Shelley
The idea of deep ecology is very interesting to me. It seems to be something that is becoming more and more prevalent in todays’ society. I find it a rather difficult subject to think about. Deep ecology is defined as “a sense of personal responsibility, not simply to persons living now but also to future human generations.” This is quite a large responsibility. Shallow ecology on the other hand, is not caring about the future and treating the environment however you want. It’s our land, and we can do what we want with it. I am quite impressed with our community’s new found “environmental awareness,” because personally, I find it rather easy to fall into the “I don’t care what happens after I die” mentality. This may be a little harsh, but if you think about the selfish world we live in, I don’t think it’s too far off.
You can argue both sides of this ecological debate, but when it comes down to whether we should preserve the environment, I think the obvious answer is yes. In Chapter 1 of Weisman’s text, “A Lingering Scent of Eden” I got a nice reminder as to why this preservation is beneficial, maybe not to us, but to our children and theirs. The only reason we are able to witness the “half-million acres of the Bialowieza Puszcza” and the one hundred and fifty foot high oak, and really, the last remains of wilderness in Europe, is because the generations before us were kind enough not to completely destroy the earth they inhabited. Weisman really highlights the beauty of the world we live in. He discusses the natural glory of nature and personally, after reading these chapters, I feel more obligated to do my part in preserving the environment in order to ensure that the generations after us get the chance to observe the same natural wonders that we were lucky enough to witness.
I too loved Weisman's description of what little was left of the forest. I could literally picture the eerie, foggy, damp atmosphere full of gigantic trees and all kinds of creatures. His description was beautiful and portrayed just one of the countless environments that are dwindling away around us every day. Throughout the 4 readings there were several things that stuck out to me. I thought for a long time about what really would happen if the entirety of the human race disappeared tomorrow. What would nature do? Would it be able to recover from all of the destruction we have done, all the species we have annihilated, all of the toxins and unnatural things we have created? I'm not sure. I think that it would never be what it once was, but I think that over time nature would recover and new species would thrive. As for the question "would the world miss us", I think the answer is no. Perhaps the lesser creatures who thrive now only because we have killed off their predators would miss us, but in general, as pessimistic as it sounds, I think the planet was better off without us.
ReplyDeleteThe other portion of the readings that really stuck out to me was the response of one of the natives who- upon being handed a bowl of monkey stew- posed the question "when we're down to eating our ancestors, what is left?" This really bothered me. Not because we eat our ancestors, for I don't think many of us eat chimpanzees all too frequently, but because of the way we TREAT our ancestors and their habitats. The general treatment of humans to the planet is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Though I think many of their ideas are far too radical to get everyone on board, I find myself on the side of deep ecologists. They will have to make compromises in order to recruit enough people and put their plans into action, but I believe their general view of our role and our responsibility on this planet are pretty spot on.
I was very impressed with the selections we read from Alan Weisman’s The World Without Us.
ReplyDeleteHis description of the forest was simply superb. I adore mystical and extensive descriptions in stories, so what Weisman provided really resonated with me. When I can envision a subject in question in my mind, it becomes much more personal and dear to me.
Anyway, as Weisman breaks down, the earth would survive perfectly well without us, because the earth was not, as a Sufi scholar Weisman cites argues, created to serve humans. If, as in Weisman’s scenario, humans were to all disappear at once, nature would in fact continue to flourish in the way she once did, and would be happier for not being inhibited as she is now.
The thought is a somewhat depressing one, yes. The fact that nothing we humans build is permanent—eventually all our architectural wonders will be buried by earth (this is the same thing Dillard says).
Weisman mentioned, however, the singular way we can preserve our legacy: by sending information into space. I am sorry that the idea for a diamond-encased information capsule never came to fruition. Somehow, I think it was less about disagreement over what was to go inside so much as to what was to go outside—the cost of such a diamond encasing was undoubtedly too daunting a figure. Humans are short-term thinkers.
When I saw that one of the assigned readings was from The World Without Us, I got really excited because we are reading that in my Society and Environment class. I have only read the first fifty or so pages of the book so far so it was interesting to jump ahead and read a chapter in this book with religion in mind.
ReplyDeleteThe first few chapters in this book focus on human’s impact on the environment and the ease with which the earth reverts back to the way it was before human existence. It is amazing to think that humans have spent thousands of years industrializing and developing the world, and yet all of this human development could, for the most part, be destroyed in a few centuries. Ever since the beginning of their existence, humans have been changing the environment. Even in prehistoric times, people were burning down forests to make room for civilization and farmland. As the world began to become globalized, Europeans brought over plants and animals to the New World. These new plant species wiped out many of the existing plant species, leading to a loss of biodiversity. If humans ceased to exist, however, the “weeds” that people desperately try to keep out of their flowerbeds would creep past the white picket fences and begin to prosper again. Indigenous plant species would begin to come back and the planet would be on its way to existing as it did before it came in contact with humans. This scientific perspective of what will happen once we cease to exists serves as a fascinating contrast to the religious perspective presented later in the book.
For many people, religion is simply a way to remain hopeful and optimistic about the world. Often when people are in distress or despair, they turn to religion in hopes that it will fulfill them and give them a purpose in life. If you are good, something splendid awaits you once you die. No worries. In the World Without Us, the science presented seems to be telling us that “we can’t go it alone for very long” (Weisman, 346) at the rate we are damaging the earth. Religions like Christianity, however, tell us that God and his people have a reign on Earth that will last for thousands of years. This seems a bit more comforting, especially since all of the “righteous” people will survive. After humans do become extinct, so does the Earth as we know it. God’s “eternal light” has been eliminated so we’re really not missing anything once humanity is gone. Christians aren’t the only ones who comfort themselves this way. Cakmut, a Muslim, says, “if people are gone from this cycle, nature itself will be over”. The juxtaposition and contradiction of scientific theory and religious belief once again requires us to make the distinction between logos and mythos.
The deep ecology article was particularly intriguing. Although, I feel that some aspects of that “ethic” are heavily idealistic, I feel that it makes significant points. I agree with the proponents of this paradigm in that humans should reduce their status from that of conqueror to that of a citizen of the earth. I believe that this “conqueror” status is more of a perception than a reality. Obviously humans are at the mercy of nature (evidenced by the massive destructive force of natural disasters). I find “nature shows” like “man vs. wild” rife with paralyzing arrogance. Truthfully, man is no match against the protean (and violently dynamic) forces of nature. After all, nature has had over 4 billion years to mature and sharpen its methods. As Weisman points out, humankind’s fate is indelibly tied to nature; we can only live alongside nature not without it. Humankind is humbled by the prospect that our out of control birth rate will lead to gross overpopulation and eventually will result in the same fate as “every other species that got to big for this box” (Weisman 348). This reinforces the point that we do not bare a significant privilege over any other species that allows us to escape the stabilizing effect of nature. I feel that rather than fight this reality, we should embrace it, and be proud of our spiritual connection to the ecology. In recognizing this necessary harmony with nature we can avoid succumbing to our own hubris.
ReplyDelete- Alex Leeds
I was really interested by several ideas in the two texts. I loved the contrast shown in the deep ecology article between deep and shallow ecology. The idea that "every living being has a right to flourish" kind of made me smile. Could this be anymore truthful? Despite the whole idea of humans' intellectual superiority, we are fundamentally all living beings. Following this, in response to Alex's post, I would have to disagree that humans are at the mercy of nature. Take a look outside or on the news and anyone can see how we have changed this earth. Yes, humans will always be at risk of the great power of mother nature, however, one cannot overlook the risk the earth has from us. Furthermore, as Weisman's text brings light to, one cannot over look the risk we have from ourselves. I have read and heard numerous times of how problematic the world's exponentially growing population is. However, this article was one of the more brutal accounts of such. Weisman shows both of these vulnerabilities in a quote by Dave Foreman: "The black hole into which we're shoving the rest of nature will swallow us as well." This quote was really telling and quite scary. We have a choice to continue at the rate at which we are producing or to limit such and change the future. I'm pessimistic in the possibility that this will ever occur; however, if it were to, it would take quotes like this to scare people into abiding.
ReplyDeleteI was really fascinated with the position taken by the Deep Ecology analysis. I found Arne Naess's description of the "deep ecology" viewpoint to be very intense and while I agreed with it in principle I couldn't help but wonder how pragmatic it really is. However, I did find his contrast of deep ecology and shallow ecology very astute and poignant, and his conclusion that both sides need to learn to cooperate moderate and agreeable. I liked the fact that the three readings in "A World Without Us" all seemed to posit differing viewpoints, and it was important to see such a balanced layout of such a complex, emotional issue. The reliance on passionate anecdotes were absolutely moving to read - especially the description of the Bialowieza Puszcza - but in terms of the concrete application of deep ecology, offered little of practical substance, although I think my personal viewpoints on shallow ecology may bias me, which might explain why I felt so strongly about the prelude's conclusions that the world has been through far greater losses in the past and without human presence it might necessarily "miss us." There was a nice symmetry in the ideologies proffered in the readings, and I think the balanced viewpoints diluted the sometimes passionate rhetoric to create a more complete picture. That being said, I finished the readings sticking to my conviction that the only practical solution is a compromise between the two factions of shallow and deep ecology.
ReplyDelete-David Gitlin
During this reading I kept reflecting and drawing similarities between this text and Dillard's text. One of Dillard's main themes is how we build upon our ancestors. We are literally living on top of our relatives and those who have come before us. Weisman makes the same point. He takes it in a little different direction though because he touches on what the past generations have left behind. As Shelley said we are lucky our ancestors were "stewards" to the environment Unfortunately we have not been good stewards in return. Our generation, although getting better, does not seem to pay a lot of attention to our "biological footprint." We, without even thinking destroy the world around us and that is why the world would probably be better off without us. Nature would realign itself, because it survived without us for quite awhile. I like to think that Bialowieza Puszcza is what the world would look like without us. What the world looked like during the time of the dinosaurs or before any living creatures existed. I think that is a point that Weisman is trying to make, that nature would survive without us and would recreate itself into something as beautiful as the mystical forest of Bialowieza Puszcza.
ReplyDeleteI found the article explaining deep ecology to be very insightful. I have always thought that the "right" thing to do is to protect all aspects of the environment, for I don't believe that humans have the authority to destroy the Earth. However, after reading this article, the reasons for a compromise between this deep ecology and its opposer, shallow ecology, seems to me now to be more important. It is true, many deep ecologists "become lost in utopian visions of a 'green world,'" and unfortunately utopias can never truly exist. It is also true that all underdeveloped areas and people living in terrible conditions deserve a better and healthier living situation. This advance, however, will probably have some negative effects on the environment. This article definitely made me realize, like David, the importance of a compromise, for both sides have valid points and neither side seems to be 100% correct, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo, as most of you have said, The "Deep Ecology" article was very interesting, I find that the concept of being connected to nature and trying to perserve it for future generations is very intriguing. As it stands we will overrun the earth, and in "Our Earth, Our Souls" they described the possible scenario of cutting down on birth rates to provide this enventual nature-human population balance. While I think this idea would be the best path for our planet, I do not think it is feasible. In my biology class recently we discussed the cycle of the world. There have been a recorded 5 or 6 mass extinctions of the world before us. It is becoming our time for a mass extinction unfortunatly, with growing birth rates and the ever eminent threat of Global Warming. The will of the general population is not strong enough to limit our own reproductive capacities and cut down on the whole population of the planet. This relates to the "A Monkey Koan" article. In this they described the wiping out of the Zapara indians and the other indigenous tribes through mass rape and destruction of the forests. While this is cruel and completely innapropriate, it is the nature of the human population. I thoroughly support perserving the natural environment because I believe that it provides the meaning for our own existence as well as that of the planet, but I do doubt the ability as the human population as a collective to be able to do something about it. In the article "A Lingering Scent of Eden" towards the end Weisman talks about what would happen if the human population was suddenly wiped out. If this were the case, I also highly doubt that the world would be the same. As Weisman put it, "It is possible that, instead of the world having a huge biological sigh of relief, the world without us would miss us?" This rhetorical question probably looms in the minds of many environmentalists that dissect every foul move the human population has made as we move toward a more polluting population.
ReplyDeleteAs I spoke to a GreenPeace member yesterday, he spoke of the possibility of being able to enable wind as an efficient replacement for the coal and oil industry that have as of late been ever contributing to the national pollution of our country. I believe that in order for us to be able to maintain this delicate balance something of this sort is necessary. The line between human consumption, of fossil fuels and natural resources on a safe scale and us using the to depletion is very fine. While by definition fossil fuels are an exhaustable source, solar, wind and water energy is not. The balance of human and nature will not occur through cutting back on the birthrate of the world, but rather us being able to suspend oour current consumption rate of the natural resources. Following the "Our Earth, Our Souls" chapter, I believe we will be able to suspend this growing issue just long enough to allow for us, as in the dreams of Forest Rohwer, to discover the technology necessary to send our species to a different world, where most liekyl the cycle will repeat.
