PART 1
[Heuristics of Fear] [Roots of Our Ecological Crisis] [Coleman v. White] [Ecological Schizophrenia]

PART 2
[Transformative v. Demand values] [Anthropocentric, Cosmocentric, Theocentric value systems] [Ecology, Ethics and Theology]

PART 3 - Environment and Community
[Daniel Quinn's Ishmael] [Environmental Movement] [Environmental Bond Issue - Election '96]

• Sustainable Development
• Pace University's Environmental Resource Directory

How does the Heuristics of Fear provide a foundation for the ethics of the future, and what is this ethic of the future?

In Jonas' article, Responsibility Today: The Ethics of an Endangered future, he said that without the heuristics of fear, human beings are unaware of their responsibilities to the natural world. Without feeling a sense of doom it is incomprehensible to act in an interest to preserve what we most cherished. He explained that we are unable to feel a sense of duty to anything that is not directly related to human existence unless we are aware of a risk factor. These heuristics of fear do provide a foundation in understanding our relation to nature and our responsibility to preserve all life. According to Jonas, the ethics of preserving an endangered future is inconceivable unless there are some heuristics of fear, that is, an ethics of responsibility for distant contingencies can an anticipated distortion of man help us to detect that in the conception of man which is to be preserved from it. (Jonas, 87)

Jonas points out that moral philosophy must consult our fears prior to our wishes to learn what we really cherish.(Jonas, 88) Does our capacity to learn and understand really require us to see first the bad to appreciate the good? Do we need to touch a flame to know that fire is hot, it burns and causes physical pain? Certainly, this premise would explain the promotion of technology. The use of technology provides genuine case study for future experiments in science. And more uses promote further research and the cycle continues. But Jonas points out that in the ethics of the future that that which is to be feared has not yet been experienced and has perhaps no analogies yet in past or present experience. (Jonas, 88) Now here we have a contradiction of the human nature and human understanding. What then follows is a criterion that makes this uncertainty more certain. Any and every decision(s) are decided based on the threat of present danger or as Jonas puts it, all predictions cause us to choose the one best suited to the interest of the day, and for the rest trust our luck.(Jonas, 89)

Certainly, we cannot put our trust in luck to determine the environmental prognosis for the future. That is where science seems to play such an important role. Therefore, we then put our faith in science to predict the outcome of the future and by that determine our ethics of the future. Yes, it seems more cost efficient and convenient to dump the chemical waste used to make pesticide - that boots our agricultural industry but decimate the marine life - in nearby rivers and streams. Evidently decisions are not made merely by near hits and misses, but through short term aims where the probability of success outweighs the in numerous chance of failure. Technological gains are made at the expense of high stakes, the greater good for the largest number of people.(Emmanuel Kant) The natural world operates on an entirely different ethics, in which the stakes are smaller. Advancement in nature is slow, non benefitting and unproductive to man. Nature seems to operate more on chance.

Through technological progress we can eliminate probability and most uncertainties of the future, through continued research and experiments. But let's examine the ramification of altering evolution. Jonas points out that this would inject (frighteningly) higher proportion of risk factors with new elements of insecurity and hazards; this would indeed limit the opportunity of self corrections. (Jonas, 90) I am in complete agreement with Jonas. How much do we really know about harnessing Nuclear energy? How much does our Experts know? Aren't we removing the little security and freedom that we have by putting our complete faith in Experts, and thus moving responsibility to make decisions on possible outcomes in the hands of a few? How many times have you heard of oil spills, chemical plant leakages and so on? How many times have you heard our Experts tell us that these occurrences were unforeseen and unpreventable?

I think it is unfortunate that frequently we wait for the outcome before we act. It is unacceptable to believe that we learn only from our past mistakes. And what is even most disturbing, is that we leave everything up to either chance or technology to decide. I think we need a shift in paradigms. We need to be made accountable for all technological advancements whether they directly or indirectly affect the environment. Caution as the heuristics of fear should be practiced over all transcending factors. We must attempt to consider the long term consequences, that effect all life forms - humans and non humans.

According to Lynn White, Jr. in The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, the Judea-Christian root is responsible for our ecological crisis. How?

