I just listened to a radio show about a man who's published a new book about the morality of fossil fuels. When I listened to his explanation, I was taken back to the traditional variance in all debates. The basis of all differences in our perception of the world around us is whether we think we are animals. So I'm going to write about both.
1. If we are animals, the environment is our peer. Ultimately the environment is our steward. We are subject to it's availability. We are subject to its actions. The catalyst of the actions is "important" but not in the effect of what is happening over why it's happening. So, basically whether God is doing these things, if Universal intelligence, or if, my least favorite option, chaos, is to blame, it doesn't matter. We are intellectual creatures, like dolphins or octopi, or pigs. We have relationships and we build things. We created a heirachy of intellectual function for goodness sake! We are the pinnacle of macro-organisms! (that was sarcasm) If we are animals then we are like the tiny boats we build out on stormy seas: we can only change our circumstances on a minute level.
2. If we dominate animals, the environment is a tool. Ultimately we are the steward over a sickly and deteriorating globe. It is subject to our actions. We are the catalyst. In this instance, the catalyst may be the same forces acting on our "nature", but it's still the same: it doesn't matter. We are intellectual creatures and intellect is paramount. Intellect can overcome our action. In this view the world is falling apart and in need of saving. From this perspective it makes sense that we should use fossil fuels to take the contaminants out of the soil.
Problems:
If our actions come from our nature, and our intellect comes from our nature then our actions should implicate our intellect and in true biological form, provide sustainability for off-spring.
Earth is a closed system. It is like a glass filled with water. Assuming volume can't change, and we aren't rapidly seaping atmosphere into the vast universe, taking a toxin out of one form simply means that it takes a new form; ie, if you take toxic materials out of the soil, you put them in the air. If take toxins from water or air and put it in barrels in the ground, you are simply changing their state. We are playing chess against the computer. There's only so many times you can move into and out of the corner before you just give up and let the computer have you.
Wasn't it Einstein who said “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”...that wasn't a question. Yes, it was. How are we to know that ants aren't geniuses at volume movement, or that dolphins were the pinnacle of evolution, but then decided it wasn't worth all the hype?
I realize that we are really a mix of options 1 and 2. I know this, but I still don't think it gives us the authority to do stupid things. That is my final complaint: Humans have specialty. I promise you that an electrician could school me on how to install wiring into a house, but all it takes is one news article or one book and suddenly Joe Shmoe is an expert and he thinks the electrician is a complete fool. Why can't we have experts? Why can't we have specialists anymore?
In typical fashion, a little information is a scary thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment