The unimportant news thread

[Todd]

Still sounds bananas to me.

It is worse than bananas: it is neo-animism seeping into the legal system of a country.  (Yes, it's Argentina, but still.)  It is one small step toward barbarism.

[Florestan]

It is worse than bananas: it is neo-animism seeping into the legal system of a country.  (Yes, it's Argentina, but still.)  It is one small step toward barbarism.

+1

[Ken B]

Wow. Todd, Florestan, and I agree. Blue moon?

[Ken B]

My feel-good story of the day.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/plane-passenger-tossed-after-angry-reaction-to-merry-christmas/

[Brian]

Want some sunglasses in China? Buy them from Helen Keller.

[Moonfish]

It is worse than bananas: it is neo-animism seeping into the legal system of a country.  (Yes, it's Argentina, but still.)  It is one small step toward barbarism.

It is ethics different from yours. How can you even consider it barbarism?

bar·ba·rism
ˈbärbəˌrizəm
noun
1.
absence of culture and civilization.
"the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism"
2.
extreme cruelty or brutality.
"she called the execution an act of barbarism"

[Ken B]

It is ethics different from yours. How can you even consider it barbarism?

bar·ba·rism
ˈbärbəˌrizəm
noun
1.
absence of culture and civilization.
"the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism"
2.
extreme cruelty or brutality.
"she called the execution an act of barbarism"

Imagine I said a flower should have the same rights as a person. Or, more to the point, a person has no more rights than a flower. It is the devaluing of human life.
How would you view a ruling that a chimpanzee deserved no more consideration than an earth-worm?
What other less sensate things should we give full rights to? 2 month fetuses, so abortion is murder?

[Todd]

It is ethics different from yours. How can you even consider it barbarism?

bar·ba·rism
ˈbärbəˌrizəm
noun
1.
absence of culture and civilization.
"the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism"
2.
extreme cruelty or brutality.
"she called the execution an act of barbarism"

The first definition covers it.  The notion of "animal rights" - and the evolving notion of "plants rights" - is intrinsically misanthropic.  It erodes the foundation of civilization itself.  Supporters of these notions of course fancy themselves more enlightened than others.  But it is nothing more than a reversion to animism.  Hence my use of the phrase neo-animism.  It is akin to barbarism of old, with sacred trees and rocks and righteous critters.  It is emotional devotion to things, now dressed up with pseudoscience and, in Argentina, the legal fiction of non-human personhood.

[Moonfish]

The first definition covers it.  The notion of "animal rights" - and the evolving notion of "plants rights" - is intrinsically misanthropic.  It erodes the foundation of civilization itself.  Supporters of these notions of course fancy themselves more enlightened than others.  But it is nothing more than a reversion to animism.  Hence my use of the phrase neo-animism.  It is akin to barbarism of old, with sacred trees and rocks and righteous critters.  It is emotional devotion to things, now dressed up with pseudoscience and, in Argentina, the legal fiction of non-human personhood.

Interesting, considering that western culture is extremely geared towards the devotion of things.....

[Jo498]

yes, but devotion to man-made artifacts and institutions, especially the deity formerly known as Mammon.

[Moonfish]

yes, but devotion to man-made artifacts and institutions, especially the deity formerly known as Mammon.

True Jo498! Mammon has risen greatly over the last century!

Todd, so we now have a culture devoted towards manmade objects/possessions/artifacts, right? Why is it considered barbaric to be devoted in a similar fashion to natural objects, or for that matter, other living beings? Shouldn't other living things have priority over e.g. electronics, toys or cars? Why should such a view be considered barbaric or ethically be considered as a lack of culture?

[Todd]

Shouldn't other living things have priority over e.g. electronics, toys or cars?