Both modern technology and science mark theirs beginning during the middle ages in western cultures. Is it safe to assume then that the origin of our ecologic crisis also arose from western cultures. Lynn White, Jr. claimed that the beginning of our ecological crisis started when humankind discovered how to conquer the natural world. In the middle ages, the invention of the cross plow dramatically altered the age. Its effect was so profound that it changed our culture, our paradigms and even the human nature. With the brutal upheaving of soil, man was able to overcome the constraint placed on his manipulation of the land by nature. Humankind asserted superiority over the natural world and by that developed a certain perspective of his destiny and role in the ecology of life. Because of this new paradigm, human relation was altered. Feudalism emerged in western culture as a solution to managed the economy.

Whether it was nature that was eliminated from the community of life or did man deliberately separated himself from the law of nature is indeterminable. Many will argue that the distinction of man and nature was because of both factors stated above. The question is, what in our culture gives us the justification to this distinction? According to White, it is our religion that shapes our paradigm and distinguish our role as stewards to the natural world. White clearly stated that, the victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest psychic revolution in history of our culture. (White, 1205) And our deep-rooted schism and theism from the Judea-Christian teleology shape our value system. We live - according to White - in the context of Christian axioms. Christianity clearly defined and explained the creation of life and by thus doing made man the divine ruler in nature.

Our omnipotent God created nature, and as an afterthought, created man to managed and oversee nature. Man is made in the image of God and in accordance to God's plan, he must have dominance over the natural world, God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. (White, 1205) I think it is very arrogant of us to assume first that creation stopped at humankind, and that the natural world has no intrinsic value of and in itself, unless man make use of it and assign meaning and labels to it. What right does the Judea-Christian religion have to tell us what God's plan is? On the other hand, how differently would our culture be if we did not have religion to tell us how we should act towards the natural world?

White is correct in saying that Christianity is - without bias - anthropocentrically. And as a result it has made us egocentric, with a lack of reverence to nature and our own kinds. White points that by destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of in difference to the feelings of natural objects. (White, 1205) Christianity uses the cult of saints as a means of human identity, that is, the saints are human manifestation of intrinsic meaning; where as, nature through animism is extrinsic and non human. In early Christian theology nature was viewed as a symbolic system through which God speaks to men; for example, the dove was a sign of peace. The natural world was viewed artistically rather than scientifically. However, when the modernization occurred in the Middle Ages, the natural world endorsed by the church became mechanical. God's creation became mechanical, where the focus of explaining nature was sought through the effort to understand God's mind by discovering how his creation operates. (White, 1206)

Nature became quantitative rather than qualitative. All attempts to understand God was scientifically influenced. Early contributors to science viewed themselves first as a theologian then as a scientist second, for example, Galileo and Newton. Our religion seems to preach that all technological advancement was good for humankind. Through science and technology, humankind was given the power physically to control nature. Christianity gave humankind the right and the philosophical grounds for exploiting nature. White believed that the latter impact is more profound than the former in its contribution to the ecological crisis we face today. White states, "More science and technology are not going to get us out of our present ecological crisis until we find a new religion or rethink our old one." (White, 1206) The extremes would be a Franciscan philosophy or the elimination of all occidental values in our culture influenced by the Judea-Christian values.

In what way is William Coleman's argument an extension of Lynn White's?

In Coleman's argument, he agrees with White that our ecologic crisis does owe a tremendous impetus to the Judeo-Christian root, but it is not the only factor. Coleman injected that there are serious socioeconomic factors that also played an enormous role in our ecological crisis. He maintained that the two are the significant factors for the converging problems we face in our environment. Coleman believed that White's argument was weak and entirely too simplistic to explain the complexity of our environmental crisis. But although Coleman does not completely rejects White's argument, he does not at all accepts R.H Tawney's argument. Tawney suggested that the economic advances in the West following the commercial revolution was accompanied by a "profound spiritual indifference." (Coleman, 28) Is it then true to accept that the socioeconomic factors played a more significant role in our environmental crisis?

Coleman defutes Tawney's argument on the grounds that he is an english apologetics for an era of economic revolution. According to Coleman, Tawney has excused the English Church for the endorsement of environmental exploitation through their acceptance and support of a capitalistic socioeconomic structure. According to Tawney, the church was forced to accept this structure for fear of compromising its political and social status. In the era of economic revolution, the church's ideologies were weakened by "spiritual indifference" and suffered philosophically bankruptcy. (Coleman, 28) In a desperate attempt to maintain status, the church had to surrender to the "triumph of economic individualism over the traditional communal and charitable ideals of Christian social teaching." (Coleman, 28) The Church had no choice but to go with the mainstream and the clamour of the time instead of being left behind and risk being alienated.

