Bill McKibben Arrested!

I thought you might be interested to see what our friend Bill McKibben has been up to in the last few days. His is just one of several high-profile arrests--Daryl Hannah, Margot Kidder, and a former Obama campaign worker are among the 706 arrested so far--in 12 days of protests against the planned "Keystone XL" oil pipeline.

His attempt to compare himself to MLK, Jr. strikes me as real misstep, even if the point is ultimately meant to emphasize how fall short of that standard he falls.

In any case, the debate over the construction of the pipeline is arguably one of the most significant environmental issues of the moment, and one that may prove to be a real test of Obama's commitment to environmental causes.

HOW TO CONSTRUE NATURE

Roger J. H. King raises a question that seems to have no answer in his essay “How to Construe Nature: Environmental Ethics and the Interpretation of Nature”. He asks the reader, “Does Nature have moral value?”. The answer to this query must be yes because it is the entire reason for environmental ethics. This field would not exist without this belief that nature is something more than an economic entity (though this is often what we see nature as). Though this idea is central to the field, it proves extremely hard to prove and pin down. There are two approaches to proving that Nature has moral value. One, the foundationalist approach, is not a viable option because it assumes that Nature is a timeless thing of itself. In the present day, Nature is an “artifact of human cultural life” and cannot be separated out from that.

The second requires you to contextualize Nature and place it in to historical and cultural context before establishing its value. King uses the Puritans as an example and details how everyone approaches Nature through their own lens, which colors their perception of Nature. There are three specific values that people imagine nature having: religious, aesthetic, or economic value. This is a shift from the normal arguments of philosophers concerned with environmental ethics. Most picture nature as a victim of human actions. However nature can never be seen as apart from the emotional, technological, religious, and economic spheres we place it in.

An essential question to ask was raised from our previous readings: what is nature? This definition is vital in establishing whether Nature has a moral value, and from our discussion in class this question seems to be unanswerable. For one, there is no consensus on how people view Nature. Also, there is question as to whether there is even such a thing as an “objective Nature”. King seems to almost define this for us, but skirts this definition and asks instead how we must understand how we got to our present conception of Nature. He suggests we view nature in frameworks such as the eco-feminist, Marxist, or Deep Ecology views. By stating that we must place our definition in a framework distorts the definition of Nature from the beginning because we are already approaching it with a lens. And the lens that many western people have taken, an economic or capitalist lens, seems to be the problem in the first place. This view is what has stripped Nature of its morality and inherent value because we look to it solely for material things and monetary value.

This argument is extremely difficult, as King admits towards the end of his essay because there is nothing stable or free from influence on which to pin a definition of Nature. This relates directly to the problems with creating support for the environmental movement. The theory behind environmental ethics is that Nature has value in and of itself. If we cannot define nature this becomes difficult. Also, it seems impossible to show how Nature has value itself outside of the various contexts or frameworks we are used to seeing it in.

King seems to admit that it is almost futile to convince people of Natures inherent value and remedy our aggression towards nature because it requires a complete change in world view. Believing that Nature is valuable separate from what monetary value we place upon it, whether it is lumber, livestock, or simply a vacation spot, requires a view of Nature not through an economic lens, which is exactly how society depicts Nature for us currently. It seems to be a noble goal to change our perception of Nature to having moral value itself, but King does not seem to know where to point us for a solution. He points out that the most effective figures in the environmentalist tradition have been literary not philosophical writers. This results from their use of metonymy and making it easier to associate morals with Nature through ideas or narratives associated with certain places. These writers present “one avenue by which Nature can be reinvested with a subjectivity denied to it by current exploitive interpretations”, (King 357). Pieces written by these authors do not seem to be the answer to a shift in our cultural mindset, though they do put the respect of Nature in the back of our minds. In order to completely change people’s views towards the environment I feel like it is vital for King to establish a more concrete definition of Nature that is accessible to the public.

To end, I just wanted to mention how I thought that King very accurately pinpointed problems with America’s view toward Nature. We make it a commodity countless ways, but one that stuck out with me was our practice of selecting pieces of land to preserve for our personal enjoyment, so we can vacation to a seemingly pristing place. This can be viewed as not an act on Nature’s behalf because it has moral value itself, but simply because we want to reap economic benefit from the novelty of having a quiet place to get away from every day life. The fact that we pay to go to remote areas to recuperate from our stressful lives proves how disconnected we are from Nature the majority of the time. I wonder if our efforts to establish National Parks and wilderness areas are results of the same mindset. To reap some economic or psychological benefit from Nature, not preserving Nature for Nature’s sake.

Betsy Peterson

On The Trouble With Wilderness

Cronin's meditation and reflection upon the part the conception of "Wilderness" plays in perpetuating our ever isolating trajectory from nature was initially off putting, which only makes his argument that much more accurate. To an American, especially, "Wilderness" is emblematic of the idealism that this country used as a corner stone for its foundation, "As we gaze into the mirror it holds up for us, we too easily imagine that what we behold is nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own longings and desires" (359). We want and need this idea of untamed wilds, even if we never visit them. This necessity is detrimental to the environmentalist movement because it creates a clear distinction between where we are and the romanticized land that we imagine to exist, somewhere. This creates an illusion that we can leave the industrialized induced fogs of the cities and drive to these unblemished promise lands for purification, only to return again to our never-ending consumption culture--make, buy, throw away, repeat. If we, as a group of individuals concerned for the future of the non-human terrestrial bodies, are to shed this misconception impeding the development of a healthy cultural perspective of the lands "un-urbanized," we must acknowledge that there is no point at which civilization ends and wilderness begins.

Given the prevailing anthropocentric sentiments, it is not until we see damage to the environment as damage to ourselves that progress will be made. As King so aptly points out, our understanding of nature and our contemporary cultural "matrices" are inextricably linked--just as the fates of humanity and the environment are intertwined . This is cause for much rejoice because it suggests that this cause is not without hope. Our culture is ever changing; therefore, our perspective of the environment, too, will undeniably change--and must.

We need to come to a point where we see wilderness as ourselves, so that we can save both.

Blog Response

Blog Response: The Ends of the World as We Know Them

In Jared Diamond’s essay, “The Ends of the World as We know Them,” he raises the topic of the inevitable destruction of our society due to our continuous “unrestrained consumerism” and the resulting environmental degradation. Diamond encourages us to take a page from history and prevent our own destruction by following in the footsteps of societies such as the Incas instead of becoming the next Easter Island. In his argument, he states that because of our dependence on nature and the value of the environment we must begin to face environmental problems.

In this reading, one of the things I thought was most interesting was the value given to the environment. Diamond seemed only to write from an anthropocentric view point where the value of the environment was purely instrumental, in that we must save the environment so that our society can continue to use it in our own self-interests. However, what about the other values that the environment holds besides one of instrumental purpose? Is there not value in the environment solely because it exists or is its only value inherent? And if there is an intrinsic value in nature solely for existing, does that value therefore give the environment inherent value? Therefore, if we believe (which some of us might not) that the environment holds intrinsic value and because of this, also holds inherent value, then is there not also a responsibility to prevent environmental degradation aside from its instrumental value? Do these values (intrinsic and inherent) even matter in our society, or are instrumental values the ones which hold the most importance?

Though I feel that all of these values are important, it also makes sense that the environment be considered in instrumental terms. Even environmental scientists must give the environment instrumental value by assigning things such as trees monetary value. How do we view the environment non anthropocentrically while also having to view it anthropocentrically if we are to facilitate changes in a society that sees things in dollar signs?

Can’t wait to hear from you guys!

Man vs "Nature"?

As I have read for class these past two assignments, I have been forced to face an important distinction that I think is often overlooked by many environmental advocates (a group of people which I have been known to associate myself with). The problem I would like to address, or at least bring to our classes attention is the murkiness that surrounds the word "nature". We often find ourselves (I am included in this) using the word nature to mean something along the lines of all that is not human in our world/universe. I would argue that this is not the case, but rather that this limited definition of "nature" is actually only a piece of nature, as nature is indeed what is natural, I would posit that indeed this weak definition of nature is really an inappropriate synonym for the wild, while nature in its entirety would also include humanity.

In today's reading I was first reminded of this distinction in McKibben's opening anecdote regarding the forest and chain saw, when he says that going into nature has been changed by humans because we now lose the feeling of being in "another, separate, timeless, wild sphere". I think the term wild first really was brought to my attention here and remained with me through the rest of the reading, as McKibben argues for the end of nature, while using nature and wild interchangeably.

You may be reading this and saying to yourself, "well duh, the two words are in actuality synonyms, of course you can use wild and nature interchangeably", and I think in normal everyday conversation, this is true, however, in this class, as well as in other philosophy classes, definitions are immensely important. Nature, pertaining to this argument (the environment) has many meanings that are applicable; 1.the nature, or essence of a being, i.e. human nature 2. nature being everything other than man, as I have already described (in my opinion more aptly) as the wild (usually confined to the earthly planes) 3. nature as in everything that was created by and in the universe.

So when I am reading a paper like this, or listening in class to everyone talk, and I see the word nature being flung about devoid of a definite and decisive meaning, I must admit to wondering what the true subject of each particular usage of "nature" is. So here in this blog post, I will offer my own idea as to how we can maybe clear the murky water surrounding this issue, and I am excited to hear back what you all think and feel about my ideas.

I think that I would like to reserve the raw name of "nature" to the open (third) definition above, stating that nature is all that is. We all take part in nature every day just through existence. Next I would like to further classify the "wild" nature which I have already talked a little about. I think that our discussion about personifying "nature" (although I would like to say wild rather than our over abused term nature) is actually quite helpful, and I would like to posit that what we mistakenly call acts of nature and the like, are in truth the nature (in the first definitions sense; essence) of the wild. So then just as humans have human nature, so too does the wild have wild nature. Now this brings us to the point where we must ask, well wait, does this mean that human nature is fundamentally different than wild nature, and I would argue no.

But how then can we justify our human societies, and structures, many of which are destructive; how can we justify them in the larger scale of nature, surely they are artificial, yes? Well to this question I pose a similar question back to you all; is the ant hill unnatural? I believe that we would all answer no, it is not unnatural. However if I asked whether it was artificial or not there may controversy in regards to answering such a question. My point with this is, perhaps it is within human nature to build artificial structures, much as it is within the ant's nature to build their own artificial living structures. If that is the case then are the structures we build any less natural than the natural anthill?

With all of this in mind, I find the argument that "nature is dying" because of our alterations to be a bit absurd. Perhaps wild's nature is becoming less prevalent in comparison to human nature which has risen to unbelievable heights, especially in the areas of controlling wild nature, but I don't imagine one nature is more natural than another nature. Instead I would argue that perhaps one nature is more directly corrosive and destructive to the other nature, that however does not disqualify human action and progress from being natural.

Sorry that this was so long guys, but I would love to hear back from you all. Even with it being this long, I know I have forgotten some points that I would have liked to enter into the post. So please respond and let me know what you think. Thanks.

Heimaey, 1973

Some amazing footage of the 1973 eruption in Heimaey, Iceland, as described by McPhee in The Control of Nature.