Against Ecology Coercion

Religion-Science Philosophy articles series

Related Philosophy Wires © : See Philosophy Wires @ Harmonia-Philosophica (use “against ecology” tag)

Are humans part of nature?

Ecology is very important today. It is in fashion and will stay in fashion for years to come, thus it is crucial to understand its basic foundations correctly. And of course it is needless to say that every “fashion” is inherently wrong… History teaches us that what the majority of people think is right, is usually something that has been imposed on them by someone with enough power and not-so-good motives… If you read the below-mentioned simple questions you may understand that most of you have a wrong idea of what “ecology” really is and what it means for us humans to respect nature…

  • What is the difference between a volcano emitting CO2 and a human-made factory emitting CO2? None, as long as the factories are required for the survival and progress of our civilization.
  • Why should people care about not harming other species while a lion can kill a human in order to eat and have noone blaim it for “non-ecological” consciousness? They should not, as long as they need to do that in order to feed their selfs and their children.
  • Why should humans care about sustaining the ecology balance while bacteria or insects do not?
  • How can a species be the “dominant” one on a planet without exchibiting un-ecological behaviour? It cannot.
  • Would we be the dominant species on Earth if we respected the ecological balance of the planet when we were only one million humans in total? No.
  • Could we become the dominant species if dinosaurs were not extinct? No.
  • Would we be here know talking if the ecologic balance was not distrurbed and dinausaurs did not disappear from the face of the Earth? No.

These and many other similar questions pose a distinction wall between what is the “right” ecology (i.e. ecology based on the correct reasoning) and what one could call “ecology coercion”. This article is an attempt to answer these questions and find out if we have crossed that wall…

Should we be ecologists?

One can be an ecologist and respect nature for a great variety of reasons. [2] [3] [4] However when one is based on the incorrect reasons for being an ecologist, then many antinomies occur. We should respect nature and not harm the environment, but not for the reasons most of us think. The main purpose of this text is to make clear these possible antinomies and create a solid foundation for respecting nature.

The wrong reasons for being an ecologist

  • Being an ecologist because “we should save the planet” is wrong.
  • Being an ecologist because “we should not disrupt the ecosystem balance” is wrong.
  • Being an ecologist because “we should not pollute” is wrong.
  • Being an ecologist because “humans should respect nature” is wrong.
  • Being an ecologist because “we should save endangered species from dying” is wrong.
  • Being an ecologist because a specific political party told you so is wrong.

All the above reasons are based on the wrong assumption that “humans are not a part of nature”. We consider ourselves as something “outside” the nature’s system and, thus, we tend to blame everything we do as un-natural and (for that reason) wrong. However there is absolutely no reason for believing that.We are members of the ecosystem and no data can prove that we are un-natural. What we do is an integral part of nature and there is no reason to think that building a factory is inherently different from a termite building a nest. As other species use materials to build, we use materials also found in nature to build. As other species use their abilities to fight other species, we use our abilities to kill other species.

Stating that we should be careful so as not to destroy the planet is plainly wrong. We do not have the power to even scratch its surface, not even explore its oceans. We cannot destroy the planet.

Stating that we should not disrupt the ecosystem balance is a tremendous hypocrisy. We were once upon a time only thousands of us on the whole planet. We became the dominant species on the planet by doing exactly what ecologists say we shouldn’t do: disrupting the ecosystem balance!

But this is not even the whole story. The truth is that every species is trying to do exactly the same! All insects, bacteria or crocodiles, are trying to dominate the environment. Each species is trying to be the dominant one and does not care about the “balance”. Why is it “natural” for insects to multiply by millions and devour everything they see, but it is not “natural” for humans to eat other species? The answer is simple: there is no reason at all! What we do is as natural as a plant growing at the expense of another plant.

And why should it be ok for us to help species on the verge of extinction to survive? Isn’t that against the most basic laws of evolution, i.e. that the weak die? If nature has “selected” a species to disappear, who are we to deny that reality and try to keep it alive? That is not “natural” and, thus, not ecological at all.

Stating that “we should respect nature” is another great hypocricy. Many “ecologists” state that we should respect nature but at the same time do many things against “nature”. They plant new trees but at the same time use their car to go to work. They recycle but at the same time buy plastic bags. They vote against the building of new elecricity factories, but at the same time use laptops which devour elecricity.

The point is: up to which point are they ready to sacrifice their good life and be a 100% “ecologist” according to their wrong perception of “nature”? If what we do is un-natural, then in order to be a “true” ecologist one should deny everything the human civilization has accomplished during the last 1000 years and return to the caves. How can you state that you are a true ecologist according to that wrong definition, if you use a laptop and burn electricity in order to come to this site and read this article?

So the general type of ecology motto “we should not do that and that and that” is plainly wrong. We must pinpoint specific reasons for being ecologists and not just shout that “everything we do is un-natural and we should stop doing it”. We should not deny our nature, we should not deny that we are part of nature.

