Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA11617 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:21:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174589E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Primate Rights Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:19:00 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Yes I think you're right about this, very interesting stuff.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2000 8:28 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Primate Rights
>
> 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 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 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:21:34 BST