Well after reading the pieces assigned I came away with two conclusions. One is that humans will eventually damn the environment by our knack for trampling species and ecosystems such as the European Bison in the Puszcza Forest. However, I also see how the powerful resilience of nature will not relent despite our attempts to tame it. Maybe I’m interpreting these articles in a more dismal way than they were intended but the conclusions are all the same. Unless we take drastic action the course of humanity will trample over the ecology of the earth in a relatively abrupt course of time. Looking at the population statistics, there needs to be change before we overpopulate this planet to a dangerous point. One million new humans every 4 days is an impressive rate of growth to say the least. But as Weisman pointed out, the population can be controlled with strict regulation in the next century. Hope also lies in movements like Deep Ecology that focuses on the importance of Earths natural resources and the relation of humans to nature on a parallel level. Unless the environment is viewed on equal footing as other prominent or economic issues there will not be a voice to prevent the destruction of natural capital until we have found ourselves living in a world that looks like a ‘vacant lot’. My consolation lies in the fact that left to its own ways without human intervention the Earth will regress back to the ways it was before we intervened so in there lies hope for Earth as well as hope for our future generations.
ReplyDeleteZoya Mufti
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the piece by Weisman, I really felt motivated to do my part in taking care of the environment. It is scary to think about how we, along with past generations, have caused so much destruction to the environment. I find it bizarre that we have been able to partially ruin something to beautiful and unique as our planet. I really enjoyed how the writer explained the two ideologies of ecology as “deep” and “shallow.” I really found myself to be agreeing with the idea of deep ecology. I would have never thought to describe something such as the environment in such materialistic terms, but in this context the phrases made so much sense. At the end of the day the articles brought me to the same conclusion that it brought others too: we need to stop harming our environment and make drastic changes to our lifestyles to ensure that future generation will be able to sustain our planet.
I really liked the article “Deep Ecology” because it called for humans to preserve and respect the environment. It described how great thinkers have and are emerging in this deep ecology movement, such as John Muir and Rachel Carson. I also noticed that the article mentioned the view shallow ecology, which is the view that nature is there for human beings’ disposal. While the article clearly disapproved of this view, I like how it suggested a way in which it and deep ecology can and need to cooperate. They have the ability to balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteI also found the chapters in “The World Without Us” interesting because it provided a wake-up call to humans that we are destroying the earth. We are not only destroying ourselves but we are bringing nature down with us. Thus, it is imperative that we do all we can now to preserve the earth, whether or not its future includes us. I especially liked the chapter “Coda: Our Earth, Our Souls” because it provided various views as to how humans may be able to carry on their legacy while preserving the earth. The idea that got me thinking the most was the restriction of humans only having one child. As much as it would beneficially decrease the human population, it seems morally wrong and impossible to impose.
The four readings were very intriguing to me. I think that nature would recover if humanity disappeared. I believe that nature is cyclical and is equipped for recovery. I also found the fact that nature would in a way forget about us, kind of sad. All of what humanity build will be taken over by nature. But, in a way, that is how it should be, how it all started. So in its cyclical nature, humanity will return to its original state. In addition, I agreed with Celia in that I too loved the quotation, “every living being has a right to flourish.” Is humanity really that superior to all other life forms? I think not. Every species is equipped with their own ways of survival and thus we are all living species and of some equality. Overall, we are not being good to the environment in which we came from. We are overpopulating the fragile world and not even paying attention to what we are doing as humans.
ReplyDeleteThe four readings were very intriguing to me. I think that nature would recover if humanity disappeared. I believe that nature is cyclical and is equipped for recovery. I also found the fact that nature would in a way forget about us, kind of sad. All of what humanity build will be taken over by nature. But, in a way, that is how it should be, how it all started. So in its cyclical nature, humanity will return to its original state. In addition, I agreed with Celia in that I too loved the quotation, “every living being has a right to flourish.” Is humanity really that superior to all other life forms? I think not. Every species is equipped with their own ways of survival and thus we are all living species and of some equality. Overall, we are not being good to the environment in which we came from. We are overpopulating the fragile world and not even paying attention to what we are doing as humans.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the juxtoposition of nature and humanity that was presented by these readings. Its easy to forget that we've had such a huge impact on the world. The forest in Poland sounds like a magical and wonderous place. Before humans there was a lot more of that forest. I thought that Weisman's idea of basically reintroducing humans into the ecosystem was pretty interesting. Without all our technology we would be a lot more helpless in the wild. You and I might be. But a human raised in the wilderness is going to know how to walk in the woods and how not to anger a bear and get killed. Just the same you You and I know how to walk down a city street and not get mugged. Humans have the capacity and the capability to live in the wild. And if we could do it without losing our quality of living I think that it would be a really interesting experience.
ReplyDeleteI agree that deep ecology is becoming more prevalent in the world as the consequences of human exploitation of the environment continue to grow. I would personally like to see widespread commitment to this concept for I believe it is our duty as humanity to ensure that the world is still a place of natural beauty for future generations. However, I recognize the majority opinion still is that of shallow ecology. People tend to abuse the environment for their own self-benefit and fail to acknowledge the needs of anyone but their own. This brings us back to the idea of dominion and stewardship.
ReplyDeleteI think there will be a radical shift to the belief in deep ecology as we approach the point of complete exhaustion of the world’s oil reserves. New methods of harnessing energy will have to be implemented and at that time there will be a large emphasis on being green. Of course by that point the damage will have been done and humanity’s shortsightedness will ultimately be the death of us all. If only foresight, like hindsight, was 20/20.
I really like the idea that "All life is interrelated, and living things, humans included, depend on the support of others". I find in somewhat comforting to think that all things on the planet need each others support to survive. It's a nice feeling of unity. The human population on the other hand is a little frightening to think about. It is unnerving to think that as the human population increases, the quality of life will decrease. I also do not know how we would go about fixing this situation. The author suggests a possible decrease in birthrate over the next few centuries but I disagree. I don't think anyone should be able to control how many children one family can have.
ReplyDeleteOne time I went out into my woods with my friend. We had no purpose for being there other than enjoying the simple tranquility that nature offers. Weisman captured the value and perfectness of nature. He really made me think about the U.S.'s conservation policies. When he was talking about how the Polish government wanted to go in and remove dead trees and "clean up" the nature reserve, and that guy got fired because he spoke out against it, I really had to question what is appropriate conservation. I always thought that humans were doing a good thing by "cleaning up" forests but in reality forests have been self-sustaining for millions of years. I don't know how many of my fellow classmates have really gone out and experienced that form of rugged nature but I offer the challenge that they do so. There is a stark difference between hiking or being in a park-national or local-versus trekking through rugged forests. Also he mentioned John Muir which was awesome because Muir is one of the history's great conservationists and national park activists.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read those articles, I think about the relationship between us and the nature. At present, lots of environment issues have been brought to the public, such as Global Warming and so on. Why these horrible things happened, the ecologists said that is because of human being’s action. We want to improve our quality of life; therefore we exploit lots of natural resource. The bad thing is that we just take stuff from the nature, but we did not care the nature. But that is what we should do. The author said: “we take care of our bodies to live a longer life. We should do the same for the world. If we cherish it, make it last as long as possible, we can postpone the judgment day.” I think that the judgment day means the depopulation. The author also asked what if the world without the human? At least, if we did not exist on the earth, the earth will be better because the resource on the earth will still balance and will prolong the life of earth. People want to take over the earth, that is why managed forest occurs, however the result is not that good. We shouldn’t try to take over the nature, and we should respect for our nature, our home. From the article, our earth is our souls. Since we are damaging our souls, the quantities of other species are lower and lower. The truth is that “we cannot go it alone for every long.” We could not stay alone on the earth. We should not just take from the nature; we also need to give something back to the earth.
ReplyDeleteThe debate between “shallow” and “deep” ecology has many counterparts in other fields. The debate can essentially be boiled down to pragmatism versus principles. Sometimes these two values can reinforce each other, and other times they can be in conflict. In this case there is much overlap, but some gaps between each. Everyone agrees that we should not destroy the planet, but there are levels of damage that people can accept. Some people argue that we should maintain the planet to a minimum standard to sustain human life, while some people argue that humans have no right to damage the planet at all. Although the groups have overlapping goals (eliminating CFC’s, endangered species list, etc.) the differences between the two can make the difference between a Democrat or a Republican, environmentalist or clear cutter, catastrophe or the status quo.
ReplyDelete