From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:32:08 GMT
Hi all,
hope my butting in as a newbie doesn't cause offense (I've lurked a
little)...
Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:
>Hi Platt,
>You have called for more explanation, which i am happy to attempt.
>
>Hi Mark,
>Thanks for the clarifications. As to point 1. arguments about the causes
>of global warming are very much related to your question. The answer is
>still up in the air. :-)
>
>Mark 18-03-04: The question i asked was how we make a distinction? If the
>same question is asked regarding the nature of a skin growth, * and we adopt a,
>'The answer is still up in the air' approach instead of taking invasive action,
>then the consequences may be problematic.
>* i.e. benign or cancerous.
>
>
I think that some form of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) can be called into
play here: it doesn't so much matter _if_ it can be proved whether or
not our greenhouse emissions are the cause of the current climatic
fluctuations, it's more the cost of not acting if they are given the
strong probablility of a connection. Unlike Mr. Bush's advisors' CBA, I
think the potential upheaval of agricultural patterns is rather too
costly to avoid doing anything. If it turns out to be unconnected -
well maybe it is something we just have to live with. It could always be
argued that we would be better of saving up our resources to just adapt
and survive, but I think that is covered by the strong probability of a
connection.
>>2. Radioactive patterns in the food chain.
>>Unlike the current debate over Global temperature, Radioactivity can be
>>easily distinguished from that generated by Human activity and that
>>generated by Geophysical processes. While it may be argued that
>>Radioactivity is of minimal concern, (those experiencing raised exposure
>>would no doubt disagree with this, as may be the case with people living on
>>the coast of the Irish sea for example)? Ozone depletion may be far more
>>serious?
>>
>>The context within which these examples were introduced was that of
>>Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity, and the danger such
>>activities may pose for future generations of Humans.
>>
>>
>
>Again, no complete agreement among scientists about such dangers. The jury
>is still out.
>
>Mark 18-03-04: Scientists understand well the dangers of Radioactivity - it
>is lethal in small exposure, and many Civil Nuclear reactors have leaked large
>amounts of Radioactive material into the environment. (A circumstance which is
>very often concealed until well after the fact.) Also, Ozone depletion has
>been extensively mapped and warnings issued regarding the increase of certain
>skin cancers in effected areas. Both these problems are the direct result of the
>jury being out until it was too late to late?
>
>
I think that the discrepancies here are due to the different effects on
the survival of ecosystems and individuals. Ecosystems can actually
absorb the impact of radioactivity quite well as surveys around
Chernobyl and the Bikini atoll (sorry - quoting from memory - I don't
have supporting references to hand) seem to indicate: from an ecosystem
POV it doesn't really matter what happens to individuals as long as
their ability to propagate is not drastically diminished. From an
individual POV, a vast increase in malignant tumours and a significantly
diminished life span are needless to say unpleasant - from a human
perspective this almost certainly will harm the social and intellectual
q-levels, though probably not anything like lethally, so in that respect
it's very similar to taking an ecosystem point of view, but I'm not
suggesting taking anything like such a cavalier attitude to the human
quality of life...
In terms of pollution, more problematic are the chemicals causing gender
disruptions, because these will fairly evidently disrupt an ecosystem's
ability to survive.
>
>
>>3. Planetary biological diversity. (PBD)
>>Prolonged Human activity has had a significant impact upon PBD. This is
>>beyond question. What is PBD? PBD is the extent to which DNA has evolved
>>life forms - Organic patterns of value. Human activity is reducing PBD by
>>illuminating them at an increasing rate.
>>
>>The context within which this example was introduced was that of
>>Environmental impact due to prolonged Human activity. But is this a problem
>>for future generations of Humans? I feel this is an exceptionally
>>interesting question when examined in MoQ terms, and leads directly on to
>>the following considerations:
>>
>>
>
>I question the value of biological diversity due to most of it being wiped
>out at least once, resulting in the rise of humanity along with the social
>and intellectual levels, of which I'm very happy about. :-)
>
>Mark 18-03-04: This is a little flippant? If prolonged Human activity results
>in the next wipe out, then we may be wiped out along with it. That's the
>point.
>A related point, and the one you may be forgiven for being flippant about, is
>the value of biodiversity. The question of diversity is related to Dynamic
>ability to respond, evolve and survive. In this regard diversity has high value.
>
>
While we certainly have benefitted from previous extinctions, it's more
than likely that being the top of a complex food change we will suffer
with the collapse of the current ecosystem, quite possibly in ways that
we cannot cope with. Our food production depends on pollinators and
insects are (according to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning
(19.03.2004)) suffering quite a bit. Even if we can survive, do we want
to have to? It's the difference between living a utilitarian existence
and a pleasant one. Additionaly PDB is simply the quality of keeping
ones options open. I don't think the human imagination is up to
generating the current diversity - human technology certainly isn't, so
it's probably better to try to keep what we have, adapting it where
necessary.
>
>
>>4 and 5. A coherent relationship to DQ. Coherent state of the static
>>repertoire.
>>a. A coherent relationship with DQ is a description of an aesthetic sense
>>of beauty, in which static patterns of Quality maintain or reach a high
>>Quality relationship with Dynamic Quality.
>>
>>
>
>This I still have trouble understanding. Can it be explained in 10 words
>or less, like "Dynamic Quality is a response to beauty." ? ?
>
>Mark 18-03-04: Beauty is a coherent patterned relationship with Dynamic
>Quality. (9 words).
>
>b. The static repertoire is
>
>
>>simply the sum total of all static patterns of Quality. In the case of
>>Organic patterns, this is the biosphere. So, Coherent state of the static
>>repertoire is, in the case of Organic patterns, a description of the beauty
>>of the biosphere.
>>
>>
>
>Beauty for the biosphere is a lot different from beauty for us. It's the
>level of tooth and claw, kill or be killed. Beauty for this level consists
>of the four F's: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and f---ing. "Beauty" we
>ascribe to this level, such as we see in roses, is anthropocentric.
>
>Mark 18-03-04: The beauty, (a coherent patterned relationship with Dynamic
>Quality) of the biosphere is a cousin of all other beauty, (coherent patterned
>relationship with Dynamic Quality) i feel. And let us not forget that we are
>included in the biosphere, and not standing aloof like a robot? It is natural
>for us to wonder at the beauty of a forest, a river and mountains; it is natural
>for us to delight in the fearful symmetry of the Tyger?
>
>
Although Platt is perfectly correct from the scientific POV, I'm not
sure that non-human animals cannot appreciate aesthetics and ethics to
some degree, although the evidence perforce does have a "touchy-feely"
quality and almost certainly will be argued about/dismissed for eons, if
not eternity by "hard-headed" scientists. One example is the studies by
Katy Payne et al. with the Elephant Listening Project (
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/ ) where it seems that
elephants have a vast diversity of - to use an 'unscientific' term -
personalities. Another are the rare but recorded incidents where
lionesses have taken to fostering antelope calves. The 4Fs certainly
represent some form of biological quality, but to preclude other aspects
of quality in the 'natural world' is surely to fall into a prevalent
attitude of mainstream science which is one of MOQ's main beefs with
it. In fact one can improve on mainstream biology with MOQ and suggest
that when an aesthetic sense is conflated with one of the 4Fs -
principally f***ing and occassionally feeding, this will promote the
aesthetic sense most strongly. Think bower birds, vivid colourations of
birds, fish and flowers, bird song. Actually, I can think of an
aesthetic conflation with fighting in the competition between one form
of male antelope whose name escapes me at the mo' during mating season:
there is no actual violence, it's all down to the elegance of the
display. The 4Fs are necessary but not sufficient qualities methongs.
To reduce the biological level to the 4Fs is a bit like reducing human
activity to economically necessary activity.
Whether or not this aesthetic sense can be said to be held by the
ecosystem as a whole - sort of an extension of the Gaia hypothesis - is
a bit of a different quandry.
Regards,
Jim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:35:26 GMT