And additionally to the above, being an ecologist should not be related to politics. I don’t believe any sane man would argue against protecting the environment or against recycling or against behaving as a balanced person in a balanced ecosystem in general. The problem is with the multi-billion dollar industry of “ecology” which during the last years imposes itself upon everyone while serving specific political agendas. And no, these politicians have not suddenly started ‘caring’ (LOL). Modern political motivated ecology is not about educating people to have balance with their ecosystem. It is all about acquitting polluting companies and states just because they… fund Greenpeace. It is about passing the responsibility from these companies and states to the… people who are do bad and who do not… recycle. (I do, but not because I believe the planet will be ‘saved’ if I recycle while the companies which pollute continue polluting) It is about passing new regulations which will force you to change car and refrigerator every 5 years in order to be… ecological. All in all ecology is today more like fashion and a tool to boost the economy. Want to care for the climate? Stop buying new cell phones and new big cars. I doubt any ecological organization will ever support such a goal… And yes, I do not care if the climate change is human-made or not (for me based on the evidence it is somewhat funny to believe that we are so powerful to destroy the planet, the only ones we can destroy are ourselves). I just want ecology for the right reasons. Not for Al Gore to sell more books…

What we do is natural and there a great variety of good reasons for being an ecologist today…

The right reasons for being an ecologist

Being an ecologist because “disrupting the ecosystem balance beyond the point necessary for us to sustain and improve our civilization is un-reasonable” is correct. Being an ecologist because “disrupting the ecosystem balance could lead to natural disasters that would harm humans” is correct. Being an ecologist because “polluting could harm the health of other human beings” is correct.

The difference between these reasons and the reasons stated in the previous chapter is sublte but important: The basis for true ecology must be humans and not nature. We are part of nature and everything we do is natural. The higher values we have like humans are the ones on which we should base our ecological consciousness. One should know why he/she believes something, otherwise he is just a non-thinking being drifted around by fashion and politics…

The point is that we are part of nature, but we are also humans. That means that we have some higher values that animals do not have. The value of “moderation” is one of them. Based on that, it is true that we should not disrupt the ecosystem balance without that being necessary. The great difference between that statement and the wrong statement in the previous chapter is that here I consider the distrurbance of the balance as something necessary and “natural”. If we need to disrupt the ecosystem so as to improve our civilization, then we should by all means do so (as we have already done many times in the past). However if there is no reason to disrupt it, then it is illogical to do so, the same way as it is illogical to do anything else without a valid reason! As simple as that. If we pollute the planet, the planet will not suffer anything. We will suffer. If we fill the planet with radiation, that would no different than so many planets in the galaxy with no atmosphere and high levels of radiation. It would be as natural as volcanoes errupting and filling the air with CO2 thus making it inhabitable…

I am human and I think before I act. The same way as I do not fill my house with trash, I do not pollute the planet. The same way as I do not do things with no reason at all, I do not kill other animals just for fun. It is my higher education and spirit that tell me to act in such a “civilized” (and humane) manner. Not nature.

I am part of nature and not a foreign body in it.

So protecting human life, along with plain human logic, are the best valid reasons for being an ecologist.

Exploitation of ecology by the states and the companies

It is sad that the states all over the world have been exploiting the philosophy of ecology in order to protect specific financial interests of their own and of the big companies which support them. Today, even though the ones responsible for the pollution are the big industries, there is a big campaign for convincing citizens that it is actually their fault. Today, even though simple improvements of the industry production process (e.g. use of filters) that help the environment in measures which are scales greater that the results that can be achieved by all the citizens of the world trying to help the environment through their whole lifetime, states try to convince us that we can save the environment. I do not disagree with the fact that small actions can have an impact if done by thousands of people. But I do not accept to feel guilt if by mistake I did not throw away my bottle of water in the correct recycle trash can, while at the same time the big industries of the world continue polluting in the way they do. If a policeman is in a town where everybody kills other people for fun, he should not start his law upholding operations by me who stepped on an ant by mistake while I was walking…
Surely recycling is something good. Surely recycling helps.
But if you talk about recycling anf fail to see the main issue, then you are simply out of subject: you say something correct, but you do not see the point.
There is a very good reason why the profit-oriented companies talk so much about recycling…

It is like a citizen is walking in a place where people kill each other brutally and suddently and by accident this man steps on an ant: every murderer in the place looks despised at him and try to convince him that he should stop killing ants… Surely we are all responsible and surely we can all do something. But some are more responsible and some can do MUCH more things. And we should start with them first…

The Hypocricy of Ecological organizations

Many organizations claim to care for the environment. Many organizations claim to be the only hope of the planet and ask for our support for that. Indeed Greenpeace protested against a French nuclear test at sea during the ’90s. But where was Greenpeace and other similar organizations when USA conducted more than 600 surface nuclear weapon tests? Similarly Greenpeace and other ecological organizations protest against oil spills that destroy the seas – at least this is what they claim. But where was Greenpeace and those other organizations during the great BP oil spill in 2010? When thousands of liters of oil spilled in sea every day, those organizations were SILENT… Why? A true thinking ecologists should wander why…

READ ALSO:  Ecology: For all the wrong reasons. [Nature runs faster and the need for philosophy]

And this is not all. After the oil leak was contained, new agencies were eager to “inform” the public that all the oil from that leak was GONE! [1] Were did it go? They did not know! Some suspected – allegedly – that oil eating bacteria helped (even though these bacteria did not show themselfs on any other oil leak on the planet which is not linked to BP or USA), others that the oil evaporated (!), other that…who cares? The point is that the BIGGEST OIL LEAK in the history of USA had ended…

They all want us to feel guilty for not recycling a bottle of water, but when it comes to the great power companies of the world, silence seems the only way they know…

Against ecology coercion

What does ecology teach us today? It says that we should not pollute. That we should save the planet! But ecology is all about balance. It’s all about living while accepting other creatures should live (and this touches some deeper philosophical materialistic and atheistic dogmas of our time which I will not analyze in this article) However the things upon which we base ecology are very important. And many inconsistencies occur if we base our ecology on the wrong foundation. Today’s ecology is imposed by politics and politics have agendas. Agendas which do not care about the people or the planet abut about the… agendas. Ecological balance is something which is difficult enough to deal with even if you are a philosophy professor, let alone a politician ‘caring’ for the plant.

Answers regarding ecological issues are sometimes not so straightforward as we would like them to be. Two small paradigms are mentioned below even though many more can be found. The point I am attempting to make is simple: don’t be hypocritical when it comes to ecology.

For example, does being ecologists mean that we should not go to Mars or other planets out of fear not to disturb the ecosystem there? According to the wrong definition of ecology above, we should not. (and the funny thing here is that we all do not care about that since even ‘ecologists’ like the idea of colonizing Mars) However we humans are curious by nature (and I emphasize “nature”) and WILL go to other planets and WILL alter the ecosystem there.

Should we “kill” the flu virus that can kill us by the millions? According to the wrong definition of ecology mentioned above, we should not because that would be an interference of human to nature. Killing another species is not “ecological”. On the other hand, nobody argues in favor of the flu virus. So what is the solution?

However if you use the correct basis of ecology one does not have such “issues”. If we base ecology on the correct foundation then it is not un-natural to go an inhabit another planet. If you base ecology on the value of human and human logic it is not “wrong” to expand as species, but it is wrong to kill other species just for fun. We are humans, not animals. The very fact that we wander for things like “ecosystem balance” is a major distinction. We should not base our ecology on the wrong idea that “we are not part of nature and we should protect it”. We should base our ecology on us.

Bibliography – Links

1. Ecology at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ecology/].
2. The Ecology Global Network [http://www.ecology.com/index.php].
3. Ecological Society of America – Journals [http://www.esajournals.org/].

10313422_10152871073959547_2139016756566572185_n

Εναντίον του Οικολογικού Καταναγκασμού

Ποια η διαφορά ενός ανθρώπινου εργοστασίου που παράγει διοξείδιο του άνθρακα από ένα ηφαίστειο που παράγει διοξείδιο του άνθρακα; Καμία, αν το εργοστάσιο είναι απαραίτητο για τη ζωή μας. Γιατί ενδιαφερόμαστε τόσο πολύ για να μην σκοτώσουμε ένα λιοντάρι σε ένα προστατευόμενο πάρκο, ενώ την ίδια στιγμή το λιοντάρι θέλει να φάει όποιον άνθρωπο δει μπροστά του; Γιατί προσπαθούμε να σώσουμε είδη που κινδυνεύουν με εξαφάνιση, ενώ η ίδια η “φύση” φαίνεται να έχει επιλέξει αυτή την εξαφάνιση; Η σύγχρονη οικολογία λανθασμένα θεωρεί τα όσα κάνει ο άνθρωπος ως «τεχνητά» και άρα κατακριτέα. Η σύγχρονη οικολογία έχει λανθασμένα στηριχθεί σε άκυρα επιχειρήματα του τύπου «δεν πρέπει να διαταράσσουμε την ισορροπία της φύσης» ή «πρέπει να σεβόμαστε τη φύση» ή «πρέπει να σώσουμε τα είδη που κινδυνεύουν». Άκυρα διότι εμείς οι άνθρωποι είμαστε μέρος της φύσης.

Και η χρήση λάθος βάσεως για την οικολογία οδηγεί σε αντιφάσεις Για παράδειγμα πρέπει ή όχι να αποικίσουμε άλλους πλανήτες; Σύμφωνα με τον λάθος ορισμό της οικολογίας δεν πρέπει, διότι έτσι θα διαταράξουμε την ισορροπία σε αυτούς τους πλανήτες. Όμως ο άνθρωπος είναι εκ φύσεως περίεργος και θα αποικίσει άλλους πλανήτες. Πρέπει να εξοντώσουμε τον  ιό της γρίππης ο οποίος μπορεί να μας σκοτώσει κατά εκατομμύρια; Σύμφωνα με τον λάθος ορισμό της οικολογίας δεν πρέπει…Οι όποιες αντιφάσεις με την οικολογία μπορούν να διαλυθούν αν χρησιμοποιηθεί ο σωστός ορισμός της οικολογίας: «δεν πρέπει να διαταράσσουμε την ισορροπία πέραν του άκρως απαραίτητου σημείου που χρειάζεται για την ανθρώπινη πρόοδο». Και αυτό διότι ο άνθρωπος για να προοδεύσει πρέπει εξ’ ορισμού να διαταράξει την φυσική ισορροπία! Αν δεν θέλαμε να διαταράξουμε την ισορροπία όταν ήμασταν μόνο μερικές χιλιάδες σε όλο τον πλανήτη μερικά εκατομμύρια χρόνια πριν, τώρα δεν θα ήμασταν το κυρίαρχο είδος! Αν δεν διαταρασσόταν η οικολογική ισορροπία και δεν εξαφανίζονταν οι δεινόσαυροι, δεν θα ήμασταν καν εδώ να συζητάμε! Πρέπει να είμαστε οικολόγοι διότι έτσι μας υπαγορεύει η Λογική μας και η ανώτερη ανθρώπινη φύση μας. Πρέπει να σκοτώνουμε άλλα ζώα για να φάμε, αλλά όχι χωρίς λόγο.

Πρέπει να επιδεικνύουμε μέτρο στα όσα κάνουμε, όπως λέει και η ρήση «Παν μέτρον άριστον» η οποία είναι αποτέλεσμα βαθιά ανώτερης ανθρώπινης σκέψης. Η ρήση αυτή εκφράζει απόλυτα την οικολογική συνείδηση που όλοι πρέπει να έχουμε. Οι βάσεις της οικολογίας πρέπει να βρεθούν μέσα μας. Είμαστε μέρος της φύσης και όχι εκτός αυτής. Ό,τι κάνουμε είναι μέρος της φύσης και όχι α-φύσικο. Άρα το να φτιάχνουμε πολλά σπίτια και πολυκατοικίες είναι φυσικό αν έχουμε γίνει δισεκατομμύρια και δεν έχουμε που να μείνουμε. Αν χρησιμοποιούμε μεθόδους (ανθρώπινες, άρα φυσικές) για να φτιάχνουμε καλύτερες και πιο ανθεκτικές σοδειές, δεν κάνουμε κάτι “κακό”… Και ας πάψουμε να πιστεύουμε το παραμύθι της παγκόσμιας, απόλυτης ψευτο-οικολογίας, σύμφωνα με την οποία ό,τι κάνουμε το οποίο καταναλώνει φυσικούς πόρους ή παράγει απόβλητα είναι “κακό” και τιμωρητέο. Ανέκαθεν αυτό κάναμε και αυτό κάνουν και όλα τα ζώα. Ας είμαστε οικολόγοι για εμάς και εξαιτίας της λογικής μας και των τρόπων μας και όχι για μια “ξένη” προς εμάς φύση. Ας πάψει πια η εκμετάλλευση της μόδας της “οικολογίας” από τα κράτη και τις εταιρίες (που ελέγχουν τα κράτη)!

Οι κυβερνήσεις συνέχεια μας εξηγούν πόσο εμείς φταίμε που το περιβάλλον χάλασε, πως εμείς φταίμε που το περιβάλλον δεν βελτιώνεται, πως εμείς μόνο μπορούμε να κάνουμε κάτι. Έτσι γίνεται μία αφύσικη και εκ του πονηρού μετατόπιση ευθυνών: αν όλες οι βιομηχανίες έβαζαν ένα απλό φίλτρο στα φουγάρα των εργοστασίων τους θα βοηθούσαν σε ένα έτος το κλίμα του πλανήτη 1,000,000 φορές περισσότερο από ό,τι θα βοηθούσε το να κάνουν ΟΛΟΙ οι άνθρωποι του πλανήτη ανακύκλωση στα ΠΑΝΤΑ για 1,000,000 χρόνια. Γιατί δεν το κάνουν; Γιατί προτιμούν να χρηματοδοτούν καμπάνιες ανακύκλωσης που το μόνο που κάνουν είναι να μετατοπίζουν την ευθύνη από αυτές στους πολίτες; Σωστός οικολόγος είναι ο σωστά σκεπτόμενο οικολόγος, όχι το φερέφωνο της προπαγάνδας των εταιριών που μολύνουν! Πριν την ανακύκλωση ας εστιάσουμε την προσοχή μας στα σοβαρά θέματα και την ΟΥΣΙΑ του τι πρέπει να πράξουμε.

Η οικολογία δεν θα πρέπει να σχετίζεται με την πολιτική. Δεν πιστεύω ότι οποιοσδήποτε λογικός άνθρωπος μπορεί να επιχειρηματολογήσει εναντίον της προστασίας του περιβάλλοντος ή κατά της ανακύκλωση ή εναντίον του να συμπεριφέρεται ως ένα ισορροπημένο άτομο σε ένα ισορροπημένο οικοσύστημα γενικότερα. Έχω πρόβλημα όμως με τη βιομηχανία πολλών δισεκατομμυρίων δολαρίων της “οικολογίας”, η οποία κατά τη διάρκεια των τελευταίων ετών επιβάλλεται σε όλους, ενώ εξυπηρετεί συγκεκριμένες πολιτικές ατζέντες. Και όχι, οι πολιτικοί δεν έχουν ξαφνικά άρχισε να “νοιάζονται” (LOL). Η σύγχρονη οικολογία δεν στοχεύει στην εκπαίδευση των ανθρώπων ώστε να έχουν ισορροπία με το οικοσύστημα τους. Η σύγχεονη οικολογία απλά καταφέρνει να απαλλάξει από τις ενοχές ρυπογόνες επιχειρήσειςμόνο και μόνο επειδή… χρηματοδοτούν τη Greenpeace. Και ταυτόχρονα να μεταφέρει όλη την ενοχή και την ευθύνη στους… ανθρώπους που είναι κακοί επειδή δεν κάνουν… ανακύκλωση. (Εγώ ανακυκλώνω, αλλά όχι επειδή πιστεύω ότι ο πλανήτης θα “σωθεί” αν ανακυκλώνω ενώ την ίδια στιγμή οι εταιρείες που ρυπαίνουν συνεχίζουν να ρυπαίνουν) Έχει να κάνει με την ψήφιση νέων κανονισμών που θα μας αναγκάσει να αλλάξουμε το αυτοκίνητο και το ψυγείο μας κάθε 5 χρόνια προκειμένου να είμαστε… οικολογικοί. Η οικολογία είναι σήμερα περισσότερο μόδα και ένα εργαλείο για την τόνωση της οικονομίας. Θέλετε να φροντίσετε για το κλίμα; Σταματήστε να αγοράζετε νέα κινητά τηλέφωνα και νέα μεγάλα αυτοκίνητα. Αμφιβάλλω αν κάποια οικολογική οργάνωση θα υποστηρίξει ποτέ ένα τέτοιο στόχο … Και ναι, δεν με νοιάζει αν η κλιματική αλλαγή είναι ανθρωπογενής ή όχι (για μένα με βάση τα στοιχεία είναι κάπως αστείο να πιστεύουμε ότι είμαστε τόσο ισχυροί ώστε να καταστρέψει τον πλανήτη, οι μόνοι που μπορούν να καταστραφούν είμαστε εμείς οι ίδιοι). Θέλω απλά οικολογία για τους σωστούς λόγους. Όχι για να πουλήσει περισσότερα βιβλία ο Αλ Γκορ…

Επίμετρο – Εναντίον της Ανακύκλωσης

Είναι χρέος μας μόνο να ψηφίζουμε και να πληρώνουμε φόρους ή πρέπει και να πηγαίνουμε εθελοντικά να κάνουμε τη δουλειά του κράτους; Είναι χρέος μας μόνο να ελέγχουμε το κράτος κάθε 4 χρόνια ή πρέπει και να κάνουμε εμείς αυτά που το κράτος οφείλει να κάνει αλλά δεν κάνει; Είναι χρέος μας μόνο να είμαστε υπεύθυνοι πολίτες με βάση τα όσα προστάζει το κράτος ή πρέπει να πάμε over and beyond των καθηκόντων μας; Να δώσουμε χρήματα στο λογαριασμό διάσωσης της Ελλάδας από το χρέος; Να συζητάμε μόνο για την ανακύκλωση και το πόσο εμείς φταίμε που το περιβάλλον καταστρέφεται, αφήνοντας τους βιομηχάνους να γελάνε με την κατάσταση (αφού κανένας δεν ασχολείται με αυτούς και αφού, σε τελική ανάλυση, “εμείς φταίμε για όλα”, επειδή δεν κάνουμε ανακύκλωση);

Περιβαλλοντική παιδεία έχω. Δεν έχω όμως τη διάθεση να γίνω το εξιλαστήριο θύμα για τον όποιον χυδαίο και θρασύ θέλει να περάσει σε εμένα τις ενοχές του.

Το περιβάλλον το μολύνουν οι βιομηχανίες. Αν εγώ ανακυκλώνω τα 2 ποτηράκια καφέ που καταναλώνω κάθε μέρα για 200 χρόνια, θα έχω κάνει το 10^(-100)% από αυτό που μπορούν να κάνουν οι βιομηχανίες της Ελλάδας μέσα σε μία ώρα αν βάλουν φίλτρα στα φουγάρα τους.

