It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony
Which death is more troubling? (images: from NOAA, upper, Wikimedia, lower)
Willis Eschenbach
I am surprised at the visceral nature of the rejection of the term “environmentalist”. I had not realized it had gotten that bad. I don’t think I’d want to be one of those if that’s how people feel.
It also appears that the new preferred term is “conservationist”. But as I said, I don’t make those fine distinctions, so I’m not sure how that differs from the “e-word”.
So let me modify my statement, and say that I am a conservamentalist. I would define that as someone who thinks long and hard about the effect of our actions on the tangled web of life that surrounds us.
I was fishing herring in the Bering Sea one season. I heard on the radio that the annual killing of the Canadian Arctic fur seals had begun, along with the obligatory protests that seem to be required these days.
We’d caught about fifty tonnes of herring that day, killing on the order of a million living beings. I remember thinking how if some creature has big soft baby eyes, it gets lots of sympathy. But if a creature is slimy and has cold fish-eyes, its death doesn’t matter. People hated the seal killers for killing a few dozen creatures, while I killed millions of creatures and was ignored.
If I had to pick one word to describe my position on the ecological webs that surround us, it would be “realist”. Life eats life to live. I am not a man who eats the meat and blames the butcher.
I’ve worked a good deal as a builder. I build with wood. I cut down trees to make room for the building I live in. I grew up in the forest, my step-daddy was a timber feller, the royalty of the logging fraternity. I’ve worked killing trees on an industrial scale.
And I’ll also fight like crazy to see the logging done right. with proper roads and proper setbacks, and proper slope limits, and reforestation. I’ve seen what bad logging practices look like and do.
So for me, a conservamentalist is someone who has thought hard about and balanced the needs for wood and cleared land, balanced those needs with the way that wood is harvested. I grew up in the middle of hundreds of square miles of virgin forest. I have a deep and abiding admiration for that raw wildness. And yet, I cut down trees. I just want to see things done carefully and with forethought, see them done properly with respect for the consequences. I don’t elevate some mythical “Nature” above humans, and I don’t forget nature either.
I was a sport salmon fishing guide a couple years ago, on the Kenai River in Alaska, as I described here. Kenai River king salmon are magnificent beings, fifty pounds or more of powerful, glittering, awe-inspiring fish. When one of my clients caught a salmon, I always thanked the fish in a loud voice for giving up its life for us. Life eats life, beings die so that I can live, and I can’t ignore that. I don’t let it keep me from fishing salmon, but I won’t pretend that I am not killing a splendiferous entity. Some of my clients understood.
Heck, I apologize to trees when I cut them down. Yeah, I know it looks dumb, a grown man talking to trees. But it doesn’t stop me from cutting them down by the scores if need be, I’m a realist. Life eats life. Me, I don’t take killing anything lightly, be it redwood or herring or salmon. Someday, I’ll be chopped down in the same way.
So I’m forming the Conservamentalist Party, our motto will be,“Conservamentalists unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds”.
Now, back to the climate…
peterhodges;
anyway my own opinion is that capital-ism would be rule by capital and i prefer not to be ruled, thank you.>>
Capitalism is an economic system, not a government system. The US has a democratic government and a capitalist economy. China has a communist government and a capitalist economy. North Korea has a communist government and a command economy.
Of the three combinations, which one has the highest standard of living, the highest levels of personal freedom, the highest levels of political freedom, the longest life expectancy, the highest standards of social safety net for the poor, and represents the best chance for someone born poor to become middle class or wealthy?
Democracy/Capitalism winning on that score card 6 to nothing, precisely what is the problem in a system where some people have a lot more capital than others?
peterhodges;
?? with some patience i will avoid the ad hominem and re-emphasize the monopoly part>>
Name one. In democratic countries with capitalist economies… name ONE.
Bill Tuttle (03:58:22), thanks for your thoughts.
Apologies for my lack of clarity. You said they left plenty of leftovers “for the scavengers”. My point, obviously poorly phrased, was that they left almost nothing for the scavengers, just bones and skulls (minus the brains, of course) that no scavenger could eat. Minor point.
Well, here is a nice piece of music which echoes alot of the sentiment here by a guy called Paddy McAloon called Earth: The story so far
“Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (12:43:28) :
When they wanted to control you in your community they called themselves communists.
When they wanted to control you in your society they called themselves socialists.
When they wanted to control you in your environment they called themselves environmentalists.
What comes next?”
