Field Mice, Beavers, Humans, And The Universe StuckInTheSixties: I was reading an exchange in one of the threads in a Wireclub Forum the other day, and it went something like this: Dude: “Humans are destroying the Earth etc. etc. Guy: “No they aren’t! Earth has been here four and a half billion years, and it won’t be destroyed for another four and a half billion years until our Sun turns into a Red Giant, etc. etc. It’s a tired exchange that’s occurred many, many times. It revolves around the meaning of the word “destroy.” Dude is using the word loosely. We know that what he means is that humans are polluting the Earth, consuming natural resources, causing global warming and things like that. Guy, on the other hand, means destroy in the literal sense, with Earth being burned to a cinder and consumed in the Sun’s fires. I yawned as I read it. But it got me thinking, in philosophical terms, about humankind’s place in this world, the meaning of the word “nature,” and the ethics of how our species lives, and what we do. First, let’s examine the word “nature,” and how it relates to humans. Again, it has different meanings. In its most extreme meaning, nature refers to whatever happens in the universe. We humans are a species of animal. We’re the most intelligent, sophisticated animal we know of. And there are a lot of us. And we are changing the world around us in profound ways. Yet, we are only on a tiny pebble in the universe, and what we do here on Earth has little bearing on what might be happening elsewhere. It’s important to us here, yet insignificant in the great cosmic picture. In that context, anything we might do could be considered as a part of nature, a part of what is happening in the universe. That point of view is interesting, but only in a philosophical way of thinking. The more intimate view has more meaning for us, and reasonably so. What we do as a species affects us as a species. You can look at a field mouse. What that field mouse is doing isn’t really playing much of a part in the immediate concerns of his species as a whole, nor is it really affecting the world around him. But we humans are having a far more profound affect on the world around us, and ourselves as a species. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to focus on what we as humans do here on Earth. If we have any concerns about ourselves as individuals, as parts of our society, as members of our species, we should be willing to objectively confront and examine our place in the world. People complain that our problem is that we are the species that has technology. It’s the technology, they say, that we are using to mess things up. We should consider, they say, moving away from our utilization of technology, and living a more “natural” existence. Does this make sense? StuckInTheSixties: Consider the building of a huge dam. On one hand, we gain some advantages that make our lives easier to live. We get a water source, hydro-electric power, the means to control flooding, things like that. The cost is, perhaps, the flooding of a beautiful valley. Perhaps there are some species of rare plants or animals that will be lost. We can argue that what we gain justifies the tradeoff. Objectively, we have to admit that this point of view is “selfish,” or “biased” in favor of our own species at the expense of others. In that way of thinking, we humans are simply stealing the world, one species committing robbery and murder upon others, and we’re doing it with our technology. Philosophically, it’s a reasonable argument when it’s seen from the point of view of those other species that we disrupt or kill in the process. But perhaps it’s only a matter of scale. A beaver builds a dam in a small stream. The water backs up behind his dam, flooding the nearby meadow. The aforementioned field mouse is lost in the process. From his perspective, the beaver has committed no less of a crime then we have. Why should the beaver’s actions be seen as “just a part of nature,” while what we do is “unnatural”? I guess it depends on that aforementioned definition of “nature.” So does taking the grand, “universe-as-a-whole” viewpoint give us ethical license to do to the world what we want? Perhaps. But if one takes that point of view, that also gives me the ethical license to push you into an alley, put a gun in your ribs, and steal your wallet. After all, the beaver is, in an act of nature, exercising dominion over the field mouse because he can by using technology. The dam-builders are, in an act of nature, exercising dominion over the beautiful valley by using technology. I am, in an act of nature, stealing your wallet by using technology. So do I have any grand pronouncements, some important conclusion, some moral lesson to put forth here? Nope. I’m just thinking out loud.  