Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Orr’s “Love It or Lose It: The Coming Biophilia Revolution” HMXP 102 Adapted from Dr. Fike’s slideshow David W. Orr Orr is the chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College in Ohio. He gives dozens of lectures around the country every year on environmental issues.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Orr’s “Love It or Lose It: The Coming Biophilia Revolution” HMXP 102 Adapted from Dr. Fike’s slideshow
David W. Orr • Orr is the chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College in Ohio. • He gives dozens of lectures around the country every year on environmental issues. • His paternal grandfather was Rev. W.W. Orr of Charlotte, NC. Source: http://www.oberlin.edu/news-info/98sep/orr_profile.html
Biophobia • How does Orr define biophobia? • What characteristics of biophobia does Orr list?
Characteristics of Biophobia • The world is not “alive and worthy of respect, if not fear.” • Distance yourself from animals (“mere machines”). • Have no sympathy for nature: think of it only in scientific and economic terms. • Join power, money, knowledge in order to make nature useful. • Stress improvement and “perpetual economic growth.” • Cultivate dissatisfaction that can be alleviated only by “mass consumption.”
World Views • The next few slides help you explore WHY we arrived at the six characteristics of biophobia.
Re. #2: René Descartes (1596-1650) • Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: "The Cartesian approach to the human story allows us to believe that we are separate from the earth, entitled to view it as nothing more than an inanimate collection of resources that we can exploit however we like; and this fundamental misperception has led us to our current crisis.” • “One of the deepest and most lasting legacies of Descartes’ philosophy is his thesis that mind and body are really distinct--a thesis now called ‘mind-body dualism.’ He reaches this conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body (that is, an extended, non-thinking thing), and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other.” • Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descmind.htm
Homology Descartes Environment Mind:body::humans:nature POINT: There is disconnection on each side of the homology. What Descartes says about mind and body also applies to humans and nature.
Re. #4: Francis Bacon (1561-1626) • “Francis Bacon provided the logic, and the evolution of government-funded research did the rest.” • “To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for ‘the use and benefit of men’ and the relief of the human condition.” • Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bacon.htm
Re. #1, 3, 5, and 6: Consumerism • What do you make of the obvious connection to Swimme, “the sophisticated cultivation of dissatisfaction”? • Swimme: “But at a deeper level, what we need to confront is a power of the advertiser to promulgate a worldview, a mini-cosmology, that is based upon dissatisfaction and craving” (112). • Orr: • “Sixth, biophobia required the sophisticated cultivation of dissatisfaction, which could be converted into mass consumption.” • “Beneath each of these endeavors lies a barely concealed contempt for unaltered life and nature, as well as contempt for the people who are expected to endure the mistakes, purchase the results, and live with the consequences, whatever those may be. It is a contempt disguised by terms of bamboozlement, like bottom line, progress, needs, costs and benefits, economic growth, jobs, realism, research, and knowledge, words that go undefined and unexplained. • People “must come to see their bondage as freedom and their discontents as commercially solvable problems.”
A Troubling Contrast • What metaphors besides "board feet, tons, barrels, yield," etc. do we use to talk about nature? Can you come up with others? • What does Orr say about “stewardship”? • What metaphors are more in line with stewardship?
Sample Nature Metaphors • Here are some areas (nouns and adjectives) to get you started. • Garden • Resource • Divine • Wilderness • Pristine • Female • Source: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~amerstu/ce/summer97/ta/Metaphors.html
Question • How can we be good stewards of nature when we have the wrong metaphors to describe our relationship to it? • Perhaps by changing our metaphors: • Argument as war vs. argument as dance (Lakoff and Johnson, page 8) • Our relationship to nature is USE vs. our relationship to nature is ____________.
A Further Problem • Not only metaphor is off. In addition, we tell ourselves the wrong myths about nature: • What kind of myths do we have about nature? Cf. Gore’s emphasis on “story.”
Paul Bunyan • Source for the previous two slides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paul_Bunyan_and_Babe_statues_Bemidji_Minnesota_crop.JPG
Myths About Man and Nature • http://youtube.com/watch?v=M3l2a_ESwPc • http://youtube.com/watch?v=zZp2JcmUU6o • http://youtube.com/watch?v=D_45epTAZLg • http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvVRMrUYvYs • http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-Y0Az-4wUg
The Upshot • “Biophobia sets into motion a vicious cycle…”: This sentence describes the notion of “feedback loop.” The idea is that a biophobic orientation feeds itself. • Fortunately, that would probably work for biophilia as well.
The Other Orientation: Biophilia • How does Orr define Biophilia? • We will be reading Naess’s text soon. In it the author speaks of “deep ecology.” see next slide
Deep Ecology • Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind as an integral part of its environment. It places more value on other species, ecosystems and processes in nature than is allowed by established environmental and green movements, and therefore leads to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is Naess's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism— the claim that all living things have the same right to live and flourish — a principle which, after criticism, has been substantially qualified (see Naess 1989). Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it is concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the role of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
Topophilia: An Extension of Biophilia • loving the setting that is familiar to us. • And there is hope in doing so because we want to preserve what we love. • What is the relationship between topophilia and biophilia? Can there be one without the other?
Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas • Does the principle of repression apply to environmentalism? If we continue to repress nature, will it bite us on the backside? • Here is Jesus, speaking in the Gospel of Thomas: “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.” Is this true or false as regards the environment? • Cf. technology in the Aliens movies. The monster is the thing that is repressed.
Lewis Thomas, “Antaeus in Manhattan” • “But I think it was chiefly the plastic [that was at fault in the death of the ant colony on display in Manhattan], which seems to me the most unearthly of all man’s creations so far. I do not believe you can suspend army ants away from the earth, on plastic, for any length of time. They will lose touch, run out of energy, and die for lack of current” (The Lives of a Cell 26).
C.G. Jung, CW 10, 882/466-67 • “Yet the danger that faces us today is that the whole of reality will be replaced by words. This accounts for that terrible lack of instinct in modern man, particularly the city-dweller. He lacks all contact with the life and breath of nature. He knows a rabbit or a cow only from the illustrated paper, the dictionary, or the movies, and thinks he knows what it is really like—and is then amazed that cowsheds ‘smell,’ because the dictionary didn’t say so.” END