It’s called a wife 😉
Good way of looking at things. We need to take better care of the place we live in. I wholeheartedly agree that the AWG nonsense has cost us real environmentalists decades of lost time on serious issues like mercury pollution. If we are going to have 8-12 billion people on the planet we need to be several orders of magnitude better in resource utilization and scale back the stupid trillion dollar a year arms race.
R. Craigen (10:00:02)
Agreed. I believe (in my usual skeptical way, which is to say alternate weeks) in the 80:20 rule, which has been expressed in various forms.
One is that 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Another is that in terms of humans, in every society that I have experienced, 20% are decent interesting respectful folks, and 80% not so much. Same with cultures, 20% seem to be moving forwards, and 80% standing still or worse.
I suspect the same is true about Pre-columbian societies as well. Some of them, call it 20%, had societies of surprising complexity and depth and beauty and insight. The other 80% were more into cutting people’s hearts out while they were still beating and the like … and besides, where in the world is Precolumbia anyhow? Between Columbia and Ecuador?
davidmhoffer (11:09:56) : Democracy/Capitalism winning on that score card 6 to nothing
davidmhoffer (11:13:08) : Name one. In democratic countries with capitalist economies… name ONE.
Well i think we either disagree on definitions and/or have radically different opinions on the architecture of the actual modern political economy. i don’t think there are any “capitalist” or “democratic” countries that fit your description 😉 and i have been around a little.
…precisely what is the problem in a system where some people have a lot more capital than others?
not a problem as long as people are allequal under the law…and corporations are not considered people!
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”-Thomas Jefferson
Our political economy today bears absolutely no resemblance to that envisioned at the founding of the republic.
Willis Eschenbach (19:29:02):
I understand your point, and I thouroughly respect it. And though I admit I was trying to be a bit provocative, I want to make one thing clear: I feel no contempt towards animals. I don’t even have much sympathy for people who actually enjoy killing animals (like sport hunters). I grew up with cats and loved them, if not in the same way I love my family. I admire the beauty of the leopard, the pride of the eagle, even the malicious rapacity of the shark. But once again: These are human categories; you cannot discuss those topics with animals. You cannot hold them responsible for what they are or what they’re doing. They live in a completely different world.
You say you are no better and no different from animals. That’s where I differ. Or rather: You are perfectly entitled to say so if you really talk only about yourself. As soon as you say “we” are no better, I have to strongly object. There are many people who think “we” are no better than animals – in fact, they say, we are worse, some evil kind of vermin for this planet, which would be better off without us. This sounds very self-critical. But they are not talking about themselves, really. They are talking about 6 billion plus other people. And what do you do to vermins?
The whole thing is a question of valuation. It’s our responsibility to value life, and I simply cannot valuate the life of animals – any animal – as highly as people’s – any people’s. After all, that’s the way the law sees it as well.
Talking about the law, Dave Springer (22:39:52) applied Godwin’s by citing Hitler as evidence for his (Dave’s) assertion that humans are morally inferior to animals. Apart from the fact that this inappropriate generalisation is very weak evidence, Dave commits exactly what I called the original sin. He imposes morals upon nature, or rather: he confounds the two worlds. Of course Hitler was evil, but we can only say so because we have a conception of good and evil. And of course there is no such a thing as an evil animal – as I said, you simply cannot hold them responsible. They don’t know what good or evil means.
There is a line between us and them – call it the value border: The border between the land of values and the realm of instinct. In my opinion this border must never ever be crossed. My fellow-countrymen (I’m German) crossed it; they referred to other humans as “sub”-humans, as rats, as vermins. And they did to them just that what you would do to vermins. It’s the same spirit, the spirit of devaluating humans for some threadbare reason, which makes people like Keith Farnish write a book like “Time’s Up”, with people like James Hansen applauding (even if he back-pedalled recently).
And now, back to the climate. You really do a very good job fighting the AGW-folly. Keep up the good work!
Lovely turn of phrase sir:
“I am not a man who eats the meat and blames the butcher”.
Very good!
Willis Eschenbach (19:29:02)
I understand your point, and I thouroughly respect it. And though I admit I was trying to be a bit provocative, I want to make on thing clear: I feel no contempt towards animals. I don’t even have much sympathy for people who actually enjoy killing animals (like sport hunters). I grew up with cats and loved them, if not in the same way I love my family. I admire the beauty of the leopard, the pride of the eagle, even the malicious rapacity of the shark. But once again: These are human categories; you cannot discuss those topics with animals. You cannot hold them responsible for what they are or what they’re doing. They live in a completely different world.
You say you are no better and no different from animals. That’s where I differ. Or rather: You are perfectly entitled to say so if you really talk only about yourself. As soon as you say “we” are no better, I have to strongly object. There are many people who think “we” are no better than animals – in fact, they say, we are worse, some evil kind of vermin for this planet, which would be better off without us. This sounds very self-critical. But they are not talking about themselves. They are talking about 6 billion plus other people. And what do you do to vermins?
The whole thing is a question of valuation. It’s our responsibility to value life, and I simply cannot valuate the life of animals – any animal – as highly as people’s – any people’s. After all, that’s the way the law sees it as well.
Talking about the law, Dave Springer (22:39:52) applied Godwin’s by citing Hitler as evidence for his assertion that humans are morally inferior to animals. Apart from the fact that this inappropriate generalisation is very weak evidence, Dave commits exactly what I called the original sin. He imposes morals upon nature, or rather: he confounds the two worlds. Of course Hitler was evil, but we can only say so because we have a conception of good and evil. And of course there is no such a thing as an evil animal – as I said, you simply cannot hold them responsible. They don’t know what good or evil means.
There is a line between us and them – call it the value border: The border between the land of values and the realm of instinct. In my opinion this border must never ever be crossed. My fellow-countrymen (I’m German) crossed it; they referred to other humans as “sub”-humans, as rats, as vermins. And they did to them just that what you would do to vermins. It’s the same spirit, the spirit of devaluating humans for some threadbare reason, which makes people like Keith Farnish write a book like “Time’s Up”, with people like James Hansen applauding (even if he back-pedalled recently).
And now, back to the climate. You really do a very good job fighting the AGW-folly. Keep up the good work!
peterhodges;
Our political economy today bears absolutely no resemblance to that envisioned at the founding of the republic>>
Stop changing the subject.
Name ONE monopoly.
Specify exactly what you mean by “folks” who “own” the fed.
Why are you afraid to answer direct questions?
Willis!
I got it! I got it!
I know what you are!
You are not a conservamentalist, you are something more sophisticated. You are a…
POST NORMAL ENVIRONMENTALIST
@Dave Springer (07:32:10) :
@James Baldwin Sexton
So your father brought home a bunch of chickens the size and color of tennis balls and similarly animated then left them alone with a dog that hadn’t been taught to leave them alone. So then he shot the dog for not being bright enough to know the difference between a chick and a tennis ball. There was a moron involved in that situation but it wasn’t the dog.
You guys are a hoot, way to take the context of the post and pick an obscure part to try and make a point. Way to make assumptions about things I hadn’t included in my post. Mainly, because, IT WASN’T RELEVANT TO THE OBVIOUS POINT I WAS MAKING. But, then you’d have to address the point I was making if you didn’t pick a part that wasn’t relevant. Yeh, the poor chicks were left all alone. We’d left the first few batches alone too, but the dog survived them. My point of the post had been in response to another poster claiming the benevolence of animals and how they don’t kill unless hungry or threatened. Which is total bs. My point was that animals do indeed kill needlessly, sometimes for no reason and always without remorse.
Continuing on with another point I’ve made, when animals are considered people too, then people must be considered the same value as animals. I believe I used the word “obscene”. History is replete with examples of atrocities committed to mankind because they were regarded as the same value as an animal. Further, when we try to teach people that they are of no more value than an animal,(which is true if an animal is the same value as a person.) they then tend to treat others in the same manner. This would explain many societal difficulties. I’d like to extend a heart felt thanks for giving me something else yet to fight, right after the fight against global control of the world’s energy is won.
davidmhoffer (13:36:11) :
You are a…
POST NORMAL ENVIRONMENTALIST
Yes!, then according to the uncertainty principle, when in doubt if to kill an animal or a man, to be sure, you choose to kill the man!
…or, “by forbidding CO2, you kill both, and vegetation too. That’s better ”
Al “Baby” The magnificent polpotian environmentalist (aka: The fifth sword of the world revolution).
Sorry for the double post. Thought the first one had gone astray.
enneagram;
Yes!, then according to the uncertainty principle, when in doubt if to kill an animal or a man, to be sure, you choose to kill the man!>>
Nope.
