1) Remember that for Wednesday, 1/23 you need to put together a heuristic list compiled from concepts and/or terms from your own diagnostic plus those of at least two of the three assigned A1 readings. Remember also the goals of this combined list:
--Make it messy;
--Make it longer than you think it needs to be;
--Then highlight 5 contrasting ideas, 5 consonant ideas, and identify 5 subordinate relationships among the terms/concepts on your combined list. In other words, find these 15 kinds of intersections between your ideas and the concepts in the readings.
2) Then, in a short comment to this post (one paragraph or so) respond to the following questions:
How do Neass' ideas relate to Leopold's? Where are they similar? How do they differ? What is the biggest idea from the readings that you hope to incorporate into your own A1 response?
***This response is due by noon on Monday, 1/21. Make sure your full name is at the bottom of any blog posts or comments. Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNaess presents a definition of his beliefs about the environment and nature that is deep ecology, a contrast to that of the standard environmental stance, which he coins “shallow ecology.” Like Leopold, Naess presents his view with extensive passion, stating that there is a need for a more ethical treatment towards nature. Although their overall goal is the same, Leopold presents his view with more technical support explaining how nature works with the biotic pyramid and how it is negatively affected by our intervention, while Naess has a more abstract approach using philosophical thinking. Both of these approaches reflect their personal interpretation of our relationship with nature Leopold simply states that we have an obligation to change how we view and interact with nature, while Naess takes it a step further and states that we must treat all organisms in nature as we would humans while also learning to appreciate our existence with nature, living a life more absent of technology. The biggest idea from these readings which I hope to incorporate in my first assignment is that although their may be various different views on our relationship with nature it is important that we all recognize that there is a relationship, something that many people neglect to realize because often times we as humans feel as though we are above nature. Once this relationship is established people will ultimately treat nature with more respect and appreciation, a goal that is constant through all forms of land ethics. As Naess states we must, “think globally, act locally,” although this goal may be long-range it is ultimately what will bring us back to the serenity of peace with nature whether it be that of Naess’s childhood on the shorelines of Norway or Thomas Berry’s meadow.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Gray
Both Leopold and Neas agree that society drives humans to strive for economic success over all other goals and aspirations. This is the main point I intend to discuss in my essay because this idea resides in all humans no matter what social class, race or age. Leopold and Naess seem hopeless at some points in their writings, because they see that this drive for economic success is so deeply instilled in society that recovery seems near to impossible. Leopold explains and uses scientific terms to describe how humans destroy their own planet. He uses historical examples about how the government gave farmers in Wisconsin the right to make their own farming laws, but in the end the farmers failed to create any laws that protected the land from destruction. Leopold categorizes man as “an intermediate layer with the bears, raccoons, and squirrels” (Leopold, 13). He declares to the reader that man is equal with nature, instead of trying to persuade the reader to think this. Naess’s writings encourage people to see the positivity in deep ecology, while Leopold is more pessimistic. Naess wants to convince people to come together as a community to combat society’s obsession with becoming “rich in materials,” opposed to leading a life “rich in goals.” Not only does Naess analyze the way humans act, and what causes this type of behavior, but he also explores the differences between nature and the environment that humans live in. Another concept I am interested in exploring in my first essay is how Naess talks about how humans lead complicated lives, but how nature is complex, but not complicated because it offers so many types of perspectives.
ReplyDeleteNatalie Shammas
On a fundamental level, both Naess and Leopold are very aware of human existence's primarily negative effect on nature as we come to know it. A common man's understanding of the environment only seems to go so far as a medium on which humans live, nothing more than a bunch of dirt and less important animals and their habitats that may be prime locations for starting a neighborhood. Both Naess and Leopold very much disagree with this concept and approach it from two different perspectives: deep ecology and land ethic. A fundamental similarity between the two is that both ideologies seem to strongly coincide in the understanding of the environment as a larger, more important entity than humans. The overall goal is very much the same, in the protection of "nature". Naess seems to approach the entire issue from a much more "idealistic", for the lack of a better term, perspective. His concept of deep ecology and approaching nature as an higher entity maintains a lot of philosophical and spiritual components. On the other hand, Leopold touches on the economic issues of appropriate land ethics and its relations with nature's biotic pyramid. The biggest idea from these readings I hope to incorporate in my response is that nature and those elements that comprise it are not just "things" or "items" for us as humans to use to our own selfish and economic interest because everything that is a part of nature has just as much of a right to be there and has an equal reason to be there (as a part of the biotic pyramid) as humans do. An understanding that everything is equal to humans, and that our influence on the environment has not boded well for much of what comprises it. In order to go back to the perfect environmental equilibrium, the human mindset has to return to the idea that humans are just a small, basic component of a much larger machine, and a communal change in mindset in environmental approach is a viable solution to the problems in environmental ethics that humans deal with every day.
ReplyDelete-Arko Ghosh
Naess and Leopold both dwell on the problem that the human race looks at nature in the light of how it can create an economic gain. The differences in their ideals addressed is thus created through their prognosis of this predicament. Leopold on one hand, holds a pessimistic tone throughout his writing in which he believes that although we must learn to cooperate with nature, it is against our human nature to look at nature in any way except for how it can help achieve selfish gains. He goes on to describe how humans are naturally self destructive, harming other forms of nature as a side effect. Although both Leopold and Naess do agree on the fact that there must me more respect for the environment, Naess has a more optimistic tone about doing so. Naess takes this need to respect the environment a step further, describing what he calls Deep Ecology--an almost transcendental approach to ecology. He describes how we must regain this attachment to nature in order to part from a selfish view of it. This is by far the most profound idea of the readings. It is described that when looking at nature, we disconnect ourselves from it looking at how we interact with nature which leads to the question of "what can it do for me?". What Naess believes is that we must reconnect with nature, seeing and feeling it as part of us, understanding that we are a part of nature. By doing so, the selfish question of "what can nature do for me?" is eliminated for we are a part of nature, and instead we are then forced to examine the interactions between the different aspects of the natural world.
ReplyDelete-Michelle Popelka
Naess calls professional ecologists out for not voicing their true priorities when it comes to the environment. He understands that society views the natural world as only ecology, a science. Naess differentiates the viewpoints from shallow ecology, which deals with economic benefits for humans, and deep ecology, which focuses on seeing humans and all living beings as equally significant parts of the environment. He finds a need for an educational campaign that would combine environmental ethics with human-centered arguments. Understanding the environment as all living beings, of humans and inanimate objects, requires some ecological education. Similarly, Leopold addresses the necessity for not only more education relating man to the land, but one that has greater depth than what people currently know about ecology and land ethics. At the moment, man’s relationship to land is primarily economic; the worth of anything in the natural world is based off of how profitable it would be to humans. Humans are alive because of the resources and networks from the resources surrounding them, of all life forms. The stability of a community is dependent on its ability to continue to thrive. Leopold makes a point that maybe a bird should exist, regardless of its economic advantage to humans. He also explains the dependency all life forms in the environment have for one another. For example, food chains are dependent on various other foods and services. Every species and life form is linked in many chains that connect to other resources and other parts of the land. Through my A1 response, I hope to incorporate the concept of dependency in a community and its connection to the environment. In my in-class writing response, I wrote about coming from the San Francisco Bay Area where there is a Chevron oil refinery that is the primary income and pollution source of the city of Richmond. I want to explore Richmond’s land, its population, and how the oil refinery’s profits inform the social and environmental landscape of the city.
ReplyDeleteBetty Tran
Naess and Leopold have ideas that concern with humans and our negative impacts on the environment. Both feel that humans can and should change our routines in order to live symbiotically with the environment in ways that allow all of us to grow. Both emphasize the need for a change in our human processes, toward a more mutualistic relationship rather than a predatory one with the environment. The way the differ is there approach in delivering this message of bettering our society and interactions with the world around us. Naess idea of Deep Ecology is a more philosophical and spiritual take on the thought of improving our ecological community. It concerns itself with morals and entails a connection with the environment that is supposed to compel you into saving it. It requires an understanding of the world you live in and how you need to see yourself as equal to nature. Leopold steps away from this spiritual approach and brings a more factual argument. In his support of "Land Ethic", he uses science and historical evidence of how humans are gradually destroying the planet we inhabit. The biggest idea from the readings that I plan on using in my response is that humans must not view the surrounding environment only as a resource. As both Naess and Leopold feel, humans should view themselves as equal to the surrounding world, and as it is vulnerable now, the environment’s importance could arguably be taken over our own. If we continue to deplete the earth of its natural resources, we will soon have no more for the future generations. Therefore, no matter what approach is taken, whether a spiritual connection backed by morals or a systematic approach supported by laws, humans must recognize the importance of the environment’s sustainability and growth, not just its utility.