Not really.  The notion that a chicken, say, should be given "priority" (which means?) over some thing like an MRI machine is rather bizarre, to say the very least.  I'm not sure the false binary choice you offer - switching to devotion of critters from devotion to manmade artifacts - is any less bizarre.  Devotion here more than implies emotional involvement, which should be reduced in public policy and everyday life, I would think.  Others may want a more caring society, I guess, which only serves to show that some people can anthropomorphize anything.  Adding to the list of things that society mis- or overvalues is not something to pursue or celebrate.

[Moonfish]

Not really.  The notion that a chicken, say, should be given "priority" (which means?) over some thing like an MRI machine is rather bizarre, to say the very least.  I'm not sure the false binary choice you offer - switching to devotion of critters from devotion to manmade artifacts - is any less bizarre.  Devotion here more than implies emotional involvement, which should be reduced in public policy and everyday life, I would think.  Others may want a more caring society, I guess, which only serves to show that some people can anthropomorphize anything.  Adding to the list of things that society mis- or overvalues is not something to pursue or celebrate.

It is all relative. I am not really focusing on the meat factories of our society (poultry farms etc). Your chosen example with a chicken versus an MRI machine is indeed bizarre. What about a Bald Eagle versus your pencil? What is worth more in the moment of choice? Would there be a differential list of objects versus living things in the moment of choice? My point is that most of the time living things (and the ecosystems they are integral parts of) are not valued in the ethical, financial and legal equations of modern culture. However, our culture's existence depends critically on the health of these ecosystems. Why don't we value them?

[Todd]

What about a Bald Eagle versus your pencil? What is worth more in the moment of choice?

Since bald eagles are no longer endangered, I'll take the pencil.  It is less likely to peck my eye out or soil my floor.  But more seriously, your question contains an element of the emotionalism I refer to.  I literally don't care about the life of a specific bald eagle any more than I care about the fate of a specific pencil.

My point is that most of the time living things (and the ecosystems they are integral parts of) are not valued in the ethical, financial and legal equations of modern culture. However, our culture's existence depends critically on the health of these ecosystems. Why don't we value them?

I'm not sure what culture you live in, because the one I live in (the United States) most certainly does value other living things.  The US has the Endangered Species Act, for instance, which has been used to protect a variety of critters over the years, and has in some instances destroyed entire industries - and peoples' lives - in some regions of the country when doing so. 

Another example involves the current trend of removing dams in the Pacific Northwest.  In some cases, the dams no longer serve a significant purpose (ie, flood control, hydropower, irrigation), so in those cases, dam removal makes sense.  However, some people, predominantly animal rights activists, have targeted hydropower dams for removal.  Here, society must make a choice: are salmon runs more important that zero carbon emission electricity for millions of people?  More accurately, society must decide to what extent the dams should be altered with fish ladders, etc, and efficiency of power generation should be traded off against each other.  Society must make a choice between an abstract notion of an "ecosystem" and sustainably meeting human needs.  Some animals must die, and some must never be born.  It may even turn out that a specific species or two is allowed to go extinct to ensure that broader environmental concerns are addressed and so that humans may thrive.  The way you frame your point seems to ignore that.  It also exposes why there is a growing rift between some animal rights activists and some environmentalists.

[Moonfish]

Since bald eagles are no longer endangered, I'll take the pencil.  It is less likely to peck my eye out or soil my floor.  But more seriously, your question contains an element of the emotionalism I refer to.  I literally don't care about the life of a specific bald eagle any more than I care about the fate of a specific pencil.




I'm not sure what culture you live in, because the one I live in (the United States) most certainly does value other living things.  The US has the Endangered Species Act, for instance, which has been used to protect a variety of critters over the years, and has in some instances destroyed entire industries - and peoples' lives - in some regions of the country when doing so. 