Σίγουρα η ανακύκλωση είναι κάτι καλό. Σίγουρα αν ανακυκλώνουμε βοηθάμε. Όποιος όμως μιλάει για αυτό χωρίς να βλέπει την ουσία είναι απλά…εκτός θέματος! Λέει κάτι σωστό, αλλά έχει χάσει το πραγματικό πρόβλημα. Υπάρχει ένας πολύ καλός λόγος για τον οποίο οι προσανατολισμένες-στο-κέρδος εταιρίες μιλάνε τόσο έντονα και με τόση θέρμη για την ανακύκλωση…

Το ότι ασχολούμαστε κάθε μέρα με την ανακύκλωση και με το ποιος κάνει και με το ποιος δεν κάνει ανακύκλωση, ΑΝΤΙ να ασχολούμαστε με τη μόλυνση που προκαλούν αυτοί που πραγματικά φταίνε για τη μόλυνση, σημαίνει τα εξής πράγματα:

  1. Ότι έχουμε αποδεχθεί μία ενοχή που δεν είναι δική μας.
  2. Ότι έχουμε αποδεχθεί μία ευθύνη που δεν είναι δική μας. (εκτός αν το 10^(-100)% που προανέφερα μπορεί να υπαχθεί σε αυτό που καλεί ο μέσος άνθρωπος “ευθύνη” και “καθήκον”).
  3. Ότι έχουμε απαλλάξει από την ευθύνη και την ενοχή τους πραγματικά υπαίτιους αφού δεν ασχολούμαστε πλέον καθόλου μαζί τους.
  4. Ότι έχουμε υποκριτικά δεχθεί πως αυτό που μόνο μπορούμε να κάνουμε είναι η “ανακύκλωση” και για τα…άλλα, πρέπει το κράτος να κάνει κάτι. Αλλά εμείς “τουλάχιστον” κάνουμε “αυτό που μπορούμε”. Το ότι κάποιος με το να κάνει 1 ποτηράκι την ημέρα ανακύκλωση, λέει και αισθάνεται “ολοκληρωμένος” είναι απλά άκυρο και λάθος. Όσοι το κάνουν αυτό δίνουν απλά άλλοθι στον εαυτό τους ότι έκαναν “ό,τι μπορούσαν” για να κοιμούνται πιο ήσυχοι τα βράδυα. Τον εαυτό τους ξεγελούν.

Όλες οι βιομηχανίες αρέσκονται στο να επιδεικνύουν πόσο ανακυκλωμένο υλικό χρησιμοποιούν. Ωστόσο λίγες δείχνουν τι κάνουν για το θέμα των αποβλήτων που βγάζουν από τα εργοστάσια. Το κέρδος κέρδος και το θράσος θράσος. Και ίσως αν οι “οικολόγοι” δεν επιλέγαν να δώσουν στον εαυτό τους ένα εύκολο συγχωροχάρτι του τύπου “κάνω ανακύκλωση και δεν βλέπω την ουσία”, να μην υπήρχε τόσο θράσος από τις βιομηχανίες…

Για να πω ένα παράδειγμα που μου αρέσει να λέω:

Είναι σαν να κυκλοφορώ σε ένα δρόμο όπου όλοι γύρω μου σφάζουν ανθρώπους και τους κατακρεουργούν. Ξαφνικά…πατάω ένα μυρμήγκι! Όλοι τότε σταματούν να κάνουν ό,τι κάνουν (δηλαδή να σκοτώνουν άλλους ανθρώπους) και με κοιτάνε επικριτικά… “Γιατίιιι το έκανες αυτόοοο;” μου λένε. Και τότε εγώ γεμάτος ντροπή λέω “Έχετε δίκιο, είμαι απαράδεκτος. Ας σταματήσω να πατάω μυρμήγκια κατά λάθος. Ας κάνω εγώ ό,τι μπορώ για να γίνει ο κόσμος καλύτερος. Και όσο για εσάς που σκοτώνετε ανθρώπους κάθε μέρα…αυτό δεν είναι δικό μου θέμα”…

Ας ασχοληθούμε λοιπόν με την ΟΥΣΙΑ και αν τύχει και πετάξουμε το κυπελάκι του φραπέ στον γκρι κάδο επειδή δεν έχει κοντά μπλε κάδο, μην πάθουμε και κανένα έμφραγμα από τη ντροπή…

Βλ. και σχετική συζήτηση εδώ ή εδώ.

Comments (

)

  1. Climate models, IPCC, assumptions: Why “climate change” is in our mind.

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  2. Cold in the US vs. Global warming | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  3. Ecology. Money. Deception. | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  4. Climate models, IPCC, assumptions: Why “climate change” is in our mind. | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  5. Ecology for dummies… | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  6. Chernobyl, Kara Sea, life… | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  7. Ecology oppression. Hypocrisy. BBQ. | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  8. Against ecology! For dirty! | Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Against Ecology Coercion […]

  9. “Artificial”, “Natural”, conventions conventions conventions… « Harmonia Philosophica

    […] Related article: Against Ecology Coercion […]

  10. Klaus Rohde

    A disgraceful philosophy which must lead to disaster — This is a philosophy with which I totally disagree. As a matter of fact, it is a disgrace. On this see:http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/a-crash-course-on-schopenhauers/xk923bc3gp4/45#viewBuddhism and Schopenhauer, in my opinion, are a better foundation to solving the problems of our planet.