ReplyDelete~Keri Lee
Naess talks about deep ecology as if it is the solution to every problem facing the entire planet. His “deep ecology” is a combination of environmentalism, spirituality, and idealism. He stresses a need for long term views while claiming short term solutions are useless. Naess’ tone in the interview came off as condescending, but optimistic that there is a solution to the challenges facing the humans and the environment. Both Leopold and Naess talk about humans as selfish beings who only care about what the environment can do for them. Similarly, they agree that an economically based form of conservation is flawed. Leopold asks if lack of education is the issue or if the content of conservational education is the issue. He also appears to believe any human change to a biosphere will have severe, irreversible consequences. I think Leopold is much more realistic about the issues involving conservation, he does not seem to be under the same illusions as Naess. Both of them say that the fundamental problem is in human lifestyle or attitude, but Leopold seems to know that changing a human’s attitude is not an easy task. I am hoping to use the idea from Leopold that a human’s relationship to land can either be a loving, caring symbiosis or a master and slave abuse.
ReplyDeleteMichael Young
Both Neass’ and Leopold's ideas are similar in such way that they both emphasize the earth as a place where every living things co-exist. Humans need to take an action that is global and considerate of the community that includes soils, waters, plants and animals. It is human who is taking the conqueror role, destructing the earth. Neass and Leopold both emphasize on education; however Neass underlines how education should concentrate on an increased sensitivy to non-consumptive good and Leopold highlights that the educations should be less dictated by self-interest. In addition, both Neass and Leopold propose similar ideas of "self-realization". People need to extend the social conscience from people to land, once after realizing about themselves. Neass and Leopold agree that technologies are what caused the violence to the land; however Neass focused more on human's high level of consumption, whereas Leopold concentrated on the changes in food chain. For differing ideas between Neass and Leopold, Neass proposed ideas that consider long-term perspective, religious aspect, and political approach; however Leopold proposed concepts with historical evidences and in relations to the food chain. The biggest ideas from the readings that I hope to incorporate in the essay are the destruction of earth by technology and the need to shift people's awareness from shallow perspective to deeper scope.
ReplyDeleteHye Sun (Tina) Choi
Neass and Leopoldo both share similar views about the connection between humans and the environment. They both seem to believe that people are lacking a connection with the natural world, a connection that is destroying our environment day by day. They both express their deep concerns about what is becoming of the natural world and how we as humans are running out of time to save what is remaining of our planet Earth. Naess presents his ideas through the philosophical concept of “deep ecology” and shows how shallow and deep ecology differ greatly from each other. Naess says that deep ecology is to simply ask “deeper questions” to become aware of the real threats against the natural world and what we can do to save our planet. Shallow ecology can be referred to as the surface problems affecting the natural world that are not exactly our biggest worries. Shallow ecology is concerned with “overpopulation,” while deep ecology argues that “over population” is not necessarily the threat, the real threat is actually our inability to preserve all species and all of the human cultures around the world. On the other hand, Leopoldo present his ideas through the concept of “land ethics” and how the land should be treated like a community as a whole, taking in consideration both the abiotic and biotic factors. The relationship between humans and land is very unstable, making it very difficult for humans to understand the harm they are causing the environment. Leopoldo believes that humans are selfish individuals that are able to see the environment as a community, but do not care about conserving it because they think that the members of the community have no “economic value.” The idea that I want to use in my paper is Naess’ and Leopoldo’s idea about conserving the planet. They both agree that if humans want to save the environment, they have to stop seeing the environment only for its economic value and the sources it provides for them. Humans need to develop a deep connection with the environment and realize that if they only see the natural world for its economic value than massive destruction and extinction is bound to happen.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Rodriguez
In Neass’ reading, he focused on deep ecology, which was a set of beliefs about how one should take care of nature and that society should treat it as if it was another human being. Leopold had a similar stance on nature and took us through, step by step, a biotic pyramid, where the environment is the base the world relies on. Both of these readings feel that society needs to focus more on our environment for nature’s sake and not their own self-benefit or profit. Neass approaches this view with more of an idealistic view going along with his beliefs, while Leopold uses his beliefs and makes concrete examples. The difference between the two readings is that in Naess’ reading, he makes a statement that change will take place on a person to person basis individually, while Leopold makes a comment that many times the society tries to take action to “help” the environment it often destroys it. Naess has a more positive view on what our world can come to and if more people accept deep ecology positive changes can be made, while Leopold seems to be more negative throughout his writing on the environments future. The biggest idea from the readings that I hope to incorporate into my first assignment is that society relies on the environment to function just as much as the environment needs us. We, as people, need to realize this and make changes now for the long term, no matter how much it doesn’t seem as a high of a priority at the moment, we cannot wait until it is too late.
