True, I don’t think it would be useful or necessary to use that as some kind of “rule”, to advance humanity over other sentients first and ask questions later. It was 3am when I wrote that, and I’m a dyspraxic, so pardon me if my post was a bit more “opiniony” than “facty.”

I love making up words. XD

I was trying, in my rambling, incoherent way, to make the observation that it is hard for many people (including myself) to envision just how human/nonhuman relations would work (after the revolution, let’s say.) After all, there would be no community assemblies of animals telling us that they don’t want a dam on a certain river, or a nuclear reactor in a certain spot, et cetera. We, as humans, would have to decide what the impact of our actions on the animals in any area would be before we do anything there. This would include actions taken in cities, because as you so astutely mentioned, there are often more species living alongside us in urban areas than in rural ones.

I am merely curious to know how you envision a free human society (presumably an anarchist/libertarian socialist one) interacting on equal terms with other species, all the time. I am not saying it couldn’t be done, and I agree that it is a moral imperative that we should try to meet other species on equal terms and make compromises – I just wonder what you think that would look like.

P.S., I’ve read your entire blog and I think you’re brilliant. Took me till last night to get up the courage to post a comment. Keep up the good work comrade ^^

I think the sense of ‘nature’ that you refer to is also what’s meant in the idea of ‘philosophical naturalism’, the belief that what scientific laws there are apply systematically to everything, and don’t make exceptions for God, demons, or human souls.

Chemists, I believe, have fallen into this sort of trap, when they say that they ‘learn from nature’ and make stuff which is ‘better than nature’, as if unconscious mechanisms are ‘less intelligent’ than they are. In fact, they’re (just like any other organism on the planet!) manipulating matter for their own purposes–hopefully for the benefit of humankind!

To say that something is ‘non-natural’ should be taken to be an impossible feat in the universe–such as a perpetual motion machine, not the simplistic division between what we see as ‘non-natural’ and as something ‘natural’. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, whether the source of the chemical. But that is irrelevant: the actual problem for us is that the survival of all organisms [including us] on this planet is chemical-dependent.

All life is chemistry.–Jan Baptist van Helmont, 1648.

One additional thing: It bugs me when people seem to think that whatever “nature” is, it should be frozen or fixed for all time. Now, I completely see the value to “preserving” some habitats or ecosystems, but preserving an ecosystem cannot be an end in itself, IMO. It would be completely “unnatural” to freeze an ecosystem and protect it from all changes—ecosystems are by “nature” changing from a indefinitely number of influences, etc.

Again, that doesn’t mean that I’m against all preservation, but there needs to be a justification for it in particular cases.

That’s a bit off topic; sorry!

Well said. I, too, am an “environmentalist,” whatever that means, but the definition of “environment” that most people give is spurious and arbitrary. “Environment,” in common brainless liberal parlance, simply means “the place where the animals live,” with animals forming a sort of all-encompassing underclass that we must protect so that we can continue to watch those cool nature documentaries.

In reality, our environment is simply the world in which we live, whatever part of it we happen to inhabit. When an earthquake hits a city, or wildfire erupts from lightning and burns down half of Los Angeles, that is damaging to the human environment – but you don’t see anyone saying “Nature is attacking us” (well, except for the people who watch those lousy natural disaster shows on TV.)

We, and all the numerous other species that inhabit this planet, are all doing what comes naturally to us, trying to get by, whether it’s humans building a nuclear reactor or termites building a mound. I am sure that someday we can all learn to get by (human and non-human alike) without destroying each other.

That being said, until we find effective ways to develop as a species without conflicting with other, I would give primacy to ours. If a village in India is without electricity, water, etc, and that is causing them to suffer, and a hydroelectric dam is the best way tobring them what they need, I wouldn’t feel very sorry for any displaced tigers and such. I hope that doesn’t make me an immoral person.