680
Nagaland (above 1000 meters) are perpetually bathed in the soaking updrafts from
the Bay of Bengal, the world’s epicenter of the great damp. In its heart are thousands
of endemic species vying for space and time with (as of 2020) 3.6 million humans
who, to date, have seen fit to muster no more than six protected areas covering an
expanse of less than 713 square kilometers.
The through story of Sorites Paradox tracks with these percentages and
proportions.
At what point, however imprecisely, does biodiversity richness devolve to the
depauperate? The tension enshrouding the lifespan mirrors, again, human nature,
just as the majority of human conflicts occur within the 36 terrestrial biologic
hotspots. Computational ecology is all about human behavior. We are mere bystanders to every natural occurrence, lamenting the reality that our involvements exact
only peril and the ruinous (Fig. 74.1).
One of those scientific reserves in northeastern India comprises no more than 4.8
acres, the Baghmara Pitcher Plant Sanctuary. This tiny hub of endemism is emblematic of the crisis of numbers that must inform ecological epistemology
4
and the
corresponding protective reflexes, polysyllogisms wherein the chain of premises
collapses through subsequent betrayal of the original circumstances. Hope is undermined, just as the numbers, as equated with biological gradations, turn toward
vagueness, failing their initial promise.
5
Sorites, from the Demotic Greek, σωρείτης (sōreítēs, as in soros, heap), has invited
the principal fundaments of this breakdown, wherein species become endangered,
thought processes experience an incremental desuetude akin to cumulative loss.
Writes Hyde at the conclusion of 5.3, “The Inscrutability of Reference,” “As with
earlier problems concerning the role of existential quantification in supervaluationism,
one can debate whether this is a consequence to be embraced or an untoward consequence undermining the theory being advanced”.
6
In either case, ecologically, there is
a breakdown leading toward illogic, murky edges, and biological disruption (Fig. 74.2).
4 See Saikia, Purabi & Khan, Mohammed (2017). “Floristic diversity of Northeast India and its
conservation”. Plant Diversity in the Himalaya Hotspot Region. Central University of Jharkhand,
Dr. Hari Singh Gour University. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh (pub.). pp.  1023–1036.
Upadhaya (January 2015). “Structure and Floristic Composition of Subtropical Broad-Leaved
Humid Forest of Cherapunjee in Meghalaya, Northeast India”. School of Technology, North
Eastern Hill University. Journal of Biodiversity & Forestry Management. Anwaruddin Choudhury
(October 2003). “Meghalaya’s Vanishing Wilderness”. Sanctuary Asia
5 See Collins, Rory (2018). “On the Borders of Vagueness and the Vagueness of Borders” (PDF).
Vassar College Journal of Philosophy. 5: 32. See also, Goguen, J. A. (1969). “The Logic of Inexact
Concepts”. Synthese. 19 (3–4): 325–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485654. JSTOR 20114646.
6 See  – Bobzien, Susanne, 2010, “Higher-order Vagueness, Radical Unclarity, and Absolute
Agnosticism ”, Philosophers Imprint, 10(10): 1–30; Cook, Roy T., 2002, “Vagueness and
Mathematical Precision”, Mind, 111(442): 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175369; Graff,
Delia (see also Fara, Delia Graff), 2000, “Shifting Sands: An Interest-Relative Theory of
Vagueness”, Philosophical Topics, 28(1): 45–81. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20002816;
Hyde, Dominic, 1997, “From Heaps and Gaps to Heaps of Gluts”, Mind, 106(424): 440–460.
https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.424.641; Keefe, Rosanna and Peter Smith (eds.), 1996,
Vagueness: A Reader, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; McGee, Vann, 1991, Truth, Vagueness and
74 Ecological Epistemology
Précédent

- 666/867

Suivant