Value and the environment

[parallelepipete]

Yes. he's an interesting geezer.

In a good or bad sense?

 

[Callie]

I assume that all animals of reasonable complexity have their own value systems. I'd guess that the underlying need for food, sex and comfort is slightly more obvious in their value systems though.

But the point is that when you ascribe value to something, you're not using a rat's value system (or a cat's or else you'd torture and eat anything that moved ) you're using your own value system and the values that we place in things are related to how useful* they are to us, whether we like it or not.

*note that I'm using 'useful' in the broadest possible sense including such uses as fulfilling emotional needs.

So in a way were in agreement - its just that were maybe reading the question differently. Im taking it to be how do I believe the value of other things is (i understand that other things must have some substance of value, to something somewhere other than what i place on them) and you are taking it to be in the human system how do other things outside that hold value- they dont. ?

Im not saying that there arent things that hold no value to humans but that they must hold value to something somewhere.

Andrew Dobson <- nut job! who in their right mind would put the words 'green', 'political' and 'thought' into the same sentance

 

[bluestreak]

Yep. But the question was- do they have value outside of their value in maintaining human life/fun/joy/interest/weirdness?

but value is a human construct that can only really be measured in those ways. i reckon.

 

[bluestreak]

Why don't we value rats or mosquitos?

some people do.

why don't YOU value rats or mosquitos?

 

[Callie]

I like ratties, not so keen on mosquitoes - you cant stroke them easily

 

[bluestreak]

i'd also be interested to know if gurrier applies the same logic to humans - do we have value?

 

[chooch]

In a good or bad sense?

Good sense. I've read some stuff he's done and been to a seminar he did...

 

[geminisnake]

A hastily constructed thought experiment:

At no cost to you a bomb that will destroy the planet will be automatically released from your spaceship in ten seconds. Do you stop it with the large button marked [stop]?

Yes. Who made me god?
Why do you have to destroy something because 'you' think it has no value?
Still think that's a selfish/self centred attitude for anyone to have.

I haven't read the in depth posts, I'm ill and got a headache(and they'll make it worse)but I'll try and read them another day.

 

[parallelepipete]

Good sense. I've read some stuff he's done and been to a seminar he did...

That's alright then. I seem to have encountered some rather anti-green sentiment on these boards in the last day or two...

 

[Purdie]

The question is, why do we believe in nature's value-in-itself? (Please, no New Age stuff about vibrations)

It's self supporting. It's what i remember from what they thaught me in school and it amazes me to this day that virtually nothing in nature gets wasted. Everything seems to serve a purpose, even if science can't always figure out what it is...(the purpose)

 

[ska invita]

This is a fascinating question which underpins political ecologism. I'm actually in the middle of reading Andrew Dobson's excellent book 'Green Political Thought' which goes into this in reasonable depth.

-In that book he says that for a dark green ecologist all life is equal in value - the survival of any species is as important to an ecologist as the survival of man.

Furthermore an ecologist like this would see everything in nature (not just "living") as part of the living "Gaia", so therefore of equal value.
Rocks are interconected to the ecosystem so therefore share in the respect afforded to all life.

This is a view not without problems when it comes to making policy - hypotheticaly, would an ecologist faced with the choice of killing two species (lets say all chickens and turkeys) do so in order to save the human species? - This is an improbable situation, but I am sure there are more realistic and equally problematic ones out there.

 

[gurrier]

i'd also be interested to know if gurrier applies the same logic to humans - do we have value?

yes I do and it depends on who's doing the valuing. For example, some deep ecologists seem to give the human species negative value. Personally I think we're great.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I value things differently to my girlfriend, thus the value we give to things varries from person to person, as such there is no way to say that an item or person has a intrinsic value. I don't think anything has intrinsic value (incidentally this has nothing to do with my lack of belief in god).

Sadly the poll didn't make allowances for my skewed view of reality.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>This is a view not without problems when it comes to making policy - hypotheticaly, would an ecologist faced with the choice of killing two species (lets say all chickens and turkeys) do so in order to save the human species? - This is an improbable situation, but I am sure there are more realistic and equally problematic ones out there.

Humans vs smallpox bacillus? I have some real issues with the deep greens.

 

[Callie]

Humans vs smallpox bacillus? I have some real issues with the deep greens.

I cant help myself, I should keep my mouth shut but...... smallpox virus not bacillus

so is this whole thing about conservation?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I cant help myself, I should keep my mouth shut but...... smallpox virus not bacillus <snip>

hehehe, whoops

 

[chooch]

so is this whole thing about conservation?

Partly. Theres a strong instrumental argument for conserving biodiversity (that goes soemthing like- we're alive/surviving/thriving because of services that the environment provides; we don't know for sure exactly how it all fits together so precaution would say it would be wise to keep what's here now if we can) but plenty of green-tinged people hold the view that biodiversity is a good in itself, or that other living things have an entitlement to at least fair consideration. Just thought I'd try to untangle those some...
I'm interested so far that no one's made a living things/non living things distinction.

 

[Callie]

Well from my point of view I havent made that distinction because both are important - living things could not survive without the non-living world, back to your landslide example I expect that theres some living thing somewhere out there that incorporates landslides into its life cycle, just like how some plants depend on fires to kick start their seeds into growth.

As for other living things having an entitlement to fair consideration then yes I would agree with that. Although something may not (as far as we know) have a direct effect on our lives as humans I think part of being a human (and having that clever brain of ours) is understanding that we share the planet with other creatures and that were probably clever enough to find ways to survive that wont effect them too much. I doubt many other living creatures have that ability.

 

[chooch]

Well from my point of view I havent made that distinction because both are important - living things could not survive without the non-living world

Aye. The world's a tangled thing and particular assemblages of living things are based on particular arrangements of non- living stuff.
What are the bounds of ecosystems- in conserving the living do you have to necessarily conserve the properties of the particular arrangement of the non living?

 

[Callie]

What are the bounds of ecosystems- in conserving the living do you have to necessarily conserve the properties of the particular arrangement of the non living?

I might be misunderstanding what youre saying there BUT!...

if the living depend on the non-living for their survival then yes.