Coleman completely disagreed with Tawney and inserted that the church was not indifferent to the notion of self interest but actually endorsed the ideals of captialism in Christian teaching. The church completely changed their philosophy and promoted self interest as a virtue of good christian morals. Coleman pointed out that, "one notable response of the English church to economic individualism was not the passivity of indifference but the celebration of exploitative behavior as a sign of Christian merit." (Coleman, 28) He also asserted that this rethinking of the church's philosophy was deliberate and was not coerced. This is where Coleman's argument becomes an extension of Lynn White, Jr. And this is where the church should be blamed for their contribution to the ecological crisis.

In Christian teaching, God provided Man - his crowning glory of creation - the apt and the means to exploit nature. And accordingly, this is the inscrutable plan of God or the "Divine Providence of the world." (Coleman, 31) Mankind - created in the image of God - must make the environment useful and productive by shaping and cultivating it for his purpose. According to Coleman, "man may and should act; he must rescue this earth from the desolation of the wilderness and impose his mark upon all which exists." (Coleman, 32) This is a moral command taught by Christianity as the will of God. Through Mankind's creativity and the "Industry of Man," nature is given intrinsic value. Humankind is appointed the ruler to the lower world, just as God is the omnipotent father of both worlds. Man must conduct his stewardship of this world to the best of his abilities, else risk the wraith God whence entering the higher world - heaven.

Christianity taught the ethics of exploitations, but had an "indirect effect on the treatment of our environment," (Coleman, 37) Other factors, such as the socioeconomic demands of the age gave Mankind "a new confidence in the human potential: man ws neither morally flawed nor powerless to act in and on this world."(Coleman, 38) According to Coleman, "the attributes of man emphasized by these apologists are, furthermore, remarkably consonant with the essential values of economic individualism." (Coleman, 39) The economic individualism was agreeable with mankind's individualistic moral responsibility and stewardship of nature. Accordingly, "it has not been demonstrated, however, that these changes were either initiated or directly encouraged by church doctrine." (Coleman, 41) Economic individualism was born out of the age of economic revolution and was not introduced by the church. The church, however sanctioned it and incorporated it into their teaching. Capitalism was morally acceptable if "the intentions of the merchant or banker were pure." (Coleman, 41) Our global crisis is, as a result of global trading and the pursuit of profit. Coleman offered that Man is the true villian of the environmental crisis, not so much an institutions such as the church but his "willing application of a new apologetic based on that ethic to the economic individualism." (Coleman, 44)

The Ecological schizophrenia of the American mind.

Paul Santmire believed that in order for Americans to fully address the present ecological crisis, we need first to resolve the ecological schizophrenia of the American mind. Our paradigm of the natural world is dualistic. On one hand, we endorse the idea of preserving the environment yet on the other we promote capitalism. It seems incredulous that the two exist simultaneously. Yet we have somehow resolved the issue in our minds. Santmire claimed that the American mind is captivated by two quasi-religious approaches to nature: Nature versus Civilization, and Civilization versus Nature. We use the two alternately depending on the notion of the interest of the day theory and when it is morally and economically convenient to us.

In the Thoreau's philosophy, nature is intrinsic and should be preserved for its purifying effect on the human nature. "The individual seeks Diety, virtue, and vitality in nature, especially wild nature, and that he strives for personal purity and vitality of soul through communion with world of nature." (Santmire, 67) Santmire argues that the relationship between humans and nature is so overwhelming that it drains all mental energy and results in passive activism in society. According to Thoreau, the urban society - the cities - was unnatural, mechanical, and corrupt. He believed that nature is vital to the balance of human existence and saw "nature as a teacher of humility and a sense of finitude." (Santmire, 67) Thoreau saw civilization as "the dirty institutions" of men to force individuals "to belong to their desperate odd fellow society." (Santmire, 67) Nature offered spiritual rebirth and salvation for the human nature.

