Personally, I don’t think the kind of broad statements that get made on philosophy forums will have much to say about any particular situation. But what the hell, I’m presenting the topic anyway. Maybe someone will surprise me.
Also, if you don’t share the values of environmentalists in any significant way, I hope you’ll refrain from derailing this thread. I’m presenting some interesting paradoxes for discussion, but for the anti-environmentalist these paradoxes obviously don’t exist at all.
It seems like in the example that we have clear cutting creating a problem and a destructive solution being offered by, ultimately, Monsanto, no friend of nature. I can see where a paradox comes in for the environmentalist, but I think in general a good heuristic device is, if the solution entails purchasing products from Monsanto, it is not a good solution, long term, for the world. I would guess that a false dilemma is being put in place, perhaps by organizations that stand to gain from it seeming like there is only one positive option.
I can, however, imagine situations where there would be a real bind and some attempt to choose a lesser evil comes in. Environmentalists who are deontologists have a real problem then, since whatever they do they go against some moral ‘thou shalt not…’ rule.
I’d be interested to see first if the methods of forestry used are setting up the problem. IOW something about the forestry methods seems to benefit non-natives at the expense of native plants. So that’s the area to investigate first. Can more managed cutting solve the problem? If that doesn’t work, I would want to know specifically what it is that is allowing the influx and if less invasive techniques can be used - for example, clear cutting allows tremendous amounts of light down on what was forest floor. Could non-native species be inhibited by introducing fast growing grasses or planting adolescent natives or via production of shade through some other means - if that’s the issue.
Other more natural interventions might be possible, though I am too ignorant of the specifics to suggest them.
But remember benefiting a company like Monsanto has indirect effects that are negative. Short term it might reduce incursion and this might seem to offset the negative effects of the herbacides. But this is not weighing in the effects of strengthening a company like Monsanto which, for example, has tremendous non-democratic influence on democracies and other types of governments worldwide. They are also a company with a huge focus on introducing non-native plants in the form of genetically modified ones - iow plants that are not native anywhere in the universe. And these plants are killing native plants, replacing them, and causing other problems. A dollar sent to Monsanto increases its ability to PR their way through rational opposition to such practices and also increase them.
I know I am avoiding, in a sense, the philosophical issue you are raising, one that can come up in all sorts of ethical situations. Where it seems one must go against ethical action regardless of one’s choice, including inaction. On the other hand, I think a lot of these situations are manufactured or merely seem to be either/or.
But I will wait a bit and see if someone bites directly on your issue as it is formulated.
On more society wide levels, I would want us to look at ways to cut down on paper use. We might as well really use the opportunity of digital communication but see if we can eliminate paper use more directly - rather than the aftermath reduction of paper post (post-email).
Moreno, I appreciate the depth of your answer. It’s helping me to think about the issues here myself. I think one of the problems is the type of society we live in, and I’m not so sure we can change that much. Many of the alternatives to pesticide use, for instance, are time and labor intensive. And that doesn’t fit well with very many people’s lives. And many people choose to not get involved in not-for-profit organizations because of this very issue. I think many of these organizations are run, almost by default, by people who value extreme democratic principles (i.e. discussing every decision in committee, no matter how trivial). I’m wondering if one of the best ways to combat the speed of the quick fix, is to be efficient with how we use time and energy. A well run organization with a clear purpose and a clear hierarchical chain of command may be better able to avoid the use of Roundup than the group of earnest volunteers who are as interested in bonding with their fellow do-gooders as they are in tackling the very real problem at hand.
As a person who thinks it is racist to say there is nonnative ethnics migrating to any nation at the same time I think it is specieist discriminating against nonnative animal species.
There is no such thing as invasive foreign ethnics!
There is no such thing as invasive foreign animal species!
Stop the slaughter of Asian carp!
I think we need to introduce a multispecie approach to natural environments where all species are accepted equally under the rule of law.
Stop the interspecie discrimination now!
Allow free global migration of animal species everywhere!
It seems to me that the only way to maintain environmentalism as a pure philosophical stance would be to accept the invading species, letting the ecosystem settle by itself, and working to prevent further human tampering in the balances of ecosystems.
