Re: evolution and stewardship

From: Susan B (
Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 - 13:50:08 EST

  • Next message: Arthur V. Chadwick: "Feathered dinosaur a fake?"

    At 06:00 PM 1/14/00 -0500, MIkeBGene wrote:
    >One could
    >argue that if we destroy the environment, many animals
    >will go extinct. So? Isn't this common in evolutionary
    >history? Will not other life forms simply adapt to fill
    >the new niches? One could argue that if we destroy the
    >environment, we will destroy ourselves. Well, since
    >there is nothing special about humans, this is hardly
    >any more tragic than the extinction of the mammoth.
    >Instead, we would have to simply appeal to raw
    >self-interest. But ironically, it is this same raw
    >self-interest that is harming the environment.

    Nihilism isn't evolutionarily sound. It literally can't be a feature of
    "fitness." If our species is to survive we must be fit to surivive and
    taking a "so what" attitude to our own destruction is counter-productive.
    Since "so-what-ness" doesn't confer fitness it generally isn't passed on
    either culturally or physiologically.

    It is my contention that environmentalism is "raw self-interest." By saving
    the whales (or whatever) we are saving ourselves. Life is a web. We don't
    know which or how many strands can be plucked out of it before it collapses
    taking us with it.

    Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
    --Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Please visit my website:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2000 - 13:50:27 EST