Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Environmental rambling.

Could the Earth survive after us or without us ?

I'm not sure how true I believe this to be. It seems like with negative feedback loops etc that we are changing the Earth in a way such that it will destroy itself though obviously not completely.
This raises the question of how eco-centric or biocentric can an environmentalist politics be though. It does look like we're doing it more for humans so how anti- anthroprocentric can it be?


Causes of environmental problems : Capitalism/consumerism/ productivism/endless growth , hierarchy, ignorance, anthroprocentrism

Without a radical re-think of society I don't believe technology is an answer.

I'm not a primitivist but I'm more sympathetic to them than Transhumanism or technohumanism.

4 senses of intrinsic value
  1.  intrinsic vs instrumental. instrumental aids intrinsic e.g. pleasure. skiing is valuable since it promotes pleasure which is intrinsically valuable.
  2.  intrinsic value i.e. having moral worth as opposed to being a mere object e.g. moral status of babies vs a shoe.
  3. inherent value. Expereinces could have inherent value since an experience is a relation.
  4. Intrinsic value regardless of valuers i.e. independent of anyones thoughts on them.

1 seems to make sense.
 I believe in 2.
 3 is unclear .
 4 seems impossible and philosophically problematic or absurd.



I've Read  Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement by Murray Bookchin.

Most of the article is terrible. Gross distortion and lies about Deep Ecology and strawman. Murray Bookchin sounds more like Ayn Rand in this article.


"Let us agree from the outset that ecology is no magic term that unlocks the secret of our abuse of nature. It is a word that can be as easily abused, distorted, and tainted as democracy and freedom. Nor does ecology put us all--whoever "we" may be---in the same boat against environmentalists, who are simply trying to make a rotten society work by dressing it in green leaves and colorful flowers while ignoring the deep-seated roots of our ecological problems"-Correct.

Ecology and green politics does not automatically interest left wing people and can attract reactionaries. It also invites special interests at times.


"Deep ecology has parachuted into our midst quite recently from the Sunbelt's bizarre mix of Hollywood and Disneyland, spiced with homilies from Taoism, Buddhism, spiritualism, reborn Christianity, and in some cases eco-fascism" is a completely ignorant belittling statement ignoring the value in eastern thinking while being lies in regard to fascism or Disneyland.


"Let us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters. " Completely untrue!








 

No comments:

Post a Comment