Hello Paul,
In the context of the whole book, that phrase: "the tension between the
Entrepreneur and the Ecologist" is not about a polarization between the
general public and entrepreneurs.
It is about a radical change in the whole mindset of we humans from the
"anthropomorphic" to "biocentric". It seems to me that the "bio" term is
too limited (to living beings), so I suggest it should be thought of as
"ecocentric" rather than "biocentric".
In my post I concluded:
-----
"In order to move toward "ecocentrism", it seems to me we first need to come
to some understanding of the nature of "human". For example, what/who is
included in the concept "human", what is the context within which human
exists, is there some "ideal" human toward which an individual might be
expected to strive?
"Societies have changed/expanded the criteria/standing for membership from,
for example, only white males with a minimum level of property ownership to
include all white males, non-whites, females.
"Now, it seems to me, we need to restructure our way of thinking "human" to
include the whole ecosystem. That is, we need to think of the whole
ecosystem as being an essential part of "human"; that the essense of being
human is a unity with ecosystem. For example, we need to think of human
health as being intricately and inseparately bound into the ecosystem
health. ("health" yet to be fully defined for me)"
--------------------
What Swimme & Berry are saying (I believe) is that we have for some time
been in an "Entrepreneurial" mindset - *all* of us. Now, for many reasons,
we are on the cusp of a transformation in the way we think of ourselves as
humans. We *have to* change our view. As Sylvia said nature can get along
without us but we cannot get along without nature. We have to learn to
think as an "Ecologist" and not as an "Entrepreneur". All of us, consumer,
producer, and....
In that transformation process there will be some relatively minor changes
along the way such as that pig legislation. But that legislation is still
in the "Entrepreneurial" context. It reflects a human recognition of pain
in another animal; it is not the result of a major transformation in the way
we think of what it means to be "human".
This is just my interpretation of Swimme/Berry in the context of my own
"world view" and it is offered to get other folks views.
I thank you all for responding and look forward to a continuing exchange.
It is very helpful for me and I hope for the rest of you.
Sincerely,
Ray
As Pogo said: "we have met the enemy and it is us"
------------------------
> Re "the tension between the Entrepreneur and the Ecologist"
>
> I do not think that this polarisation helps. It reinforces the notion that
> the general public are innocent and it is "they" (the entrepreneurs and
> corporations) who do the polluting and destroying. Of course producers
have
> a responsibility but so do the consumers (the general public). If it is
> "them" (entrepreneurs etc) that are the problem, the only response is to
> regulate their behaviour (very necessary in my view). We might just manage
> a globalisation of regulation but the Bush stand on Kyoto for example
> suggests this may be some way of.
>
> If however the consumer accepts his/her role in the support and
> encouragement of these organisations (by buying the goods) then he/she
> accepts the responsibility for the environmental damage. But who wants to
> do this when he/she can blame "them" instead.
>
> If consumers, in choosing what to consume, act according to
> environmentally sound practices then the problem of the producers
> evaporates. (But as a counter example, In the UK we have recently
> introduced legislation on the well- being of farmed pigs (rightly so IMO)
> because as a society we claim to be interested in animal welfare , on the
> other hand we continue to buy cheaper imported pork which happens not to
be
> subject to these regulations. Regrettably we do not seem to be taking
> personal resonsibility for animal welfare but hide instead behind a
> "concerned" public face )
>
> Of course their must be a balance struck between regulation and individual
> choice but we will not reach it by concerning ourselves only with "them".
> (Perhaps it is less taxing to lobby for a change in the law than to
> re-educate an entire society.)
>
> Pushed to the limit we have to decide whether we prefer 'Good" actions to
> come about through:
> a) expressing the collective will through legislation and its global
> enforcement
> b) individuals taking responsibility for their actions.
>
> This I think is a very big question indeed.
>
> A secondary and interesting question might be: If the globalisation of
> commerce threatens the autonomy of local cultures what does the
> globalisation of legislation do?
>
> Kind regards Paul K
|