Hey folks. Happy holiday weekend. Two things:
1) Remember that for Wednesday, 9/5 I need you 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 its terms.
2) Then, in a short comment to this post (one paragraph or so) respond to the following question:
How do Neass' ideas relate to Leopold's? Where are they similar? How do they differ?
***This response is due by noon on Tuesday, 9/4. And as always make sure your full name is at the bottom of any blog posts or comments. Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that when Arne Naess looked at the world and the human race, he asked "What are our goals?", while Aldo Leopold asked "What are our tools?". Leopold's Land Ethic dealt mostly with the ways we can improve the long term productivity of the land for human beings, without actively questioning whether humans should be reshaping and using the land. Arne Naess goes for a much deeper solution, questioning the cultural foundations motivate most human land use.
ReplyDeleteNaess talks about other living things under the assumption that they have the same emotions and rights that humans accord to other people, while Leopold describes them much more mechanistically. In fact, the very words Leopold uses to describe natural systems, such as "chain", "equilibrium", "condition" and "deterioration", have a cold, scientific sound to them, while Naess' words ("blossom", "joy", "emotion", "democracy") evoke an emotional, almost human view of nature.
The one thing that all of these works (including Berry) have in common is that they all view education as a crucial part of the process of conservation. Naess and Leopold also have a similarly long timeframe. They're both more interested in creating a sustainable society and ecology than they are in maximizing human growth and wealth in the short term. Finally, when I say that Leopold is more practical than Naess, it doesn't mean that Leopold doesn't think that the natural world isn't inherently valuable. On page 18 we can see him talk about an "ecological conscience" and expresses an implied preference for the continuation of natural processes. I was only trying to say that Leopold views humans as a separate from but symbiotic with the natural world and its processes, while Naess believes in a more intimate connection.
Ryan Kupyn
DeleteAlso, now that I think about it some more, I realize that Leopold focused more on what society, and specifically the government should do, treating individual humans as unthinking executers of government policy, influenced by education and incentives, but unlikely to reflect on their place in the world and decide to pursue conservation all by themselves. Naess, on the other hand, believes that the individual should reflect on the environment and draw his or her own conclusions.
DeleteNeass and Leopold both believe strongly in the implementation of ethics with relation to the natural world. Whether they call this ethical standard "deep ecology" or "land ethic," they both recognize the need to protect the natural world, but the main differences in their opinions are their reasons for believing so. Leopold speaks as a scientist, describing the negative effects of our unsustainable ways. He pulls historical examples of farmland degrading over time due to poor farming techniques, and uses these examples to support the economic benefits of more sustainable land usage. He also talks about the biotic system, a scientific view of how the natural world interacts with itself, and how imbalances will cause problems for the relationships within a biological community. In essence, his argument is mostly a logical warning of the consequences of our actions.
ReplyDeleteNeass,like Leopold, does talk about the results of living our lives in this manner, but he takes a more emotional approach. He, much like Thomas Berry, references the whole of existence as a spiritual body, with which we become attuned to. The questions he asks relate to the meaning of life, and he gives all life an intrinsic value, saying it deserves to grow and develop simply because it is alive. This is a much more pathos-oriented argument than Leopold's, calling upon our sympathy for the world around us as a mechanism for inspiring change.
Joseph Russ
ReplyDeleteBoth Naess, through the concept of “deep ecology”, and Leopold, through the concept of “land ethic,” are on a larger scale trying to revive the natural world from the corrosion caused by human actions in the past centuries and trying to prevent any further deterioration of the natural world.
ReplyDeleteBoth Naess and Leopold accentuate the importance of education as tools to advance the conservation of “land” or “ecosystems.” However they differ in their meaning of “education” itself. Naess believes in education, which is derived from past experiences in one’s life, and additionally he also emphasizes the importance of identifying underlying assumptions. On the other hand Leopold seems to suggest that more educational content might be needed to resolve the “snails pace” of conservation issue. Overall, both seem to agree to the fact going forth and reading textbooks about the issue of conservation is not going to solve the dilemma that is present.
Unlike Leopold, Naess seems to despise science and technology in general. Naess suggests that culture has adjusted technology rather than vice versa meaning that human beings are serving supplements to technology rather then the other way around. Naess seems to be concerned that dependency on technology is leading to resources centralization, which is in Naess’ point of view a bad consequence as it prevent autarky and can be devastating during wars.
Furthermore, Leopold seems to suggest that the government can play a major role in promoting conservations as long as individuals collectively as a community treat land, animals and plants as their equal. On the other hand, Naess seems to focus more on each individuals responsibility, self realization and self actualization that is necessary for one to develop an connection to “deep ecology” and join the conservation movement full heartedly.
