SecularAnimist @183 said:
The pathologically anthropocentric
view that the world consists of (1) human beings and (2) “resources” for human
consumption is really the root of all of our “environmental” problems (and
indeed the very word “environment” embodies that view). I don’t think that
“solutions” based on that view can solve the problems created by that view.
To be accused of anthropocentrism on a science blog is
unexpected and almost comical. Nonetheless the charge is a serious one, and
demands a response. The implication is that humanity should be less concerned
with its own welfare, and should make sacrifices for the long-term health of
the biosphere. This position is not without justification, but also faces
several criticisms.
1) Any sacrifices we make for the biosphere will ultimately
be futile, because it isn't savable in the long term, due to astronomical
factors entirely beyond our control. The biosphere is also totally indifferent
to our fate, and would recover with astonishing rapidity were we to exit,
voluntarily or otherwise. This scenario has been analyzed in detail, for
example by Alan Weisman in "The World Without Us."
2) If humanity was primarily devoted to the welfare of
non-humans, we would long since have abandoned sedentary agriculture,
civilization and industrialization, and returned to our tribal hunter-gatherer
roots. Our treatment of non-humans thus far is instructive: the lucky ones have
been domesticated, marginalized, genetically modified, imprisoned and enslaved,
while less fortunate species have been starved or hunted to extinction, or
willfully exterminated, in some cases for no rational reason. Many subgroups of
humanity have received similar treatment, and the trend is uncertain at best.
Most ethical problems weren't seriously addressed or even identified until very
recently, and we're currently struggling to define and consistently implement
universal rights and values for humans, never mind for non-humans or the
biosphere.
3) Humanity's anthropocentrism can only be meaningfully
debated within the context of our civilization, which is unmistakably
anthropocentric in origin. Without civilization there would be no science
blogs, and no science to discuss. Science coevolved with civil society, through
many stages, including antiquity, scholasticism, and the Enlightenment. The
humanistic traditions of rational inquiry, reasoned debate, literacy and
democracy are often taken for granted, but without them there's little worth
saving. Science not only requires explanations to be testable, but also expects
them to improve over time. Science is thus fundamentally progressive, and
inextricably bound to the progressivism of civil society.
If people can be persuaded to make sacrifices at all, it
will be because they correctly perceive that the welfare of their own
descendents--not to mention civilization--depends on such sacrifices. Even this
is apparently a long shot, particularly in the United States, where the current
leadership seems determined to maximize irrationality, and inflict privation
and despair on all but the wealthiest. If civilization survives its present
challenges, it may in the distant future attempt to extend civil rights to
include the entire biosphere, but in the meantime we should concentrate on more
urgent problems, of which there's obviously no shortage.
No comments:
Post a Comment