Wednesday, September 30, 2009

What I'm Certain of--I think??!!??

Taxes, death; change.
As a 62 + year-old skeptic and agnostic, and as a biologist/ecologist who was (somewhat) educated in the sciences and scientific method, ecological principles and processes--I recognize the uncertainty of dynamic earth systems. I am humbled by virtue of my/our ignorance, by the virtues of ignorance , and my/our extremely limited capacity to learn. ... I know that I/we know so very little when consideration is given to what there is to know--and to the complex and fluid processes of the earth/the universe.

Therefore I strongly believe a tenet for resilience and sustainability for sociological/ecological systems is that of possessing caution and tentativeness--and the necessity of adherence to the precautionary principle .

For these (and other) reasons I strongly believe:
  • Might doesn't make right. ... And there should be mechanisms to reduce individual and collective "power and might" and to move toward a more equitable situation.
  • Power should be diffused to the point that we all realize our right to sustainable livelihoods, good nutrition and exercise, and preventative and curative health care.
  • Salary/income caps need to be implemented.
  • War is never the answer!
  • "Killing to fix" is (generally) not the answer. Give the system (body, community, agricultural system, ecosystem, country, world) a chance to "Naturally" heal. ... Don't play God.
  • Unilateral disarmament is needed--and right now!
  • Capital punishment is wrong.
  • Rampant artificial change though capitalism, consumerism, industrialism, informationism (or any other "ism") should be strongly/tightly regulated.
  • Economic growth, consumption by humans and population growth must be controlled.
  • Monotheistic (Catholic, Protestant Christian, Muslim, Jewish) God's Will is very dangerous.
  • Small, decentralized, participatory systems are beautiful.

1 comment:

Jim Taylor said...

"Via Negativa" (also known as the Apophatic Way) was a theological method prevalent in the medieval period. It suggested that we could only talk about God via the negative, what God is not.

The belief suggested that we could know some thing(s) about God through what God was not, but there would always be Mystery connected to whatever we might think we know. This was due, in part, to the Otherness of God and the epistemological distance that God maintains from us.

This could lead one to epistemological humility if one were so inclined.

I agree that any epistemological certainty (usually found, predominantly, in fundamentalist, monotheistic religions)can be dangerous. How that certainty is applied will demonstrate the immediacy of that danger!