h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

'Our' lions? Well, if we're going to subsume everything on Earth, and leave a few bits aside so we can wonder at the marvel of nature, then not much.

It's a question of ethics, ultimately. If our position is that we're in charge and we'll do what we like, then 'our' lions it is. If our position is that we're the stewards of the most wonderful place that we know of, and that we have a responsibility not to destroy it (more than we have already), then it's our duty to create as little impact as possible.

This is one are where capitalism as opposed to any human economy is important. Absolute living standards in the West are pretty much at a level where we can have a good life, and die at over our 'three-score years and ten'. This isn't enough though; if everyone was happy with that when what new industries would spring up once all our physical desires are satisfied? Thankfully the marketing and advertising industries are creating new things for us to want all the time, so no need to worry there.

Two things occur to me here: one, that surely there's a time when the positive impact material goods have declines to the point where it's better to just hang out with friends, give someone a cuddle, rather than get a better, shinier ipod or whatever.

Two, that people, once their absolute wants are satisfied, are concerned with their relative position in the world. That's what advertising feeds on. If you buy product X, you'll get one over on that guy at work, you'll look better than him/her, you'll shag a nicer bird/stud than him/her, and your relative status in the Great Human Tribe will move up a notch because of your shiny teeth.

Capitalism feeds number two, and while enough people believe it's true then it will be incredibly difficult to change it.



http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond08/diamond08_index.html

The great man on why rising incomes are not a good thing.

To follow on from point two, if people are aiming for happiness, then they should surely be happier when their half their kids don't die before they're grown up. They'll be happier if they have a decent standard of living, but I don't think they'll be happy if they're in a constant struggle to buy new gadgets cos everyone else has them. Especially when as soon as they've got them all, Mr Marketing guru dreams up some other pointless shite to 'improve' their lives.

If success becomes being happy instead of being wealthy, we've got a chance.


Here's something relevant and interesting
http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Costanza%20Futurist%201999.pdf

>>'Our' lions? Well, if we're going to subsume everything on Earth, and leave a few bits aside so we can wonder at the marvel of nature, then not much.


Well...why not? Our chunk of the savannah...our fertile Messopotamian meadow...our Severn estuary...our Antarctic...our Mars.

Can anyone explain to me why we should leave these things to other species?

It goes without saying, of course, that we often get the best out of such things by leaving biodiversity intact (or even by enhancing it). Indeed...in the case of things like the (fast disappearing!) rainforests...if we kill them, we die too. But I have little truck with the pseudo-religious Matholwch-the-Druidic notion that we are here to serve (big N) Nature.

>>It's a question of ethics, ultimately. If our position is that we're in charge and we'll do what we like, then 'our' lions it is. If

Pre! Cise! Ly!

Now...what are Ethics? Surely they're to do with how *humans* and only humans behave, *towards one another*.

Examples:
You are holding a high power rifle. You observe various instances of predation taking place in the distance. In which of these cases are you entitled to intervene:
a) A lion is about to pounce on a zebra?
b) a human is about to shoot a zebra? (or lion?)
c) a lion is about to pounce on a human?

I'd say that only c) involves any kind of ethical decision. Surely? The human's life *must* be saved - no matter how hungry the lion's poor ickle cubs are because the nasty humans have already shot all the zebras.

same applies even if it's the last ever zebra (or lion). Or even - I profoundly disagree with Dawkins here - the human is about to shoot a bonobo.

Of course...we whouldn't shoot zebra (even though - I understand - they're tasty. Or lions. Or bonobos. But these are *aesthetic* considerations, not ethical.

Are lions able to make ethical decisions about humans?

Where's my posting?




Right, how about

d) Do we kill off all animals because they get in the way of us having a 300 terabye ipod, even though we don't actually need it? Even though it may actually bring net misery? Do we kill animals for pleasure? What if some people like torturing animals for fun? Do we kill all lions because they *can* kill us?

We're not talking about saving human lives here; we're talking about a relentless squeezing out of all other life to satisfy whims, which will be replaced by other whims at the goading of some wit marketing executive.

It's really a question of 'when is enough, enough'?

<>

Why are humans different? If it's merely our species, then what's the rationale behind that? If it's our qualities, then why save someone with severe brain damage as opposed to fully-functioning chimp?

Once we can talk to chimps and bonobos, and understand the really quite rich 'language' that they have, will you feel the same way then?

And why aesthetics as opposed to ethics? You're saying not causing suffering is an *aesthetic* decision? Pshaw!


<>

Nope, don't have the equipment. So what?

Or a really tricky one..


e) A lion is about to pounce on Margaret Thatcher. Do we shoot *her* in the leg on the off chance she can run away?

iPods vs Lions...

Asyou know from Alisdair Grey, 'Economics' means 'Household Management'. We have to make decisions about out short-term desires vs our long-term desires. I bet we'd miss Lions tomorrow more massive 'Pods today. I can't say this for sure - maybe opinions differ - but at least we can Show Our Working Out.

If we're sensible, we save up for the luxury terrabyte iPod, and only by it once the Lions are safe. Maybe we'll have to import raw materials from (eg) Mars in order to save the lions' Terran habitat.

But sometimes we are faced with unexpected expenditure. We may want to save up our...eg...ruddy ducks and reed warblers. But we find we have a need for short term expenditure of their habitat to build a Severn Barrage. We have to decide whether we can wait the however-many-years for new habitats to grow and biodiversity to return. (not too many years, incidentally)

Damn, can't believe I missed this conversation...

It's not too late to restart it...

Yeah, the possibilities haven't been exactly exhausted, eh?

Keep thinking about Red/Green/Blue Mars. There's sooooo much in 'em.