Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA08100 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:53:13 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Primate Rights Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:28:56 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745892@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Message-Id: <00060120491300.00947@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>Thanks for the response. I know the veggie comment was a bit obvious, but
>it just brought back fond memories of winding someone up and putting them
>off their pool game.
>
>I'm still not sure of the utility to the individual of thinking that
>nature's beautiful, or other species are nice (especially tigers- although I
>do think tigers are magnificent animals, and I don't want to see them become
>extinct, but I don't want to be eaten by one either).
OK, I didn't really explain that. Perhaps because I'm not *very* clear
about it myself! The example I gave, where mature, stable ecosystems are
seen as beautiful, I think simply reflects the fact (if it is one) that
mature, stable ecosystems are better places to be than immature, unstable
ones. Imagine having been forced out of your previous habitat -- by
whatever -- and after a difficult trek with your extended family through
barren hills, coming down into a lushly wooded, uninhabited valley. Or,
alternatively, into one that just 2 or 3 years ago suffered from the
eruption of a nearby volcano, where nothing grows but weedy grasses and
low scrub.
>I mean we understand now what the importance of biodiversity is, but could
>natural selection have produced it as a normative rule for a conscious
>animal, or rather how did it develop?
I doubt very much whether biodiversity would have any place in biophilia. I
helped organise a study, once, where people were asked what words came to
mind in response to "biodiversity", and the general failure to understand
the concept was very, very high. Incidentally, that's just about the only
memetics-related research I've ever been involved in. (I class my own
interests as philosophical, or meta-memetic.)
Though I used these words myself, I think maybe "love of nature" is a
misleading way to conceptualise biophilia, because to be adaptive, it has
to result in a tropism away from some aspects of nature, as well as
towards others. I'd guess the modern appreciation of "the wilderness
experience" and bleak, dangerous landscapes -- which I share, especially
the Scottish mountains in winter -- has to be something other than basic
biophilia, though it may be a perversion of it.
Now I'm thinking about it again for the first time in years, I'm finding
this quite fascinating! Time for a little web searching, I think...
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 20:53:53 BST