From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 19:06:19 MDT
-- Regina Pancake <regina@appliedfx.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think there is a deep difference between us and the green
> ideology;
> >they consider nature as something that is inherently good regardless
> of
> >human outcomes and that has to be retained as it is not just out of
> >practical considerations but due to its inherent ethical value.
>
>
> I think you've got a good point with this. It does seem like their
> saying All nature-"GOOD" all technology-"BAD."
> But I think there is a lot of room for communication between the two
> groups here.
There are many self described greens who are also technophilic, but who
distinguish between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' technology. I
would say that many, if not most, of the technologies that are
essential to extropic goals are considered highly inappropriate by
Greens, despite the fact that many of the technologies they consider
'appropriate' are in fact more damaging to the ecology. Solar power,
for instance.
> >A transhumanist view of nature would rather be dynamic: nature is
> >something that changes, we are part of nature, let's change together
> in interesting ways.
>
> Your right, this is where I'm coming from. That it is dynamic and
> not static.
Very true. This includes climate change. Some climate change is
natural, even very drastic changes over short periods in some areas. We
shouldn't shrink from using technology to protect humanity (and the
ecology, if we so desire) against climate change. We are part of nature
too, as is our technology no different than ant colonies, bee hives, or
beaver dams. Why is it proper for animals to drastically alter their
environment to their advantage but not us?
>
>
> > This doesn't leave out respect for nature or the need
> >to keep our biosphere liveable and of high quality, but we are far
> more
> >willing to consider changes in nature. After all, if one accepts
> changing
> >the human condition, why not the natural conditions too?
>
> I think where the Greens and especially the Earth First groups would
> freak out about on that statement, is that
> we have this knack for throwing things out of wack as a race. you
> know, children playing with guns, sort of thing.
> Its shown up in problems like introducing new species to other lands.
> Such as rabbits in Australia and the like. Or weed killer that
> mutates the local frog populations. Stuff of the nature
> (so to speak) is just hands down, bad P.R. for any group that pushes
> for change. Namely us.
Nature has a habit of introducing new species itself. Land bridges, as
well as storm and current driven movement (i.e. how iguanas got to the
Galapagos) are all in the historical record. Nature is not about
stasis, and the Greens tend to have a very static conception of how
nature works. Nature is dynamic and changes itself. That is how we came
to be.
And, by the way, it has turned out that the frog mutations were not
actually mutations, but teratogenic alterations caused by natural
parasites. They don't breed that way.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:18 MST