights of European civilisation because of their inherent differences as people. They talked about inherent racial differences; you talk about inherent cultural differences.

Not only that - you also celebrate this 'cultural diversity' that has, according to you, kept Africans in material poverty. If it is the case that the culture of a society is responsible for keeping that society poor, then surely that culture should be abandoned as soon as possible.

(Of course, this is certainly not the case; Africa's lack of economic development has nothing to do with its cultural differences. Culture - which is never static, but is subject to constant change - is a product of society, not the other way around. Indeed, slavishly obeying existing cultural norms is conservatism, not radicalism. Radical social change transforms our culture and raises it to a higher level. Subordinating demands to existing cultural traditions has never had anything to do with progressive movements. Romanticising 'ancient cultures and traditions' was usually what the most reactionary and rightwing movements in society did.)

[chimx]

When I was in South Africa years ago there was an attempt to create a large highway through a wildlife reserve that was also some local tribal land. There was an uproar that this development was inappropriate and trampled on the cultural desires of the local peoples. Some people I talked with told me they would consider chaining themselves to bulldozers to stop the development.

Was this a figment of my imagination?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:43 pm
When I was in South Africa years ago there was an attempt to create a large highway through a wildlife reserve that was also some local tribal land. There was an uproar that this development was inappropriate and trampled on the cultural desires of the local peoples. Some people I talked with told me they would consider chaining themselves to bulldozers to stop the development.

Was this a figment of my imagination?

Anecdotal evidence. Do you have any news reports that i can look at?

What about the rest of the South African poor who are actively demanding jobs, decent houses and economic prosperity? Whose side should we - as so-called progressives - be on?

And you're not addressing the major flaw in your agument. If a particular culture is responsible for keeping people poor (as you falsely claim), why are you defending it?

Your cultural relativism is nihilistic and it serves to justify African underdevelopment - by using good old colonial era racist logic presented in postmodernist language.

[chimx]

Anecdotal evidence. Do you have any news reports that i can look at?

I have provided a bunch of examples. Unfortunately for this one in particular, I don't remember the name of the reserve. It was around 2002 in the south eastern area of SA, about 2-4 hours from Durban. We were pretty near it in a small city of Kokstad.


What about the rest of the South African poor who are actively demanding jobs, decent houses and economic prosperity? Whose side should we - as so-called progressives - be on?

We should be on their side, unless that means infringing on the rights of other people. Keep in mind that it was capitalist developers in Africa that were trying to build a roadway through the reserve so as to make trade and distribution easier. It is this kind of self-serving development that doesn't take into account collateral damage.

I've been to shanty towns like the ones you posted in another thread. Of course I would like to see clean running water in these homes, electricity, proper insulation, and waste disposal (not to mention a greater size). I stayed with a family once about an hour from Kokstad in a very rural area. They were a better off then some of their neighbors in that they had electricity, but stll no running water or bathrooms.

I just googled for him and found a photo. I kicked it with David Kiviet, who had a very pretty daughter (not pictured):

http://www.ststephensbillings.org/files/pic_4_crop.jpg

I realize that I am bringing in anecdotal evidence. Deal with it. From personal experiences I have a problem with the cultural domination of American Indians and to smaller extent local communities in SA by big business. If you want to help people struggling for better living conditions, then that's fine by me. That doesn't mean destroying other cultural values tha the group in question did not ask for (and often times do not want).


And you're not addressing the major flaw in your agument. If a particular culture is responsible for keeping people poor (as you falsely claim), why are you defending it?

The major flaw in your argument is that you maintain a binary understanding of conflict. Cultural values are not static. It is perfectly acceptably to encourage sustainable development while opposing the destruction of land used by certain peoples. You say "people" generally, as if the Salish oppsition to daming the Flathead Lake has unconscionable consequences for people other than themselves.

Development should be the choice of the people in question, not for giddy capitalists and industriaists looking to make a buck and ignore the dynamism of cultural definitions of povery and wealth.


Your cultural relativism is nihilistic and it serves to justify African underdevelopment - by using good old colonial era racist logic presented in postmodernist language.

You have never once shown this. This is a strawman argument. A strawman argument is one where you conjure up a position that is different than your opponents--in this case "colonial era racist logic"--and then attack that. You can defeat your own racist strawman and look like the champion, but all you are doing is undermining any sort of rational discourse.

Hitler did this a lot. We all know that Hitler was a douchebag, so clearly this makes your tactics douchebagish too.

[colorlessman]

Nature before humans because humans are nothing without nature. Nature has done more for humans than humans have done for each other. Human will sell human air if human controlled and produced life, nature gives it to human for free.

[socialistfuture]

amen to that - tho we are a part of nature - tho sum like vanguard are in denial.