Subhang Acharya
Both Leopold and Naess share the view that the natural world is worth preserving. More specifically, they both understand that the root of the problem lies in our anthropocentric tendencies. Until we can form a deeper connection with nature, we will continue to exploit the natural systems around us. For Leopold, this deeper connection means extending our ethical obligations from people to land. He argues that the degradation of the environment can only be stopped once people begin to form ecological consciences, where they care for the biotic systems around them just as they would care for the wellbeing of their neighbors. At its core, Leopold believes it to be an economic problem, as people tend to act in favor of things that give them direct economic value.
ReplyDeleteNaess on the other hand seems to have a stronger emotional connection to nature. His philosophy of “deep ecology” emphasizes that every life form has “the right to live and blossom”. He views humans as a part of the universe, equal to all other parts, where the wellbeing of the “whole” deserves priority over the wellbeing of any one part. Naess asserts that humans require a self-realization of their identity within the universe, which differs from Leopold’s view that society in general must change its ethical standards. Overall, Naess takes a much more emotionally rooted stance, whereas Leopold looks at the problem from a more practical standpoint.
Chris Funaki
Both Arne Neass and Aldo Leopold believe that the environment and the natural world are extremely important and that an effort must be made to save it from further deterioration. However, their reasoning’s for doing so differ. Leopold looks at nature as a part of the community. He believes that every plant or organism should have the right to go on living just like us humans do. I think his main point is summed up when he says, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” To me, he is saying whatever helps, or does not harm, the environment is acceptable, and whatever hurts the environment should be off limits. Of course, he acknowledges that it is not this simple. He is aware that economics plays a major roll in how society works, but he encourages people to look beyond strictly economic profits and embrace the natural world and that comes with it.
ReplyDeleteNaess seems to come at the environmental problems from a more emotional side. The idea that stood out to me was his concept of what makes you happy. For him, the answer is nature and the world around him. His idea of “deep ecology” asks society to look at what they are doing and why. In the interview he asks, “Why do we think that economic growth and high levels of consumption are so important?” What Naess wants is everyone to take a step back, look at how the world used to be, and realize that the majority of what we do today is not necessary. His idea that “our culture is the only one in the history of mankind in which the culture has adjusted itself to the technology, rather than vice versa,” is so powerful. It clearly states the shift in our thinking that technology is now the number one priority. Like Leopold, Naess tries to get people to move away from the economic aspect of the environment. One of the main differences between “deep ecology” and “shallow ecology” is that shallow ecology is focused mostly on the here and now, and therefore they try to improve the environment in a way that ends up only helping humans.
Naess and Leopold agree that solutions must be long term, as well as some immediate action. The biggest consensus between the two of them was their strategies (or at least a major component of them). Both believe that education is key to spreading the environmental movement.
Victoria Ball
Aldo Leopold and Arne Naess both propose their solutions to save our deteriorating world. Leopold presents a solution in which humans cannot be head over heels about the economic value of the land while Naess presents his method of deep ecology in which individuals emotionally devote themselves into the cause.
ReplyDeleteLeopold’s land ethic questions the decisions made by humans over the past years into whether our decisions done to our land and ethically correct. Leopold states, “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.” From this, I believe he is trying to get at the point that land has given men all it has and all of its potentials while men must do the same. But men have not been doing so, as Leopold explains that humans are only in it for the economic value. As humans become more selfish, the cleaning up falls upon our government in which they cannot continue on forever. Humans must step up and pick up the slack if our land is ever to be how it once used to be, in a biotic form. But when the reason is right, Leopold pushes for humans to preserve the “integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.” Although Leopold doesn’t completely deny technological progress, it seems as if Naess does.
Naess approaches the solution in much simpler means, especially without the use of technology. His approach is much more philosophic and fundamental such as seeing a glass that is not half full, but half empty. Combining diversity with self- realization, we are able to realize all of our problems and deal with them through common sense and intuition. Naess’ more spiritual approach rejects the use of technology as it has only created much more questions left up in the air.
Both Leopold and Naess agree that our status of a failing land must be spread through education and as Naess describes, communication and combination of different groups that can all benefit from one another.
