First off, here are some definitions of sound. (from dictionary.com)
| 1. | the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. |
| 2. | mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. |
| 3. | the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause: the sound of music. |
| 4. | any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance: all kinds of sounds. |
The anthropocentric answer:
No. A falling tree will create vibrations, but it is not classified as "sound" unless someone is there to translate the vibrational signals and send it to the brain. Definitions 1,3, and 4 above would all imply that someone would need to be present for a "sound" to exist (they all talk of organs and auditory effects, characteristics that only living creatures have and are able to process). Definition 2 gives an approximate vibration speed at which "sound" is created, but someone still needs to be there to translate such vibrations, or the vibrations will remain vibrations, nothing more.
Is the anthropocentric answer overly simplified?
In questions like this, do we take into consideration, for example, other entities that were present when the tree fell? We are pretty certain that animals can translate vibrations into sound just as humans can, and some can even do it better, so why not take them into account? Where do they come in when thinking about this age-old question? This opens up a whole new philosophical can of worms.
The connection to environmental progress:
Most people are living in the anthropocentric answer. It's simple, relatively straightforward, and most importantly it makes sense. When you add in the question of whether animals should be an important part of the equation, the analysis gets complicated and questions are raised that there may not even be an answer for. Furthermore, debates and arguments arising from questions of ethics begin to hinder progress.
When we argue in favor of a conservation strategy, we need to focus on people and what they want rather than focus on what the animals "want" or should have. Ideally, if it's done correctly, both people and animals will be better off. I believe that too often the leading conservation rationale given to the general public puts science and environmental ethics in the spotlight when most are too busy worrying about the economy or what's for dinner. However, this is NOT saying that we should give everyone what they think they want or give up if our environmental objectives are not what people are concerned with. Like clever parents getting their children motivated about an activity, we need to phrase what we want to appeal to the needs and/or wants of the general public rather than to our own scientific egos. Science should be an important part of decision-making when it comes to matters of conservation, however, instead of focusing on experiments and controls, we should focus on how the conservation effort in question will help the people. This could include (but is definitely not limited to) an increase in physical or mental well-being, an increase in recreational options for both them and their posterity, an altruistic sense of pride, a boost in economy from ecotourism, etc.
The question of ethics:
Is it ethical to leave out the animals from discussion when it is their homes on the line? I believe that we should not, but we should not make it the focus when talking to the general public. People who feel very strongly about this ethical question should know that other people may not hold the same values. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in order to help "save the animals" sometimes we need to take a step back and argue not from the animals' standpoint, but through the eyes of the public. It is when we try to force our ethics on other people that we are pushed away and ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment