- Nature's Way: Native Wisdom for Living in Balance with the Earth
- The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
- Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary
- Red Alert!: Saving the Planet with Indigenous Knowledge
- Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Environmental Ethics & native wisdom
Coming January 2011 (Wtr./Spg. Semester), Middle Tennessee State University-
Philosophy 4800.1, Readings in Philosophy:
Environmental Ethics & native wisdom
The environmental ethics course, covering familiar issues involving climate change, global warming, the ethics of industrial agriculture and food distribution, the vehicles we drive, the homes we build, the waste we generate, the time we waste, the technology some think will save us from ourselves, how we conceive our relation to the rest of nature, and generally just the whole impact we humans have on our planet and biosphere… will add a new dimension next semester: the pre-scientific wisdom of indigenous and native peoples.
We’ll look at what lessons we might learn about living lightly and harmoniously on Earth from native and indigenous peoples—including native American sources, of course, but also imaginative and fictive ones like “Avatar”-- and how those lessons may either complement, challenge, or contradict the dominant western scientific-technological worldview.
TEXTS include:
The class will meet on Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:40 to 2:05 in the James Union Building (Room #202) at MTSU, beginning in January 2011. Watch for details, or contact Dr. James P. Oliver (poliver@mtsu.edu) for further information.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Happy 40th Earth Day!
Today is Earth Day. And it's also the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day — held on this day in 1970 and widely considered to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Earth Day's founder was a senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson. His goal was to force environmental issues onto the national agenda. Before 1970, stories about the environment were almost never reported. One Earth Day organizer said that back then, "Environment was a word that appeared more often in spelling bees than on the evening news."
In 1969, an oil pipe ruptured just off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, causing 200,000 gallons of crude oil to burst forth and then slowly leak out and spread over an 800-square-mile slick. It took 11 days to plug the hole. The oil poisoned seals and dolphins, whose corpses washed up onto California beaches, and it killed thousands of seabirds as well. Senator Nelson visited the site of the enormous ecological disaster and was outraged that nobody in Washington seemed to be concerned about the great devastation to the natural environment. And then he realized that many people simply didn't really know.
So he proposed a national "teach-in," an event to take place on universities campuses around the nation, one that would educate the public, raise awareness on environmental issues, and make politicians pay attention to these things, so that they would make laws to protect the environment in order to, as he said, "stem the tide of environmental disaster."
He saw how successful the anti-war protestors were at getting media coverage — and therefore, making politicians take notice — and he decided to base his campaign for environmental awareness on their model. He also hoped to infuse the same student anti-war energy into the environmental cause. He proposed setting aside one day a year as a national day of observance about environmental problems. The New York Times picked up the story in late September 1969, a great boon to the grassroots organizers of the campaign, who had no Internet to spread the word.
At first, Senator Nelson called it National Environment Teach-In Day, but his friend, a New York advertising executive suggested "Earth Day," especially catchy since it rhymes with "birthday," and that's what the press began to call it. Historian Adam Rome has called Earth Day the "most famous unknown event in modern American history."
About 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. They gathered at assemblies in high school gyms, at university plazas, in suburban city parks. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where Gaylord Nelson had graduated from law school, people met up at 4:45 a.m. for an "Earth Service," where, according to one report, they "greeted the sunrise with a Sanskrit invocation and read together from Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Thoreau, and the Bible." Girl Scouts distributed pamphlets that Wisconsin grad students had written, which gave household tips for helping to preserve the environment. Tens of thousands met up in Philadelphia's Fairmont Park — and stayed there for days — and 100,000 streamed into Fifth Avenue in New York City. People celebrated spring weather and gave impassioned political speeches about environmental issues.
Though unstructured and somewhat incohesive, Earth Day was hugely successful. Environmental issues found a prominent place on the political agenda. Earth Day in April 1970 helped lead to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of that year (the EPA was created December 2, 1970), as well as to the passage of legislation like the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts. Writer's Almanac
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Copenhagen
Just heard a wonderfully sobering exchange on the radio between Bill McKibben, author and environmental activist, and David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The points at issue: was Copenhagen the unmitigated disaster most of the world seems to think it was? Or is there a good spin to be put on gradualism, baby steps, and the maddeningly slow and weak political response mustered to the climate crisis to date? Did Obama come with too little, too late? Or did he save the day?
