🚀 go-pugleaf

In the thread "But *which* moral vision?" Sigurdsson quotes Stephan J Gould
inveighing against Edward O. Wilson's ideas about biophilia (an innate 
propensity to be interested in and drawn to living things):


>	We cannot win by appealing to an innate urge stronger than
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>competing drives. Does Wilson really view these competing drives as
>mere cultural overlay, with biophilia and love of wilderness as
>primary biology yearning to emerge? Sorry, but such a view, to me,
>is romantic nonsense... "
>
>SJ Gould, Nature, 28.2.93, _361_, p 312

Sigurdsson quoting Gould's opinions vs. Wilson's on what it will take for "us"
to achieve conservation ("win") is exactly like a creationist quoting a 
disagreement between Mayr and Dawkins as evidence against evolution. This 
argument of Gould's is a continuation of his long and bitter dispute with 
Wilson over sociobiology. It does not indicate that Gould opposes conservation.

My own views are probably closer to Gould's than to Wilson's in some areas. 
Gould's approach would (I suspect) be more along the lines of changing social 
*structure* and *institutions* than by appealing to supposed sources of 
individual motivation. I also think that changes of this more legal nature
are of the greatest importance. I mention biophilia not as an *alternative*
to this approach, but as a possible strengthener of it.

See also Wilson's remarks in _The Diversity of Life_, where he moves somewhat
away from the "appeal to individual feelings" view of _Biophilia_ and asserts
that the "heavy hand of government regulation" must and should be used to
protect biodiversity. He's not indissoluably glued to all the conservative 
political positions that a lot of people might attribute to him.

[For those not familiar with the folklore, Wilson and Gould are conventionally
held to be politically among the rightmost and leftmost, respectively, in 
the field.] 

In defense of Wilson against Gould's remarks, the thesis of _Biophilia_ is
*not* that biophilia is a stronger, competing drive but that it is a part
of what Wilson calls the "human spirit" -- an intellectual and  emotional 
capacity that can only be developed and find expression if wilderness is 
preserved.

It's as if we were able to do something to the world that would forever 
deprive humanity of the power to make music, or to see colors, or to love. 
How would we calculate such a deprivation for all future humanity into 
the cost of that action? This is the kind of point Wilson is raising -- 
that we would be denying ourselves and our descendents an essential part 
of our humanity by rendering the planet more artificial, even if the attempt
were "successful", as bean-counters and technocrats define "success".

Properly viewed, _Biophilia_ is pointing out how little we really know
about what is truly valuable even to humans, how shallow an understanding
of human nature current anthropocentrism is based on. However, I think 
that Gould is right that such arguments are not sufficient by any means and 
will carry no weight with some people. There will always be people who would
as cheerfully desecrate the human spirit as they would desecrate the living 
world. 

	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

To protect ourselves and the living planet against the destructiveness of
such people, ultimately we need to use law and government. At the same time,
we need to socialize people for life in a society which values all of earth's
life, and biophilia holds out hope that this may not be terribly difficult
-- for *most* people, albeit maybe not for *all*. But then, that's normal 
for society -- we don't succeed today in socializing *all* people that murder
is wrong, either. However, biophilia cannot work by itself apart from the
societal structures, laws and institutions that will make use of it. 

In the language of the "social contract" theory of government, we did not
end the Hobbesian "war of all against all" just by teaching everybody to be
good (love your brother), but also by forming a "contract" for mutual 
protection -- government.  Similarly, we shall not end the ecocidal war of 
Man Against Nature just by teaching everybody to be good (biophilic), but 
also by forging the next stage of contract -- an ecological contract -- for 
the mutual protection of the evolutionary opportunities of all species, 
including ours. And it is *mutual* protection, because *our* evolutionary 
opportunities depend on the others'. True, the others can't "bargin" in the 
primate-hooted symbols of sociality we humans have evolved for ourselves. 
They can't make noises about "rights". We have to use our intelligence to 
look past that superficial difference to the deeper commonalities of life 
and interests. If we can do that, then at last our intelligence will have
become a true adaptation, having found its coevolutionary equilibrium 
state...  its ecological *function*. 

Imagine that. A real purpose of our very own at last (as much as anything
ever gets a purpose in this universe), a reason to be on Earth just as much
as any other kind of life -- a *right* to be here. No longer aliens from 
another dimension.  No more need to make up myths and nightmares about 
incomprehensible purposes imposed by divine things in the sky, myths that 
never really were quite enough to fill that hole in our dreams. No more need
to look out into the dark and ask "are we alone?"...  because we would no 
longer *be* alone. The long exile from our real kin would be over. We would
no longer be a malignant disease in the biosphere, at war with nature, but 
a force to heal it and protect it and renew it: a force that is part of it...
the part of it with foresight. We would be the guardians of ecological 
justice.

*There* is the answer to the question "but *which* moral vision?" 

------------
Alan McGowen