Maria-Stella wrote
>
> I have not seen Bambi (except vaguely), but i guess you cried not becuase
> of enironmental despair, but because Bambi and his mother etc are
> personified animals and actually you cried for a 'human', not a deer.
> Anywy, do you think that the type of environmentalists that Budiansky
> described are so typical, or is he exaggerating? He is giving the examples
> of Thoreau and Muir, and even from Nazi Germany, but is this relevant to
> the present half-century stereotypic profile of an environmentalist?
> Sometimes i wonder if his examples are carefully chosen to discredit ALL
> environmentalists.
>
> Maria-Stella
>
Chris Perley here:
Define a "typical" environmentalist. I think they generally have a number
of things in common - that humans are damaging this planet by harming the
environment, and that we need a solution if both we asw a species and the
environment is not to reach some sort of crisis. I think it is that feeling
of imminent "crisis", or at least the uncertainty of it, that really is
focusing the minds of so many today. Those that don't think we have any
environmental problems are probably unlikely to see themselves as
environmentalists.
As to the next step in search of solutions, there are MANY different forms
of environmentalism. At one end are those perhaps who have apprehended the
problem (blame Jim for defining the difference between apprehension and
comprehension) but who don't necessarily comprehend - especially basic
ecology, human environmental history, or the connections between the
environment and society/economy. Often their response is the "stop use"
sort. I think it was Roderick Nash (I have lost the reference - perhaps in
a Callicott essay) that refereed to them as "save the tree" or "save the
animal" environmentalists - he argued for a "new environmentalism" which
came from a more sophisticated base of knowledge.
>From there you go through the two ecocentric views (deep and shallow -
shallow in that they include humans as part of the environment), and the two
anthropocentric views (I had only one, but that man Jim T suggested a softer
anthropocentrism - don't ask me the threads - it was back a few months ago).
These people may have more sophisticated views, but different perspectives
come into play - from I guess "the market will provide" (diamond-hard
anthropocentrism) to "I understand the issues, but I still think humans need
to go" (diamond-hard ecocentrism - deeeeeeeeeep ecology). The good thing is
that at least you can deal with these people (I am one - a soft ecocentric I
think). I have tried dealing with the "save the tree" people (many of whom
seem to wear tea cosies for hats - gentle rib) and it is the most
frustrating thing on the planet. The usual answer is "how can you possibly
kill that poor harmless, beautiful, tree [possum, deer, etc.]? Have you no
spirituality?" As though spirituality comes from setting oneself apart form
the environment, and never killing a cabbage.
>From my hazy memory, Budiansky was making a strong thesis for the whole
point that we cannot remove ourselves from the environment. We are part of
it. And the fact that the world is modified means that we (humans) need to
manage the environment rather than shove it off to "over there". We are
NATURE'S KEEPERS. I had a conversation with Colin Tudge when he visited
Dunedin promoting his book. He used the elephant example to illustrate the
point. One theory is that elephants in Africa (with no natural predators -
except perhaps man) used to go through periodic boom bust cycles. In so
doing, they destroyed a hell of their own environment. That was "fine" (for
the elephants at least) when they had a whole continent to do that to.
Their autecology worked on a continental scale. Now they don't have the
whole continent (this is a reality) and the two choices are that we remove
ourselves as a species - or that we manage the environment (and - my God -
this may mean killing elephants at times). A "save the animal"
environmentalist might find this concept difficult - UNTIL they project
their minds out to the wider and deeper issues involved.
I thought Budiansky was making these points - and was particularly scathing
of the aesthetes (who live without either an ecological perspective or a
perspective on human environmental history) who see only the surface issues,
many of whom draw upon the parts of Muir and Thoreau ALONE that reinforce
that aesthetic view (speaking as one who kissed the book Walden after I
finished it - a profound experience). His thesis demands that he takes on
the aesthetes (as a BRANCH of environmentalism) - and challenges their
shallow view of "ecology". Which I think he does very well. So does Botkin
(Discordant Harmonies), though in a softer way. Drury's Chance and Change:
Ecology for Conservationists makes some similar points apparently - though I
have yet to read it (I lent the book out before I read it - stupid me). By
the way, if anyone has my copy of Paul Fussell's autobiography I'd like it
back please.
Chris Perley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maria Stella [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 July 2000 01:41
> To: Chris Perley
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Nature's keepers
>
>
> I have not seen Bambi (except vaguely), but i guess you cried not becuase
> of enironmental despair, but because Bambi and his mother etc are
> personified animals and actually you cried for a 'human', not a deer.
> Anywy, do you think that the type of environmentalists that Budiansky
> described are so typical, or is he exaggerating? He is giving the examples
> of Thoreau and Muir, and even from Nazi Germany, but is this relevant to
> the present half-century stereotypic profile of an environmentalist?
> Sometimes i wonder if his examples are carefully chosen to discredit ALL
> environmentalists.
>
> Maria-Stella
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Chris Perley wrote:
>
> > Good book. I read it a few years back. A wake up call for those with
> > preservationist tendencies who believe that nature is just like
> the movie -
> > and where people think they are "environmentalists" if they cried when
> > Bambi's mother died.
> >
> > Chris Perley
> >
> > PS - I cried. In fact, I was about 11 or so, and I can NEVER remember
> > crying so much over such a load of baloney (I would say
> bullshit - but I'm
> > never sure whether you Americans understand real English - whereas you
> > understand baloney).
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Maria Stella
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2000 11:17
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: The ad hominem argument
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Steve writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Maria-Stella is an idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >Is that not an ad hominem argument?
> > > >
> > > > No. Not from you Steve. Any comment from you is complement.
> > >
> > > Yes, i shall agree to that (romantic sigh!) (#$@% !!)
> > > Well, thanks for your answer Steve :)
> > >
> > > I am reading an interesting book right now, Nature's Keepers,
> by Stephen
> > > Budiansky.
> > > Do you have any ad hominem or not comments to make about him?
> > > I want to use some things for my thesis, so i want to know
> ALL the gossip.
> > >
> > > Maria-Stella
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