John Miur, the latter day American naturalist - founder of the Sierra Club - advocated Thoreau philosophy in the nineteenth century and fought tirelessly for the perservation of wild life and the building of parks. Miur probably instigated the environmental preservation movement of the 1950's in America. The nineteen century was marked by the industrial revolution. As Santmire stated, "the symbol of new age was the stream locomotive." Startlingly, the environmental movement occured when the Industrial and Economic revolutions were at their peaks. Both Civilization versus Nature and Nature versus Civilization existed simultaneously. Men such as Descartes and Newton had set the foundation for the Civilization versus Nature theme. And the Judea-Christians incorporated the Protestant Ethic to justified man superiority and dominance over nature. Nature had extrinsic and instrumental values. "The common motif is that nature is valueless in itself and esssentially open to human manipulation, and nature is defined by its quantitative aspects: its existence as that colorless, tasteless, odorless res extensa." (Santmire, 72)

What occurred in the American society was what the writer refered to as the obsessive American drama, the interchanging themes between nature and civilization. The existence of both themes was resolved through a dualism in reality and the formulation of cult manipulations. The American mind in split in two realities, one of the cult of the simple rustic life and the other of the cult of compulsive manipulation. Both seem to strive on each other. The cult of the simple rustic life occurs when the demands placed on humans by society become too constrain, then we seek refuge and spiritual rebirth by returning to nature. We do this by participating in outdoor activities such as camping, boating, fishing and hunting. However the cult of compulsive manipulation forces us to participate in the societal demands, inorder to survive and live a good life. The switch from one cult manipulation to another is the ecological schizophrenia of the American mind.

Just as there is something unconscious in our culture that tells us that our relationship with nature should be preserved, our culture compels us to participate - get an education, join the work force, buy a house and start a family. We do because we fear being alienated and isolated. In the same instance, there is some thing innate in the human nature that makes us see the natural world as replenishing to the psyche, there is something that tells us that we need to dominate the natural world and make use of it to achieve our personal happiness in this world. I could never understand how people could condemn cigarette smokers and yet at the age of sixteen rush to gain their driver's license. Fuel exhaust amount more to the depletion of the ozone layer and contribute global warming at an enormous scale. The natural world is intrinsic to man only when it compromise human enjoyment. If we did not have the nature as psychological refudge from our ordinarily boring and meaningless life, we would all be in a state of chronic depression. However we are by nature inventive and self motivated. We need both the luxuries of wealth and the aesthetic of nature to ensure human happiness. That is why we created the dualism of reality and the ecological schizophrenia.

December 17, 1996

PART 2

What is transformative value? How is it different from demand value?

The writer distinguished between transformative and demand values in term of the value human experiences that influence our preferences. The Demand value as explain in its simplest form is the value of an experience that fulfills a known or prior preference. The Transformative value is an altering in our experiences that transforms our known preferences. (185) The writer breaks the dichotomy in further by distinguishing vales in term of human and nonhuman - such that there are: a) human demand values, b) human transformative values, c) nonhuman demand values and d) nonhuman transformative values. The writer limited the discussion between demand and transformative values only to the human experience - since it would heuristic for us to presuppose the feelings and thoughts of nonhuman beings.

According to the writer nature possesses transformative values that consider or inform our known preferences. Our known preferences are things necessary for human survival, whether there are subjective - the demand for food, clothing and shelter - or intersubjective, such as a healthy environment. Both are necessary preferences that shape our reality. The writers explained that, "species is a composite of individuals surviving beyond the death of any of its individual members, and there is no necessary connection between the protection of individual interests and the preservation of species into a indefinite time." (187) In the race for survival, individual concern for the particular [part] is less important than the universal [whole] and this often leads to non conciliatory decisions where moral significance can not come into play. For example, should we consider the life of a particular in a species when its survival threaten the entire species. The writer suggests that in order to get through this mental anthropocentric obstacle, we must abandon the notion of individual concern for intrinsic value. Our demand values are immediate human demands that rejects nature as having intrinsic value unless we put human demand value to the natural world. The writer suggests that it is nature that transforms human preferences. And that there are no competing felt preferences par with each other.

The natural world possess the ability to transforms human paradigm. Our experiences of life involves the interaction with the natural world. Imagine a child born in a enclosed environment, without trees blooming, birds sing and the weather changing. This child would lack the experiences - we so often take for granted- that shapes our entire perspective of the world we live in and establish an understanding our place in this world. Our [nature less] child would create a reality of isolation and [non] placement. The writer states that, "Insofar as environmentalists believe that experience of nature is a necessary condition for developing a consistent and rational world view, one that fully recognizes man's place as a highly evolved animal whose existence depends upon other species and functioning ecosystems, they also believe that such experiences have transformative value." (189) This is the ideology of many environmentalist such as Emerson and Thoreau.

If we use the writers example of a child who suddenly understands that his gleeful destruction of the bird's eggs prevent the continuation of a life cycle. This shift in consciousness impact the course of his future decision. Our consciousness of natural world is important in determining the kind of life we lead in the future, and it is a necessary value that we must all be coherent of. Whether the transformative values occur in our primal years or in a late stage, it is a necessary element in our development as a species. For example the transformation of the individual Jane who moves away from her parents to attend an university that focus on preserving wild life.(208-209) The writer believes that the transcendence values from the natural world can provide an adequate blueprint for preserving the natural world by emphasizing higher ideals in human values and ascribing an important role to experiences of wild nature in the pursuit of those goals. (196)

Our demand values often leads us to an existence of self-interest and materialism. Transformative values are important because they shift our consciousness away being too worldly. The example of Jane's transformation is as the writer suggested an extension to our existing values system such that, "The value of change is measured in human terms, but that conclusion is merely a restatement of the original premise, that transformative values are anthropocentric." (211) My concern is that although many of us are exposed to the natural world throughout our entire existence, why is it that we do not value the survival of other species more? Are we so anthropocentric that we can not completely shift our consciousness to include all of life and see that we are nothing without the natural world. That nature will continue to evolve and survive with and without human existence.

What is the difference between anthropocentric, cosmocentric and theocentric value system? Which one does Santmire opt for?

Santmire argues that human theology or value system are shaped by anthropocentric, cosmocentric and theocentric values in respect to the environment. He makes clear distinction between each of the value systems and in the end he opted for the theocentric value systems. He believes that both anthropocentric and cosmocentric values do not offer the best framework for preserving our environment. Western and even Eastern cultures have neglected to include the respect for the environment in their theology. Both the anthropocentric and the cosmocentric value system does two evils that Santmire believes can be eliminated if we include respect for the environment through theocentrism. According to Santmire, "To avoid setting the human creature over against nature on the on hand (the tendency of anthopocentrism), and to avid submerging the human creature and humanity's cries for justice on the other hand (the tendency of cosmocentrism), I am suggesting that we see both humanity and nature as being grounded, unified, and authenticated in the Transcendent, in God." (150)

Santmire begins his argument for theocentrism by deputing the argument that Western theology is ecologically bankrupt. Judaism and Christianity has a tendency to emphasize the domination of God and humanity over nature. Adam was created in the image of God - making him a higher being than a tick or a flower - and he is appointed the steward of the lower world -earth; as God is the rule of the higher world [the cosmo]. And this is how it is in most western religions. This is not to say that including reverence to the environment can not be included or is not already there in western theology, such as the Reformation tradition. According to the teaching of the Luther's theology, the whole creation is the "mask of God," and sees God as being, "with all creatures, flowing and pouring into them, filling all things," that "with eyes of faith one can see miracles all through nature, miracles even greater than the sacrament." (135) This interpretation of the relationship of God and the natural world was changed with the discovery of natural science, the philosophy of Kant and birth of capitalism from industrialization. Our perspective of God was that of the clock maker and nature-the-machine.

Through Kant the severing God from the natural world was made final, with nature taking on a definition as being a "self-subsisting whole," independent of God's interference. Santmire explains that, "God would be viewed in isolation from nature, and humanity would be viewed essentially in isolation from nature." (138) This mechanical view of nature was strongly encouraged by modern industrialization to justifiy the capitalization of the environment. "In a word, the entrepreneur who needed natural resources for his factories found it easy to measure the value of nature in money, because it was easy for him to conceive of nature in itself as a valueless, dead, indifferent God-less machine." (138)

Then there was the idea of "man rising above nature to enter into the relationship with God, the central theme of Ritscl's theology." (139) Theology as endorsed by Catholicism stresses on the salvation of the "self" and not the natural world - where the natural world should be looked upon as the vestibule in preparation to go into the santuary of God's presence. According to Santmire, "nature is now systematically interpreted in terms of God and humanity, as merely the setting for the Divine history with the human creature." (140) Nature has been displaced by direct communication with God and is now seen as a Divine afterthought and a second class citizen in the Word of God. This is the interplay between the anthropocentric and cosmocentric value system.

The most effective values system then must be one that puts nature on equal bargaining grounds as humanity. According to the Santmire theocentrism has the capacity to do so. The notion of grace [the divine gift from God that ensures human salvation] should be extended into a form of natural theology. The natural world is symbolic of god's word and creation, "nature has its own integrity, its own rights to life and fulfillment; again, with due recognition of the parameters of social justice within the city of humanity." (151) As it is unfathomable as God, we should not presume to separate God from his divine creation. We should treat the natural world as a grace from God and adorn it with equal respect and reverence as we values the sacraments of our religions. Santmire says we should practice "creative stewardship of the earth." (151) My perception of heaven is based on my transformative values from the natural world. How can we limit God's sphere to the unimaginable.