    1. Chris Fellows

      Untitled — I shall do as you advise, Klaus: sometime tomorrow will find me in the library checking out the Parerga and Paralipomena!It does seem to me, though, that any philosophy which takes a bleak view of human nature- as the blogosphere seems united in believing Schopenhauer’s philosophy does- must logically suggest that we appeal to self-interest (as Spiro’s philosophy does) rather than a higher standard of morality (viz. your ‘philosophy of conpassion’) if we want to achieve anything.

    2. Klaus Rohde

      Untitled — Reply to Spiros:”The truth is that every species is trying to do exactly the same! All insects, bacteria or crocodiles, are trying to dominate the environment. Each species is trying to be the dominant one and does not care about the “balance”. Why is it “natural” for insects to multiply by millions and devour everything they see, but it is not “natural” for humans to eat other species? The answer is simple: there is no reason at all! What we do is as natural as a plant growing at the expense of another plant.”Of course animals and plants are doing all this, but he real truth is that humans are so overwhelmingly powerful that disregard for other species will lead to global disaster leading not only to the extinction of animals but of humans as well. Therefore, in this critical point of time – we need to base our actions on a philosophy that is not excessively human-centred. You also say that, if humans would be affected, we should indeed consider the consequences of our actions, but I go much further – with Schopenhauer- the driving force of our actions should not just be human self interest alone, but compassion with animals and humans. In other words, animals have a “right” to be protected. Nevertheless I would accept a certain “hierarchy” of protection: humans are more intelligent, perceptive etc. and therefore can suffer more. Apes, other mammals, birds etc. follow in that order. – Concerning your examples from Mars etc., let’s wait and see once we are there and hope that one day we will not encounter a superior species that has its own philosophy of “we aliens first”. Although they very likely will have it.Reply to Chis:”Wikipedia tells me that: “For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world.””Schopenhauer was a very acute observer and -looking at human history- his conclusions are certainly to a degree justified.You cannot change history retrospectively. But how can we modify these futile etc. actions? By his philosophy of compassion, and not by incantations of human self interest. After all, if we put humanity first, who will guarantee that we will not put our own person first? Which of course, is quite natural.Obviously, a few aphorisms cannot give a complete picture of his philosophy (nor can a Wikipedia article do this). Therefore, I recommend you read his texts yourself. Start with the Parerga and Paralipomena. Schopenhauer is a brilliant writer and very amusing!!And a last word for Spiros: humans are indeed natural, but they have something which no animal has (at least not o the same degree), the power of reasoning, foresight, and compassion.

    3. Chris Fellows

      Untitled — Wikipedia tells me that: “For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world.”This does not seem to be a very good foundation for solving problems, or even posing them. I had a look at your link to Schopenhauer’s aphorisms, Klaus, but could not find anything very constructive there. Have you expanded elsewhere on how the actions implied by Schopenhauer’s ideas can solve our problems?

    4. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — I wouldn’t go so far as to call a theory that has human as its starting point a “disgrace”…But that’s my opinion after all. Your comment is welcomed.

  11. Chris Fellows

    A common-sense philosophy which may lead to sensible decision making — This is a philosophy with which I largely agree. As a matter of opinion, it expresses with clarity and force things that are self-evident. On this see:http://evildrclam.blogspot.com/2007/11/holmes-rolston-iii.html

    1. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — Thanks for the comment. Interesting blog.

  12. asa dodsworth

    DUUUMMB!!!! ( Q: Spiros Leik MUDKIPS?? ) — for the purpose of the commentary response, Q: will be defined as a dumb question posed by spirosA: will be defines as a fairly obvious.——————————————————————————————- Q: * What is the difference between a volcano emitting CO2 and a human-made factory emitting CO2? None, as long as the factories are required for the survival and progress of our civilization.A: Volcanoes are not controllable, Factories are.Q: * Why should people care about not harming other species while a lion can kill a human in order to eat and have noone blaim it for “non-ecological” consciousness? They should not, as long as they need to do that in order to feed their selfs and their children.A: 1. man killing animals are identified as a threat and killed. 2. “Noone” ?? > lulz 3. UR DUM!Q: * Why should humans care about sustaining the ecology balance while bacteria or insects do not?A: 1. bacteria don’t think dummy, and neither do bugs really either. 2. the bugs and the bacteria are the balance. 3. Humans are the Dominant “Land Mark Species”, they define the environmental conditions across the globe. 4. You care about it cause It is your environment, if you destroy it you and your off spring die.Q: * How can a species be the “dominant” one on a planet without exchibiting un-ecological behaviour? It cannot.A: 1. spell checker, use it. 2. It’s not about doing no harm, Its about keeping things working . You gotta cut a few worms to dig a garden, but they will repopulate and feed your plants. Its about not dumping toxic waste in your garden or your neighbors garden.Q: * Would we be the dominant species on Earth if we respected the ecological balance of the planet when we were only one million humans in total? No.A: your a f@@king tard, YOU HAVEN’T BOTHER TO INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND WHY THEY MATTER. YOUR JUST PONTIFICATING AS IF UR DEEP.Q: * Could we become the dominant species if dinosaurs were not extinct? No.A: lulz, what about turok, dinosaur hunter. Or RPG’s and DU plated tanks brah. If man could take out mastadon with spears, then man could escape dino’s to live among them.A: * Would we be here know talking if the ecologic balance was not disturbed and dinosaurs did not disappear from the face of the Earth? No.Q: Dinosaurs are not dead, the large ones were out competed by their smaller offspring, and the smaller ones live with us today. They are called Birds, and pelicans are some of the closest living relatives of the biped dino’s. Doubt me, google image: Cassowary, it’s a real live dinosaur. Some of them dino-critters, haven’t changed from dinosaur times, namely the Sturgeon, and Crocodile.———————————————————————————–p.s. i cut and pasted “spiros” ecology questions for commentary before I had read them all, It was obvious that they would all be very special gems.p.p.s. your WW2 Germany articles are interesting… I was hopeful about your other writing, and am now disappointed.

