Chris,
This is a very good and useful set of categories, expanding on the bipolar
division of ecocentric and anthropocentric by providing a middle way, that
of Leopold, of whom I am an admirer.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: Chris Perley[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: sustainable?
>
> I suggested at least three perspectives on environmental "management"
> (itslef a loaded word) - essentially being the preservationist (Muir), the
> ecologically sustainable (Leopold) and the resourcism (Pinchot -
> 'scientific
> management'). I dug out a paper this morning ( Brown G & Harris C 1998.
> Professional Foresters and the Land Ethic, revisited. J Forestry 96(1):
> 4-12) that gave a range of value sets - all of which can claim to have
> their
> own idea of "sustainability". Here it is
>
> Navajo
> Muir
> Leopold
> Ecosystem Management (synonymous? w Ecological Sustainability)
> New RPA (a reference to recreation initiatives in USDA Forest Service I
> think)
> Multiple Use
> Pinchot
> Stewards
> New World Colonists
>
> To which you could add
>
> Milton Friedman worshippers/Fundamentalist Bible Brigade
>
> just to add a little spice.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure I'd place Navajo on that side of Muir. He didn't
> see
> native Americans (or many others for that matter) as a part OF nature.
> More
> pests from my reading of him. IE Muir represents the preservation extreme
> -
> and the more 'promising' perspectives are probably not at each end.
>
> Chris P
>
|