In addition to our weekly topic, this week we will also be discussing a selection from the book Wild Earth: Wild Ideas for a World Out of Balance by Tom Butler. Click "comments" to see the discussion!
Full citation:
Tom Butler, ed., Wild Earth: Wild Ideas for a World Out of Balance, (Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed, 2002) pp 131-141.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I appreciated Butler bluntness. He did not sugar coat the issues and spoke honestly about his suggestions. I was intrigued by the analogy comparing humans to cancer and that we both fail after our success. He too speaks of a long term vision that it seems many people talk about, but no one does anything. Although, he does propose some radical suggestions it makes us think and also when compared to the editors note it is not so radical.
ReplyDeleteButler's goals are sustainability for the next 1,00years by trying to make morality and environment exist on the same level. Preserving wildnerness while also allowing humans to reach full potential
His suggestions are cutting population to 1.5 billion and living in concentrated habits, about 500, among the wilderness. He thinks we can still be urban in these small communities and in order to achieve such some force will be required.
The end note was even more shocking talking about 1.5 million population and basically reverting back to paleolithic times.
SO for tomorrow, maybe have some one introduce the level of bluntness they are about to witness, another talk about his goals, another his suggestions, another the commentary at the end and then sum up how we perceive it. See ya'll tomorrow!
Laura, you have a really good summary of the article there, and I'm really glad you took the initiative of trying to think how we should organize ourselves for the presentation tomorrow. I also like your point about how blunt Nash is, it's really striking, and I think his tone goes along well with the Maniates reading we did this week. Both are very direct writers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think we should spend less of our efforts merely repeating the article - otherwise the rest of the class could just read it and be done with it. One of us should quickly summarize both Nash's points and Davis' rebuttal, then all of us should share our synthesis of the ideas. Do we see the Island Civilization model as realistic? Do we agree with the biocentric or anthropocentric viewpoint, or do we find Nash's combination of the two preferable? Is Davis too pessimistic? What would our long-term solution be? Is Nash's point really suggesting the Island Model to the letter, or is he merely trying to get the point across that we need to think long-term about ecological issues (keep in mind he is primarily a historian)? Maybe we should each answer one of those questions?
Does anyone else have any thoughts? I totally don't want to dominate the discussion here.
See my post below for some good ideas (and answers to the questions I proposed).
Nash’s argument is best summed up in the analogy of cake – he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He is both anthropocentric and biocentric. If anyone else thinks they believe in “equal rights for all”, they should probably sit down and speak with Nash, as I am sure they have not yet conceived of our eventual “microbial brotherhood.”
ReplyDeleteOf course, mocking Nash in such a way is likely my instinctive defensive response to something that scares me. I am scared because what Nash describes sounds perfect, a small human population enjoying its full potential. No such thing as war, hunger, or homelessness. Not just this, but the same rights for all other species. Nash solves the tragedy of the commons. He transcends the boundaries of the modern nation state. It all sounds absolutely utopian. It all sounds absolutely impossible. That is what scares me; that doubt it could ever happen, although I so desperately want it to.
One thing I believe that Nash ignores is basic human tendencies. In his Island Civilization model, he assumed homogeneity between all human populations. He speaks of deconstructing the “American Dream”, and describes it in detail. What about the dreams of the thousands of other unique cultures present in the human population? Could they all adapt to Island Civilization? In the past few thousand years of human history, maintaining unique cultural traits between relatively isolated human populations has been a constant. I doubt this is something our species could shed in the next few centuries, no matter how imaginative our technology becomes. As Nash states, “Machines only express human values.” So what about those machines that are incompatible with Island Civilization?
Nash admits however that it is impossible for him to cover all of his bases. Davis, in his response, praises Nash for this. Whether or not Island Civilization is possible is not the point, the point is that we must change our mindset from one focused on the present to one focused on the future. We must look past our relatively short life spans. Politicians and policy makers need to look past their even shorter term limits.
Davis contradicts many of the points Nash makes, many of them on a scientific level. Nash purposefully decided to throw science out the window, however, and believe anything is possible. Can we break the second law of thermodynamics? No, but we can certainly manipulate it to the point where it seems as if it is being broken. That is how our “moral community” can “eventually be identical with the ecological one.” I propose that we look forward…and never look back. Let’s not recreate the Pleistocene; let’s improve upon it. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves in an Island Civilization; we should try to carefully insert ourselves into natural systems so that our inputs equal our outputs. Only then can we truly equate our morals with ecological stability.
Hey guys. I was a little shocked towards the end of the article about his suggestions for the future also. But I definitely feel like his analogies were brilliant and have the potential to make an impact on readers. One of my favorite analogies, other than the cancer one, is
ReplyDelete"We are not threatened, like the ecosystem of the dinosaurs, by a death star. We are the death star."
What was most shocking I thought was his suggestion for the use of violent force for a revolution if his reforms don't work. At first I thought, "well this guy is a complete loony". But then he brought up some good points. violent revolutions of the past have led to some great things, like the abolition of slavery.
As for the group discussion today, I agree with Josh and Laura. But also I think we need to save a minute or two (because I'm pretty sure its only 5 minutes in total) to ask the rest of the class what they think on Nash's projection of the future. Even if they haven't read it, I think it would still be good to involve the rest of the students in the discussion.