[FoRK] Brownback defines science
<lionkimbro at gmail.com> on
Fri Jun 1 19:36:15 PDT 2007
On 6/1/07, Elias Sinderson <elias at soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> What is uniquely amazing is the mind-bogglingly short-termed
> anthropocentric view that somehow whatever makes humans different from
> other animals equates to a divine right of dominion over the Earth -- to
> the point of endangering our own survival as a species.
I agree with the "Deep Ecologists," who argue that we should see
ourselves as part of the larger framework of all life. And I agree
with the notion that we should empathize with animals and plant
life, the world over. Even rocks, though we are pretty certain that
they don't feel -- emotions and imagination do not require rationality
for a basis.
(Actually, I go even further -- I believe we should extend empathy
to machines and AI; This is where I, and most of the Deep Ecology
people I know of- part ways- many of them are terrified of human
technology, and think that AI, a creation of humanity, could only
be evil. I can't walk with them to that place.)
But -- what do you think?
Do you think we should put humans on the same tier as deer, wolves,
and other animals, cute or otherwise? The eradication of said animals
goes against the commands of my heart, and I'm not into that.
But isn't humanity deserving of a special tier?
Can't we see ourselves on a special tier, and at the same time,
deeply value animals and plants, and strive for them?
The ability to transfer language from one generation to another,
seems somehow much more powerful to me, than any
other particular strategy that evolution has uncovered.
I think that saying, "We're just as uniquely as amazing as all the
other plants and animals" requires a stretch of reason, and I don't
think it's a very strong point.
More information about the FoRK