Post Normal Science is to Science as
Post Normal Environmentalism is to Envrionmentalism
PNS bans fossil fuels thought the science is uncertain
PNE continues fossil fuel use UNLESS the science is certain
PNS demands action because of uncertainty
PNE refuses action because of uncertainty
Science says CO2 might be bad
PNS says take action on the assumption that it is
Environmentalism supposes that humans are not part of the environment and can only be bad for it
PNE says that humans are part of the environment and can be good for it.
Christoph Horst (13:03:57)
Ah, the constant frustration of writing and communicating, where I can never quite get across what I am trying to say.
I disagree entirely with those who say that humans are the problem, or that civilization is the problem, or that we are vermin. To me that’s nonsense.
I also disagree with those that say that we have the right to rule the earth and dominate its creatures in any way we damn well please. Equal nonsense to me.
Are “we” better than animals? Depends on who you ask … but if you asked the animals to vote for their favorite species, I doubt that we’d win any popularity contests …
However, in fact, I was not referring so much to being equal in our actions or our value or our lives. I was talking about deaths, of herring and of seal pups, and I was referring to being equal in our deaths.
To me, my death is the most important thing in the world. And the same is true to a herring. To that herring, his/her death is the most important event in their life. And I do not believe that there is some huge eternal scale, in which my death is more important than the death of that herring. That is the underlying equality to which I was referring, wherein the death of a herring and a seal pup weigh the same as my own death.
Note that this does not stop me from killing herring, or eating meat, or using animals for laboratory experiments. I once was talking to a doctor. He said he practiced a certain, very delicate neck operation on monkeys. He said that they were the only animal similar to humans in this particular part of their anatomy.
I asked how many monkeys died in the process. He said now that he was good, none died, but when he was learning he had killed four. When I looked dismayed, he asked, “Would you rather that I had practiced and perfected my skills on your daughter?”
James Sexton;
History is replete with examples of atrocities committed to mankind because they were regarded as the same value as an animal>>
If you think for one moment that defining animals to be without any scrap of a characteristic that is remotely human will somehow protect people from being dehumanized and killed….
Then I commend your goal no matter how naive your methods.
“”” davidmhoffer (08:54:50) :
J.Peden (01:07:25) :
davidmhoffer (21:24:49) :
As a rule, animals don’t kill except to eat or in self defense. If that isn’t a sense of morals, I don’t know what is.>> “””
Well not true either. Animals most certainly do kill, other than for food or self defense; even kill their own kind; would we call that murder (in the first degree).
Two examples. Male lions, and male baboons.
When a new intruder male lion invades a lion pride, and challenges the pride male; who likely is older and more dilapidated; after killing the former pride male; unless he successfully escapes to a future of total isolation; the new dominant male, will within minutes hunt down and kill every single nursing infant cub.
And within no more than hours of that event; the formerly nursing female lions will all come into heat and become mating partners of the new pride master.
Exactly the same process will occur in a baboon troop, when an intruder arrives, and takes on the alpha male. Only difference, is that the new boss, may not kill the old boss. That works out well, because the new boss does need some assistance in protecting the troop females from the leopard; so so long as the old alpha male, immediately submits to the victor, and signals his acceptance of the new world order. Adn the new top-dog will chew him out royally, if he catches him tyring to mate with any of the females; but once again he will kill nursing infants to get the females lining up for him.
James Sexton (13:37:40)
While needless killing is not uncommon among domesticated animals (as your example shows), it is extremely rare among wild animals. I can only think of claims that weasels do it, but I’ve never seen it happen. I also find this from a reputable source:
I also find in other sources:
and
So it appears that the claim that weasels are some kind of aberrant animal that goes on “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” rampages is an urban legend. They kill more than they can eat, and they stow the excess for future consumption. And with their raging fast metabolism that lets them eat a third of their weight in a day, “future” means the next few days.
In short, your idea that it is “total bs” that animals don’t kill unless hungry or threatened seems to only be true about domesticated animals. Although like you I’ve seen dogs do it on the cattle ranch where I grew up, I don’t know of any wild animals that kill for sport.
davidmhoffer (21:24:49) :
It is not morals. It is simple self-preservation. The life of a predator is a very risky one. Even if the prey animal doesn’t hurt the predator, the slightest injury occurring in the chase or capture (say a broken toe) can be a death sentence for the predator.
As a result, animals have evolved to only go out killing when necessary. But that’s not morals. That’s evolution, where the animals who killed for fun died early and died out.