    1. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — Wow…!!!How should I answer such an elaborate argument as “DUUUUMB!!!”?You fail to see the main point of the article: that humans are part of nature and treating them differently – as something “unnatural” – is plainly wrong. Who decides on which is the “proper” level of production for human factories? You? Me? God? Nature? Who?

  13. Felsen Axt

    Very well put. — A common belief in ecology is that man is how seperate from nature and should make every attempt to prevent his “artificial” habitat from impacting the “natural” world. this is a false hood. In the book “Entering Space”, Robert Zubrin discusses the concept that all animals create thier own habitat. He uses an alpine squire for an example that lives just at the tree line on a mountain. The squirel collects acorns, buries them for winter, and inverably forgets where a few are buryied. The next spring these acorns sprout and grow into trees. Because a percentage of acorns are burried further up thr mountain then where they were found the forest is exitended further up than it could with ouyt the squirell. Infact the forest would hardly exist at all with out them. And the squirell would not exist with out the forest that shaped its evolution. what we do is no different. and just like the animals pushed out of thier habitates by the expanding squirel population and habbitate, some if not all wild animals will eventualy die out as a result of human success.True an oil spill can cause great damage to an ocean BUT with out oil to make fertilizers how many would go hungry? does the intristic lose value from the death of krill and fish excede that of human life lost in such a famine? No of course not. man kind might even be better off if all life on earth was designed to suit us.

    1. Felsen Axt

      Untitled — I’m glad you agree. All animals compete with each other, and this is well and good, so why is it suddly bad when one species wins?

    2. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — Thanks for the comment Axt. I agree that man should learn his place in nature and not treat himself as an alien in his own world…

  14. Narayana Rao

    Ecological Organizations – Silent on BP Oil Spill — It is appropriate that somebody points out such glaring omissions.

    1. Narayana Rao

      Untitled — Fundamentally it is not government control. It is society’s control. Certain things have to be regulated at society level. They cannot be left individual’s intelligent or discretionary thinking. Government is only the body through which society regulates it.All of us has to remember that we are part of society and society is providing us many benefits which we do not recognize.Of course whole social contract theory or paradigm can be expanded or contracted but a blanket statement government control always produces the opposite of the desired effect is not a right statement.

    2. Felsen Axt

      Untitled — Active regulation is not nessesary. Companies will not risk class action law suits. Unfortunatly the polititions they fund protect them from them. they then enact insane regulations that drive up the cost, and thus profit margine, of oil. if the bp platform has been 5 miles off the coat instead of 48 divers could have been sent to plug the leak the next day. Government control always produces the opposite of the desired effect.

    3. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — Control must be there. We should not be careless. In the case of BP is seems that many people helped in covering up the whole accident than revealing it… Where was Greenpeace during that time?

    4. Narayana Rao

      Untitled — Risk and insurance.Organized and regulated activity quantifies the fall out of risk and arranges insurance for it. Unregulated activities’ risk totally falls on the person or the firm.When accident occurs definitely there have to be investigations and furore so that businesses will be careful and alert. Otherwise, everybody becomes careless.

    5. Felsen Axt

      Untitled — Oil is a nessesary rescourse for the creation and distribution of goods needed to maintain the current human population. Spills will always happen. The goal should be to prevent fishing and spawning grounds from being damaged. If the rigs had been closer to the coast divers could have been sent down to repair the damage the next day. i live in Florida and i have no problem with putting rigs just over the horizon as opposed to 50 miles out. All that does is satisfy an emotional “not in my back yard” impulse. In reality the over over regulation has made it more dangerous to pump oil. allow the oil companies to drill as they like but open them to lawsuits. All companies are intrested in is profit they will not take risks if it could land them with class action suits

    6. Spiros Kakos

      Untitled — That is true. We should all point such things and criticize them in Knol.

%d bloggers like this: