Earth Words
Something I read today:
"Environmentalists find inherent value in nature. The statement that 'any person who wants to breathe clean air ' cares about nature is false. I care about such things, but only because I care about humans, not nature. To me, nature has no inherent value. The only reason to maintain a beautiful planet would be purely aesthetic (which is of value to humans). This may be a controversial viewpoint, but it's true. Environmentalism is dead because is is a shallow viewpoint. We need to a support a movement that is pro-human, and one that encompasses all human values."
Well, what do you think, does nature have an inherent value? Beyond or behind this guy's assertion that his opinion is factually true, there is a good point. Do I/we value the earth because it, in itself, deserves to be preserved or because we want to preserve the value that it has for us? Isn't it odd how, if you actually think about it, the latter choice is the easiest one to make an argument for? It is true that, for most of us, we want to preserve the earth and its resources for our own use and enjoyment. I don't even know if I have feelings beyond that.
However, Christians have a good argument for the former. The God of the Bible commanded that we all things we under our dominion and that (although some will argue this point) we are to be stewards of the earth. We are to care for it. So, I guess, God places an inherent value in nature. Or do you think I am wrong, does God only want them to be stewards for their own benefit?
Also, you could try arguing that the Bible doesn't actually say that, but be prepared. I am setting this up as a discussion, if no one discusses, then you will never know and I will be sad for you.
Hehe, you know I love you since I took the time to type up that whole quote from a magazine.
"Wildness reminds us what it means to be human, what we are connected to rather than what we are seperate from."
Peace.
posted by Logan Clark at 9/26/2005 06:43:00 PM
9 Comments:
You pose that as if it were an either/or situation. We can have our pets and eat them too.
9:52 AM
Ha, interesting. I tend to think that the whole debate is futile as the human race will probably be extinct in a couple million years anyway. It is concieted for us to think we are so powerful to save or destroy the world. We are insignificant. We mean nothing in the course of the earth's lifetime. The dinosaurs meant nothing...they were about the equivilent to a week in the earth's history. We are the equivilent to a second in the earth's history. As in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "It wasn't in what Kurtz himself owned--that was a trifle--the thing was to know what owned him, how many forces of darkness had claimed him for thier own" Honestly, I feel that if we give into the greed of the human experience like the magazine guy says, we are diluting our selves in self-importance. If we remain environmentalists, we are diluting ourselves in self-importance. The Christian veiw does hold some value I think, but that is not the only religion that believes such a thing. Many Eastern religions believe we are but a part of a vast interconnected system, symbolized by the tantra, and any small change can alter the course of existance...In hinduism, the human body is a microcosm for the universe, so if you preserve yourself, you preserve the world...
So I guess both have a point. We are everything that surrounds us, so preserving the world is preserving ourselves. Therefore, these veiws are not different, but one in the same. In adapting everything for humans...we preserve the earth simeltaneously. But in my heart of hearts, I really feel it will make no difference in a million years.
9:37 AM
Blah Blah Blah, of course there is the ever overhead realization of meaninglessness. We should all be aware of that, but if we are going to shut down all conversation for that reason, we might as well just kill ourselves. We still only have the two options of believing in meaninglessness or believing in the afterlife. Meaninglessness is always there and so I will just choose to ignore it (talk about an elephant in the room). So to pretend like it has validity or adds depth to the discussion is essentially as meaningless as everything else.
In regards to the religious differences, most folks that read this site are Christians and so I work to relate to them, plus the example is quick at hand. Getting into the religious variations just gets me completely off topic and I would hate that. Plus, there is a reason I left it so open, for people like you to fill in. Yay.
Your general point brings this up again, why are you trying? You insignificant spec. Making people feel unimportant isn't going to please your God (if you believe) and doesn't add to the general happiness of others (Utilitarianism). So, in the end, do you have a point?
10:36 AM
The point is that both of the veiws are the same! God says we ARE the world so we must protect it. The magazine says that humans are the most important and if we do what humans want (keep environment for astetic pleasure) both would ideally have the same outcome. Its a lot like Tantra...
But this philosophy was also shared by Confucious who believed that if a ruler himself was righteous, the people would be too. I think we all agree that Machiavelli was closer to the turth on this one...
3:43 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:43 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:43 PM
These are the end times, so who cares what happens to the Earth. I can run my four-wheeler through any swamp, pond, or bog that I want because in the end times (now) nothing will last.
That being said, I am going to go take a dump on my neighbors lawn while I read Wendell Berry.
9:31 PM
Actually, Em, those two viewpoints would not lead to the same outcome. The folks who believe in protecting the planet because it either has inherent value or because some god told them to are going to most assuredly do a better job of attempting to preserve the natural, healthy status of the earth than someone who is trying to keep it looking nice for the asthetic beauty that humans would appreciate.
Those working for the latter purposes are more likely to believe in preserving smaller, selected areas where humans could go to appreciate the finer qualities of nature while those for the former would be more likely to preserve the planet as a whole (i.e. healthy development, preservation of larger areas, greater value seen in a varied and natural landscape, greater protection of lesser known or not quite as cute animal species). Do you think that those who care for purely human, aesthetic reasons are going to work to preserve anything other than the areas that they deem beautiful. These are not two means to the same end.
I still find it hilarious that the author of that letter views environmentalim as shallow when viewing things from a purely aesthetic perspective is infinitely more shallow than believing in a higher calling to protect the earth.
As for anony's comment, two points:
1. Arguing the "The End is Near" theory is about as productive as the "it is all meaningless" viewpoint. But I don't think your comment was meant to be productive.
2. Please do drive your 4-wheeler into a pond and then let me know how that works out for you.
4:24 PM
Yea, I know...that's why I likened it to Confucious and implied that it was overly Utopian to have both veiwpoints to the same end. Yet, in reality isn't that what we always have to do? Try and find a common end? Not everyone can have their way because we all have to live here. So let the religious people preserve, environmentalists preserve, people who want vaction spots preserve. I still think it's ignorant to think we can save or destroy, but hell, let them live in ignorance. I guess preservation can't hurt the earth.
8:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home