Some really good advice here. Really good. Just smart, well written, coherent stuff.
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Great stuff, Caleb. Thanks. Maybe we should have a permanent thread on ways we can "go green" and help save the planet. Like Ted turner who is going to open a "green" restaurant somewhere in Massachusetts. It would be SO nice to be able to go out to dinner without feeling guilty. Maybe someone will open a "green" restaurant around here. Meanwhile, here's my "green" suggestion: Skip the dishwasher and wash your dishes by hand. You'll save 0.26375 KWhrs of electricity and burn another 48.2876 calories per average four person dinner. Also, if you can get your "partner" to dry the dishes, it can be a really good chance for some meaningful "dialogue".
I think if we all band together and start doing these things we can really "make a difference."
There's nothing irrational about ecology, Luke, though I'd have no objection if you said environmentalism. There is incredible value in ecology, for human health as well as for animal and "eco-system" health.
It's a real shame, in a related topic, that words like "ecology" and "eco-system" have been so abused and overused that they become associated with drek like this msnbc article, and all the "green" stuff we see all day long. It becomes really difficult for laypeople and scientists alike to separate legit and valuable science from "turning off the water while you brush your teeth saves 27 California Condors an hour!!!111!!"
As for this article I posted, I don't know where to begin. It's just utter garbage, in pretty much every possible aspect.
I understand your point. I should clarify that I don't think studying ecology, in itself, is irrational. What I meant is that so far, the field of ecology has mostly been approached very irrationally. And I don't think this has only been done by the pop-culture green movement, but by a lot of scientists as well. Starting from the premise that life is a state of "equilibrium," which many ecologists have done, is far from rational.
I really don't think much of anything could be worse though, as far as irrationality goes, then the field of exercise in its current state.
The terms here though are tricky. What I believe is called "deep ecology" is a merger between pseudo-science and environmentalist philosophy. These are the guys who say man's life is as valuable as a mosquito's, and the earth's "life" is the standard of value.
Gotcha. I know what you mean with the "equilibrium" stuff, too.
Kate and I took an elective this quarter, "Ecotoxicology for vets." It was aimed mainly at future public health vets and had little relevance to our career plans, but there was a lot of interesting science presented in it. For our grade, we had to present a scientific poster on a subject of our choice, and found a pretty interesting topic. If I can get the poster to shrink to a readable form, I'll post it here later.
"Næss and Fox do not claim to use logic or induction to derive the philosophy directly from scientific ecology [5] but rather hold that scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology, including its ideas about the self and further, that deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics."
God, that's some lousy stuff. Shoot me now.
Keep in mind, though, that as a bio major in college and now as someone who sees and hears a lot of ecology on a daily basis, I've never heard of "deep ecology," and never heard of any of the "ecosophers" mentioned in the Wiki. It's pretty clearly a fringe movement, without much to do with actual ecologists.
I believe "deep ecology" is a radical environmentalist movement that has little if anything to do with science. And I believe -- but Caleb will correct me if I'm wrong -- that ecology simply means the way living things are related to each other in nature. Or in the environment. Which I think is how the term got confused with environmentalism.
I think you're right Mom, but I'm not sure just how "radical" deep ecology is. Or is there some other term for the deeper philosophical roots of environmentalism, or would that just be called environmentalism?
And although it sounds to me like the academic science of ecology has much less to do with environmentalism than I thought, hasn't there still been at the root of environmentalism a strong core of academic "scientists?"
Either way, as much as deep ecological beliefs are "radical" in a sense, I do hold that they are fundamentally responsible for the environmentalist movement. People may not know what ideas are really guiding them when they talk about wanting to be "green."
14 comments:
Great stuff, Caleb. Thanks. Maybe we should have a permanent thread on ways we can "go green" and help save the planet. Like Ted turner who is going to open a "green" restaurant somewhere in Massachusetts. It would be SO nice to be able to go out to dinner without feeling guilty. Maybe someone will open a "green" restaurant around here. Meanwhile, here's my "green" suggestion: Skip the dishwasher and wash your dishes by hand. You'll save 0.26375 KWhrs of electricity and burn another 48.2876 calories per average four person dinner. Also, if you can get your "partner" to dry the dishes, it can be a really good chance for some meaningful "dialogue".
I think if we all band together and start doing these things we can really "make a difference."
Heh, msnbc seems to have found a way to combine what are currently, IMO, man's 2 most irrational fields of study, exercise and ecology. Exercology!
There's nothing irrational about ecology, Luke, though I'd have no objection if you said environmentalism. There is incredible value in ecology, for human health as well as for animal and "eco-system" health.
It's a real shame, in a related topic, that words like "ecology" and "eco-system" have been so abused and overused that they become associated with drek like this msnbc article, and all the "green" stuff we see all day long. It becomes really difficult for laypeople and scientists alike to separate legit and valuable science from "turning off the water while you brush your teeth saves 27 California Condors an hour!!!111!!"
As for this article I posted, I don't know where to begin. It's just utter garbage, in pretty much every possible aspect.
I understand your point. I should clarify that I don't think studying ecology, in itself, is irrational. What I meant is that so far, the field of ecology has mostly been approached very irrationally. And I don't think this has only been done by the pop-culture green movement, but by a lot of scientists as well. Starting from the premise that life is a state of "equilibrium," which many ecologists have done, is far from rational.
I really don't think much of anything could be worse though, as far as irrationality goes, then the field of exercise in its current state.
The terms here though are tricky. What I believe is called "deep ecology" is a merger between pseudo-science and environmentalist philosophy. These are the guys who say man's life is as valuable as a mosquito's, and the earth's "life" is the standard of value.
Gotcha. I know what you mean with the "equilibrium" stuff, too.
Kate and I took an elective this quarter, "Ecotoxicology for vets." It was aimed mainly at future public health vets and had little relevance to our career plans, but there was a lot of interesting science presented in it. For our grade, we had to present a scientific poster on a subject of our choice, and found a pretty interesting topic. If I can get the poster to shrink to a readable form, I'll post it here later.
Yikes.
"Næss and Fox do not claim to use logic or induction to derive the philosophy directly from scientific ecology [5] but rather hold that scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology, including its ideas about the self and further, that deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics."
God, that's some lousy stuff. Shoot me now.
Keep in mind, though, that as a bio major in college and now as someone who sees and hears a lot of ecology on a daily basis, I've never heard of "deep ecology," and never heard of any of the "ecosophers" mentioned in the Wiki. It's pretty clearly a fringe movement, without much to do with actual ecologists.
Hmm, I think I was a little confused before on exactly what "ecology" means.
I believe "deep ecology" is a radical environmentalist movement that has little if anything to do with science. And I believe -- but Caleb will correct me if I'm wrong -- that ecology simply means the way living things are related to each other in nature. Or in the environment. Which I think is how the term got confused with environmentalism.
I think you're right Mom, but I'm not sure just how "radical" deep ecology is. Or is there some other term for the deeper philosophical roots of environmentalism, or would that just be called environmentalism?
And although it sounds to me like the academic science of ecology has much less to do with environmentalism than I thought, hasn't there still been at the root of environmentalism a strong core of academic "scientists?"
Either way, as much as deep ecological beliefs are "radical" in a sense, I do hold that they are fundamentally responsible for the environmentalist movement. People may not know what ideas are really guiding them when they talk about wanting to be "green."
no game on TBS. No game anywhere as far as we can see.
YOUK!
Ma, wrong post!
Oh duh. how did thaat happen??
Post a Comment