On Sat, 12 Nov 1994, James Roper wrote:
>
> Swarr Amanda Lock proclaims:
I must point out that I didn't "proclaim" anything; this choice of
language seems to intended to antagonize...
> |
> |> > anarchy. I think a definition of terms is in order. Anarchy does not (in
> |> > a literal sense) mean "no higherarchy," it means "no rules." It is the
> |> > fundamental belief that no human being has any right to tell another
> |> > human being what or what not to do.
> |
> |Okay, so to get back to the topic of this list, how does that tie into
> |Ecofeminism? This sounds more like a traditional definition of social
> |ecology to me...
>
> This is the point of this list isn't it?
>
Yes, this IS the point of the list. I was merely pointing out that I
subscribed to this list to hear/read more perspectives on Ecofeminism and
when we stray into topics that certainly MAY be relevant to Ecofeminist
ideology, I would appreciate if we make direct connections clearly. For
example, I know plenty of people who self-define as Ecofeminists but want
nothing to do with anarchy; I don't agree with this perspective, but I
think it should be acknowledged as part of the Ecofeminist movement.
Jim further went on in his post to outline his "gut feeling" about
definitions of patriarchy, but it isn't the vague structure of patriarchy I
am worried about here, it's the patriarchy that seems to be rearing its
ugly head as part of this newsgroup (whether conscious or unconscious).
I have noticed that recently men have comprised about 3/4 of the
postings on ECOFEM. I have no inherent problems with men posting,
but this seems to me to be directly linked to our failure to discuss
issues of the Feminist ideological aspects of Ecofeminism that we are all
(presumably) interested in. I am not suggesting that men refrain
from posting, I am just hoping to redirect the conversation toward how
Ecofeminism is relevant to women as well as men. I often feel we are
talking about "Eco-humanism" or social ecology (and perhaps we are since
there are certainly many overlaps); but let's put the FEM back into
ECOFEM. I also would like to point out that more often than not men make
long multiple posts while women make short apologetic statements, myself
included (patriarchy again).
hoping not to get flamed,
amanda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 07:48:39 MST 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 01:04:29 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Moojan Momen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TV shows and nature
Lines: 33
James Roper wrote:
>
> Well, let's see. The TV shows often misrepresent, the present pablum for
> public consumption, these shows do NOT point fingers at the real causes
> of destruction, since they are often on some kind of syndicated network,
> they leave people thinking that nature can be found on a TV screen rather
> than out the door and down the street. Which reminds me of an analogy.
>
> I was in the forest in Panama, lush, green, wonderful. Another person
> was being shown around and they said: "Wow, this is almost like
> Disneyland!" When are metaphors are the man-made fakes "natures" and we
> compare the real stuff to them, we are in trouble. So, people talk about
> "nature" as something that you see on TV, not something that is really
> meant to be part of lives, experienced by each of us.
>
This reminds me of an essay by Unberto Eco called "Hyper-Reality".
This was a comment upon American society. It pointed out that the
entertainment industry always portrays things as larger and more intense
than they are in real life.
Thus for example, if you go on a jungle ride in Disneyland, you see
crocodiles, lions, exotic birds, etc. Whereas in a walk in a real jungle
would not show you any of these things. Hence reality is always something of
a disappointment. The same sort of thing can be said about the way marriage,
relationships, and many other things are portrayed in the entertainment
industry. This leaves people with a feeling that somehow their lives are
not as good as they should be, their partners are not up to scratch, their
jobs is not as interesting as it should be, etc.
--
Moojan Momen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 08:56:39 MST 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 11:00:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Amanda's observations
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a recent (female) subscriber to this newsgroup, I too have
noticed the frequency of posts from men relative to those from women, and
also occasionally a tone that suggests that, if I make a response, I
might be
"overpowered"--hence I hesitate to post at all (could this be the kind of
thing that happens in our classes, such that the women tend to keep quiet
or "apologize" for speaking, while the men tend to dominate the
conversations?).
