[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> I have recently completed a book entitled "Deeper Ecology: Essays on
> Ecological Spirituality," which outlines and discusses a protocol for the
> preservation and restoration of global ecology, wildlife populations, and
> ecosystems based on the degredation due to human exploitation. The Journal
> of Mammalogy is planning to review this book in the near future. I invite
> you to read a sample of the text; at the following website:
>
> http://home.aol.com/deepereco
>
> Ordering instructions for the book are shown there as well. If you
> cannot access this page, please e-mail me for the information.
>
> Thank you very much,
> David Doyle
> Wildlife Ecologist
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] read the excerpt from "Deeper Ecology". It is difficult to
>judge from one small
selection. The author's heart seems to be in the right place in conern for the
environment.
However, the author seems to fall into the trap of blaming environmental
destruction on people in the Third World for having large families. He seems to be
advocating having political leaders and scientists dictate the number of children
each person can have. I agree that we must limit the number of people on Earth.
The reasons for women to have a lot of children are complex, but some of them
include, men proving their masculinity by fathering many children, men dominating
and dictating to women, lack of educational and economic opportunity for women,
high mortality rates leading to people have more children so that some will survive
and gross inequities of wealth and power in society.
Edicts by political leaders and technocrats are important factors in why population
is increasing rapidly in many parts of the world. In Kerala(a state in India) which
basically is socialist and provides generally excellent social services and
opportunities for women, they have achieved a very low birth rate through voluntary
means. They have a high standard of living with no more money than the rest of
India. I visited Kerala in 1992 and lived with a family there for a month.
The author of "Deeper Ecology" also doesn't deal with the very high level of
resource consumption in industrialized countries such as the U.S. and the pressure
from the IMF and World Bank for Third World countries to restructure their
economies to emphasize cash crops for export rather than farming and manufacturing
for local use.
Another very basic issue is treatment of indigenous peoples and devaluing them,
their culture and religious and spiritual traditions as well as stealing their
land, native plants and medicines and knowledge.
Another important issue for me is devaluing other living things and the Earth and
regarding human beings(especially men) as the pinnacle of creation rather than one
of many creatures that are an expression of a divine spirit.
I am involved with the Quakers and we are trying to make equality of men and women
and respect for the Earth and other living things fundamental parts of our
spirituality and actions.
I would be interested in how these issues are treated in other parts of the book.
Michael Winkler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 15:26:05 1996
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:26:02 -0600 (CST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Indistinguishability vs. expanded self
Hello all! I am a new member to this list, my name is Kari. I am currently=
studying Ecofeminism in my environmental ethics course and have gotten=
stuck on a few issues. I though, perhaps, those on this list could possibly=
help me out. I am studying a piece by Val Plumwood entitled "Nature, Self,=
and Gender:Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the Critique of=
Rationalism". What a facinating piece it is , however I am confused about=
her case that she makes about criticizing Deep Ecologies "indistinguishabil=
ity account" in which everything is part of everything else. Plumwood feels=
that we need to identify our human distinctness in order to achieve care=
and understanding of all other things. She then goes on to talk about the=
expanded self and how it is an enlargement and extension of the ego=
allowing for a wider set of interests and concerns. I am not able to see=
the real difference between these two "selves". If anyone has any insight=
on this , it would be greatly appreciated. thanks! Kari