Jared Ong-Siong
Even though Aldo Leopold advocated his land ethic in the early 1900s and Arne Naess developed deep ecology in the late 1900s, both men’s viewpoints echo many of each other’s sentiments. Together, Leopold and Naess realize that while the general populous believes that science and/or technology has all the answers, nature is so complex that all of its intricacies may never be explained. They value self-realization as a necessary precedent to any conservational progress, and that through this awareness, the vital acceptance of individual responsibility occurs as well. Both express the fundamental need for co-operation and competition in the face of diversity and address the idea that diversity acts as a beneficial facet of evolution.
ReplyDeleteWhile Leopold and Naess parallel each other in many ways, the “Land Ethic” and “Deep Ecology” also differ in some of the finer aspects of their development. Naess asserts that communication is crucial to understanding, action, and subsequent progress. He believes that through personal contact with the working class, the ecological movement will flourish. Leopold, on the other hand, believes that communication is only taken at the value of self-profit; people will only act on what they’re told if there is the promise of economic gain. Similarly, Leopold focuses on economic productivity and the shortcomings of such an economic-driven view, advising an increase in the ethical obligation of individuals. Naess, however, centers on a more holistic approach to the ecological debate and recommends deeper understanding of the entire system before change can occur. Through their individual and philosophical analyses of the land, Leopold and Naess assess the necessity of ecological progress through long-term perspectives.
Katie Larson
Although Naess’ and Leopold’s arguments differ in many aspects, they share a common belief and goal for nature. Both Naess and Leopold share the view of the world as a larger community, or a larger existence. They believe that nature is not something that can be conquered by humans, but rather it is another member of this community, a community that has other interdependent parts as well. This community does not view one member more highly than another, but rather it thrives on diverse equality amongst its members. They both explain that we lack respect for nature not because we do not understand our negative effects, but because of our economic self-interest. People are inherently selfish, and thus when there are no benefits in treating the environment well, they do as they wish. Both Leopold and Naess share much common ground in their view of nature and man-kind as it should be and as it is, but their opinions on how we should change greatly differ.
ReplyDeleteNaess explains that “a new ethic, embracing plants and animals as well as people, is required for human societies to live in harmony with the natural world on which they depend for survival and well-being”. Although Leopold’s solution parallels Naess’ view that a new ethic is needed for humans to live in harmony with nature, Leopold believes that a conservation education will suffice in doing so. He believes that “conservation is the state of harmony between man and land”. The only thing that Leopold believes has to change is more conservation education. On the other hand, Naess recommends a more ecocentric environmental ethic. He explains that this ethic cannot merely be taught by teachers to proclaim it for tactical reasons only, but it must also be acted upon by those who believe in its reasoning. While Leopold condemns the economic self-interest that has created this problem, Naess accepts that these human-centered arguments can be combined with a practical environmental ethic. In the end, both Naess and Leopold explain that the main strength of this movement is in our own testimonies.
Christina Li
Leopold and Naess both understand that humanity’s fundamental value- the belief that Man sits rightly on top of the pyramid called the world- is misguided. However, they primarily differ in the type of rhetoric they use. Leopold is more scientific and uses logos; he relies on cold, hard facts to back up his claims. He strongly believes that human’s desire for short-term economic profit is the sole cause of the mainstream belief in anthropocentrism, and only when land is seen as a community not a commodity, change, conservation, and coexistence can occur. Leopold also debunks anthropocentrism with facts from science. He uses the trophic pyramid to paint a picture in the readers’ mind and makes it easier to comprehend the reality that humanity is not on top of the pyramid. Instead, Man is only “one of accretions to the height and complexity of the pyramid”. With this, Leopold argues that plants and animals contribute to the flow of energy through the energy pyramid, and thus we must extend our set of ethics to include the ecosystem around us. Unlike Leopold’s methodical mentality, Naess uses pathos; his arguments are spiritual and almost religious. He reaches the readers on the personal plane. Naess builds off Leopold’s maxim of land ethic to create his own ecosophy. In deep ecology, the needs of the Whole precede the needs of the individual. In other words, humanity has the same privileges as any other organism in the world. The philosopher also uses personal anecdotes and lofty concepts that are unrealistic to bolster the tenets of deep ecology. Naess dives deep down into the depths of human nature to invoke change in the individual. One must realize the wholeness and the complex relationships within the world and change one’s fundamental nature in order to coexist with the world around us. In contrast, Leopold is more simple and realistic: with reform in the volume and method of teaching, our view of ethics will change, and eventually, humanity will shift its view from an anthropocentric view to an ecocentric one.
ReplyDeleteKent Oya
Both Arne Naess and Aldo Leopold subscribe to the belief that we, as a society of individuals, are ethically obligated to protect the environment. In their eyes, we are failing in our duty to preserve it by treating it as a resource used to advance our society, almost like as if it were our slave. Naess and Leopold argue that humans should have an equal relationship with the environment based on mutual respect and understanding. However, there are nuisances between both men’s respective points of view.
