|
A little bit of context at the end.
Nature is, in part, us, biologically. No matter how much i try to protect nature, i don't count as liking it.
Apparently the feeling is all that is important, not the actions.
Do we protect nature to make us feel better, or because it is right to do? All of nature should have its rights.
I care for nature in the way i care for another human being who is being oppressed or neglected.
I have the same feelings towards them. Protective ones. Empathetic ones. I feel the pain they are in and the way they are being abused and want to stop it if i can.
Aaron Swartz's blog "Believe you can change" really allowed me to see what it is i had been doing in a more concrete and pro-active way. I (and i suspect this applies to most people) used to apply it subconsciously and intermittently.*
Having a growth mindset is like taking evolution and trying encourage it in ourselves. Actively trying to change the way we are in order to better protect our genes. And the genes of the life that feeds us, and feeds off us.
The life of the plant was not important to me, it was an object that mattered only in so far as it was useful to me and the world, but now i feel empathy towards the plant that allows me to truly put effort into protecting it.}
I was an ecology activist because i was an ecologist. It is a cause worth fighting for i think. For all of nature, including us.
*For anyone who missed the news Aaron Swartz fairly recently committed suicide reportedly due to the stress of the potential 30 year sentence he might receive for distributing peer reviewed articles. Go google his life if you don't know of him. A true activist of the Information Age.
+ Show Spoiler +This blog was originally me putting down my thoughts in response to what my, for lack of a better word, ex-girlfriend wrote to me today, i wrote a little about the situation in my last blog post. Text based conversation is rarely a good idea in these situations, but exam stress and life causes me to make bad decisions.
 
|
Nature... aaron swartz... wat.
|
Thanks to this post, I watched two, hour-long videos featuring lawrence lessig and the problems facing America. Then somehow in the related videos I ended up watching a show from the history channel about the army building terminator robots, followed by the "no russian" mission in call of duty modern warfare where you go on a killing spree in an airport. Its so easy to lose track of time 
|
On May 13 2013 11:23 radscorpion9 wrote:Thanks to this post, I watched two, hour-long videos featuring lawrence lessig and the problems facing America. Then somehow in the related videos I ended up watching a show from the history channel about the army building terminator robots, followed by the "no russian" mission in call of duty modern warfare where you go on a killing spree in an airport. Its so easy to lose track of time
Holy fuck dude you're so right. Happens to me all the time, I feel you man
|
On May 13 2013 11:23 radscorpion9 wrote:Thanks to this post, I watched two, hour-long videos featuring lawrence lessig and the problems facing America. Then somehow in the related videos I ended up watching a show from the history channel about the army building terminator robots, followed by the "no russian" mission in call of duty modern warfare where you go on a killing spree in an airport. Its so easy to lose track of time
I'm not sure how that is thanks to this thread, but your welcome i guess?
Man, people didn't like this blog much, i was just happy that i managed to limit it to a few hundred words instead of the usual long rants.
|
A few points to consider:
What is the definition of nature then? Do you mean all the rocks and air and water as well? They're a part of ecology too.
Or do you mean living things? If so, then do you have empathy for insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
Why stop there? Why not have empathy for the basic unit of life - the self-replicating gene? Are we morally bound to preserve all genes we see, because they are "alive"?
You're pretty comfortable, no doubt, if your location is in Britain and you're posting on TL. It is not unreasonable to consider the lives of trees in your position, when you have nothing to lose by saving them. What about the poor logger in Brasil, who has little education and whose only income is what he gets by logging trees? What will happen to him and his family when you stop him from logging out of empathy? What right do you have of imposing your own objectives upon someone else who has to pay the cost?
|
On May 13 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:
A few points to consider:
What is the definition of nature then? Do you mean all the rocks and air and water as well? They're a part of ecology too.
Or do you mean living things? If so, then do you have empathy for insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
Why stop there? Why not have empathy for the basic unit of life - the self-replicating gene? Are we morally bound to preserve all genes we see, because they are "alive"?
You're pretty comfortable, no doubt, if your location is in Britain and you're posting on TL. It is not unreasonable to consider the lives of trees in your position, when you have nothing to lose by saving them. What about the poor logger in Brasil, who has little education and whose only income is what he gets by logging trees? What will happen to him and his family when you stop him from logging out of empathy? What right do you have of imposing your own objectives upon someone else who has to pay the cost?
I agree. I don't believe in absolutism as a concept really (i realise the irony in saying i never apply absolutism).
Trying to apply my ethics to the logger in brazil would be unrealistic and unfair.
I respond the same way when people ask me about my vegetarianism, which is that for someone living in my culture, being a vegetarian is ridiculously easy, and anyone not doing it is being unsustainable, lazy and ultimately selfish. I would not require or even suggest that an indonesian couple who's only real source of protein is chicken give up eating them on the other hand.
As for a definition of nature, i'm using it rather widely here, hence trying to include humanity, but i am really only including things that are "living" so to speak. I realise that bacteria are alive, and this poses a problem, but in the end it comes down to being the best you can be.
Often times people try to catch out vegetarians/vegans/freegans/etc/etc for some reason, as if to say that if you are aren't 100% perfect you are therefore a hypocrite and an asshole, and the good you ARE doing doesn't count, but i won't by it, i'll just do the best i can.
|
On May 15 2013 03:21 Surili wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:
A few points to consider:
What is the definition of nature then? Do you mean all the rocks and air and water as well? They're a part of ecology too.
Or do you mean living things? If so, then do you have empathy for insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
Why stop there? Why not have empathy for the basic unit of life - the self-replicating gene? Are we morally bound to preserve all genes we see, because they are "alive"?
