Regarding the April 10, 2008 quote (in the "pavid" word email), I have some thoughts about how it relates directly to an earlier distributed word (speciesism; March 18, 2008). Thoughts below-->

"Nothing is more humbling than to look with a strong magnifying glass at an insect so tiny that the naked eye sees only the barest speck and to discover that nevertheless it is sculpted and articulated and striped with the same care and imagination as a zebra. Apparently it does not occur to nature whether or not a creature is within our range of vision, and the suspicion arises that even the zebra was not designed for our benefit."
-Rudolf Arnheim, psychologist and author (1904-2007)


Arnheim's thoughts dovetail especially well with the definition of speciesism:

speciesism (SPEE-shee-ziz-uhm, -see-ziz-uhm) noun

The assumption of superiority of humans over other animal species,
especially to justify their exploitation.

I do believe that people generally feel as if this place (Earth) were "put" here for them and that everything residing here is for their pleasure or at their mercy. Behaving as well-mannered guests would be more suitable….and, sustainable.

I agree, and much speciesism is rooted in the Bible, which is a topic non-grata (to coin a poorly constructed phrase).

Genesis 2:15 "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

In the beginning, no less...

Thank you both (Maven & twosleepy) for some insight. To add, I must include some words about a few major contributors to the degradation of this blue marble we call Earth (at least of it's ability to support life): Materialism, Consumerism, Capitalism. It seems that, generally, these (and possibly other factors) tend to support and feed off of each other ultimately leading to a situation where this planet will no longer be able to provide livable conditions for the various existing forms of life here. So sad...and irresponsible.

And, because it fits so well with this discussion, I feel compelled to include the statement that Agent Smith makes while interrogating Neo in The Matrix (movie):

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

While this is quoted from a movie, it does hold relevance. Humans do, in fact, extract and waste beyond sustainable limits like no other living species on Earth. Yes, there are many of us who do not follow unsustainable practices to extremes (hence, sustainable living) but the amount who do follow unsustainable practices far outweigh the former.

while there are many here on the board that likely could agree with much of what is being written, I suggest that it be taken elsewhere, or at a minimum to Private Messages, as we have tried very hard to stay away from discussions that are rooted in the political and religious realms.

"You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. "

*All* species do this unless they are kept in check. That's one reason why populations in the wild fluctuate.

Sorry--I guess I was being subtle...Topic non grata means unwelcome discussion.

Can we discuss this subject while avoiding politics and religion?
It seems possible to me, but...

I heard you, just trying to amplify the message a bit. :¬ )

I can definitely respect other's wishes to avoid these discussions. For the record though, the intent was not to stir up a religious argument but rather, discuss taking care of the planet where we all live. Was hoping to find some folks interested in relating the word and quotes originally quoted from Wordsmith.org to real-world issues, which is what I thought was one of the main premises of the A Word A Day distribution (to spark thought about "important" matters).

If I've overstepped the boundaries of this board, please accept my apologies. But please understand that avoiding issues like this doesn't help to get people into critical-thinking-mode and I believe Critical Thinking is exactly one of the principles Mr. Anu Garg thrives on to keep up such an interesting ~14 year endeavor (would obviously need to ask him personally to know for sure). The words and quotes in his compilations clearly tend to be part of a genre of worldly issues and serious matters, not solely for entertainment purposes.

or maybe not..

"Ah remember his filthy bearded face twisted with terror, his pavid hands trembling, his pathetic sobbing."

-joe (they can't all matter) friday

What are you quoting, tsuwm?

And welcome to you, Cook. We do try to avoid discussions such as yours -- while worthy and interesting and important -- based on past experiences, where more than one such topic has led to, well, a flame war. Our lovely administrator, Jackie, can splain you better than I can.

>What are you quoting, tsuwm?

today's citation, for pavid!

-ron o.

oops

Words like 'Speciesism' contain an inherent invitation to political-philosophical-religious discussion, since the word is coined by people with a particular world view who are pushing a particular philosophical agenda. Despite our best attempts to play with words as neutral, lexical, objective things, in Real Life they have no real meaning apart from their social context. Speciesism is a loaded word. Its meaning goes to the heart of what it means to be human, which is an area of controversy and debate in which religious beliefs are fundamental to the view one takes - there is no neutral ground.

Discussing 'Speciesim' without mention of beliefs regarding the nature of Humanity and our relationship to the whole scheme of things in the universe would be like trying to discuss the word 'padre' without being allowed to talk about Christianity, or the word 'cadre' without being allowed to mention the Communist Party.

On the wider issue of religious and/or political discussion generally, other special interest forums have sections entitled something like "General Chit-Chat" or "Off Topic" where people can post things not directly related to the main reason for the forum. Do we have something like that lurking somewhere? I haven't been round long enough to know.

I thought so: speciesism was a word offered by the most recent guest wordsmith. Who, according to Anu, generated far and away the most angry responses he's ever had. Aside from the fact that we come here to discuss words, language and the joys/questions thereof, I think we can take a hint from those responses. The world has enough unhappiness and problems; let's keep this a place as free from them as we can; a refuge, in other words. There are plenty of online and real-world places where we can moan and groan.

Yes, Pook, we do sometimes go off-topic, but.

Well, thanks to all for taking the time to add comments to this topic and to explain forum etiquette (as I'm not a frequent forum participant). All feedback is well-received and appreciated.

Regards,
Dan

I don't think you can end a sentence with but. But you can start one with and. Although you can't end one with and. Or can you but? hmm.

Ellipsis points expand the possibilities, I find. But it's tempting to let the point at which my words run out become an ellipsis.

Pardon me, all, for drifting into punctuation.

That is a lovely turn of phrase!

I don't think you can end a sentence with but. I got that from my dearly beloved NZ friend. He's one of the best writers I know. I wish he'd come back here.

I agree 100%. The concept of speciesism is a politcal concept and you can't discuss the word without getting into the politics of it, unless to simply add, as I wish to, that is is an ungainly construction as far as words go. Whether or not it is considered proper in the realm of more formal linguistics, I'd be happier with the word "specism."

By the way I believe that elephants do have a tendency to destroy an area through over use, necessitating a move to greener pastures from time to time. Of course, that is not say that they are a disease upon the earth. I'd rather see elephant damage than a shopping center.

So...what you're saying is that you think 'speciesism' is a specious concept?