[danparsonson]

> Having some ecological sensitivity doesn't imply valuing trees (even 150'000 of them) more than human beings

I didn't say that, you misread me I'm afraid. My point was that trees (as an example) are no less NOR more valuable than humans.

> the only value of those 150'000 trees is to enable us to live better, happier lives

Well, the appeal to self-preservation is better than no appeal at all, if it drives you to do the right thing. That said, what 'the right thing' is in this case is not well understood and I believe we should err on the side of sharing the space we have rather than trying to own it all.

That said, if you can't see the beauty and intrinsic value in the natural world then you have my pity.

[RevRal]

> My point was that trees are no less NOR more valuable than humans

Through inference, you are saying that the value of humans and the value of trees are equal. So, now, you need to define value.

I cannot think of any consistent definition of value, applied to the entire 'natural world,' that would make humans and trees worth the same.

And there is no reason that this value needs to be 'intrinsic.' Or, I think you're using the word to mean 'obvious' and 'simple.' It is simply valuable, and that's obvious. Am I right?

That's not a good way to go about it.

*Addendum: maybe if they were ents.

[danparsonson]

An excellent point. This whole thread is (I think necessarily) subjective, but I will do my best. I would also be interested to hear what the parents of this post mean when they refer to 'value'.

What inspired me to comment in the first place was the unquestioned assumption that saving a human life is always an acceptable motivation or excuse for (apparently) unbounded destruction of other life forms. This implies some sort of scale of relative worth with humans at the top, which guides us to make such decisions. My belief is that there should be no such scale - that is, it should never automatically be right to favour one life-form over another, whatever the species involved. Thus the inference that humans and trees have the same 'value'.

I'm sure if you ask the Ents, they would not find it acceptable to save themselves at the expense of the non-Ents ;-)

[Jach]

I think your assumption, that valuing human life more than trees instantly implies we should kill trees without end, is wrong. I have to throw my name in the hat for those who value a single human over 150,000 trees. That's saying that, were I forced to make a choice between shooting a human and cutting down 150,000 trees, I'd chop the trees.

Outside of that choice I don't think we should be killing humans, and the trees we chop should really only be for useful purposes. (i.e. not random chopping just because you can do it.) I'm for environmental protection stuff like mandating tree farms or replanting or (if we get far long in nanotech) simply 'creating' wood from dirt.

Of course you can muck up my values by throwing in effects, like if I cut down 150,000 trees then 30 humans die somehow, in which case I have to change my position and select the single human. (And you can further muck up values if that human is somehow more significant than the 30 others combined.) But in isolation, human > trees.

[danparsonson]

> I think your assumption, that valuing human life more than trees instantly implies we should kill trees without end, is wrong.... were I forced to make a choice between shooting a human and cutting down 150,000 trees, I'd chop the trees.

Could you elaborate on that because it sounds like you're contradicting yourself :-) Unless you're making the point that 150,000 != 'without end', in which case I would venture that 150,000 was originally just chosen as an arbitrary large number, and the two are therefore effectively equivalent in the context of this discussion.

And yes, when posed in the abstract, chopping the trees versus shooting the human is a different question as when posed in the real world - as I said previously, the balance of the Earth's macroscopic ecosystem is fiendishly complex and not well understood, so destroying the trees may indeed wreak all manner of havoc and result in the loss of other lives elsewhere, and/or at a later time.

That's not to say that I advocate shooting people either - I believe we must find ways to coexist with our surroundings.

[Jach]

I agree. My point in the beginning was to say just because I value a human life more than trees, doesn't mean I wish to go out and kill any trees I find for no good reason or without weighing things. The 150k number was in keeping with the thread's number of choice; it's not a sufficiently large number that I'd think twice about it, though if you bring in an unending amount we're talking about infinite value so...

Hope I've cleared it up a bit, it's early. ;)

[RevRal]

You need to examine the trend of the planet and of the universe, of the 'natural world.'

This is going to be a pretty crazy flash-forward: when the universe began, it was sheer anarchy. Now, after billions of years of self organizing, here on Earth is the most structured thing in existence: our minds.

Alright, somebody else may have had a head start, but humans are still the most special thing on Earth.

We are important. This isn't arrogance. Everything leading up to us has played a part.

Placing us on the same level as trees is backwards, and it is not very useful. We need to understand our place in the universe, and Earth, and be responsible with respect it. No more rampant disrespect, like unchecked children.

So, in the grand scheme of things, we hold more value. The implications of this are good and don't mean we can do whatever we want.

[danparsonson]

> Placing us on the same level as trees is backwards, and it is not very useful thinking in those terms.

My turn to ask for some definitions - what do you mean by 'backwards', and 'useful'?

> We need to understand our place in the universe, and Earth, and be responsible with respect it

It's precisely my point that we, as a species, don't understand our place in the universe because we tend to inflate our importance with respect to it - indeed this was (is?) a cornerstone of some religion thought (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair).

If you take the view that self organisation/structure equates to relative importance, then, let's suppose a more 'highly evolved' alien race visited the Earth. Would you happily accept our new-found second place on the importance scale? How about if we develop a microchip more complex than the human brain (assuming that we have the capacity to do it)? Does that device become more important than a human being?

To me, the idea that all of Earth exists to support us is what I would call 'backwards'.

[RevRal]

Sorry, I don't have the time to expand and, ultimately, we're talking about two different things.

If you like, you may do further reading on singularities. Not the black hole kind.

I'll see you around.

[stcredzero]

I look at "this whole thread," look at the orange bar at the top of the page and think, "no, wait this isn't reddit!"

[danparsonson]

I'm not certain exactly where your incisive satire is aimed, but "this whole thread" was not the right phrase for me to have used - I was really referring to the portion of the discussion starting from the immediate parent to my first comment on this story. Hope that clears it up for you!

[stcredzero]

No offense meant. I was really talking about the whole thread.

[swombat]

I see plenty of beauty and intrinsic value in the natural world.

Don't get me wrong, my actions are not very different from yours. I support the idea (and practices) that we must treat the world better, that we must rein in pollution, that we should preserve existing species and natural habitats, etc.

The only difference is that because I come from a human-centric point of view ("all this only matters because it contributes to the existence and happiness of the human race"), I am strongly opposed to any measures that would oppress human beings to "save nature".

We need to get this balance right, and at the moment it's certainly too far in the "let's pollute everything" side - but that doesn't mean it won't swing equally far in the other direction, and when that happens, people will be oppressed and killed in the name of nature. And I feel that is fundamentally wrong, which is why I argue against blind ecologism, and towards a human-centric form of ecologism.

In other words, "Let's save the world, but for us, not for the world."