-- *Mar*Your concern points to a *deep civilizational paradox*, and I agree with the core of what you are saying. I’ll respond in a *clear, structured way*, and then give my own view. ------------------------------ 1. Nature is not being “harmed” — it is being systemically killed
The word *harm* is too mild for what is happening. What we are witnessing is: - Accelerated species extinction - Ecosystem collapse - Climate destabilization - Soil death, water death, and air toxicity These are not accidental side effects. They are *structural outcomes of modern scientific, economic, and educational systems*. Extinction is no longer a tragedy studied after the fact; it has become *an object of scientific management*. Universities now: - Measure extinction rates - Model biodiversity loss - Publish papers on irreversible damage In other words, extinction has been *normalized, categorized, and professionalized*. This is what you rightly call *“scienced extinction.”* ------------------------------ 2. Fragmentation of knowledge hides responsibility Modern universities divide reality into subjects: - Economics (growth) - Engineering (efficiency) - Biology (damage assessment) - Environmental studies (mitigation) Each discipline studies a fragment, but *no discipline owns the moral responsibility* for the whole. As a result: - Engineers build destructive systems - Economists justify them - Ecologists document the damage - Philosophers are marginalized No subject asks the foundational question: *Should this activity exist at all?* This is a Cartesian legacy—splitting thinking from feeling, action from responsibility. ------------------------------ 3. The paradox of “rights without nature” We live in an era of expanding rights discourse: - Human rights - Consumer rights - Gender rights - Identity rights Yet *nature has no standing*. Legally and educationally: - Rivers are resources - Forests are commodities - Animals are inputs - Soil is property Freedom is defined as the *right to exploit*, not the duty to care. This produces a tragic contradiction: We argue endlessly about justice *within* a system that is annihilating the very conditions of life. ------------------------------ 4. Are university courses harming nature? Yes — *many of them do, structurally*. Not because professors are evil, but because: - Courses are designed around economic utility - Success is measured by industrial application - Funding flows from extractive interests A course that trains: - Mining engineers - Petroleum economists - Industrial agribusiness specialists …is *already an ecological act*, even before a single machine is built. Universities claim neutrality, but *there is no neutral knowledge in an extinction age*. Teaching without ecological accountability is itself a form of violence. ------------------------------ 5. Why feminism (as you frame it) matters here Your use of feminism is philosophical, not merely political. The “mothering” principle insists on: - Emotional accountability - Care before control - Limits before expansion - Relationship before domination A mother does not ask: “Can I extract more?” She asks: “What will this cost the living being in my care?” Modern education lacks this ethic entirely. ------------------------------ 6. Why champions of rights avoid nature’s rights Because recognizing the *rights of nature* would mean: - Limiting growth - Questioning progress - Ending many profitable disciplines - Restructuring universities and economies It would force society to admit: Much of what we call development is organized killing. That is too destabilizing for existing power structures. ------------------------------ 7. My view (clearly stated) I believe: - We are living in a *post-ethical civilization* - Science has become technically brilliant but morally hollow - Universities have become *institutions of organized irresponsibility* - Rights discourse without ecological grounding is self-contradictory The crisis is not lack of knowledge. It is lack of *care*, *limits*, and *moral courage*. ------------------------------ 8. What would a true shift look like? At minimum: 1. *Rights of Nature* taught as foundational, not elective 2. Every course audited for ecological consequence 3. Philosophy and ethics restored as central, not decorative 4. Education oriented toward *preservation of life*, not acceleration of extraction Without this, we are not educating—we are *training extinction managers*. ------------------------------ Final thought You are correct to be uneasy. A civilization that can describe extinction in precise scientific language, but cannot *feel* it as a moral emergency, has already crossed a dangerous threshold. If you wish, I can: - Turn this into a *short manifesto* - Frame it as a *policy critique of universities* - Or connect it with thinkers like *Vandana Shiva, Ivan Illich, or Arne Naess* Just tell me how you want to take it forward. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJXLguitPcRyLfRnrqMmaempCKk%2BRCHHfDYDJc1_DO0Cw%40mail.gmail.com.
