Against Ecology Coercion

Thanks for the comment. Interesting blog.

I wouldn't go so far as to call a theory that has human as its starting point a "disgrace"...But that's my opinion after all. Your comment is welcomed.

Wikipedia tells me that: "For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world."

This does not seem to be a very good foundation for solving problems, or even posing them.

I had a look at your link to Schopenhauer's aphorisms, Klaus, but could not find anything very constructive there. Have you expanded elsewhere on how the actions implied by Schopenhauer's ideas can solve our problems?

Reply to Spiros:

"The truth is that every species is trying to do exactly the same! All insects, bacteria or crocodiles, are trying to dominate the environment. Each species is trying to be the dominant one and does not care about the "balance". Why is it "natural" for insects to multiply by millions and devour everything they see, but it is not "natural" for humans to eat other species? The answer is simple: there is no reason at all! What we do is as natural as a plant growing at the expense of another plant."

Of course animals and plants are doing all this, but he real truth is that humans are so overwhelmingly powerful that disregard for other species will lead to global disaster leading not only to the extinction of animals but of humans as well. Therefore, in this critical point of time - we need to base our actions on a philosophy that is not excessively human-centred. You also say that, if humans would be affected, we should indeed consider the consequences of our actions, but I go much further - with Schopenhauer- the driving force of our actions should not just be human self interest alone, but compassion with animals and humans. In other words, animals have a "right" to be protected. Nevertheless I would accept a certain "hierarchy" of protection: humans are more intelligent, perceptive etc. and therefore can suffer more. Apes, other mammals, birds etc. follow in that order. - Concerning your examples from Mars etc., let's wait and see once we are there and hope that one day we will not encounter a superior species that has its own philosophy of "we aliens first". Although they very likely will have it.

Reply to Chis:

"Wikipedia tells me that: "For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world.""

Schopenhauer was a very acute observer and -looking at human history- his conclusions are certainly to a degree justified.You cannot change history retrospectively. But how can we modify these futile etc. actions? By his philosophy of compassion, and not by incantations of human self interest. After all, if we put humanity first, who will guarantee that we will not put our own person first? Which of course, is quite natural.

Obviously, a few aphorisms cannot give a complete picture of his philosophy (nor can a Wikipedia article do this). Therefore, I recommend you read his texts yourself. Start with the Parerga and Paralipomena. Schopenhauer is a brilliant writer and very amusing!!

And a last word for Spiros: humans are indeed natural, but they have something which no animal has (at least not o the same degree), the power of reasoning, foresight, and compassion.

I shall do as you advise, Klaus: sometime tomorrow will find me in the library checking out the Parerga and Paralipomena!

It does seem to me, though, that any philosophy which takes a bleak view of human nature- as the blogosphere seems united in believing Schopenhauer's philosophy does- must logically suggest that we appeal to self-interest (as Spiro's philosophy does) rather than a higher standard of morality (viz. your 'philosophy of conpassion') if we want to achieve anything.