Another example involves the current trend of removing dams in the Pacific Northwest.  In some cases, the dams no longer serve a significant purpose (ie, flood control, hydropower, irrigation), so in those cases, dam removal makes sense.  However, some people, predominantly animal rights activists, have targeted hydropower dams for removal.  Here, society must make a choice: are salmon runs more important that zero carbon emission electricity for millions of people?  More accurately, society must decide to what extent the dams should be altered with fish ladders, etc, and efficiency of power generation should be traded off against each other.  Society must make a choice between an abstract notion of an "ecosystem" and sustainably meeting human needs.  Some animals must die, and some must never be born.  It may even turn out that a specific species or two is allowed to go extinct to ensure that broader environmental concerns are addressed and so that humans may thrive.  The way you frame your point seems to ignore that.  It also exposes why there is a growing rift between some animal rights activists and some environmentalists.

Yes, I am very well aware about the measures taken here in the US. No major environmental acts have been passed over the last 25 years (1990 Clean Air Act). That timeline speaks for itself. To refer to the ESA as an example one needs to realize the extreme political nature of the act. Under the Clinton administration 521 species were added to the act, while under George W Bush only 60 species were added. Was that because less species were threatened here in the US between 2000-2008 compared to 1992-2000? Or is there a different explanation?
In regards to dams: are you familiar with how dams affect watersheds or, alternatively, the history of salmon species along the west coast of North America?  Obviously, the damage has been done, but is it not worthwhile to at least restore some habitat for the salmon species that once thrived to potentially restore their population? Could the salmon fisheries become viable once again and be of benefit to humanity if we take the proper action?

The current legislation is not sufficient to address the current ecological problems we are experiencing on both a national and global level. There is some hope with the recent measures taken by the White House in regards to climate change, but appropriate legal follow-ups will never pass the Senate nor the House of Congress for obvious reasons (unless the republican party recognizes potential negative political consequences if it opposes President Obama's environmental stance). Our nation does not currently have the political will to address environmental issues unless the average person cares about them. My original point is that a culture needs to have a solid environmental ethics to move towards a sustainable future. We lack it in our aggressive overuse of resources on a global level and lack of longterm environmental concerns. Unfortunately, this is pretty much a global phenomena. The European nations have progressed much further towards building policies toward a sustainable future (Germany in particular).

One cannot really present issues very well on an internet forum so we are probably both reading/adding aspects that do not exist in the posts. However, it is pretty clear that you seem to champion that humans must thrive no matter what the consequences will be.  There is no way I would choose a pencil over the life of an eagle.  You are making your own ethical choice quite clear with your answer.  Humans are indeed thriving, but at a great cost. The problem is that society overall does not recognize the cost  (and debt in terms of pollution and habitat destruction) it has incurred in its rapid expansion in population level and resource use over the last century. Our ethics (in this thread) in regards to the environment differ greatly. Let's leave it at that as we certainly will not make each others views change by these posts. It will become a diatribe.

Todd! Let's agree to disagree?

[Todd]

In regards to dams: are you familiar with how dams affect watersheds or, alternatively, the history of salmon species along the west coast of North America?  Obviously, the damage has been done, but is it not worthwhile to at least restore some habitat for the salmon species that once thrived to potentially restore their population? Could the salmon fisheries become viable once again and be of benefit to humanity if we take the proper action?

Yes, I am familiar with it.  I live in the Pacific Northwest.  I have been exposed to pro-environmental and pro-animal rights propaganda for decades.  Your last two questions purposely avoid the larger questions involved, most specifically the impact to sustainable energy production in order to enhance salmon runs.  To put it bluntly, a trade off will need to be made between effective salmon recovery efforts and reliable, low emission energy.  I favor the latter.  The potential benefit of salmon runs - and all environmental and animal rights ideas - need to go through rigorous cost-benefit analyses.  If switching to farm-raised salmon is a cheaper alternative for society as a whole than retrofitting dams and reducing power output, then that is the superior policy choice.  Not every species needs to be saved.

My original point is that a culture needs to have a solid environmental ethics to move towards a sustainable future.

