72 comments on Towards 'The Greatest Good'?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
72 comments on Towards 'The Greatest Good'?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- campfire at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
The Oil Drum: Local archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
What is "good"? Most human answers would be considered environmentally sociopathic to an intelligent alien. Environmental realities can seem 'evil' on their face to us humans. So maybe agreeing what constitutes "good" would be a "good" place to start, and good luck with that...
And what of precautionary principles and resilience? "Greatest" could thus perhaps use a little defining as well, since on its face it might imply being at the utter bleeding edge of some yield or tradeoff.
I think we do need to question the tacit notion that it is optimal for human flesh to constitute the majority individual-species biomass. Increasingly, we are the forest, and perhaps it's in that context that forestry can be most informative to our predicament.
Inasmuch as the "greatest good" must necessarily be a human value judgement, perhaps we would be well-advised to just apply the principles of forestry to the currently overgrown monoculture of plague apes.
I defy anyone to define "good" except self-referentially. With only a tiny bit of experience, we discover that we can't even define "good" -- in either material or spiritual terms -- for our spouses, parents, or children. How then, are we to decide what is "good" for Ethiopia or Gaza or Iraq -- let alone the entire human race, and certainly not the whole planet.
Perhaps we should start from a position of humility, not some ex armchair-cathedra above-all-the-fray position.
If we get off our computer screens and out into the world, we will see things that need to be done, right there in front of our eyes, and we will be forced to make value judgments and take action at a local level that might have some chance of doing some local "good".
Enough already, of trying to sort out what is best for everybody, or to "save the planet." That is either arrogant, or stupid. I try to follow Gary Snyder -- "Find your place on the planet. Dig in, and take responsibility from there. "
IMO
Of course you can define "good". If you can't define "good" then you can't define "bad".
Fast and slow, hot and cold, hard and soft, sweet and sour, big and small, high and low, dumb and smart, faith and doubt, heaven and hell.
What is a definition for any of those...............opinions vary because we are not all the same.
Religion needs hell and the devil to be able to define heaven and god, without a bad place how can you know what a good place is or could be. The badder a place can be made to look the better the good place can seem.
Everything is not black and white. We need relativity and opinions. That is what has developed human language.
Our human nature and personalities means we see things differently. We need consensus to tackle a purpose. That takes us from rigid laws of the ten commandments to the miasma of gray in law we have today and jury panel's.
Psychopathy and vested interests is what prevents a consensus on what is good for the planet.
No one wants to give up more, suffer more or die sooner than the next person. The same applies to communities and countries.
If we could all TRUST in the greater good..............