ReplyDelete-Nicole Azer
Both Naess and Leopold share a common goal of pursuing a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment. They are both aware of the detrimental effects that humans have had on nature and strive to spread awareness of their perspectives. Naess’s approach to nature, which he coined deep ecology, is holistic, but places an emphasis on spiritual qualities and philosophical questions. On the other hand, Leopold utilizes the community concept and ecological conscience with a stress on economic value and the treatment of land to argue his land ethics approach. Naess’s deep ecology is strongly rooted by the idea of living a simple life in means, but rich in values. However, the land ethic perspective stresses a change in attitudes, education, and economic system as the means to solve the current environmental dilemma. Both Naess and Leopold agree that humans must find a connection with nature in order to realize the dire need for change, but deep ecology focuses on spiritual connections, while land ethics seeks ethical connections. Naess and Leopold both strongly believe that life extends beyond what science proves and that every life form has a right to live. Biodiversity is crucial to both perspectives, except Naess argues that diversity is necessary for self-realization while Leopold argues that diversity is a crucial part of circulation in the biotic pyramid. Another common theme in both articles is anthropocentricity, or the idea that many of our current efforts have an underlying desire for self-interest no matter how altruistic they may seem. Both deep ecology and land ethic emphasize that the Earth does not belong to humans and that we are merely members of a larger community, not conquerors. In order for our efforts to be successful, we need to understand our place on Earth and appreciate all forms of life. The biggest idea I hope to incorporate in my response is this idea of an anthropocentric perspective that hinders humans’ ability to carry out successful conservation efforts. A realization that humans are not superior to other life forms can alter the way that we live our lives and tend to the environment. Tying this to Naess’s argument of anti-technology, I believe these two ideas are crucial to the fundamental understandings of the environment’s role in our lives and our ethical treatments towards nature.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Lee
Good Economics. Both Leopold and Naess feel that this is the driving force of all human society not only at present but throughout history. Both agree that a cost-benefit analysis with respect to our environment without understanding the repercussions to society and ourselves will prove to be our undoing. Both Leopold and Naess say that we humans are obligated to broaden our perspectives and have a holistic and three dimensional view of our environment not just based on Economics. This is the biggest idea from the readings I wish to incorporate in my first Assignment. Naess’ idea of Deep Ecology is one which is highly philosophical and spiritual. He indicates that there are infinite processes going on in the biosphere which we have only begun to understand. Leopold’s idea of Land Ethics lacks this spiritual component,but he does say: ‘The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it. In our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.’ I feel that, Naess’ ideas are slightly Utopian in that, not everyone in the highly fast paced world of today can ‘identify with the universe.’ Naess’ tone seems to be hopeful whereas Leopold’s pessimistic and sometimes sarcastic. Naess’ approach to environmental concerns is philosophical, spiritual and political. Leopold on the other hand, approaches this scientifically and with examples from history. Leopold goes on to talk about the biotic pyramid and inter-dependency of all organisms via the food chain. I believe that Both Deep Ecology and Land Ethics wish to achieve the same goals, but with different paths.
ReplyDeleteNeil Suri
Both Leopold and Noess earnestly vouch for the protection of diversity of non-human life above solely human interests. They note how humans tend to selfishly consume resources without seeing the damage that slowly but surely occurs. And both suggest deeper action than simply focusing on “conventional oratory” or optimizing technology. Noess suggests there is a “core democracy in the biosphere,” advocating for the resources of non-humans, while Leopold insists that humans ultimately fail when they attempt to determine (through their actions) what species are more and less worthy of survival.
ReplyDeleteLeopold presents a much more skeptical view towards common suggestions for progress than Noess, as he largely questions the motives of people in education, government, and land use. Leopold accuses society of not accepting rules for the environment on the basis of “needing better education” – saying rules and education are highly driven by a society’s self-interest. He argues that since people have quickly created standards for relating to other individuals and society, why has progress been so slow in man’s relation to land? I intend on utilizing Leopold’s urgency to move beyond economic worldviews and increase accountability.
