送交者: mangolasi 于 2005-3-08, 09:02:36:
回答: 环保的目的正在于开发---答EYU兄 由 自如 于 2005-3-07, 18:29:28:
I am not arguing for "敬畏", in the original sense of the world, since I found this side of this discussion do more harm than good for the cause of enviornmentalists. With friends like this, we barely need any other enemy.
One of human being's problem is that climate is very complicated, and currently, our understanding of whether and how harms are done has yet caught up with the speed of our change of world. Unfortunately, reversing the harm is very difficult in many apsects. And the largest victim of a destroyed Bazilian rainforest might be the peasants in Ethiopia.
So there are plenty of argument for being conservative (in the original sense of the word). Mottos like "Let's rely on science", unfortunately, sound empty to me. Of course, science is the only way (at least to us who soly relies it to know the world) to evaluate the options. Unfortunately, that's people who make decision. Decision means that, in some sense, you are choosing how to be wrong. We do need evidence. Question is, what degree of evidence do we need before we change a certain bit of the enviornment? We are not asking for not changing. We are asking for convincing rationale to change. Like, please provide more evidence on the link between civets and SARS before you kill all of them. Like, please reexamine energy policy and support solar energy research before rushing to drill Alaska.
I don't blame a group of people for destroying a precious forest for some petty benefit simply because there is no other way to feed themselves, but this doesn't mean the existence of this phenomena is justified. Nowadays, it should be our shame to let people in such desperate situation. As a whole, human beings have the technology and wealth to ensure basic need for ALL people. And many satisfactions from live don't require much natural resource. We do need some energy to listen to a CD, but it harms the environment less than cooking 10 birds with 10 zithers, yet more pleasant.
Some people suffers from privation not because they need more resource, but their current resource (usually crude material) are unfairly priced (but don't take me wrong, I am against those Oxfram style "fair trade"). Nevertheless, there is way to avoid choosing between "煮鹤焚琴" or "饿死" (can these two really be called "choice"?). And people happens to endow with better fortune (locally) have the responsibility to avoid this senario of choosing. That's the reason I could not agree more with EYU on "热衷于“开荒”的人大概懒得进行创造性思维，。。。，根本不会或者不屑重新审视已经“开荒”的地方还有提高的潜力，还有节约的潜力". "热衷于“开荒”的人" are not refering to those actually doing "开荒", but those of lucky us who asking "why not 开荒?".
So the "development first" mentality, innocuous per se, is actually fostering intellectual laziness. Poor? then exploit. But I know, co-ordinating people's interest is always so difficult, if possible at all...But convincing people that the change of the forest 5000 km away does matter to them might be the first step to make people act more wisely...I don't know.
And we've got some many disagreement between those of us believing we have only this earth (in the forseable future) and death is permanant. And we got some Christians believing there is a better world waiting for them and this one is only transitting one...