INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Anthropocentrism

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#21 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 12:56 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

It implies that
IF some persons were wilfully or otherwise destroying the planet
AND IF I could distinguish the ones who were doing this from the ones who were having it done to them
AND IF I could think of a way to achieve the aims (a and b) listed above
AND IF the only way to achieve those aims would involve the deaths of those doing the damage
AND IF it would NOT also result in the deaths of large numbers of those NOT doing the damage
AND IF I could carry out the necessary act successfully

THEN I would not think I was treating the (persons whose activities I have curtailed) disrespectfully.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#22 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:00 pm

thundril wrote:It implies that
IF some persons were wilfully or otherwise destroying the planet
AND IF I could distinguish the ones who were doing this from the ones who were having it done to them
AND IF I could think of a way to achieve the aims (a and b) listed above
AND IF the only way to achieve those aims would involve the deaths of those doing the damage
AND IF it would NOT also result in the deaths of large numbers of those NOT doing the damage
AND IF I could carry out the necessary act successfully

THEN I would not think I was treating the (persons whose activities I have curtailed) disrespectfully.
There are an awful lot of consumerists.

How do you propose to curtail their destructive behavior?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#23 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:02 pm

So?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#24 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:03 pm

thundril wrote:So?
So, they're ruining the planet.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#25 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:06 pm

I agree that the planet is being damaged. I'm having difficulty distinguishing those who are doing the damage from those who are having it done to them.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#26 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:07 pm

thundril wrote:I agree that the planet is being damaged. I'm having difficulty distinguishing those who are doing the damage from those who are having it done to them.
What do you mean?

By the way, I think it's safe to consider acquisitiveness a cross-cultural central tendency in human behavior.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#27 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:15 pm

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:I agree that the planet is being damaged. I'm having difficulty distinguishing those who are doing the damage from those who are having it done to them.
What do you mean?
It seems we are agreed that 'consumerism' if continued on its present trajectory will do irreversible damage to humans and many other life forms. The previous couple of posts have been aimed at clarifying whether we have any agreement on the term 'respect' as applied to human beings. I am suggesting it has something to do with being reluctant to bump off large numbers of our fellow humans without great need.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#28 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:18 pm

thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:I agree that the planet is being damaged. I'm having difficulty distinguishing those who are doing the damage from those who are having it done to them.
What do you mean?
It seems we are agreed that 'consumerism' if continued on its present trajectory will do irreversible damage to humans and many other life forms. The previous couple of posts have been aimed at clarifying whether we have any agreement on the term 'respect' as applied to human beings. I am suggesting it has something to do with being reluctant to bump off large numbers of our fellow humans without great need.
I'm not interested in killing people. I just don't think they deserve help because of who they usually are. If, say, famine comes to China in the next few decades (and this seems entirely likely), no one ought to intervene. And in this way the fate of the planet and any civilization on it, human or otherwise, will become brighter.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#29 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:21 pm

My intention here is to have a clear discussion with you, Radius. So we need to clarify what we mean by the terms we are using.
I suggest that when we have reached some mutual understanding of what we mean by 'respect', we can go on to discuss the meaning of 'deserve'.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#30 Post by animist » January 27th, 2011, 1:22 pm

thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:What is PPE?
Sorry about that, Radius, I was using an inappropriate shorthand. PPE is Politics Philosophy Economics. I was referring to the suggestion in the article you linked to, that people who don't think seriously are somehow less worthy of respect.
as I did PPE, Thundril, I'll take that as a compliment :D

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#31 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:27 pm

animist wrote:
thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:What is PPE?
Sorry about that, Radius, I was using an inappropriate shorthand. PPE is Politics Philosophy Economics. I was referring to the suggestion in the article you linked to, that people who don't think seriously are somehow less worthy of respect.
as I did PPE, Thundril, I'll take that as a compliment :D
:thumbsup:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#32 Post by Nick » January 27th, 2011, 1:31 pm

Hi Radius, and welcome to the forum :D
Radius wrote:I'm not interested in killing people. I just don't think they deserve help because of who they usually are. If, say, famine comes to China in the next few decades (and this seems entirely likely), no one ought to intervene. And in this way the fate of the planet and any civilization on it, human or otherwise, will become brighter.
So, next time you are ill or injured, should we withhold treatment from you, on the basis that your demise would be brighter?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#33 Post by animist » January 27th, 2011, 1:32 pm

Radius wrote:Take, for instance, the example of Yemen. According to Minister of Water and Environment Abdul Rahman al-Iryan, the level of ground water is dropping by about six meters every year. Yet Yemenis, in aggregate at least, choose to have lots of kids they can't possibly support and grow khat, a water-intensive plant somewhat akin to coca in its effects. (Its nutritional value is negligible.) No reasonable person would do such things. If you are running out of water, grow food, not khat. And don't bring children into the world who will inevitably lead lives of misery. This is not rocket science.

But maybe Yemenis can be let off the hook because they are most often poorly educated. .
well, maybe they also need the kids to work and support the family in a poor and pretty divided society; and maybe they need the qat just because life IS miserable - you seem very keen on dismissing the behaviour of people who are, I imagine less comfortable than you or me, as irrational.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#34 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:35 pm

thundril wrote:My intention here is to have a clear discussion with you, Radius. So we need to clarify what we mean by the terms we are using.
I suggest that when we have reached some mutual understanding of what we mean by 'respect', we can go on to discuss the meaning of 'deserve'.
I'm not sure how these terms are relevant to my central claims.
Nick wrote:So, next time you are ill or injured, should we withhold treatment from you, on the basis that your demise would be brighter?
In some sense, it probably would be.

But to be fair, I've made scrupulous efforts to live responsibly and meaningfully on this Earth. Which is more than can be said for many.

And who said the Golden Rule was a good way of attaining sustainability? cf. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ences.html
animist wrote:well, maybe they also need the kids to work and support the family in a poor and pretty divided society; and maybe they need the qat just because life IS miserable - you seem very keen on dismissing the behaviour of people who are, I imagine less comfortable than you or me, as irrational.
Does not make their behavior less destructive or more acceptable.

Does not mean we can violate the laws of thermodynamics on their behalf.

Also: pay attention to what I said about people in the developed world.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#35 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:39 pm

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:My intention here is to have a clear discussion with you, Radius. So we need to clarify what we mean by the terms we are using.
I suggest that when we have reached some mutual understanding of what we mean by 'respect', we can go on to discuss the meaning of 'deserve'.
I'm not sure how these terms are relevant to my central claims.
Reading your OP, the question of who does and who does not 'deserve' 'respect' is pivotal.

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#36 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:41 pm

thundril wrote:
Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:My intention here is to have a clear discussion with you, Radius. So we need to clarify what we mean by the terms we are using.
I suggest that when we have reached some mutual understanding of what we mean by 'respect', we can go on to discuss the meaning of 'deserve'.
I'm not sure how these terms are relevant to my central claims.
Reading your OP, the question of who does and who does not 'deserve' 'respect' is pivotal.
Maybe not. If there aren't enough resources to go around for a population of about seven billion (and growing), then lots will have to be drawn. End of story. Deserts don't necessarily enter into this kind of scenario.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#37 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 1:50 pm

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:]My intention here is to have a clear discussion with you, Radius. So we need to clarify what we mean by the terms we are using.
I suggest that when we have reached some mutual understanding of what we mean by 'respect', we can go on to discuss the meaning of 'deserve'.
I'm not sure how these terms are relevant to my central claims.
[

Quote from your OP:
Most people don't care about issues of real substance at all, even if they have ample opportunity to become aware of them. If someone shows no signs of being civilized despite having numerous opportunities to become educated and responsible, then they should be treated as such, rather than being afforded respect they don't deserve. We need to do away with the harmful, outmoded ideas that compel us to show this respect.

And you put this point right in the middle of your opening statement for what purpose?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#38 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 1:53 pm

thundril wrote:Quote from your OP:
Most people don't care about issues of real substance at all, even if they have ample opportunity to become aware of them. If someone shows no signs of being civilized despite having numerous opportunities to become educated and responsible, then they should be treated as such, rather than being afforded respect they don't deserve. We need to do away with the harmful, outmoded ideas that compel us to show this respect.

And you put this point right in the middle of your opening statement for what purpose?
Well, this is a secondary issue.

The primary issue is attaining sustainability. Without it we can't have anything else.

Only after that comes who deserves what.

Obviously people who aren't greedy, for example, deserve to live more in my framework. They are less responsible for the mess we're in.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#39 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 2:14 pm

Radius wrote:Well, this is a secondary issue.
But it's the central plank of your argument in favour of what you are proposing!
Radius wrote:The primary issue is attaining sustainability. Without it we can't have anything else.
The primary issue in your OP is transhumanism itself, surely. Sustainability is one of your supporting arguments; who deserves to live, who doesn't, and why. Sustainability is presented as the 'why' in this context. That makes it a tertiary matter, doesn't it?
Radius wrote:Only after that comes who deserves what.
You have made a case for transhumanism. You present certain arguments in favour of this idea. If I am going to be persuaded to consider the idea itself, then I have to be satisfied, at least to some degree, that your arguments make some sense. And one of your arguments revolves around the question of whether of not some people 'deserve' 'respect'.
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable of me to test what , when you use these words, you are attempting to say.
Radius wrote:Obviously people who aren't greedy, for example, deserve to live more in my framework. They are less responsible for the mess we're in.
Obviously?

Radius
Posts: 133
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 5:54 am

Re: Anthropocentrism

#40 Post by Radius » January 27th, 2011, 2:19 pm

thundril wrote:But it's the central plank of your argument in favour of what you are proposing!
According to you.

(I am surprised by this revelation.)
thundril wrote:The primary issue in your OP is transhumanism itself, surely.
No. I just happen to think that transhumanism is the surest way to sustainability.
thundril wrote:Obviously?
Yes, obviously. More apparently, at any rate, than the idea that seriously flawed political philosophies from the dawn of the industrial age should be kept up indefinitely, come hell or no water.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Anthropocentrism

#41 Post by thundril » January 27th, 2011, 2:34 pm

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:But it's the central plank of your argument in favour of what you are proposing!
According to you.

(I am surprised by this revelation.)
OK, I'll withdraw this suggestion, for now. (but might come back to it later!)
Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:The primary issue in your OP is transhumanism itself, surely.
No. I just happen to think that transhumanism is the surest way to sustainability.
Likewise, I'll withdraw this suggestion, for now. (but might come back to it later!)

Radius wrote:
thundril wrote:Obviously?
Yes, obviously. More apparently, at any rate, than the idea that seriously flawed political philosophies from the dawn of the industrial age should be kept up indefinitely, come hell or no water.
That it's better than a seriously flawed political philosophy is not much of a claim, is it? And what are you saying is 'obviously' better? 'that people who aren't greedy deserve.... they are not 'responsible...'

So we come back to what you mean by your terms. Who 'deserves' what? What does 'responsible' mean? Who can distinguish between 'responsible' and 'not responsible' people?
And most significntly, in my view, Who is the judge?

Post Reply