ReplyDeleteLeopold’s “land ethic” takes a more logical and scientific approach to environmental ethics. It argues that the world will benefit from protection of the environment in a more concrete sense. For example, Leopold argues that historically poor farming practices that abused farmland resulted in the destruction of that land. The implication is that farming the land ethically would have perpetuated the land’s existence and could have further benefited the world in a realistic and tangible way.
Naess’s “deep ecology” focuses on a more philosophical type of environmental ethics. Deep ecology demands that we ask ourselves the questions “why?” and “how?”; questions that science fails to ask of its adherents. When we do this, Naess believes that it becomes apparent that our place in the universe is alongside the environment. Humans are not superior life forms, and we are ethically obligated to coexist with nature rather than making it a victim of human progress.
Matt Kaufman
Neass and Leopold both have a strong belief that much improvement is needed in our society to create a healthier natural environment. Both advocate this urge to preserve nature through ethical standards. However, Leopold delves more into factual knowledge and historical evidence to prove his point, while Neass focuses more on human intuition. Leopold illustrates that the main purpose of “environmental destruction” has been related to economic gains. Leopold also accents on the governments role in the conservation movement; however, brings about a conclusion that private ownership and power may lead to the downfall of governmental preservation of nature. It is this power struggle and possibly this sense of corruption that he feels should be corrected. Along with giving several examples of the way in which technological advances and human control over the land (i.e. plant succession argument) has led to the deterioration of the natural world, he seems to urge that education will help resolve this problem. He feels that we human must take the responsibility of educating ourselves of the consequences of our actions in order to understand the long-term damage we are causing. By doing so, human will be able to evaluate which methods and strategies will conform to more ethical conducts and result in a healthier atmosphere. On the other hand, Neass idea of “deep ecology” focuses more on human insight. He suggests that man should become one with nature; his concept is similar to that of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s in the text Nature. He desires to create a symbiotic relationship between man and his non-human surroundings, a notion that Leopold hints at as well. Neass also incorporates religion into the mix, and the fact that the Earth was made by a divine figure, God, and therefore, everything on Earth should be respected. Neass also mentions that those really passionate about “deep ecology” should come forth and vocalize the movement, yet due to societal structure, it is hard to gain followers, as not everyone has this mindset of respecting nature. This issue coincides with Leopold’s argument of the struggle between government and private proprietors. Furthermore, while Leopold attacks this issue of “land ethics” by bringing factual knowledge and examples to his audience, Neass connects with his audience at an emotional level, and tries to focus on that innate urge to follow ethical standards.
ReplyDeleteAadit Patel
Both Neass and Leopold argue that we as a society and individuals need to change the manner in which we views our relationship to nature, with both having the fundamental goals of conservation and living without drawing excessively from nature. Although Neass argues more vocally on the sake of nature for the inherent value of life, Leopold’s reference to a ‘person as a member of a community’ is not only related to this theory of value, but inexorably linked to it. We have an obligation to the preservation of the environment *because* we are members of it, and although we have grown in our power and ability to influence our environment, we still require that balance that nature has demanded for billions of years. While Leopold maintains a seemingly more ‘scientific’ argument throughout his essay, his wrap-up “a thing is right…wrong if it tends otherwise”, although it states the ‘biotic community’, refers to the same obligation to nature for nature’s sake as Neass does. A distinct comparison can also be made between both writer’s references to the land as more than just an inanimate object, “let the river live”, referring to not only natural occurrences and landmarks as distinct beings, but ecosystems as a whole.
ReplyDeleteResponse By Sephira, Luo (Yawen)
ReplyDeleteLeopold conveyed his ideas by conceptual order which explains the foundamental elements about land ethics. The principles or the main concepts Leopold extent in his essay symphonies with the concept of Deep Ecology brought up by Naess. To begin with, both of the authors believe that economy is the main element which has manifect effects to the whole environment. Leopold stated that economy could cause negative outcomes since many economic decisions are "unnatural", which means they are made by human's social life, but not nature life. On the other hand Naess kept doubts about what economy could bring to the land and other ecology systems. Based on what Naess thought about Deep Ecology, it tended to ask more questions of one single phonomenon instead of judging a single event simply by either right or wrong. Naess didn't give a solid attitude about what economy does to the whole nature world, but kept asking the possibilities for economy and other social elements to shape the ideas about "land ethics".