1. How do you define "environment," "ecology," "progress," "nature," and "culture"?
2. Has the total human impact on the natural world in the last century been positive or negative?
3. Do you think our present forms and levels of industrial agriculture, food distribution, fossil fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and the whole economic growth paradigm in general are sustainable?
4. What is a "holistic" attitude towards & relationship with the environment? Is it something that can be achieved by individuals acting independently? Is the concept of "Mother Earth" or "Gaia" helpful in defining this attitude & relationship, and in guiding ethical choices?
5. Do you think we can learn anything important from native and indigenous peoples about how to live? Can we reconcile those lessons with a continued interest in expanding technology, exploration, and increased scientific understanding of ourselves and the world? Is "native science" an oxymoron?
6. Do you have a favorite example of native/indigenous wisdom (from Chief Seattle or Joseph of the Nez Perce or some other popular native sage)?
7. What written or filmed discussions/depictions of native wisdom do you recommend?
8. What else would you like to share, about yourself or your initial thoughts on the subject of our course?
STUDENTS: We'll do these daily quizzes every class day. I encourage you to post your thoughts and questions in the "comments" space.
Charles Darwin (
Posts
1 comment:
In reponse to question 2, it is my view that the need to frame arguements in terms of good vs evil is one of the major sources of division in our culture. I feel like the asigning of moral qualities to ammoral that our society has become so adept at has led to divided political parties, ideological battles between religion and science, and blantant denial of obvious emphirical phenomena. It is the norm for an average person operating in this society to allign his or her actions with right, and furthermore to allign any action or being who threatens this rightness with evil. Perhaps, everything on the earth is part of the natural world, in that it is one big organism. If this is true then asking if the effect of humans on the world is positive or negative is like asking if the DNA of a cell's actions are positive or negative. Would we claim that a string of DNA that prroduces some deformity is evil? Most would not. Perhaps it runs contrary to the survival of the cell, but not evil. With this in mind, we can look at actions of humans, not always in terms of good and evil, but perhaps in the simple terms of contributing or detracting from the further existance of the planet.
Post a Comment