However, some of the recent topics of discussion connect with
ideas I am currently struggling with, so I will take a chance. Re: seeing
humans both as part of nature and also "free" enough to be able to make
choices about our actions--granted that Aristotle's biology got much
wrong and that he upheld a rigidly hierarchical structuring of the human
order, his willingness to see humans against a background of other
lifeforms strikes me as potentially valuable to dealing with our
ecological crisis. Might there be a "mean between excess and deficiency"
we might seek in, e.g., the demands we make of natural systems, or even
of the numbers of people that "should" inhabit or utilize an ecosystem? I
have been studying conservation biology as well as philosophy, and it
seems we must become cognizant of the "natural" structuring of
ecosystems--relative numbers of creatures at different trophic levels,
for example, within certain (perhaps fluctuating) ranges--in order to
think clearly about how we humans are driving other forms of life out of
existence and how we might choose to behave differently so as not to do
so.
A kind of "virtue ethic" for how humans might most appropriately
live within their ecosystems might also have something to offer the
(sometimes heated) debate about meat-eating--the most frequent defense of
meat-eating I hear is that "it's in our nature" or in this case "we're
just like other animals," but a look at the diets of our closest primate
relatives shows nothing like the kind of "excess" many in the
industrialized societies currently engage in.
I also wonder, might we learn from our closest relatives, the
other great apes, certain things about what might be inherited tendencies
to set up social hierarchies (including along male/female divisions) such
that we can bring our capacities for reasoning, choice and flexibility of
response to overturn them, or at least undo the harm they impose once
they become rigid?
Ronnie Hawkins--Dept. of Philosophy, University of Central Florida
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 09:06:00 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: spirituality
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 11:09:00 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Ani Mareck" at Nov 12, 94
02:07:21 pm
Ani Mareck says:
|
|The way I think about this conflict is that spirituality is a much more risky
|topic to discuss. Intellectual precepts are, in many ways, easier to defend.
I find your comments enlightening Ani, And, of couse, since I am a man,
a little difficult. Spirituality may be risky to discuss, but should be
worth it, if it will help bridge any gaps. I see in myself the tendency
to want a "definition" for spirituality, yet I also know that to define
any emotion-filled word doesn't do it justice.
|Spirituality is different. Spirituality is seated in the body. When a person
|chooses to share on a spiritual level, they are putting their personal
|understanding of existence on the line. As far as being a woman and
|understanding spirituality, the road is difficult and complex. Women grew up
|in a society that gives a male definition to spiritual precepts. Whatever a
|true feminine, or female concept of spirituality is being laboriously
|discovered by women across the planet. This discovery is not, and can never be
|an intellectual one. It is a quiet process of listening to the rhythem of
|life. It is a deep emotional awareness of our place as humans in the cosmos.
|The human race is in trouble because we have chosen not to listen to the deeper
|rhythem of truth around us.
While I sort of intuitively know what this means, I still wonder how to
show someone else what this might mean? IF we need to listen to those
rhythms, how do we, and how do we help others do so?
|This is the general understanding I have for where ecofeminism interfaces with
|spirituality. Human beings have managed to get out of sync with our natural
|world. To come back into tune with it is, at this point, a difficult and
|somewhat alien process. To intellectualize about it is difficult, because the
|very basis for our intellectual processes are based on an atomistic view of
|creation.
Maybe it stems from the reducitonist tendencies in science. That is,
ever since Lucretius and Newton men have thought that by taking the
universe apart and looking at its pieces, a complete understanding of
that universe is possible. However, now that quantum physics is around, it
shows that the previous paradigm is not correct. In fact, the universe
is more probabilistic. Any relationship between spirituality and quantum
physics? Or am I just being a man and still trying to categorize, to
atomize?
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 10:03:57 MST 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 16:11:40 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Moojan Momen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Spirituality
Lines: 49
In response to James Roper's question about what is spirituality, I would
like to offer a few comments, although I realize that no-one can really
answer this question since language, which is our only mode of communication
(over the Internet at least), is very poor at describing and relaying
information about this sphere. I will try to confine myself to comments that
are relevant to the concerns of this list.
We can think of our human/huwoman world as existing at three levels.
The first level is the physical. At this level there are obvious differences
between us as human beings. The most significant is perhaps the male/female
differences, but also race, etc. The values that are held by those whose
participation in society is mainly at this level are those of wealth and
possessions.
The second level is that of the mind or mental activity. There are also
differences at this level, mainly through the processes of socialization
and acculturation which we all go through in process of growing up. Those
who are subscribers to this list are presumably acutely aware of the way in
which our thought processes are defined in terms of masculinity and
femininity according to the norms of our society as we grow up; and most
of those on this list have, I suspect, spent a great deal of time and effort
in trying to unlearn these learnt responses. Even if we manage to conquer these
learned differences, there are other real differences between individuals
at this level--not all are equally endowed with mental and intellectual
abilities.