More pointedly: environmentalists had high expectations for Copenhagen. Are they right to be disappointed and discouraged? Should they keep their shoulders to the wheel? Yes and yes.
McKibben is the very voice of clear-eyed radical engagement, unblinking realism, and sweet reason. He rightly points out that even the sharpest politicians don't seem to grasp the uncompromising urgency of our predicament. A caller rightly pointed out that the issue is not the survival of planet earth, but the tenability of our continued human presence here. The more our leaders delay, the more irrelevant we become.
Political incrementalism is clearly inadequate to the challenges we face, but we must persevere. The alternative is too hopeless to contemplate.
More pointedly: environmentalists had high expectations for Copenhagen. Are they right to be disappointed and discouraged? Should they keep their shoulders to the wheel? Yes and yes.
McKibben is the very voice of clear-eyed radical engagement, unblinking realism, and sweet reason. He rightly points out that even the sharpest politicians don't seem to grasp the uncompromising urgency of our predicament. A caller rightly pointed out that the issue is not the survival of planet earth, but the tenability of our continued human presence here. The more our leaders delay, the more irrelevant we become.
Political incrementalism is clearly inadequate to the challenges we face, but we must persevere. The alternative is too hopeless to contemplate.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Stewart Brand's new shade of green
Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Catalog publisher (and instigator of Earth's first full-frontal photo portrait), online pioneer, former Merry Prankster, and free-thinking '60s icon, wants to know "where are the green biotech hackers?" He says we should -- and predicts that environmentalists soon will -- embrace nuclear power, genetic engineering, and biotech. He says population is not going to be a problem, nor will urban sprawl. ("An Early Environmentalist, Embracing New 'Heresies'," NYTimes, 2.27.07)
Is he nuts? I don't know, but after re-reading Bill McKibben's classic End of Nature in our environmental ethics class I'm struck by this Brand observation:
"My trend has been toward more rational and less romantic as the decades go by. I keep seeing the harm done by religious romanticism, the terrible conservatism of romanticism, the ingrained pessimism... It builds in a certain immunity to the scientific frame of mind."
I have a lot of respect for McKibben, but I can't warm to his Deep Ecology version of romanticism according to which nature's meaning is her independence of all things human. When he urges that we remain God's creatures rather than aspiring to godhood ourselves, I wonder if there isn't a saner intermediate position: we don't have to be gods, to be responsible global citizens and effective caretakers of the planet (for a change). We are the part of nature that can -- but too rarely does -- think about how to clean up after itself. McKibben makes clear, in this book, in Enough, and probably in his forthcoming Deep Economy -- that he thinks we must rein ourselves in, stop growing, stop re-engineering the planet and ourselves, declare "halt!"
I'm with Stewart Brand on this: "you have to keep trying new things," like biotech, and sometimes you have to rehabilitate old ones -- maybe even nukes.
Is he nuts? I don't know, but after re-reading Bill McKibben's classic End of Nature in our environmental ethics class I'm struck by this Brand observation:
"My trend has been toward more rational and less romantic as the decades go by. I keep seeing the harm done by religious romanticism, the terrible conservatism of romanticism, the ingrained pessimism... It builds in a certain immunity to the scientific frame of mind."
I have a lot of respect for McKibben, but I can't warm to his Deep Ecology version of romanticism according to which nature's meaning is her independence of all things human. When he urges that we remain God's creatures rather than aspiring to godhood ourselves, I wonder if there isn't a saner intermediate position: we don't have to be gods, to be responsible global citizens and effective caretakers of the planet (for a change). We are the part of nature that can -- but too rarely does -- think about how to clean up after itself. McKibben makes clear, in this book, in Enough, and probably in his forthcoming Deep Economy -- that he thinks we must rein ourselves in, stop growing, stop re-engineering the planet and ourselves, declare "halt!"
I'm with Stewart Brand on this: "you have to keep trying new things," like biotech, and sometimes you have to rehabilitate old ones -- maybe even nukes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