Then there's part of the problem.  My original post did not pertain to so-called "environmental ethics", but rather to the absurd and potentially obscene and destructive neo-animism seeping into one country's legal system.  Sustainability is primarily related to energy policy.  Enhanced animal rights endangers future deployment of sustainable energy technologies, as well as the erosion of actual ethics and civilization.  It is not just salmon runs, but also various animals impacted by wind farms (eg, birds), solar farms (eg, lizards), wave and tidal energy (fish, whales, etc), and so forth.  Extending "personhood" to animals, starting with primates, and then to whatever as would inevitably happen, will only slow the deployment of new technologies in some areas.  The environment and animal rights are at odds with one another right now; this will only get worse.  From your posts, it seems that you do not accept that this is the case.

With respect to your admiration of Europe, you may want to dig a bit deeper.  Germany's policies have resulted in regressive energy rate structure along with the grotesque geopolitical manipulation of US trade policy with China on behalf of a German solar panel maker (Solar World).  And some European countries have taken to burning wood pellets to meet emission levels - but that only hides the fact that some of the emissions show up in other countries' figures.  Rather like how exporting manufacturing to low labor cost countries shifts environmental degradation and costs to poorer countries.

However, it is pretty clear that you seem to champion that humans must thrive no matter what the consequences will be.  There is no way I would choose a pencil over the life of an eagle.

I make no apologies for putting people ahead of animals and the nebulous concept of the environment.  The last two, and the last one, in particular, is important only in so far as it harms people.  A few billion years hence, after humans are extinct, the sun will expand and destroy the earth.  In the ultimate long run, the environment does not matter a whit.  It only matters now and in the next few hundred or thousand years because of people.

As to your eagle ethics, you missed the point.

Anyway, for all the environmentalist types (as distinct from animal rights types), how do you suggest taking the IPCC's claims that weather related deaths of humans will likely drop as a result of global warming?  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Or just a thing?  This isn't to say I "favor" global warming - though I readily acknowledge that it is happening now and will continue to happen and that humanity will blow by the 450 ppm carbon threshold and the downright ridiculous two degree Celsius temperature increase threshold set as meaningful goals - just that it seems that even science types aren't all gloom and doom.

[Moonfish]

Of course it is related to energy. What is interesting about energy is that the aspect of lowering the consumption of energy is rarely addressed here in the US in a serious fashion. If it is addressed the regulations move at snail's pace. Dams are a mute point as almost all watersheds with potential hydropower already have been utilized and we have already destroyed most of the existing salmon population apart from Alaska's. I am not sure what your point is except for that the existing salmon species are not worth saving in your eyes.  You remind me of a commissioner for BLM that when asked about the loss of salmon as a consequence of dam building responded with "Let them eat cake instead" and laughed at the film crew (Cadillac Desert).

Sure the sun will expand in five billion years. I am not sure what your point is here either? Do you think I am suggesting that we should be sustainable for five billion years?  Besides, I certainly do not see what this astronomical fact has to do with environmental ethics in the present time. 

You can hold onto your pencil, Todd, if it matters so much to you. You are completely missing my points in regards to sustainability and environmental ethics.

I agree to disagree as these posts are heading nowhere quickly.  We are both entrenched in very different views of the world.

Signing off from this discussion.   0:) 0:) 0:)

[Ken B]

I'll just leave this here, as a chaser to the Todd-Moonfish exchange.

http://www.werewolfpage.com/myths/global_legends.html

Try not to gloat Todd. 

[Ken B]

Unsurprising global map of racial tolerance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

The linked article about the response of one Carlton prof is interesting too.

[Todd]

Dams are a mute point as almost all watersheds with potential hydropower already have been utilized and we have already destroyed most of the existing salmon population apart from Alaska's.

It's "moot" point.  If you insist on misusing tired phrases, do try to do it properly.  And then you can explain to activists trying to remove hydropower dams that it is a moot point.

Anyway, your continued misuse of the word "ethics", and your last word style argument ("Signing off . . ."), indicate that you have found your religion, and that nothing will challenge your devotion.  Like many religious zealots, it appears that the concept of trade offs, and someone pointing out internal contradictions within your belief system, offends your moral and moralistic sensibility.  Pretty standard stuff.