Alternatively, it is interesting to imagine a solution where a group of environmentalists add new species to unbalanced ecosystems until balance is restored!
Probably not the best course of action for an environmentalist, considering the possible concecuences, but a fun thought nontheless.
Anon has been honest in our threads (even if he is stil… shudder… a statist ), so I am being honest here.
If you ask me my personal opinion, well, it’s a little more complex. However, lets not derail the thread, I am interested to see what possible solutions this here puzzle might have.
That is discriminatory! Think happy magical thoughts!
It will all work out in the end.
Foreign animals will make “peace” with indigenous native animals where they will get along fine. There is no threat of extinction by nonnative animal species…unless your the nonnative Asian carp that feeds on indigenous native carps and fishes…
Or nonnative humans that feed on the plundering and genocide of the native species. I would find it hard to believe that any human alive actually evolved into the place where he/she lives.
Touch a nerve did I Faust, to where you want to censor me? I am shocked.
Is this a public forum? Yes or no? The subject is non native species and while although my analogy is highly socio political I do believe that I made a effort to stay within the subject criteria.
Was it satirical? Of course it was but then again many of my posts are.
Is this the part where you delete my post for having offensive thought crime material?
By all means show everybody that level of open mindedness that you supposedly pride yourself having with the act.
Your affronted by my post because you despise my thinking style.
Admit it. It is the only reason why you have addressed me in such a manner.
No independent speech for you Mr. J. You will be punished for your incorrect thinking and expressions. See you in four days after your ban expires puddin.
It ends here. Since this post comes from the same IP address as James Walker, any further posts here by this member will result in another four-day ban. - Faust
This touches on a huge question within environmentalism – what is the end goal? All too often, it appears that the end goal is to create a museum out of the natural world. Not to mitigate changes brought about by human contact but rather to eliminate human interference all together.
Is that what we want? To create an inseparable barrier between human beings and the natural world? Because all too often, that approach backfires. Look at the American prairie. The prairie developed because of fire. For a long time, it was thought that these fires were caused by lightening and the like and, sure, that plays a role but the prairie really started burning back-in-the-day when humans were introduced to it. An early attempt to save prairies was to stop the regular fires caused by humans but rather than preserve the prairie ecosystem, it just caused the prairies to transition towards forests. So to maintain the condition that paleolithic humans created, modern humans need to practice controlled burns to maintain prairies.
Seems kind of silly.
At the same time, invasive species outcompeting and destroying native ones decreases biodiversity and that is bad too.
But the real question is whether humans are stewards outside of nature or whether we are engaged with nature. If we are stewards, the museum approach seems the most reasonable but such a museum seems destined to fail. On the other hand, if we are engaged with nature and let nature take its course, well, there is ecological catastrophe (which is very bad for humans). So how to dance between these elements . . . well, that is tricky. I err on the side of the museum curators even if I find it to be distasteful because erring too far on that side results in a better end than erring too far on the other. Plus, capitalism is driving us to err on the side of the other, so museumification can be seen as a corrective (albeit an imperfect one).
As you later point out this could be a corrective. The end goal described above is not a possibility.
I agree about capitalism, though the communist nations, at least the large ones, also have interfered in rather devastating ways. Some neo-socialist counties - thinking of Scandanavia for example - have done fairly well within their own borders, but since they functioned like capitalists in relation to the third world and have contributed to devastation there. Which is in some ways slimier.
Sure, capitalism isn’t alone it blame. It should be more properly assigned to the Enlightenment mentality, which encompasses both communism and capitalism. Likewise, the NIMBY phenomenon common in environmental circles is worth pointing out.
Which is why, if there must be destruction, I think we need to examine the destruction we wreak and ask whether it leads to development or whether it leads away from development. This is a phenomenon seen in other areas, creativity algorithms (for example) show that boundaries and limitations foster creativity. Some forms of human destruction foster development (as seen with the prairie) and create valuable biomes. Others hinder development (as seen with invasive species) where biodiversity is reduced and a sort of bland sameness results.
), so I am being honest here.