Date sent:              Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:01:14 EST
Send reply to:          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:                     STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:                Re: Poetry/Deep Ecology

> In a message dated 98-11-12 07:03:36 EST, you write:
> 
> << And, I would add that intelligence is not the be-all or end all of any
>  kind of judgement.  I would also add that I have grown to want to treat
>  all creatures as deserving of space, compassion etc., regardless  of their
>  economic value--that blasted determinent which seems to be the base of
>  most arguments: that it isn't worth anything unless it is worth something
>  to humans.  I would like to go beyond stewardship: to where all things
>  deserve space, place, etc.  That suffering of all kinds, of all creatures,
>  is to be avoided.  And, Ecolady, if you read "Noah's parable" as a reason
>  to be a steward, fine.  I differ, but I'm not going to hold up my way as
>  the only reasonable way, which I suggest, your language puts forth you do.
>   >>
> Hi!
> 
> I agree that the unless it is worth something to humans theory should be
> blasted - you sound like a deep ecologist Arlene - that is the belief - that
> things exist for other reasons - their own reasons - they do not have to
> benefit humans - the fact that they do is a blessing not an end all!  I agree!
> However, how do you explain that to people who have been culturally raised to
> believe that we have a moral obligation to each other because we don't want to
> get punished, the animals are here for our use and the Earth is our home?  How
> would you explain why to apply deep ecology to their thoughts and perception?
> I would get spiritual about it!  Getting spiritual about it is as deep as you
> can get - things deserve life - because they are spirits and co-created by a
> life giver springing forth from the same realm - back to the clay (That is
> deep - how could they argue with that?) Could they say God never meant that we
> shouldn't take more then we need?  Could they argue that Noah's ark doesn't
> teach us that the animals are God's??  They have no defense against true
> religious fervor - it's the Earth's final defense in defense of life - don't
> you see that?
>

Religious fervour has historically been at least as much of a problem 
as it has been a solution, because it can be welded to anything - 
constructive or destructive.
> Being a human extentialist isn't going to cut it - The Earth needs a real wake
> up call - they need hard care spirituality infused into reality!  Any other
> approach will be seen as an attempt to demoralize or discredit God to the
> believers or an attempt to put forth earth worship and most people will close
> their ears to the mere mention of that!  We have to keep everyone's eyes and
> ears open to the truth - We need to place a stamp of Sacredness on the living
> Earth to  save it - it really is it's only hope!  Life becomes sacred and
> revered and honored for that!  Or else, it's just a plan old play ground for
> the spoiled and undisciplined!

If you would open your eyes, you would see that everything you 
wrote after your "close their ears" remark echoes what I have been 
saying is a practical consequence of Paganism for some time now.
Joe 

> Peace!
> Angela
> 

Reply via email to