What is the relationship between ecology, ethic and theology according to John Cobb?

According to John Cobb, our ethics and theology affects ecology. With the shift in consciousness to preserve the integrity of the environment creates serious contradictions in our value systems. Cobbs states that, "ecological crisis opens the question of whether the moral necessary behavioral changes follows from the same anthropocentric principles we have had in the past or whether our ethical principles themselves are partly at fault and need alteration." (1) The problems with our old ethics is that we often made decision on the certain criteria - such as, long-term consequences, the utilitarian benefit [Kant] and the question moral considerability and significance. The problem with our theology is that we often fall into the anthropocentric value system of putting good of humanity above the natural world. And these problems transcend into an ecological crisis that affects both man and beast, so to speak.

According to Cobbs, "there is therefore also a tension between what is optimal when viewed in terms of the biotic pyramid. The problem we face is how to balance these optimalties."(5) Can we put the value of human existence over the value of the entire biotic community against each other? This is often what we do, and the result is the continued degradation of the environment. Cobbs offers that we need to "develop a more realistic view of his actual long-term needs and seek to practice the utilitarian ethic more wisely,"(5) such that man must "learn to balance his values against the others rather than to judge the other as only instrumental to his." (5) [Easier said than done!]

The theology and ethics are non compromising notions, as Cobbs stated, "theology and ecological ethics relate to each other much the same way theology relates to purely humanistics ethics." (8) Our environmental probelm does owe a great debt to the theology - influenced by religion - and ethics. I will ethics open to discussion since many our ethics are also shaped by religion and socioeconomic factors. On deeper level the environmental crisis is directly related to human relations from our ethics and theology of life in general. Cobbs suggests that we need to be more sensitive to others - not treating them as a means to an end- and this would transcend into a rational ethics that preserves the environment. "The alternative, I think, would be sensitivity to urge toward life as it operates both within oneself and in the entire world." (9) Our religion is according to Cobbs, theocentric and not anthropocentric. So although we may have developed anthopocentric ethics, this was not the intent of God's Word. "A penitent Christianity transformed by an authentic recovery of its own normative sources can contribute depth and vision to the profound reoreintation needed on our public life." (10)

PART 3 - Environment and the Community
October 9, 1996

Daniel Quinn's thesis in Ishmael is that a shift in consciousness is necessary if we are to have a planet that is co-inhabitable for gorillas and humankind alike.

The earth is dying. It is dying from centuries of mankind's abuse of the environment and his disregard for life on earth. Our planet is faced with many environmental degradation that threatens life on earth as we know it. Very soon the knowledge of clean water, fresh air, blossoms in the spring and music from the birds will be mythical tales told by our children's children of a time forgotten. Life as we know it will become a dinosaur age in the next century if we do not shift our consciousness from industrial-based capitalism to one of an ecological paradigm. Without this shift and with our continuous misuse of the planet, there will be no hope for the earth.

Throughout time there has been a battle sought and fought by mankind in conquering nature. Ishmael explained the struggles between man and the natural world on mythological grounds. He elucidates that the problems that threaten the world today are not accidental and they are a direct result of our use of the natural world. How we use and view the natural world justifies our treatment of the earth's resources. We are essentially egocentric and species(istic), for lack of a better term. We promote the survival of our species even at the cost of extinguishing others. Ishmael stated that we are all engaging in a story that tells us that, "The world was made for man, and man was made to rule it." [Quinn, 72]

In our own self-interest and haughtiness we assume that nature is useless until man makes use of it and make it into the garden it was intended to be. In our arrogance we assumed that nature was incomplete, unfinished until we cultivated the grounds and produce products. In our humankind glasses we see nature as wild, uncivilized, primitive, separate and unlike human beings. According to Ishmael we do not see nature as part of the "community of life." [Quinn, 99] And since man is the only one member of this community, we are not responsible or accountable for protecting any life that fall outside our human community. The laws of nature do not apply to humans - let's not forget we are superior to the natural world - since we conquered it. Moreover, creation stopped at man. "Man was the climax of creation," [Quinn, 103] and therefore he is at the highest point on the hierarchy of all living things. And although man was created no differently than ticks or liver flukes, "it's still his divinely appointed destiny to rule the world and perhaps even the universe itself." [Quinn, 103]

This brings me to another point made by Ishmael. Our environmental crisis today owes a great debt partly to how we relate to one another and the lack of ethical behavior towards nature. Ishmael described this want of ethics as a law or was previously stated, a consciousness. When Ishmael separated the civilized society and primitive society in terms of the Takers and the Leavers, he sought to explain the competitiveness of the human nature. Unlike other creations, human beings have no real predators. We however, prey on each other. He speaks of a consciousness that is lost to the Takers but is attainable to the Leavers. We have lost touch with this consciousness partly because we been listening to the dictates of Mother Culture. Mother Culture tells us that is okay to eliminate all competition that threaten human existence. "When you say to her population explosion she replies global population control, but you say to her famine she replies increased food production."[Quinn, 137] This is the basis of capitalism. And this is the basis of our culture as promoted by Mother Culture.

In our need to increased food production to meet our growing population we have undoubtably destroyed the consciousness to preserve and live co-inhabitable with other life forms as well as humankind alike. Our primary interest seem to be capitalistic rather than sustainable. Ishmael suggests that we should adopt the Leavers' attitude. His message was not for us to go back to being herders or abandoning soil titling. But that we need to adopt the Leavers' consciousness of "having a tradition that goes back to very ancient times." [Quinn, 201] We need to be made accountable for our actions. As Takers, we think that we are demi-gods and therefore have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Unfortunately, if you are not part our culture you are less likely to survive. This is the way it has been since the first revolution to our present revolution, from cultivation to industrialization. And as a result of this humankind has prospered at the expense of the environment. Ishmael stated that this recaptured consciousness will have us living in the hands of the Gods. [Quinn, 229] Yet what other alternative do we have and what will this mean to mankind's luxurious existence?

Ishmael explains that mankind's has a specific role in the community of life. It is not his place to rule but man's place is to be the first without being the last. [Quinn, 243] We need to relinquish the idea that we have the knowledge of who should live and who should die on this planet. [Quinn, 248] We must destroy the notion of consuming the world, since this is the source to our captivity and that which prevents us from returning to the forgotten consciousness. [Quinn, 252] Realistically, Quinn's thesis in Ishmael sounds both fantastic and quite simple. The question is how do we achieve this shift in paradigm in a complex civilization with even more complex environmental problems and counter-environmental politics acting against it.

Environmental Movement

Given the readings in the Environmental Movement - tactics for a shift in the paradigm from an industrial-based capitalism to an ecological paradigm.

The writers of the American Environmentalism identifies at least three distinct categorization of social movements in environmentalism. These movement influenced governmental actions and result was formation of federal and governmental agencies that emerged from the 1960's. The actions taken by this group were conservative in nature and generally, as the writers suggested it takes the form of new governmental regulations and agencies. [Dunlap & Mertig, 3] Organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality is an example of this group. Then there were the three distinct categories alluded to above: the National Environmental lobbying Organization, the Non-lobbying National Organization and the Grassroots Environmental Movement. The shift towards the ecological paradigm has been planted by the contributions made by these organizations.

Already societies are recognizing the need to change our outlook on the environment. As a global community we are probably more environmentally conscious than we were back in the early 1960's and 1970's. Industrialization and modernization has made us into a complex society with complex health problems and social issues, such as HIV positive/AIDS, lungs cancer, ozone depletion, global warming, nuclear power usage and disposal of waste. Evidently our environmental consciousness is not a new phenomena, however the environmental issue is now more than a threat to human existence. Our complex societies has brought with it more detrimental and ethical threats than was ever foreseen by the Sierra Clubs, the National Wildlife Federation and the Defenders of Wildlife. The environmental problem has escalated into a global crisis.

The era we live in dubbed the Environmental Era. This is a profound realization - that mankind is ready to take responsibility for our actions in the community of life. Unfortunately as the writers of the American Environmentalism pointed out, many of the solutions are too narrow in scope to fully address this crisis. But these solutions and actions should not be eliminated. Although the NIMBY attitude and many of the national organizations advocate for change on a local level or in one region, the challenge undoubtable undermine established beliefs. I always believed that acting locally but thinking globally is a sure way to make an impact. Certainly there is more room for a change in attitude. Certainly for this shift in paradigm to occur we must also adopt the NIABY perspective.