LittleAntonov: Well you do have some very interesting and compelling thoughts I must say. Now I'm just thinking about your beaver analogy here... It's true what you mentioned about the beavers natural process doing the same thing that we do with our dams but on a different scale. Beavers do not have a concept of excess, it is my understanding that they only build to what they need and they tend to build dams when the water level is too low for their liking ( at least from my basic research). Whereas Humankind tends towards the excess and tend to think nothing of it...now its true that Beavers have been known to create very large dams that upset the "balance of nature" but only because the size of the family is larger, and they do only take as much as they need IE fish, wood etc.. now if the population is kept under control no undue stress is caused to the Eco system. A big difference between "us" and the beavers that we don't have population control, there are no other species to keep us under control and unfortunately it would be morally (in some peoples eyes) abhorrent to too many people in our societies to put population control in our policies. And like you sits I'm not trying to make a profound point, like you I am just thinking aloud-ish.  Sables: I do agree with everything you say here Sits. What "damage" though that is done from the beavers building their dam is small compared to the damage we do in building one of ours, they do not have huge vehicles trucking the product through the countryside as we do, the litter that we leave behind, roads that have to be built to access the site, I do think we leave more behind as a result of our building and changing things. I don't think that what we do is relative compared to the little they do. StuckInTheSixties: Sure. It's relative. It's a matter of scale. But for that field mouse, what the beaver does to his world is no less cataclysmic than what we do to the larger world. Sables: But ours is more widespread...the dam that the beaver has built has flooded the area, so it is pretty much contained...ours can start from the imprint that the trucks hauling all the product, the diesel that it uses, the pollution that it makes, the area where the trees were cut for the wood that it needs to build it, to the trees that are cut to make the paper for the bills and orders that are sent out for the jobs, never mind the area that is flooded from the dam. All the garbage that has been made from a result of the project, from cut ends of wood, bits of cement, the rebar, bits of peoples lunches that got thrown out...... StuckInTheSixties: Absolutely right. The analogy is far from perfect. Also consider that when the dam builders dam that beautiful valley, they mess things up for both the beaver and the field mice too.  Comrade_: All the points are great. But does the beaver understand that he is affecting the field mouse? as humans we know and fully understand that we're affecting the other animals and the earth itself. And we do have other opinions available to us.  LiptonCambell: >>>. Whereas Humankind tends towards the excess and tend to think nothing of it I don't think the differences in those examples are excess- its impact. A beaver can see the damage done, and thinks nothing of it. A beaver will not refrain from building a dam if it endangers another lifeform- it cares for its own life and its families life, and no others. Its just that we as humanity are far more efficent and have a greater impact- but on the issue of excess? A beaver would continue building a dam if the water allowed it and if the beaver had something to gain, yes. In fact, the worlds largest beaver dam is 850 metres long, or 1/2 a mile. >>>but only because the size of the family is larger And? Overpopulation is an issue humanity deals with too- are you saying over-population justifies the destruction of the Earth? If so, then it must be business as usual then... >>>and they do only take as much as they need IE fish, wood etc And if their need is more than nature can supply? ---- >>>I do think we leave more behind as a result of our building and changing things. No ones arguing that we don't create more destruction. Whats being argued is that numerous animals alter their enviroment to the point of endangering the lives of other lifeforms- but if Beavers do it, its "natural". >>>But ours is more widespread... Again, I think you're missing the point of the analogy. This isn't meant to be a misantrophist rant, but rather a question as to what is a natural act  super_sugar_fun_time: All our acts are natural acts. We can not act outside of our own species, as we are this species. When people talk about inhuman acts, they are talking about very human acts. We are animals the same as all the other species, and we need to remember that we are just another primate. StuckInTheSixties: I guess all of that was just a wordy way to say that the concept of "natural" is relative to the scale of the viewpoint in which you examine it. StuckInTheSixties: (shrugs) I'm not a stoner. I don't use any intoxicants other than an occasional beer or glass of wine. StuckInTheSixties: (laugh) I do funk skunks. And wax yaks. And plook platypuses. And whatever else I wrote on my Profile page in the past. ☀▃▂▁/V\iragε▁▂▃☀: Ever flank a walrus? Chafed a moose.... Swelt a lochness... Hopped a lemur.. Etc. Etc. StuckInTheSixties: No, I only conduct those kinds of animal activities when they are alliterations, rhymes or something close to that. StuckInTheSixties: ... squirting my squirrel; waggling my weasel; stroking my stork; wrangling my rhino; shaving my shark; circumcising my salamander ... ☀▃▂▁/V\iragε▁▂▃☀: Naughty beavers, dirty mice, freaky humans & the hole universe....... I mean whole universe | Philosophy Chat Room 16 People Chatting Similar Conversations |