Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
By Galen Taylor Jones, Dhruv Pandey, Sherry Lin,
Alex Jang, Megan Bontogon, Robbyn Feragen
In order for living and non-living creatures to live in harmony and increase life quality, humans must develop their spirituality and realize their uniqueness as a part of a whole.
In order to effectively solve ecological problems, we must approach
them from a stance which analyzes human societies as their root cause.
“Human beings always remain rooted
in their biological evolutionary history,
which we may call 'first Nature', but they
produce a characteristically human
social nature of their own
which we may call ' second nature'.”
Gerontocracies-->Patriarchy-->Hierarchy
Eventually, based on the idea of
domination, society created a
market which took on a life
of its own. This also
effects how we interact
with the environment.
“They would be municipalized, rather than
nationalized or privatized.”
“ It challenges the entire system of domination
itself and seeks to eliminate the hierarchical
and class edifice that has imposed itself on
humanity and defined the relationship
between nonhuman and human nature.”
"All things in the biosphere
have equal right to live...
and to reach their own
individual forms of...
self-realization within the
larger self-realization.
Realizing one's role in life
and seeing oneself as a unique part of the big picture.
“ the idea of dominating nature has its primary
source in the domination of human by
human and the structuring of the natural
world into a hierarchical Chain of Being.”
Personal Reflections
Do you think there are significant ideological differences between the two papers? If so, can you think of any examples of movements/events/organizations that demonstrate either ideology?
Where do these papers fit into the 'Flower of Values' we looked at in class? (Antropocentrism vs. Biocentrism, Individual Freedom vs. Social Responsibility). Where do you think a policies of ecological preservation should fit into that chart?
Deep Ecology tends to be more idealistic, wheras Social Ecology tends to be more realistic on how it presents its information. Which method did you find more approachable on how today's ecological issues could be solved? Does this 'overly idealstic' attitude detracts from the message of environmental concern, or does it help getting at least some part of the issue heard?