Noess, on the other hand, seems more hopeful, hoping to integrate other environmental groups and taskforces – as well as a variety of religious and philosophical views – into his discussion. He focuses on centering diverse groups of people (who all wish to help the environment) on a deeper, more lasting platform of change. Though Noess’ suggestions will be tough to implement and leave room for more distracting rhetoric, I hope to utilize Noess’ notion of faith in slow progress over time and his suggestion of acting inclusively instead of competitively in producing change.
Andrew Hudson
Broadly, Naess and Leopold have similar ideas in that they examine what ethics are, and what ethics are in relation to the ecology. We require relationships between individual-society, not individual-individual. Ethics are being used as a front for possible action, while being linked to philosophical arenas. Philosophy is a field which helps clarify one’s thoughts, question and rationalize interests, and express in one’s life in the form of action: a thinking process that Naess wants ecologists to delve into while thinking about the environment.
ReplyDeleteBoth writers agree that there is a need for interdependency in order to create “symbioses”. Naess believes that de-centralizing governmental systems, such as energy sources, could be a potential technique which diffuses the dependence on one node of authority: which would increase society’s independence, decrease unemployment, and increase ties between people by virtue of meaningful work. Leopold believes that one way in which people have synergetic relationships is by exchange of money. Due to this, the original, unorganized competition between people has been replaced by co-operative mechanisms.
Coexisting with the environment is deemed essential, in place of conquering or dominating it. Human beings are plain members and citizens of this surrounding; thus, humans should thus treat it with equal respect.
Lastly, both writes hold similar views about education and information. Education is useful only till a certain extent, beyond which action is required. All information cannot be consolidated and analyzed in the near future, making it redundant. They claim that we have more and more information, however none of it helps answer the right questions.
Leopold’s views are starkly different from Naess’ as he uses the philosophical and ethical perspectives to reach the issue of land ethics. He believes that the relationship between land and individual remains to be built upon, that the individual is simply a member of the community which includes soils, waters, plants, animals, and land.
Naess and Leopold’s views also differ on the matter of complexity in nature. Leopold considers it quantitatively: by claiming that the complexity of cooperative mechanisms has increased with increasing population. Naess distinguishes the difference between complexity and complication. As an example, he says that urban life may be more complicated than life in a natural setting; without being complex in the sense of multi-faceted quality. At the most, Naess’ quantitative judgment is used with respect to diversity in nature: he claims that greater diversity helps in self-realization to a greater extent, by virtue of helping the awareness of the increasing potentialities of life.
Naess and Leopold also have varying assessments of people they think are in a position of influence. While Leopold believes that these people (including “owners”) are poorly informed and unaware of “what makes the community clock tick”, Naess feels that these individuals are well informed, but given the current economic growth are limited to narrowly professional and specialized concerns. By voicing their genuine opinions, their jobs could be in danger, or they could lose influence or status – esp. among those who are in charge of overall policies.
One of the ideas that interest me, and that I would like to explore in my essay, would be to examine the role of this knowledge in action: how are these ideas executed by these writers and how could they be more efficient in the future?
Akriti Sehrawat
(my apologies for the slight delay)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete*no "thus" in paragraph 3
Delete*"interests me" in the last paragraph
According to both Naess and Leopoldo, both want to further their understanding of the environment and ecology. Protecting the environment should require more attention. The wasteful and harmful consumption of resources is slowly but surely destroying the environment. Naess deems deep ecology to be more concerned about the spiritual connection to the environment and living more by values and instead of means, like shallow ecology. Compared to Leopoldo, Naess is passionate about the environment and believes that we humans need to be more ethical and moral towards the environment. We also need to understand the core democracy in biology to help renew it. Leopoldo takes the less abstract and philosophical approach and states that we have to be more economical in our treatments of the land. Because he believes that humans are responsible for the detrimental effects of nature and the environment, we have to shift our current paradigm of nature to one that helps heal the environment. We need to understand that humans are part of the earth, and not above it. We do not own the earth, rather we are part of it and must play our role to preserve it. This idea of us humans being a single component in a much larger machine is the biggest idea I hope to incorporate into A1. Once other people adopt this view, maybe then can they realize that everybody has to respect the environment and help renew it.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Lin
(Sincerest apologies for the enormous delay)