Josh Donlan has joined Shifting Baselines. If you don't know who Donlan is, read Re-wilding North America. A few months ago I suggested that biologists who argue against mass extinction on basically aesthetic or normative grounds need to remember that these are distinct from consequentialist homocentric and professional rationales (i.e., we must preserve for medical research and we must preserve so we can study evolution).
I think Donlan does a good job being up front about his normative biases. I tend to share those beliefs and the values which inform those beliefs. I know that some might balk at the title and find the associations negative; but I think we need to get real here. Religion is many things, and no one can deny the emotional power and consequential nature of anything for which people are willing to die for, and to kill for. Political movements, even environmental movements, can emerge and develop in the same manner, for example, Earth First!. I don't agree with the terrorism of Earth First!, or the anti-humanism of Deep Ecology. I do put people first, but in this case the people who I identify which are those who are moved and drawn to the awesome power of ancient forests, majestic escarpments and the raw energy of great beasts. I think E. O. Wilson goes too far in terms of the Biophilia hypothesis; there are people who just don't grok nature. There are good and honest people who disagree with me in terms of these priorities, that's fine by me. If I can't make a consequentialist argument there won't be any possible convincing. At that point we're talking animal conflict here and a clash of values that will only be resolved by the democratic process. No point in arguing or discussing, just feed the infidels to the animals and let god sort it out.
Razib writes:
"Some people just don't grok nature."
Too true! And how did this happen? Obviously an urban/suburban lifestyle and 24/7 TV & video games play a part, but there seems to be something else going on here too. There are plenty of people who come from such an artificial environment and still develop an affinity for the natural world around them. But the vast majority of them just don't have any horse sense - and display such obtuse ignorance of the natural world.
Ocasionally I play host to groups of schoolchildren that visit my farm. Most of these kids are only about 200 year or so removed from their hunter-gatherer ancestors, but only a very few of them 'grok' animals. Those that do - definite do - and they have an instinctive feel for critters and what they're likely to do, but those that don't are like complete Asperger's syndrome cases - they can't read the most obvious signals the animals are sending them. I see the same divide among other kids - including those who have had the advantage of travel and exposure to the wider world. Some just don't get it - while others immediately intuit what's going on. When I'm tempted to divide the world into two groups, it's basically along the lines of, "come the apocalypse, how long would you last?" and the fault line neatly divides between those who 'get' the natural world and exhibit some sense of awareness of their surroundings and the majority that don't.
regarding variation in biophilia, there is a more general point about instincts, that they aren't necessarily fixed by experience. for example, consider a phobia like automatic blink response in aversion to foreign objects. first time contact wearers find it difficult to get lenses in because the eyes automatically shut. long time wearers have an inhibited and less automatic response. they can easily hold a finger to an eyeball and more calmly remove unintended foreign objects; however consider overlap with other phobias like bodily integrity or fear of insects. if a small insect flies into an eye the control developed through learning is overriden and it's difficult to will the eye open in opposition to the threat
this extends to psychological variables like biophilia, although the effects of behavioral variation on the reward is probably weaker. a simple example of behavior that might produce differences is exposure. greater exposure might enhance the reward and in turn the value attached. that said, it seems very unlikely that biophilia is inhibited to much variation as its effect is pervasive. there aren't many people who don't enjoy a beautiful vista. hence the discussion of values, in particular ordering of values; however this isn't simple a case of projection of valuings, it affects how we carve up the world. from the introduction of "Divided Natures" (2002):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Anypf7r-wB0C
----------------
"One nature seems to suppose that satisfying material interests is the pre-eminent need of an organic being. Another regards spiritual expression as more fundamental. Some natures presume that a life lived in accordance with truth requires devotion to scientific norms of objectivity. Others see truth in more poetic intuitions of wholeness and interconnectedness... it also becomes evident that our understandings of nature correlate to equally divided views of our own subjectivity."
----------------
in "Divided Natures", one theme is that nature proper becomes the other. it's important to separate nature proper from biophilia in general because we do enjoy our gardens and green space regardless of urbanization, whereas nature proper becomes an inconvenient object at a distance separate from humanity. the moral dimensions of objects at a distance is diminished. this is reflected in philosophical dilemmas that draw out a local bias in moral judgements
over and above that, consider the competing values and processes. suburbs reflect these competing interests. pick any individual at random, most will think there isn't enough green space. that same individual also desires proximity to work and other people.. like everyone else. local governments place value on improvements to quality of life... while concerned about maximizing revenue, among strong economic interests to develop that capture government.
extend this to nature proper. we tend to destroy and disturb even in the desire to preserve and enjoy. more abstract ideas like species preservation get lost in sheer overpopulation, it doesn't matter if the values of most are benign and thoughtful to that end