Our Limits to Growth- Erik Klingbeil

Our Limits to Growth- Erik Klingbeil

I would call our economy, not materialist, but abstract, intent upon the subversion of both spirit and matter by abstractions of value and power. In such an economy, it is impossible to value anything that one has. What one has is only valuable insofar as it can be exchanged for what one believes that one wants- a limitless economic process based upon boundless dissatisfaction… The wildernesses we are trying to preserve are standing squarely in the war of our present economy, and that the wildernesses cannot survive if our economy does not change. (145-146)

Wendell Berry is neither a deep ecologist nor a hardline nature conquistador; he takes a stance that acknowledges the priorities of each. He prefaces his argument by laying a foundational understanding of our reliance upon nature. In so doing, he brings attention to the fact that while nature is abundant and has furnished the products of the modern age it is also finite and our society’s productivity is contingent upon its health. While we are whole heartedly dependent upon nature it is also necessary to tame nature for our own comforts in life. Yet the balance between taming nature and preserving nature is a fine and delicate line upon which we as humanity balance. 

Wendell draws this distinction by likening the natural world to wilderness and the untamed dangers of the natural world as wildness. It is important that humanity not simply destroy the environment as indiscriminate mindless apes but rather valuing objects based upon the burdens that its production place upon nature. Wendell appeals to a reconstruction of how humanity's values objects in our economy. In the production process, value is given more to the work of people rather than the intrinsic values of raw materials and the damage that is incurred to nature when they are removed. Because little regard is given to the sacrifice that was incurred by the object itself, the extent of economic and materialist value is based upon how objects allows an individual to achieve what they want rather than a what they physical have. Therefore an insatiable mind can have limitless economic potential without regard to the environmental restrictions on those desires. As such, humanity needs to understand and apply the ground work of necessity to create a more realistic understanding of materialism and the economy. 

Yet, Wendell understands that anthropocentrism is not all together wicked as inferred by deep ecologists nor healthy for humanity’s sustainable relationship with nature. He uses the example of global overpopulation to illustrate a reality that is clearly burdening environmental preservation. While Wendell does not support the culling of populations, he does argue that the ideology of technological heroics will have to be discarded. Humanity will no longer be able to rely upon technology to problem solve what only human industrial reduction and abstinence can achieve.

Questions:

(1)    Wendell challenges his readers to ask three questions: what is here? What will nature permit us to do here? And what will nature help us to do here?

How do these questions apply to modern economics? How can applying these questions help us to approach more interaction with nature is a more holistic way?

(2)    Are the changes that Wendell exposes in our understanding of materialism and nature possible for humanity to achieve?

(3)    Wendell refers to technological heroics. Who in the global economy believes in technological heroics? What are the alternative ideologies and is their assimilation a reasonable expectation in the future?

Finding a Balance Between Nature's Needs and Mankind's Interests

“We live in a wilderness, in which we and our works occupy a tiny space and play a tiny part…This Wilderness, the universe, is somewhat hospitable to us, but it also absolutely dangerous to us…and we are absolutely dependent upon it” (138).

“To use or not to use nature is not a choice that is available to us; we can live only at the expense of other lives. Our choice has rather to do with how and how much to use” (139).

Wendell Berry, Home Economics. (Berkeley: Counterpoint, 1987).

            In his “Preserving Wildness”, the author Wendell Berry begins by explaining his view on polarized views on what the proper relationship should be between mankind and nature. He claims that one side believes that all creatures are of equal value and should be treated as such while on the other side, what Berry calls “the nature conquerors” state that we as a species are on a higher caliber than the rest and that we should treat the earth however it can be best used for humankind’s interests. Berry states that he “would prefer to stay in the middle, not to avoid taking side, but because…[he thinks] the middle is a side, as well as the real location of the problem” (138).
            On one hand, Berry sees that all species should treat nature in a proper way and even protests against activity that he deems unnecessary, like cutting down trees that will not be put to good use by man. While he believes that mankind should treat nature with great respect, the author also recognizes that there is no way that humans can avoid being somewhat self-centered. In a way, all species are in some way self-centered since the real aim for any species is staying alive (148). This point of view leaves the Western culture in a dilemma: how can mankind preserve and better treat nature while also keeping human being’s own self-interests in mind? First off, Berry believes that this problem should not be seen as a mankind versus nature dilemma since mankind is apart of nature. While I think that Berry desires for a completely different way of thinking, possibly a very similar view to the Deep Ecology movement, he understands that that kind of change may not be realistically possible. Instead he thinks the knowledge on how farming, preserving, destroying, and replenishing natural environments is what should change by changing the process on how we decide to manufacture goods and other products (142).

 Comparing to previous readings, should we consider ourselves as belonging to nature or should we separate ourselves from the rest of the natural world? Do you agree with Berry’s belief that some kind of compromise needs to be made between the needs of nature and the needs of man or do you think one group should take priority over the other? If so, what changes should our society make in order to still preserve nature while also keeping our interests in mind?

A Culture of Coexistence

"...I propose to you that feminist consciousness is a scientifically revolutionary consciousness. I see feminism and ecology as sharing the same perspective, which represents a new (yet very old) way of seeing, a way of making peace with (rather than war on) Nature. Such a perspective is holistic: everything is connected to everything else and each aspect is defined by and dependent upon the whole, the total context. Life is interconnected and interdependent: we are not above Nature, we are an intimate part of it."

The connection of ecology and environmentalism with feminism implies a culture of coexistence between humans and nature. In the same way that feminism seeks the equality of men and women and the importance of each sex to the other, the idea of eco-feminism renders humanity equal to and a part of nature. Asserting our dominance over nature is not preferable, but rather valuing nature, understanding it intrinsically, and connecting to it emotionally as well as intellectually. As the passage states, this new understanding of nature would be holistic, and it would at least partially reject the tenant  of individualism in favor of coexistence.

Many in our freedom-loving society might balk at this idea, and perhaps for good reason. As humans, we view ourselves as superior beings above all else, literally capable of conquering the world. Furthermore, being told to see ourselves as equal to nature, merely a part of its mysterious processes, goes directly against our own ideas of independence. In truth, we would give up a good deal of our personal liberty were we to fully adopt the ideas of eco-feminism. However, I believe that it is fundamentally important to embrace this culture of coexistence. Human history has long followed a disturbing pattern of oppressor and oppressed, of master and slave. We fought our own revolution in 1776 to win an emancipation from Britain -- but only gave freedom to the white, landowning male. It was nearly 200 years until both blacks and women would even begin to gain their full rights. In the same way that women and blacks were oppressed, we ourselves have oppressed nature. As has been made clear through the emancipation of these groups of people, they are a fundamentally important part of society that cannot be ignored, and the same is true for nature. By understanding nature to be equal to ourselves, by seeing ourselves as part of it rather than master to it, we can truly make progress in truly understanding nature and coming closer to a culture of coexistence.

Feminism to Help Us Understand Ecology

"... Feminism seeks to enlarge our understanding of nature and the world not just by including feminine experience and explanations, but also by insisting on including those domains of human experience that have been regulated to women: namely the personal, the emotional, the sexual."

This quote underlines the third aspect of the authors "three-storied method" of relating ecology and feminism but I think it is the most relevant and important. The author is highlighting to us that a large part of understanding nature has to come from understanding aspects of feminism that science usually leaves out. Masculine dominated sciences often tend to focus on the hard facts while ignoring the more emotional aspects that are tied to them.

The author says that feminism and ecology are inextricably linked because they have the same perspective. Many scientists attempt to force ecology, like other sciences, to abide by the same hierarchical construct that society does instead of understanding it in its own terms. By this the author means that, like feminism, there are more than simply facts involves and that often times the emotional, personal, and even sexual aspects of nature are overlooked by the hierarchical masculinity of most scientific viewpoints.

Another reason that feminism could help people to better understand ecology is that, while hierarchical views require an inferior alternative, a feminist view understands the nature is not dualist and that there are often times multiple factors and explanations for every event. The conclusion of this piece is that ecology needs the sensitive and personal perspective of feminism to be better understood. The one-sideness that scientists are currently examining the ecological world from impairs their ability to see all the components that ecology is made of.

Do you think that it is important to view science with a feminist eye or are the facts all that matter? What other aspects of science do you think feminism can help us understand?

A Toxic Relationship Between Man and Nature

Deep ecology is the belief that all ecological systems and the members of those systems have intrinsic value to humans. Animals, vegetation, and other objects in nature should not be preserved and protected simply because they have economic worth or are aesthetically pleasing. It is not our place to pick and choose. Shallow ecology recognizes these issues in a general manner, while deep ecology calls for a mass reformation of our way of life to address the problem holistically. Naess describes our current view of nature as highly anthropocentric—we attach human value to things in the environment and use those beliefs to create and justify our own, selfish agenda. Humans overwork the land and consume at a faster pace than the Earth can normally produce.

Particularly in Western culture, humans tend to place nature in a subordinate role. Naess says that we should see ourselves a part of the ecological network and not the regulator.  “The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man (231).” The current relationship we have with nature seems to contribute to an “either you or me (232)” mentality between humans:

“To the ecological field-worker, the equal right to live and blossom constitutes an evident and intuitively clear axiomatic value. Restricting this right to human beings is an anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the quality of life of humans themselves (231).”

Take the Kentucky coal miner strike in the early 1970s. Such high value had been placed on coal that the miners had become disenfranchised in terms of healthcare and other benefits. There was little concern for the foul environment that the townspeople lived in, nor did politicians feel sympathetic for the miners who developed lung disease from exposure to coal dust.  Do you think our current relationship with nature is a large contributor to the way we treat our own?

Harlan County Coal Miner Strike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWj109IAmCg

Nature and Human Diversity

6.  “The latter principle tends to reduce the multiplicity of forms of life and lead to destruction within the communities of the same species. Hence, ecologists inspired attitudes favour the diversity of the ways of life, of cultures, of occupations, of economies. They support the fight against economic, cultural, and military domination, and they are opposed to the annihilation of seals and whales to the same degree that they are opposed to the annihilation of human tribes or cultures (232, Naess).”

Deep ecology attempts to incorporate all aspects of an ecosystem including the complicated ones that are connected to human involvement. I found this quotation essential to the idea of deep ecology. Ecologists look at humans as equals and parallels to other animals. Therefore diversity in human life and culture is just as important as biodiversity in ecosystems. Also I think that diversity in human beings and cultures can sometimes promote biodiversity. Many times I have seen evidence of western culture becoming dominant over others through globalization. In Bali, Indonesia there are now McDonalds next to gorgeous temples. There culture is increasingly becoming like ours through consumption. Along with this, the environment there is suffering.  They use to use banana leaves, etc for plates and utensils and would throw them on the ground to decompose. Now that plastic has been introduced they still throw the plastic and wrappers on the ground. By losing cultures we are hurting diversity of humans and nature.

I do think that globalization has its advantages and has helped the economies of many countries, but at what cost? Do you think the spread of western culture is dangerous for the environment?

The Land Ethic and Its Foundations

How Holistic Can We Go?

    J. Baird Callicott provides a helpful and much needed analysis of Leopold's "Land Ethic". Callicott correctly points out that the holistic characteristic of Leopold's land ethic deserves careful and patient examination and consideration and it is this move to holism that must be tackled before we can evaluate the deeper content of an ethical system, such as the one Leopold is proposing. Callicott takes this holism to the extreme; which can be seen in his references to Tansley's concept of energy as the "economy of nature" and Morowitz's claim that individuals "do not exist per se" (209). While reading these articles I was very interested to see how a holistic ethical theory would be shaped. However there are some serious problems that any holistic theory must face. One is that if nature is a pyramidal structure of energy relations with process as its fundamental piece (209) then does it still make since to say that someone is the cause of an action? If this seems to be an odd question, remember that this model essentially dismisses the perspective of the individual for the view of the system; So does it make since to say that part of a system, an 'individuals'(which effectively exist only as stabilized energy perturbations) can act? Does it make since to assign moral responsibility to it and say that it is causally responsible for actions? My worry is that the holistic view will make accounting for causality impossible and thus make acting ethically meaningless.




-Callicott argues that the familiar ethical models of Kant and Bentham "provide no possibility whatever for the moral consideration of wholes". Do you think that we must abandon reason or sensibility to account for whole systems in an ethical theory? Must we abandon principles themselves?
-If we accept a holistic understanding of the universe is it possible for something to be "unnatural"?

Roussea and Happiness

"Everything is in continual flux on earth. Nothing on it retains a constant and static form, and our affections, which are attached to external things, necessarily pass away and change as they do...And how can we call happiness a fleeting state which leaves our heart still worried and empty, which makes us long for something beforehand or desire something else afterward" (Roussea, p.68).


We learned from reading Roussea's First Discourse that he believes that the increased accumulation of luxury and wealth has distracted us from ourselves. What should be of most importance is one's soul and virtue rather than wealth because wealth, according to Roussea, leads to idle boredom which leads to a further displacement from nature and morality. Roussea believed that there is goodness in nature and that freedom and perfectablility rests in nature but can only be accessed through discovery and experience.
Roussea's revery on St. Peter's Island details his own experience in nature apart from the outside world. Through his discoveries Roussea saw a perpetual movement in nature, much like Aristotle,  where our personal experiences and actions in nature are molded by the way we perceive our own happiness and morality. Roussea argued that happiness is not brought forth by a recollection of the past or the fortelling of the future. Rather, happiness is found when "the soul finds a solid enough base to rest itself on entirely and to gather its whole being into, without needing to recall the past or encroach upon the future" (p.68). In nature, apart from the deceitful surroundings of luxury and wealth true happiness is found by a certain state of being. Roussea found this state of being and noticed a difference between the false pleasures he felt back home and the happiness he felt on St. Peter's Island. He labeled the joys that we are most accustomed to as transitory pleasures due to our corrupted perception of happiness. In order to harmonize us with the movement of nature that can bring us to this state of being is by "a uniform and moderated movement having neither jolts or lapses." (p.69). I believe that it would be really hard if not impossible to have a uniform movement amongst all humans. There are so many differing perspectives and values that would make any agreement between men in regards to nature difficult.
I have experienced something similar to Roussea's experience on St. Peter's Island. I spend about ten days on the Canadian and American border canoeing and portaging from one small lake to the next. In my experience out there, apart from my cell phone and life back home, I was able to have a better appreciation for nature. Looking back on my trip brings happy memories but i can see what Roussea was talking about because the happiness I feel from my memories does not compare to the happiness i felt at that given time. Maybe our transitory pleasures from our brief experience of being in that state within nature is all we can hope for now on. Have any of you shared a similar experience like that of Roussea's on St. Peter's Island? If so, can you draw a difference between the transitoy pleasures you feel now through recollection and the happiness you felt during that specific experience?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3JodBR-vs

Rousseau, Aristotle, and Contemplation

                                                   First, here's St. Peter's Island (the one in the distance).

Speaking about his reveries, floating around the lake, Rousseau writes:

“What do we enjoy in such a situation?  Nothing external to ourselves, nothing if not ourselves and our own existence.  As long as this state lasts, we are sufficient unto ourselves, like God.  The sentiment of existence, stripped of any other emotion, is in itself a precious sentiment of contentment and of peace which alone would suffice to make this existence dear and sweet to anyone able to spurn all the sensual and earthly impressions which incessantly come to distract us from it and to trouble its sweetness here-below” (Fifth Walk, 69).

As I read this passage from our reading, I wrote one word in the margins—Aristotle.  This seemed to me to be a really good articulation of what Aristotle means by contemplation.  He writes of man’s ability to perceive of his own existence, and he argues that this is pleasant.  Contemplation is the best way to achieve happiness, as it requires little, if any, external equipment, and it is the activity that makes us most like gods.  Contemplation is a divine activity for Aristotle, and it seems to be the same for Rousseau.

While we did not get a very descriptive idea of what the state of contemplation is like for Aristotle, Rousseau’s reveries seem to be like this.  He does distinguish, though, that he is not exactly thinking—it is more like he is daydreaming.  But within this, there is some understanding of one’s existence and place in the world.  There is a feeling of oneness, of being completely sufficient in one’s existence.  And like Aristotle, Rousseau compares this peaceful happiness to the cruder types of happiness found through “short moments of delirium and passion” (68).  If you read much Rousseau at all, you know he is critical of materialism and the ways in which the luxuries of society weaken men by making them less self-sufficient and thus less free. 

             

           Where it seems Aristotle and Rousseau differ in their conceptions of contemplation is in Rousseau’s insistence on solitude.  This is already questionable, to me, because he spends his time staying with a family, and interacting with them a great deal (working, dining, taking walks).  Rousseau goes alone to have his reveries, but he returns from them to speak with his friends.  Aristotle would argue that this is because people are social, and we need friends to help us to contemplate ourselves.  A happy person, Aristotle writes, requires friends.  This is problematic, because Rousseau seems to want to push the point that solitude in nature leads to these contemplative reveries. 

               What do you think?  Is solitude preferable for contemplation?  Are Rousseau’s reveries not as involved as Aristotle’s contemplation, and thus in less need of interaction with other people?  Would Rousseau have been so happy if he had been in solitude for those two months on St. Peter’s Island?  

The Simple Expense of Paradise

The grape harvest, the gathering of the fruits amused us the rest of that year, and attached us more and more to the rustic life in the midst of the good people by whom we were surrounded. We saw the winter arrive with great regret and we returned to the City as if we were going into exile...I did not leave it without kissing the ground and the trees, and without turning around several times while moving away.

The joy with which I saw the first buds is inexpressible. For me, seeing the the spring again was to come to life again in paradise. The snow had hardly begun to melt when we left our dungeon and we were at les Charmettes early enough to have the first songs of the nightingale there. After that I no longer believed I was going to die; and really it is peculiar that I have never had great illnesses in the country (Rousseau, Confessions, pages 194-195).

Rousseau describes a visit to the countryside during his mid-twenties where he and his companions took pleasure in the simplicity of their natural surroundings. He was faced with the challenge of peacefully entertaining himself--there was no people watching to be done, no contemplation on his society's political structure, and no real schedule to be followed. The experience Rousseau describes on page 194 is one of realization. He was amused by the incredibly simple process of the grape harvest, and realized his true attachment and need for nature. His passion for nature is evident in his comparison of his return to the city to being exiled. In the text he goes on to tell of his bad health in the boundaries of the city, which is brought up again when Rousseau talks about his return to "paradise," and how he no longer felt like he was going to die. His mind was clear; his soul was happy. His health and well-being practically formed a dependence on the countryside.

In modern society, there is no real escape into the country, and if there is, it comes with a price. Civilization is evident everywhere you turn, just as Bill McKibben described in "The End of Nature." Rousseau experienced the gift of a pure nature firsthand, and exhibited its benefits. He described the city as a dungeon, and going into the city as exile. This was a realization he made individually, but eventually trips to the country or less developed areas became something for the elite. A vacation home in the mountains, countryside, or any other remote area is popular amongst members of the modern upper class as well, and has therefore put a hefty price on the remaining bits of untouched nature.

If we as humans are dependent on nature to clear our minds and to center us as Rousseau was, how long can this dependence last? Can we remain dependent on the simplicity and beauty of solitude in  nature when "retreating" into remote areas of nature has become so expensive and unattainable? Do you think there will come a time when there will be no paradise and dungeon to compare as Rousseau did and all land is the same? How will humans cope without an escape into nature?

What Would You Purchase First?

In Rousseau's book Emile, He talks about many ideas that he believes in but the one idea that I would like to touch on is on p.345.

He says, "To that end, the first use of my riches would be to purchase leisure and freedom, to which I would add health, if it were for sale. But since it is purchased only with temperance and since there is no true pleasure in life without health. I would be temperate out of sensuality".

This quote struck me as odd because we have been studying so many different philosophers over the semester and for the most part each philosopher has generally said to do what is right in human nature. That could be by helping out in the common good or just being a good person who do a lot of reflection as Aristotle believed in. Rousseau is the first to say that a person should think about themselves first. I guess Rousseau is trying to bring up the subject of self-interests. By looking at the things he would buy with his riches, it is understandable that he desires those things. Every human being desires to have leisure. What person would not mind relaxing at home reading a novel they like instead of going to work that day. I am pretty sure that most humans would pick the first choice over the second choice.

The idea of freedom is a very radical idea at this time in history. Most of the European nations at this time were controlled by some sort of monarchy so to think of being free is very unusual. Rousseau is probably one of the first people to speak of freedom for everyone. Just mentioning that a person is not happy with the monarchy in Europe could get you killed. Rousseau was a person who was way ahead of his time and was writing for the future generations.

Lastly his idea about purchasing health if you could was an idea that was ahead of its time. This period was the time when major plagues were breaking out in Europe and if people had a standard health care then there might have been a chance to prevent this illnesses.

The main question I am asking when it comes to this quote is do you think that Rousseau's ideas about freedom and health was a radical idea at this time or was he paving the way for future societies to live by?

Human Freedom and its Impact on Survival

"In every animal I see only an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses in order to revitalize itself and guarantee itself, to a certain point, from all that tends to destroy or upset it. I perceive precisely the same things in the human machine, with the difference that nature alone does everything in the operations of a beast, whereas man contributes to his operations be being a free agent. The former chooses or rejects by instinct and the latter be an act of freedom..."

- Rousseau, Second Discourse, page 113

In this passage Rousseau examines the natural differences between the survival of humans and animals and suggests that the ability for humans to survive may be negatively influenced by the development of our free thought. In the way that most animals are hardwired to respond a certain way to different situations, such a chameleon using camouflage in the presence of a predator, humans too have programmed responses that are meant to protect them from predators and danger.

Rousseau's argument is that throughout the course of evolution, the necessity for these natural instincts and reflexes has greatly diminished as society advances. In most civilizations humans no longer have to hunt food, find shelter to weather harsh environments, or fear predators and because of this their instincts have been replaced by the "act of freedom". As Rousseau says, humans have become free agents from nature and make decisions based not on natural instinct or survival mode responses but rather free will and thought.

Of course in our modern society free will and thought are considered human rights with which we would not be citizens without. That being said, I believe it is true what Rousseau is saying about this freedom diminishing the survival ability of humans. Although many people will never be put in a situation where survival knowledge would be needed, most would not have the first clue about how to react in one.

Do you think that this matters at all? Do you think humans have lost something important by developing free will? Or does it not matter in today's society? What are the ramifications and affects of people losing their natural survival instincts?

Rousseau's Relevancy

The central points of Rousseau's First and Second Discourses appear fairly straightforward. Firstly, that there are two types of inequalities among men: natural and moral inequality. Natural inequality is that which “is established by nature and consists of the difference of ages, bodily strengths, and qualities of mind of soul” (101). Natural inequality results from the undeniable physical differences that humans are predisposed to through genetics. Moral inequality derives from human culture and customs.  As a result of human society, moral inequality develops through the acquisition of private property and human laws.

Nothing seems particularly problematic with these two observations. Rousseau seems, however, to be extremely critical of moral inequality. He points out a myriad of problems that come from the development of the “arts” and from the “renewal” of the sciences. Yet man is not like beasts because of self-perfection and free agency. What Rousseau envisions or desires out of this critique is not particularly clear. He states that “man deviates from [instinct] often to his detriment” (113), which is unlike beasts who cannot act outside of natural instinct. Rousseau seems critical of nearly all human institutions. Yet he actually struggles to conceive of a time when his state of nature existed. He discusses how from the beginning God directed Adam on good and evil, so the state of nature was destroyed from the beginning. Rousseau wants to imagine the development of mankind removed from the Creation in order to better understand man.

Once he has explained all this, what does he want us to think about it? What is the solution to his critique? Is there one? What is his point then? It seems that Rousseau would simply prefer for men to be like beasts. Is this not the only way to do away with moral inequality?