dry.science

conservation.contextualism

We see the sustention of life within the smallest aspects of single cell organisms, however where do large heterotrophic organisms fit in the regulation of Earth's system?  Is the human race a supplement or an inhibitor to Earth's growth?  Human environmental perception could be into two scopes, shallow & deep ecology  Shallow ecology is the classification of individuals who view the world's change as a malleable factor, to be reached by conservation and protecting the land from pollution.  A noble ideal indeed, however this preservation is for human sake of aesthetic value, or the preservation of life for humans to flourish in for the future.  Its counterpart, Deep Ecology, offers a deeper impact in preservation.

            Deep ecology embodies the individuals who recognize the interdependent relationship and influence between themselves and their environment, fully aware of their duties within the biosphere and "advocated biosperical egalitarianism"(1) 

            The medium that must be sought for such correct distinctions, for environmental philosophers have tend to associate themselves with anthropocentrism or biocentrism… or nonanthropocentrism. These two broad distinctions leave little room for the concept of human obligations in the sustaining of the natural environment.  It is argued that anthropocentrism is the key to realization of Earth ethics, recognizing mankind's fragility in the grasps of it's environment, to display that Earth has been made to sustain our life, or that we have evolved to thrive within these conditions.  However, Earth has been evolving ever since its own creation, atmospheric compositions have always been fluctuating, and geological features have always been emerging and changing.  Why would these natural processes, that have shaped the surface that we now thrive on, come to a halt with our presence?

The concept of Contextualism is defined as "a broadly applicable term for ethics that places significant weight upon the context of the situation in which the action is performed" (1).  The moral agents in decision-making face many factors of which to take into consideration.  When dealing with environmental ethics, the abstract methodology is staged by morality, of which factor decisions based on logical, theological, and metaphysical notions. However to derive conclusions from these notions comes through the collaboration of human thoughts, knowledge of our culture and other cultures.  According to Marietta, the significant effect of contextualism on ethics is to make morals less abstract.  Contexts of thought are always specific, implying a certain situational effect on some community.  Our history displays mankind actions emphasized in the context of his cultural community as well and his anthropogenic community.  However seeing the current alterations that have taken place on Earth, showing us all our fragility upon its surface, perhaps it is best to place greater emphases on the environmental community when contextualizing our actions.

_________________________________

(1) Marietta, Don.  For People and the Planet: Holism and Humanism in Environmental Ethics.  Temple University Press, Philadelphia 1995

Krib

Butterflies to Bigfoot

Near the end of his new book,
'Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the
Dark Divide', naturalist Robert
Michael Pyle describes an eerie incident
that occurred one stormy
evening on a drive through the back
country east of Mt. St. Helens. Having
concluded his Bigfoot researchin
the area, Pyle was headed from Carson
to Olympia when he stopped at
Elk Pass to stretch. Hearing a
whistling in the darkness, Pyle whistled
back. Whatever was there whistled
in response, and they continued
to communicate in this way as the
sound moved to within 100 feet
of Pyle's car. Suddenly, something
struck the vehicle's roof, and Pyle put
pedal to metal and sped away When
he returned in the daylight, he found
a set of tracks too large to have been
made by an elk or bear.
While Pyle, who has a Ph.D. in
ecology from Yale University, will not
say these were the tracks of
Sasquatch (another name for Bigfoot),
he has no adequate explanation
for what he found. "It sounds
hokey," he said, "but to quote Dave
Barry, 'I am not making this up.' "
Pyle points out that we know so little
about the natural world that it seems
foolish to dismiss the notion of
Sasquatch merely because a specimen
does not exist.  Rather than aiming
for personal sightings or categorical
proof one way or the other, he
chooses instead to examine the possibility
of Bigfoot.


Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing
the Dark Divide. Robert Michael
Pyle. 1995. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company. 327 pp.

signal received

Are feelings not shared?
Ideas...they seem to form almost geometrically,
building off a single idea, connected by nostalgia, daily occurrences

1
Testimonial tangents...
-that convoluted reception received by the neurotransmitters
hidden deep within our chests.
-that soliloquy station which we are all subconsciously in-tune.
2
We speak much of our differences as how we are supposed to be,
yet we refer to our similarities as coincidence,
without considering the similarity that we are both recognizing differences,
and our indifferent perception of what our similarities grow to be.
3
How else should we view each other?
Ideas...they flow like cellular conversations,
they are just too random not to.

4

ideas of nature

A separation between man and nature is not simply the product of modern industry or urbanism; it is a characteristic of many earlier kinds of organized labour, including rural labour.... The point that has really to be made about the separation between man and nature which is characteristic of so many modern ideas is that however hard this may be to express--the separation is a function of an increasing real interaction. It is easy to feel a limited unity on the basis of limited relationships, whether in animism, in monotheism, or in modern forms of pantheism. It is only when the real relations are extremely active, diverse, self‑conscious, and in effect continuous--as our relations with the physical world can be seen to be in our own day--that the separation of human nature from nature becomes really problematic.

killi

 

believe

"Why is the testimony of an admitted liar, 

now being feted by a skeptical magician as the truth, 
having the newspapers believe it all? 

The media mixing of the lies and rumors 
with a few facts in the Wallace story

is pushing this one to the edge. 

This is Ray Wallace's ultimate hoax and bitter seed."

-Loren Coleman

are too !

The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with '5' meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an 'excellent' assessment and '4' meaning the assessment was 'good.' The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate.