This is a long and tedious discussion of a post on the
deep-ecology list, so skip if not interested in philosophy.
A review of the book "Re-evaluating Traditions - Animals and Nature:
Cultural Myths, Cultural Realities" was posted to deep-ecology and for
some reason it hit a nerve. This is an exploration to try and detect
what bothered me.
The review starts with the following quote:
"Be careful lest, in casting out your devils, you cast out the best
that is within you." Nietzsche
The book is said to conclude that our culture has a lot going for it,
native cultures are not so great, and that we should not be so critical
of our culture.
After reading this part i was curious about how one defines a beneficial
level of criticism and separates it from too much criticism. The review goes
on pointing out how native people around the world were far from the ideal
and uses this to show western culture as having a lot going for it.
Well... i am interested in learning from everywhere and then building
a sustainable culture. It is useful to know the faults of all
cultures and learn from them. But, the author does not seem interested
in this. There seems to be an assumption that we are choosing between
native thinking and western culture.
The reviewer then goes on to say this book "has something new to say"
about how to interact with animals and nature. OK, what is new?
The rest of the review drags out history and religion but does not
identify anything new. What it does do is use phrases like
"politically correct"
Whenever i see the phrase "politically correct" i look for a
political agenda. The main purpose of this phrase seems to
be a separation of "us" versus "them" and adds the assumption
that "them" are incorrect but "politically correct". It isn't
an objective use of language and does not add any logic to
a discussion.
There is politics involved here and it has to do with native
peoples rights. Many native people are arguing that they have
a long history of dealing with nature and should have the freedom
to continue the native ways. This book says native peoples are
not good stewards of nature and we need a different way to view
the issues.
Well... there are thousands of native peoples and i'm not fond
of big global solutions which has a one-size-fits-all mentality.
If this is struggle between native peoples rights and western
culture then i don't want to play the dichotomy game. The question
in my mind would be: How do we transition everyone towards a
more sustainable world?
The review goes on and on getting lost in the imperfections
of past and present cultures. What is new about that?
Grumble, on another topic... i've been thinking about defining
sustainability and one thought keeps occurring. We can define
sustainability from the earth standpoint and include people in
our model, but the model changes if we approach it from an
individuals standpoint.
For example: I've been thinking back about all the parents
i've known and how much trouble they had raising kids. Money
and intelligence did not seem to make a big difference.
What, did matter was whether they had free time and enjoyed
the kids company. The parents i've known who wanted to play
with their kids had an easier time raising responsible kids.
The same may be true of sustainability. If we are not
motivated and enjoy a sustainable path it won't work. We can
spend years defining sustainable models and criteria, but the
seed will never develop. We have to mate human motivation
and ongoing process with definitions of sustainability.
Anyway, this is why i think the natural step stuff needs
a new dimension of thought.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.teleport.com/ kowens
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
