Skip to main content
Literary Dose #5
It is obvious that both ecological ethics and spiritually inspired holism require a change in world-view. A harmony with nature, the avoidance of pollution, the discussion of the possibility of all life having its own intrinsic value, self-realization rather than economic growth and consumerism, appropriate technology, recycling and thrift, and the organization of human communities on a regional basis, with great attention paid to minorities, are all found at one point or another in the literature of advocacy. Some, however, have seen this as reformist rather than radical and hence an insufficient response to today's problems. They argue that many of these measures accept the dominant paradigm of humanist instrumentality over nature and are only concerned with tidying up the edges and avoiding the worst visible excesses. A more radical position is called Deep Ecology and is largely associated with the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess...
A platform for deep ecology (adapted from A. Naess, "Deep ecology and ultimate premises," The Ecologist 18 (4/5) 1988, 128-131.):
1. The value of non-human life is independent of the usefulness of the non-human world as resources.
2. The diversity of life forms has a value in itself and humans may reduce this vitality only to satisfy vital needs.
3. The flourishing of non-human life requires a diminution of the size of the human population.
4. The increasing manipulation of the non-human world must be reversed by the adoption of different economic, technological and ideological structures.
5. The aim of such changes would be a greater experience of the connectedness of all things and an enhancement of the quality of life rather than an attachment to material standards of living.
6. Those who agree with this have an obligation to join in the attempt to bring about the necessary changes.
- I. G. Simmons from
Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment (1993)
John,
ReplyDeleteYou have written about Deep Ecology, Consumerism, Technology, Industrialization and Environmental Spirituality. In this context I want to post a part from my article which examines the impact of Speed, Overstimulation, Consumerism and Industrialization on our Minds and environment. Please read.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
Fast visuals/ words make slow emotions extinct.
Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys emotional circuits.
A fast (large) society cannot feel pain / remorse / empathy.
A fast (large) society will always be cruel to Animals/ Trees/ Air/ Water/ Land and to Itself.
To read the complete article please follow any of these links :
PlanetSave
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt
sushil_yadav
wow. don't agree with much of that sushil, but i do appreciate the sentiment.
ReplyDeletedeep ecology is similar to gaian theory? sounds quite the same but more romantic. i am reading now "the revenge of gaia" by lovelock so am seeing all green discussions lately through his biases...
thing i like about lovelock is that while he advocates understanding of earth as richly interconnected and our actions as (often) foolish in light of same, he does not take an overly dogmatic approach. which is important if we want to make a real change in the real world...
sushil - Your approach parallels some architectural criticism today advanced by people like Nikos Salingaros. He asserts that deconstruction and other approaches to contemporary architecture that abandon traditional means of expression have the effect of destabilizing us psychologically. So basically, a building by Daniel Libeskind will make us tense and anxious, though one by Christopher Alexander or one (or many together) built many years ago will keep our mind sound.
ReplyDeleteThis is oversimplified, but I think you see the parallel. In both that and your case, it's a tough egg to swallow, especially when you assert that cities have no role in saving the environment, nor science (though when science is used solely towards technology by industrial and financial interests, as you indicate, it's not as helpful as when it's left to its own devices). Cities can take on many forms, and ones in the future may function much differently than today, hopefully more in tune with natural processes. But with a population of over 6 billion, it's quite a stretch to say that cities can't and won't play a part, unless you're implying that the population needs to substantially decrease.
will - I.G. Simmons mentions Lovelock and Gaia many times in the book I quoted, to the effect that he sees it as the best thing going. Even with acceptance of the Gaian hypothesis, the way we treat the earth isn't prescribed, as people might continue to see a break between us and nature, seeing the world as resources to be tapped or even as something for us to watch over, the latter probably leading to many confrontations over how that's done. But for humans to see themselves as part of the planet, and not separate, means a massive reconsideration of things like Christianity, which defines our relationship to the earth as other, where we are the stewards and can use the earth as we see fit. It's such a prevalent view that it's hard to see it changing, though as we experience the effects of our actions on a global scale we might not have a choice but to see how we're ingrained in the earth. Hopefully it won't come to that.
John,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading the article and expressing your views on the topic.
Two things that have destroyed environment are - overpopulation and overconsumerism. Science, Technology and Industrialization are responsible for both. World population was only 800 million in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus. When man made medicines/ antibiotics he created disaster. In the absence of Science, Technology, Industrialization/ Industrial Revolution these two problems would not exist.
When people live in multi-storied buildings they are hanging in air. They are not connected to earth, soil, land, animals, trees and birds. People living in the midst of cement, concrete, metal, plastic and glass are not connected to nature/ mother earth.
sushil_yadav
John,
ReplyDeleteMan can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, aeroplane, rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.
Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.
sushil_yadav
it is dangerous to over-romanticise the forest...or any other part of the natural world
ReplyDeleteas a flip-side to gaia we should also remember that the earth as a natural system is not static, not benevolent, and not exactly a complete/finished entity (...that we are wrecking by our stupidity). there are other systems that work, have worked before, and will work later, at least for a little while. unhappily, many of them are toxic to life as we currently know it. i think that is why lovelock tells us not to be seduced by our role as "stewards" of the earth...it assumes a static world that does't quite exist, and probably does not need our protection, at least not in that sense...
on other other hand the things we are doing to the world are dangerous and need to me managed.
gaia is useful because it helps us to recognise that climate is only one of the disasters looming on our near horizon...
john, that idea that the christian view of the world is a cause for bad environmental viewpoint (as stewards and rightful heirs of earth) is one i was taught in high-school back in the 1980's ( ! ), and while i believed it back then i have since travelled the world, or most of it anyway, enough to realise that chrisitians do not hold a monopoly on stupid eco-choices. asians do much the same as americans and canadians and europeans, and they don't do it cuz god told them it was ok. i have since come to see that viewpoint as one aimed at christians mostly out of dislike and not for any kind of supportable reason. i was surprised that lovelock repeated it in his latest book. not all christians believe the same as mother theresa (that the environment can take care of itself), and many buddhists will happily start up a strip mine...
i am not for christianity, but am not so happy to see christians painted so easily with that particular brush. feels like a red herring somehow...
On the Christian/Buddhist tangent, 2 points:
ReplyDelete1) I remember reading that the Christian view of nature, at one point in history at least, was that the natural world - the wilderness - was dark and frightening, something to be tamed.
2) In defense of Asians, it's difficult to take the argument there without acknowledging ideologies akin to manifest destiny, and the fact that most of Buddhist Asia was historically colonized by Christian nations of the West who wanted what?... natural resources!
eric - 1) At one point, yes. That view had changed by the 19th century, with Thoreau, an appreciation of nature as something of beauty, and the designation of Yosemite as a wildland park and Yellowstone as a National Park. Though even before these two views was, I think, the view that the wilderness was to be avoided, as it was the place of the devil, a place of evil (though by definition God was there, too). In the most recent two cases (taming, admiring), the wilderness is a human construct, the anti-thesis of Deep Ecology's premise of valuing non-human life as independent and worthwhile on its own terms.
ReplyDelete2) I'll take your word on that; I'm not learned in that bit of information. It seems to me that's the prevalent view of nature at the moment, as resources to be tapped. Even preservation of certain areas (the Amazon rain forest) is rooted in what humans get out of it (oxygen and medicine to survive).