The third level is the spiritual level. It is at this level that we are
inspired by beauty and discern truth (although we may think we discern
truth at the level of the mind). At this level all differences disappear and
all are equal since gender, race and even intellect are meaningless at this
level. The spiritual giants of history have come from both genders, and all
races and intellectual abilities--indeed many mystical texts consider
intellectual ability a grave disadvantage in seeking spiritual progress.
The importance of this level for the concerns of ecofeminism is that it is at
this level that the interconnectedness of all things becomes clear, and the aim
of unity in diversity can truly be established in the first instance. That is
why, in my opinion, spirituality is at the core of ecofeminism. It provides the
starting point of equality and interconnectedness. From this basis, we can try
to take the concerns of ecofeminism into the mental and physical spheres. It
also provides a moderating influence upon our activities preventing the slide
into extremism of all forms--it is all too easy for feminism to become a
hatred of men.
---------
Moojan Momen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 12:31:50 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Z mag, Albert article
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Hi to all. Before I rant and rave, can I make a
self-observation? I am concerned with the problem that the
ills I am about to discuss are based on social inequity,
maldistirbution of everything, and caused by a truly bad
social system. :-) That said, please do not miniterpret my
intent, and judge the arguments that will follow based on
content, not perceived implications. Thank you.
Okay, Michaeal Albert wrote an article in the October Z that
I think is frighteningly misleading, regarding the
population problem. Rather than have long posts about each
piece, I will send in short "snippets" about particular
issues that I take with his article. I have already told
Michael that I am doing this, and we have no animosity
(yet...?) on this subject. Not being very good at trying
to be overly polite, I would rather just get to the point.
So remember my remark above.
First issue:
In Issue 1, Michael states a problem, and then asks "how
many is too many?" Then he sets up a dichotomy between two
contrasting viewpoints. Then in Issue 2, he says that it is
obvious that growth rates cannot go on forever, so that we
need to level off at no growth sometime. Then he says that
several things are agreed to reduce birth rates, including:
increased standards of living, better education, power for
women, etc. and he says that everybody agrees about these
issues.
That is my brief intro.
To answer the problem about whether there are too many
people, Michael takes Africa as an example. This example is
entirely irrlevant, as I will show. His argument seems to
be that 1) 300 years ago, Africa's sahre of the population
was 78%. Now it is o nly 71%, therefore, Africa's
population is not too high. Of course, just above that in
the preceding paragraph, he also told us that it took a
decreasingly short time to get to where we are today. So,
if we extrapolate backwards to 1650, we will see tha t at
that time, the world population was less than 1/2 billion.
Thus, at that time Africa's 78% was 390 million people.
Today it is around 700 million people, more than were around
at the time Africa had 78% of the world total population.
Next, what is the land area of Africa relative to the world?
Well, Africa has 20% of the earth's land area. By this
measure, we could say that they should only have 20% of the
world population. Next, what is the growth rate of Africa?
Well, about 3%/year. That me ans Africa's population is
increasing at the rate of 21 million people per year, and
THAT number increases by 630,000 people each year.
Enough said about the sensibility of using Africa as an
example for population. It is clear that the proportional
representation of the population of any country *has no
bearing* on whether the population level in the world is
high or low. In other word s, this piece about Africa seems
to be completely irrelevant. Disproportionality is
meaningless.
Next, rates of population growth.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 12:32:19 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Z mag, #2
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:35:24 -0500 (EST)
The rate of population growth:
Michael points out that the rate of population grwoth is declining.
Then the question becomes whether the present grwoth rate is
outstripping the rate of productivity growth. First he says that GNP
in many poor countries has been increasing more rapidly than in
wealthier countries. Next, he asks whether population grows faster
than food production, and says no is the answer. Next, Michael shows
that food prices have declined.
Each issue in its place. First, while the rate of population growth
is declining, there is still an increase EACH YEAR in the number of
people being born. The rate is calculated "per capita" which only
means that people are giving birth to fewer kids. Unfortunately, there
are more people giving birth each year! So, the net increase in
population is still a large positive number. Now, we also have a
concept called "population momentum." Briefly, this means that when
you have a large proportion of the population below reproductive age,
and a decrease in numbers in each older age group, that the population
will continue to grow for years, even if the fertility of all women
dropped to 2. That is true because as I said above, there are more
people each year giving birth than are dying. And each year MORE young
people become reproductive than the preceding year. And, so long as
there is a net non-zero positive growth rate, this means that we will
continue to have a rapidly growing population, not in terms of rate of
increase, but rather in terms of absolute increase.
