The U.S. Government should create a new federal Department with a cabinet level director that would research and apply ecological economic scientifically rational methods in the United States regarding sustainability, renewability and the elimination of species extinction. Presently politicians are functionally clueless on ecological economic procedures. By the end of this century Edmund Wilson speculated that as many as half of the existing species will be extinct. Human life is part of a complex and interrelated biological web that enables life to exist. The reduction of species also reduces the prospects for human survival, yet I like wild-life just because its a living thing, and thats a good enough reason not to exterminate it.
Sci-American Article on the Mass Extinction and Possble Steps to Arrest It
Science means knowledge and philosophy means love of wisdom--so is it wise to be reticent about promoting a new U.S. Department of Ecological Economics to Avert Mass Extinction?
Ethics, social philosophy, politics and science may be considered disciplines for philosophers to consider, yet if the abstract considerations haven't any relation to the world of applications of theory is the knowledge relevant as philosophy? Mustn’t the love of wisdom be founded upon the ability to understand and address issues in the world more so than in construction of a priori systems of symbols?
It perhaps isn't requisite for a philosophy of science with credibility to have a Lovelockian Gaia world-view paradigm of life.Yet neither is it reasonable to omit life on Earth as a unity that should not be reduced in quality or quantity without a good reason
While politicians and those practicing Darwinian versions of capitalism (It is possible to delimit capitalist criteria such that it serves the people of a democracy as well as capitalists. Capitalism in-itself does not evolve the highest, most intelligent or useful social structure)have insufficient scientific intelligence regarding the state of world ecosystems, the ecosystems continue to be abused and species extirpated. Philosophers of science should add as a fundamental instructional goal the present Earth paradigm of eco-decline and possible remedies. Some have written that the ecosystem is the economy. Others have developed Ecological Economic text books to help teach the basics of an economic policy founded within criteria of habitat and species conservation with a different value theory foundation cognizant of the worth of environmmental services to humanity.
A philosophy of science program that does not include the topic of the value of life would seem to miss the woods for the trees I think. A way that axiology can be brought into government economic planning with a change from a gold or consumerist standard to a conservation and sustainability basis is a challenge for discovery. Several recognize the inertia if ecological amorality prevalent in global business. Without philosophical direction the programmatic construction of synthetic scientific and economic theory politically formed may not soon develop.
In the enlightenment era scientific and philosophical elites did at least provide books read by at least some of the politically empowered class. In modern America economic over-specialization and the globalization of corporatism has driven many ordinary citizens far from opportunities to meaningfully support ecological economic reformation in the nation. A federal Department of Ecological Economic Science might be able to create a politically empowered organization that has a plethora of ecological economic prospects ready to go for the administrative and congressional branches of government. In the present structural phenomena concentrated wealth may adversely affect the motivation to change existing methods of business with ecologically deleterious practice.
Science means knowledge and philosophy means love of wisdom--so is it wise to be reticent about promoting a new U.S. Department of Ecological Economics to Avert Mass Extinction?
Ethics, social philosophy, politics and science may be considered disciplines for philosophers to consider, yet if the abstract considerations haven't any relation to the world of applications of theory is the knowledge relevant as philosophy? Mustn’t the love of wisdom be founded upon the ability to understand and address issues in the world more so than in construction of a priori systems of symbols?
It perhaps isn't requisite for a philosophy of science with credibility to have a Lovelockian Gaia world-view paradigm of life.Yet neither is it reasonable to omit life on Earth as a unity that should not be reduced in quality or quantity without a good reason
While politicians and those practicing Darwinian versions of capitalism (It is possible to delimit capitalist criteria such that it serves the people of a democracy as well as capitalists. Capitalism in-itself does not evolve the highest, most intelligent or useful social structure)have insufficient scientific intelligence regarding the state of world ecosystems, the ecosystems continue to be abused and species extirpated. Philosophers of science should add as a fundamental instructional goal the present Earth paradigm of eco-decline and possible remedies. Some have written that the ecosystem is the economy. Others have developed Ecological Economic text books to help teach the basics of an economic policy founded within criteria of habitat and species conservation with a different value theory foundation cognizant of the worth of environmmental services to humanity.
A philosophy of science program that does not include the topic of the value of life would seem to miss the woods for the trees I think. A way that axiology can be brought into government economic planning with a change from a gold or consumerist standard to a conservation and sustainability basis is a challenge for discovery. Several recognize the inertia if ecological amorality prevalent in global business. Without philosophical direction the programmatic construction of synthetic scientific and economic theory politically formed may not soon develop.
In the enlightenment era scientific and philosophical elites did at least provide books read by at least some of the politically empowered class. In modern America economic over-specialization and the globalization of corporatism has driven many ordinary citizens far from opportunities to meaningfully support ecological economic reformation in the nation. A federal Department of Ecological Economic Science might be able to create a politically empowered organization that has a plethora of ecological economic prospects ready to go for the administrative and congressional branches of government. In the present structural phenomena concentrated wealth may adversely affect the motivation to change existing methods of business with ecologically deleterious practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment