This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/may99/0029.html as retrieved on 18 May 2004 01:23:07 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:dhifr6Q0_PAJ:csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/may99/0029.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 

DEEP-ECOLOGY may99 discussion: Re: On Deep Ecology and Left Biocentrism

Re: On Deep Ecology and Left Biocentrism

Sun, 23 May 1999 10:56:38 +1200
David MacClement (davd@geocities.com)

At 10:11 22/05/99 -0700, Mike wrote:
>I couldn't find the central issue I sought in [David Orton's] discourse:
>
>When human needs (e.g. those of native or underprivileged peoples) conflict
>with those of wildlife, which should be given priority?
>
>I think that we must admit that wildlife, since they can't protect
>themselves from us, MUST be given priority over human "needs", when they
>conflict, ...

** Your view is: "given priority over", i.e. basically a choice: one _or_
the other. Someone else, perhaps Bruce, might say: "we should be able to
have both". I'm much more inclined to yours, Mike, but not as an either/or,
rather asking where is the biggest long-term impact (obviously on the
wildlife), and how can we who are responsible, reduce that to
a-level-tolerable-by-wildlife, not the zero you look for.
** Obviously (to me, anyway), this means taking a strongly critical look
at humans' "needs", reducing them to wishes or "that would be nice" in
almost every case. Specifically, almost everyone doesn't need a car, though
they may have to change where they live and work. The only real needs can
be satisfied by spending less than $1,500 _per_year_; this is the result of
my economic experiment for the last six and a half years.

> ... wildlife face much worse, every day, especially at our hands. ... no
>mention of the simultaneous impacts on wildlife, which may be even more
>devastating, considering how much of their habitat
>they have already lost to us.
>
>I think that we have to address human needs, but to stop doing it always at
>the expense of wildlife

** Yes, though I see "address[ing] human needs" in an extremely restricted
sense. This may be where I differ from the philosophical side of deep
ecology, in that I don't see anything like as much need for explanations -
a philosophy of living. Actual _needs_ don't include that, in my view.

** This shifting away from desires also minimises human-based wishes, like
for justice, equity, and the rest of the "left" view".

David.
(David MacClement) mailto:davd@tao.ca ( @ is: @ )
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
***********************************************************