> Ah...but IS it misanthropic? To me it seems horribly anthropocentric, because
> environmentalists with those views are essentially saying that they, as humans,
> have the right to judge what is best for nature.
i intended to say no such thing - in fact, quite the opposite. i'm
dumbfounded by our species' constant verbal separation of itself from
all other forms of life - that's all. man is just one more animal. i
meant no tree-hugging whatsoever, including the part about conscious
thought. i have a 3 month old daughter, and every day she becomes (as
her brain grows and builds its little neural paths and whatnot) a little
more rational, a little more what we consider a 'person' - but even a
dog can decide what it wants to do, or not, at a given moment. i wasn't
implying bambi and thumper were out chatting in the woods, folks. i
proudly collect plastic grocery bags and fly them during the appropriate
holidays and everything (sorry - it's late and i'm tired).
it reminds me a lot of the scopes monkey trial, in a way. we don't want
to be associated with animals... we think... we feel... my argument is
that those are a function of brain complexity - not an ordained mastery
of the natural world. most of the changes we make to ourselves and our
environment are unintentional, either through greed or expediency or
that bothers me. doesn't it bother you?
change anything you like - i'd like perfect vision, please, and a
slimmer waistline and no need for dentists or caffeine. but let's at
least make them conscious changes. (then, at least, we can make a buck
'''Why don't you just surrender now and save us both time?'''