clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:57:39 +0100
Mark and Platt,
Thanks for your postings of the 22nd. You have given me some things to
think about
Mark, when I made the comment about immortality being a crushing burden I
should have made it clear that I was speaking of myself. Perhaps there are
many others like myself but I can't speak for them. My experience with
immortality (religion) was not a happy one in my childhood and later, when
I began to look at the effects of religion throughout history it was even
less attractive. I realize that it is important to you and I am pleased
that you find what you need in it. I prefer to fit into the concept of Gaia
and not to have an immortal soul. The idea of my death does not upset me
although I would as soon it didn't happen today. If I had my druthers I
would just fall over instead of grinding out with Althiemers or some such.
Some things are worse than death. Maybe Dr. Kevorkian has the right idea.
My remark about returning to Gaia just meant that the inorganic components
of my body would return to the Gaia cycle. I hope the rest of LS doesn't
find this too depressing. Its not to me.
Platt, thanks for your criticism on the environmental issue. I didn't
intend to convey the impression that I am an environmental activist. I am
not. I dip my dogs and treat my yard for ticks and chiggers. I also smoke a
pipe from which I get much pleasure. I do subscribe to the philosophy of
James Lovelock, the British scientist who proposed the idea that the
biosphere was built and/or modified by life rather than the other way
around. In this view the Earth is the all encompassing living organism by
way of the biosphere that us life forms have built up and we are the result
of the chain of life that has evolved during that construction project. You
may recall the first picture of the Earth that was taken from the moon
during those early voyages. To me it was a profound experience that has
never left me and I think it fits well with Pirsig's ideas of Quality.
It has been a long time since I read Atlas Shrugged and the other book
that Rand wrote so I just have a hazy memory of her philosophy. Isn't that
the philosophy that Mainland China is using now? (Now we're even for the
spiked trees remark :-).
Seriously, to take your message from the top down, I do think that the
biosphere is a fragile thing and needs our considered attention. I am not
convinced that it is on the verge of collapse. We are far too ignorant of
the processes of Gaia to make such a statement. I think that there are
things going on that need to be watched closely. For instance, the increase
in global temperature that has been documented in the last few years. The
ozone hole at the South Pole is showing great fluctuations which may or may
not be significant, even so, an increase in ultraviolet radiation from the
sun, according to Lovelock, may not have a great an effect on the Earth's
biota since it is easily adapted to by microorganisms. Perhaps a
significant increase in skin cancer and such among humans. The main thing
to watch, of course, is it's effect on plant life since photosynthesis is
our primary source of oxygen. One of the things that Lovelock considers the
main argument for his Gaia theory is the distribution of atmospheric gases
in Earth's atmosphere.
Venus and Mars both have atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels about 95%.
Venus has just a trace of Oxygen and Mars has about 0.13%. By way of
contrast, Earth's atmosphere has about 21% Oxygen and 0.03% Carbon Dioxide.
He says that it is the presence of life, in particular plant life, that is
responsible for this difference since photosynthesis consumes Carbon
Dioxide and Produces Oxygen. Again to simplify.
the El Nino in the eastern Pacific is the warmest on record this year and
seems to be affecting the weather, particularly in the western states and
western Mexico. No one knows if this is significant or if it is just a
normal fluctuation. Again something to be watched and studied.
The ice cap is receding at a pretty good clip and a significant decrease
will have a significant effect on the albedo of the Earth. Also, I have
seen estimates that a melting of the ice caps will cause a significant
effect on the level of the oceans, I think I have seen estimates of up to a
hundred feet. If so, I would have trouble getting back to Beaufort where I
was stationed for a short while during WWII.
I could go on citing examples, none of which would convince you. If you
want to be in a position to refute me read Lovelock's book "The Ages of
Gaia" or another just called "Gaia". The paperback I have is a Bantam book.
You say that we are as much a part of the ecosystem as any plant or bug
that ever lived and have as much right to try to dominate them as they have
to try to dominate us. My position is that we are the sentient species on
Earth and as such have a responsibility to try to understand Gaia and keep
her healthy. Without those plants we will have to go down to the Oxygen
store and buy bottled Oxygen that is shipped in from another planet like
ours. Trouble is, I don't know where there is another one. I have read, but
I can't remember the source, that the Government of Brazil is alloting
plots of land in the tropical rain forest and encouraging people to clear
the plots and put them into production. It is said to be happening at a
pretty fast clip. Again, no one knows what the effect the destruction of
the rain forests will have on Gaia but we do know that these forest belts
put a great amount of the water vapor into the atmosphere that results in
rain elsewhere. Without this water vapor my guess would be that the
temperature of the Earth would rise, one, because the albedo of the Earth
would go up and two because there would be less atmospheric humidity to
spread around as rain. Also, these rain forests are extremely complicated
ecosystems that are even more vulnerable to upset by tampering than simpler
ecosystems. You may have heard of the thought experiment that Lovelock
performed which he called Daisy World. In it he allowed more land space
than we have on the real Earth and planted it to white daisies and gray
daisies and dark daisies. Working with the albedo produced by these daisies
he was able to show that the temperature of the Earth could be controlled
at around the normal 20 degrees C by the color selection of daisies caused
by temperature fluctuations. He did not deal with any other parameters but
assumed that all growing conditions were good except the variable of
temperature. He did this to counter the charge of teleology that was
directed at his Gaia concept by other scientists.
According to the concept of Quality the social level and the intellectual
level take precedence over the biological level. I happen to think that
this is one of the weaknesses of the Metaphysics of Quality. It does not
provide for due attention to the bedrock of our viability on the Earth or
at least Pirsig or no one else has emphasized this. This does not mean that
we have to sleep with bedbugs. It just means that we have to bear in mind
the source of our existence and viability and include that awareness in our
various functionings at the social and intellectual levels. It does not
mean that we have to quit thinking because the biological level might be
offended.
Regarding the armchair morals issue. There are no morals connected with
this. When I spoke of morals in previous postings, I was trying to relate
Pirsig's idea of morals to the idea of Gaia. I think that the human race up
to this point have been responding to its particular situation as it was
perceived at the time. Doing bad things out of our ignorance is not the
same as doing bad things to the biosphere knowingly. Up to now we have no
reason to beat ourselves over the head because of our previous actions. Now
however, the information, however sketchy, is out there and I believe that
it is our responsiblity to at least familiarize ourselves with the
rudiments of the biosphere and include that awareness in the mix of
experience that we present to be operated on by the Quality event that
determines our ongoing reality. This does not seem unreasonable to me.
You say, Quoting Pirsig, that to put philosophy in the service of any
social organization or any dogma is immoral. I think that would be correct,
but the concept of Gaia is a philosophy and not a dogma. One of the
definitions of a philosophy in my unabridged is "a system of principles for
guidance in practical affairs". This could apply to either Quality or
Gaia. Dogs don't foul their own yards. I think we should do no less.
You say that you are not convinced that us puny souls can affect the
ecosystem one way or the other. I say that we can't individually but that
the seven billion or so people (I don't have the figure) acting in concert
and without the necessary awareness can. I say that we need to make an
effort to determine exactly what our impact is on the Earth since we may
have already done something that it is too late to fix. As individuals, you
and I don't need to concern ourselves too much because it will no doubt
last long enough for us, but I can't think that way. I think that this
fragile blue planet that, so far as we know at the moment, is the only one
in the universe, deserves our consideration and wonder and awe along with
those species that have made it a living system. We, as a human species,
are not necessary to the life functions of the planet, in fact, we are no
doubt detrimental to it. I think that putting it into our static
consciousness so that it is available to the Quality Event does not do
violence to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and is not too much to ask. Ken
Clark
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:15 CEST