The existing organizations has their strengths and weaknesses. Their strength is seen when industrialized corporation think twice about making an undeveloped and impoverished region dumping ground or land fill. But they fail when they can not force the polluting industry to clean up and completely shut down operation. They failed when they made concessions that compromised not just human safety and well being but the preservation of life on the planet. They failed ultimately when impoverished communities are bribed to accept environment-job trade offs and allowed big corporation to dump hazardous waste in the rivers and land fills.

I think the most effective movement is radicalism. But the radical environmentalists must work cohesively with the regional and national organizations to institutionalized change and make it permanent. I say yes to Earth First!er, Sea Shepherd Society, Rainforest Action Network and the Rainforest Information Center. It is about time that we humans realize that we are not alone on this planet and therefore we must bear witness "for the mute forests that are being burned and chain sawed in the name of progress, greed, or ignorance (Grossman, 1998)." (Dunlap & Metig, 59)

The Environmental Bond Act and the ' 96 election evaluation
November 9, 1996

I had a great degree of doubts about the passage of the Environmental bond. I initially felt that whatever effort put in by the class to promote the bond would be shot down by a lack of knowledge and interest by voters and the time put in to promote was too short noticed. I anticipated that the self-motivated promotion done by the candidates may have hurt the reception of the bond by the public. In Re-evalutation, I feel that it was because of those reasons that the bond was passed in the elections.

Most voters looks for an explanation of a particular issue explained in a nutshell. The questions asked by most voters are of this nature, "What is the issue? Will this cause a tax increase? How will this benefit me directly?, etc." Noone truely has the time or motivation to investigate all the issues during an election. The election process is highly competitive and often confusing to the average voter. We live in a time where most people get their news from televisions, although there are the few more informed who reads the newspapers and browse the Information Super Highway- the Internet. Television broadcast of the news are limited to one-hour time spans and newspaper articles are concised to two pages. My concern was that- realistically- the average voter would not be willing or able to read a forty page document on the Environmental Bond; and the lack of knowledge would result in them believing whatever propaganda spread on the issue.

My other concern was that many voters have very little confidence in the power of the ballot and really don't see the significance of taking a stand on abstract issue. Sadly to say, most people's primary concern rest on electing their party or an individual that they favor - not the issues itself. Also, when we elect an individual we expect that person to stick to their party's platform despite any insurgent problems that occur while that person is in office. A platform is what makes a candidate and issues are what make up a platform. Then how voters remain impartial to an issue when it is associated with a certain candidate's platform? The answer lies in how well that candidate present the issues to the public. To a large extent, I believed that the era we live in is a "five minutes" generation. But alot can be said in less than a minute to swerve the public's mind. A minute can seem a very long period of time if you have nothing portentous to say. This is the power of speech, oral and verbal communication.

In the same light, a simple word can mean so much and varies in interpretation. I think that was the main reason why the bond was passed. With the influence of the environmental movement for the pass forty years, the word environment is synonomous with the ideology of preservation and conversation. Most people, ignorant of what the bond would actually mean to their future voted for it because they felt that it was for a good cause. When I asked friends and family members if they knew what the bond act was about, the response was always the same, "I don't know exactly what it is but I am sure it will benefit the environment, so I will vote for it." Another response I observed it was that people who were aware of its shortcoming voted on it on the argument that it was a step in the right direction. I brought up the issue in my Environmental Philosophy and Ethic class, I immediately noticed the lack of knowledge on the issue by the class but their evident interest on the issue.

On certain issues such as the environment, where the cost factor is intangible, people tend to want to act very conservatively and prudently. Although, the very act in itself was not conservative, the idea of preserving world peace, the environment, etc. is something that all humans vote for and desire. Noone wants to disrupt existing world order and peace or actively further degredation of the environment. I think we are morallistically motivated on many issues. Although the society we live in is not idealistically perfect, we do not want to risk losing what we have already. When we look at longterm goals we see extensions of what is already achieved and fear the possibility of the unknown and the known- experience in the past, such as depression and draught. Change is only sought when the existing order is inefficient and there is a promise of hope and wellbeing in reforms. The underlining premise is to preserve and extend the existing beliefs and values that we like. This would mean losing the grasp on reality.

Riley E. Dunlap and Angela G. Mertig, American Environmentalism: The U.S Environmental Movement, 1970-1990 Taylor & Francis, New York :1991

Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, A Bantam / Turner Book, New York:1995

Return to Kayebee's Home Page