You're pretty comfortable, no doubt, if your location is in Britain and you're posting on TL. It is not unreasonable to consider the lives of trees in your position, when you have nothing to lose by saving them. What about the poor logger in Brasil, who has little education and whose only income is what he gets by logging trees? What will happen to him and his family when you stop him from logging out of empathy? What right do you have of imposing your own objectives upon someone else who has to pay the cost? I agree. I don't believe in absolutism as a concept really (i realise the irony in saying i never apply absolutism). Trying to apply my ethics to the logger in brazil would be unrealistic and unfair. I respond the same way when people ask me about my vegetarianism, which is that for someone living in my culture, being a vegetarian is ridiculously easy, and anyone not doing it is being unsustainable, lazy and ultimately selfish. I would not require or even suggest that an indonesian couple who's only real source of protein is chicken give up eating them on the other hand. As for a definition of nature, i'm using it rather widely here, hence trying to include humanity, but i am really only including things that are "living" so to speak. I realise that bacteria are alive, and this poses a problem, but in the end it comes down to being the best you can be. Often times people try to catch out vegetarians/vegans/freegans/etc/etc for some reason, as if to say that if you are aren't 100% perfect you are therefore a hypocrite and an asshole, and the good you ARE doing doesn't count, but i won't by it, i'll just do the best i can.
You are mistaken - I am not applying your ethics to the logger. I am simply applying the consequences of your ethics to the logger. The ethics of the logger is his to take, and your ethics are yours to take, independent of each other. However, the effects of both ethics may have profound interacting effects which should be considered.
Well, no, people are perfectly justified to catch out a vegetarian/vegan/freegan because they differentiate themselves based on ideology. Others have internal contradictions in their ideologies; but they don't really care as they are not defined by their ideologies. However, if vegetarians/vegans/freegans/etc/etc have a non-consistent ideology it means they are being dishonest with themselves - and a catching out is deserved. So, with this in mind - what is your ideological justification for caring about some species and not others?
|
On May 15 2013 20:03 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:21 Surili wrote:On May 13 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:
A few points to consider:
What is the definition of nature then? Do you mean all the rocks and air and water as well? They're a part of ecology too.
Or do you mean living things? If so, then do you have empathy for insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
Why stop there? Why not have empathy for the basic unit of life - the self-replicating gene? Are we morally bound to preserve all genes we see, because they are "alive"?
You're pretty comfortable, no doubt, if your location is in Britain and you're posting on TL. It is not unreasonable to consider the lives of trees in your position, when you have nothing to lose by saving them. What about the poor logger in Brasil, who has little education and whose only income is what he gets by logging trees? What will happen to him and his family when you stop him from logging out of empathy? What right do you have of imposing your own objectives upon someone else who has to pay the cost? I agree. I don't believe in absolutism as a concept really (i realise the irony in saying i never apply absolutism). Trying to apply my ethics to the logger in brazil would be unrealistic and unfair. I respond the same way when people ask me about my vegetarianism, which is that for someone living in my culture, being a vegetarian is ridiculously easy, and anyone not doing it is being unsustainable, lazy and ultimately selfish. I would not require or even suggest that an indonesian couple who's only real source of protein is chicken give up eating them on the other hand. As for a definition of nature, i'm using it rather widely here, hence trying to include humanity, but i am really only including things that are "living" so to speak. I realise that bacteria are alive, and this poses a problem, but in the end it comes down to being the best you can be. Often times people try to catch out vegetarians/vegans/freegans/etc/etc for some reason, as if to say that if you are aren't 100% perfect you are therefore a hypocrite and an asshole, and the good you ARE doing doesn't count, but i won't by it, i'll just do the best i can. You are mistaken - I am not applying your ethics to the logger. I am simply applying the consequences of your ethics to the logger. The ethics of the logger is his to take, and your ethics are yours to take, independent of each other. However, the effects of both ethics may have profound interacting effects which should be considered. Well, no, people are perfectly justified to catch out a vegetarian/vegan/freegan because they differentiate themselves based on ideology. Others have internal contradictions in their ideologies; but they don't really care as they are not defined by their ideologies. However, if vegetarians/vegans/freegans/etc/etc have a non-consistent ideology it means they are being dishonest with themselves - and a catching out is deserved. So, with this in mind - what is your ideological justification for caring about some species and not others?
You made an incorrect assumption i'm afraid. I don't differentiate myself based on my ideology. I simply try to do the best i can in the world while trying not to let it get out of hand.
The main reason for my refusal to cause demand for the killing/enslaving of animals is for ecological reasons, although the ethical arguments are valid also. I won't try to reproduce my whole argument here, as i have written it out more thoroughly on my personal blog. (I hope this doesn't violate TL's rules, it just seems relevant to this discussion. I can remove the link if it is disapproved of.
As for why one over another? Well i have to draw the line somewhere. As for killing things, i usually draw the line at sentience. A dog has it. A leaf does not. Does a mussel have it? That is a grey area, but I'm assured that scientists are working on it ^.^ Regardless of sentience, where i can avoid it i generally try to, while still being able to live a healthy life without being ostracised by society in order to promote the kind of change i want in the world.
I'm not clear on the point you are making vis a vis the logger, please clarify 
|
On May 13 2013 11:23 radscorpion9 wrote:Thanks to this post, I watched two, hour-long videos featuring lawrence lessig and the problems facing America. Then somehow in the related videos I ended up watching a show from the history channel about the army building terminator robots, followed by the "no russian" mission in call of duty modern warfare where you go on a killing spree in an airport. Its so easy to lose track of time
That mission is pretty fucked-up. I would just skip it because it's not really even a mission, it's more like an interactive cinematic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