I saw that this post was going to be too long, so it will be divided
into parts 1 2 and 3.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 12:32:58 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Z mag, #3
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:35:57 -0500 (EST)
Next, Michael uses the hated GNP as an indicator of whether conditions
are getting better in Third World countries. The problem with GNP is
that it counts all sources of money generated. That may mean in this
case that the income of a very few in each of the countries counted
increased dramatically, while the income of the majority declined. It
also means that the costs of paying off national debts are part of the
GNP. It also means the costs of disposing of wastes, or cleaning up
pollution are part of the GNP. In other words, without better data,
there is no reason to think that the GNP has any bearing on the quality
of life for the many! It also implies that this growth is occurring
with some costs, especially when you consider the environmental costs
that Europe and the US paid for their development. But now, this cost
is being paid at a very high population density THAT IS INCREASING.
One of the major problems with the environment is that the pollution
must occur at a slower rate than the environment can take care of it.
We are well past that point in the US and Europe. What about those
countries tha tare grwoing rapidly AND already have a very high
population density? Also, if you look at the Third World debt, you
find that it is still rising. That debt accounts for around 50% of the
GNP! (Vital Signs, World Watch Institute)
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 12:33:36 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Z mag, #4?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:36:38 -0500 (EST)
Food is another misleading problem. For example, according to the
World Watch Institute, in 1993 there was a 4% drop in grain yield per
hectare over 1992. They also say that their has been a large increase
in grain prduction since 1950, but that this increase obscures a recent
slowdown. That is, between 1950 and 1983 grainland productivity
increased by more than 2% per year. Between 1983 and 1993 the rise was
only 1% per year, well below that of population growth. Which shows us
why talking about absolute increases in rate of grain production, as
Michael did, obscures things. We must put it in terms of the same
numbers as the rates of population increase - and when we do we find it
is increasing at a slower rate (a decreasing rate) than population is
increasing. Also, much of the land to come into agriculture in recent
years is due to irrigation. We have quite possibly reached the limits
of land that can be used for irrigation, not to mention the declining
water tables around the world. So, even if the rate of land being
brought into agriculture has been increasing in recent years, it does
NOT mean it can continue to do so in the face of a limited area of
irrigable land, and declining water tables. It also turns out that due
to heavy use of pesitcides (and their inherent environmental problems)
the resistance to them has increased dramatically in insect pests.
This bodes poorly for continued putative increases in food production,
which has been bought with larger and larger monoculture crops and
farms, which are the breeding grounds of pesticide resistant pests.
And the world population WILL double regardless of what we do.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 12:34:08 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Z mag #5?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 14:37:13 -0500 (EST)
That will do for today (the preceding four posts). In the light of
these issues, I want to ask this question. How do we deal with the
effects of the population growth, given our commitment to social
justice? That is, as the population increases, we are going to be
pressed by pollution problems (that Michael did not address), of air,
land and water, declining fish resources in the oceans, lowered water
tables (and thus for farming), a rate of increase in the population of
school aged children that far exceeds tha rate of increase in educators
for those children, etc. It seems to me that any discussion of
solutions to social problems must include how that solution will fit
into a world that will be beset by a diversity of population related
problems.
How do these issues relate to ecofeminism?
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 13:48:21 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: my posts
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecofem)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 15:51:24 -0500 (EST)
Hello. A brief apology. I recognize (and others have reminded me -
thanks Jon) that the male component of this list is at times too, what,
too male? Whatever. I hope I do not step over reasonable bounds by
posting these comments to the Z magazine article.
Rather, I truly want ecofem reactions, replies, thoughts, suggestions. I
am of the opinion that this arena has been dominated by men so far, and
the solutions are no solutions. So, I posted no suggestions, but rather
merely tried to address an article and its implications. Sorry if I got
too wordy, or otherwise stepped out of bounds.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 13 14:09:24 MST 1994
Via: uk.ac.stirling; Sun, 13 Nov 1994 19:51:26 +0000
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 19:43:38 GMT
From: Ms Millsom S Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HELP
Please can someone tell me how to unsubscribe from this list, thanks. There is
too much info!