Thinking about fishing, and reflecting on the death of herring and seal pups and humans, reminded me of something I wrote a while ago that is somehow appropriate here … or not.
Of Sharks and Men
In Fiji, there is an ancient god named Dakuwanga, the Shark God. Even today, it’s hard to find out much about Dakuwanga — when I mention his name in Fiji, conversation slows to a crawl, and then people look away and speak loudly of other, much more important matters than some nearly forgotten pagan deity …
I went to an art exhibit in Fiji a few days ago, and I ran into some old friends. I asked them about Mike Loxton, a long time mate of mine. Mike was living in Viani Bay, on the island of Vanua Levu. Viani Bay is a lovely green hidden valley that lies a few miles across from the island of Taveuni. Every weekday, he got into his skiff and crossed to Taveuni, where he worked. Because there is no dock at the hotel where he usually landed, he would beach the skiff, offload his gear, take the skiff a little ways offshore, drop the anchor, and swim to shore.
On December 14, 2000, he followed his usual routine. Thinking his usual thoughts, dreaming his usual dreams, reflecting perhaps on the day’s work to come or on the days gone by, he offloaded his gear, took his skiff out and anchored it, jumped into the shimmering sea, and was immediately struck and killed by a tiger shark.
And so, dear friends, reflecting on his passing I write you with a simple purpose, which is to thank each one of you, individually, for your contribution to my life. Some people say that everything worthwhile they learned in kindergarten; but for me, everything worthwhile in my life I have learned from my friends. For this I am immensely grateful; but in my recurring delusions of immortality, in my fantasy that there will always be one more day to clean up my loose ends, I rarely acknowledge your gift.
So I thank you all, deeply and profoundly, for all that I have learned from you. Mike Loxton sleeps his dreamless sleep in the soft, silent, verdant soil at the head of Viani Bay, while you and I are in the midst of life. I am in the Solomon Islands now, on a hilltop where lightning is flashing and a warm, torrential tropical rainstorm is stirring life on the land below and the sea around.
And in the midst of this life giving rain, I am thinking of Mike’s death, and of my friends, and I am forcefully reminded of Dakuwanga, that most ancient of gods, who does not ever sleep but is always cruising slowly through the uncharted oceans of this existence, hidden behind a curtain of moving water, awaiting with perfect patience his preordained opportunity to deliver his final, fateful, fatal bite …
Uhmm, Jee whiz, I guess I should clarify. Not because I give a crap about what people I’ve never met think about me or my father, but rather they missed the entire point of my little story.
First, the point of the story is that animals do randomly kill, without remorse. Not always for food or protection. I would have thought that clear by the first example. I kinda thought it cute some one berated me for my grammar when reading comprehension……..well anyway.
Some history about Spunky, whom I referred to as a curr dog. He was a poor natured dog. He often bit strangers and non-strangers alike. (Dad paid hospital bills.) There never seemed an apparent reason. As I’ve mention earlier, there had been chicks left all alone in the same yard before. Apparently, they didn’t appear as fun to kill. There had been other animals spunky had killed and not ate. Maybe they were a game to him too. We were in the middle of trying to curb him from running the neighbors cattle. Seems spunky wasn’t very popular over there either. (With threats on spunky’s life and lawsuits against my father.) The killing of the chicks was the last event of a series of events. It wasn’t revenge that killed spunky, it was the only thing to do with the damned animal. As I’ve mentioned, he was poor tempered. No one would have him. We could have sent him to the pound, but at the time, once a month they’d seal the pound and back a truck up and attach a hose to the tail pipe. End result would have been the same except we’d been out significantly more expense than a bullet. We could have just dumped the dog in the wild, but then he’d still run cattle and probably kill other people’s poultry. He was, and should have been, put down. I know some will still not approve, nor understand, but that was the most humane?(poor choice of words for this discussion) option available at the time. Again, the story wasn’t about the dog being shot, if it were, I’d have included more details. it was about how animals will randomly kill, not simply for food or protection. I don’t know way so many were sooo upset. Because of the loss of property, capital and the potential of loss of capital(and lets not forget life of chicks), and that capital was used the feed that pod of human animals, the alpha male of that particular human pod, killed for food. That should meet with the approval of you “animals are people, too” human animals. Dolts.
Crap, why, not way. I’m sure there are other errors, feel free to pick out the minutia of the statement, I’ll be back later for further explanations for the slow ones. Off to shoot a couple rounds of pool.
Cheers to all.