Anthropocentrism – The world-view espoused by a bunch of egocentrics.
Biocentrism – The world-view espoused by egocentrics who think they’re enlightened.
Ecocentristm – The world-view espoused by egocentrics who think they are more clever than Biocentrics.
Envirocentrism – The world-view espoused by really, Really clever, attention-craving egocentrics.
Interdependency – A fancy way of saying that each one of us is unique…just like everyone else.
Overconsumption and Overpopulation – What you fear can happen if you believe Nature can’t take care of herself.
Geological vs. Human Time – A good way to see how significant mankind really is since we’ve made such an impact in such a short time.
Environmental Language – Spin, double-speak, politico. See also, ‘forked tongue’.
Of course I am having fun with this but don’t assume my definitions are untrue. These five themes are revisited by all groups on both sides of the environment centered debates. An example can be heard among our current presidential contenders and their groupies.
The challenge of making sense of all this is demanding, as mentioned by fellow classmate Antonio Guerrero in his post on Interdependency. But like all large calculations, reducing the equation to the simplest terms can be a useful first step.
We live in a mostly enclosed system containing 118 known elements. Outside influences consist of sunlight, solar flares, a lunar tidal effect, and various meteorites that enter our atmosphere. Whether the fact that our Galaxy is hurtling through space at 200 feet per second or our 1000 mph spin on Earth’s axis, causes additional impact or not, I don’t know. Either way, it’s a big world, a big galaxy, and a big universe. So let’s reduce it down to something simpler.
The human body is quite similar in that it is composed of many of the elements found in our biosphere (footnote 1). The human body much like the earth, is self-contained inside its atmosphere and yet receives some outside input of food, water, and air just as our biosphere receives the outside inputs mentioned in the paragraph above. Based on this simplified view, we can better examine the discussion themes assigned.
According to the text for this week, we should learn to share the skin of others (Suzuki & Dressel, 2004, pg. 9). I suggest this is intrinsically impossible and only plausible on a psychological level and therefore, a useless paradigm. We should realize our limitations. The ants don’t share my skin. Are they therefore guilty of ANTthropocentrism? Every species is thriving and waning according to its present environment. When the mosquitos are hatching, the bat population thrives which in turn, benefits the plant life they help pollinate. But do they consider this interdependency? The animal and plant kingdoms are instinctual and systemic. Only humans interacts with their environment willfully just as we each take care of our individual body-spheres.
We learn to take care of our personal spheres in relation to those around us; first in our family and then among our peers, and so on. Typically, we have grown to become much more political and manipulative than interdependent. True interdependence is exemplified by the food I put in my mouth. It is digested, absorbed, and assimilated to become me. The person I am with the life I live inside my earth-suit (body), is the expression of that food, water, and air I take in every day. For this reason I say interdependence is a clever term that should be replaced by dependence, pure and simple. Nature does not depend on me and you don’t either. We both depend on nature, however, and should therefore consider the consequences of our interaction with it.
Geological time is used to point out how apparently insignificant humans are since we have only recently occupied the planet. I maintain however that this proves how significant we are since no other species has produced such an impact in so short a span. We should be in awe and wonder concerning our existence. Why are we here? If we are simply a product of evolution, why would Nature produce an element capable of its own destruction? Bacteria have been around longer than humans and outnumber us, yet have not destroyed the planet. Why are humans alone able to create imbalance at will?
The media will not answer this question. The media is us. We demand the virtual vanity that is supplied. We shouldn’t believe naively that somehow, magically, manipulative language is produced out of thin air. If no one buys it, no one will produce it. The costs are too high and the risks too great. But since people buy it, others will make it. It’s supply and demand and the principle is seen on the simplest cellular level of our human body where waste is eliminated because there is no need for it and fat is stored if the need is anticipated based on previous demands. The media follows the money like humans follow food. It’s what’s for dinner!
Satisfaction is a nebulous term and sense of well-being, when measured, registers highest among those in Denmark and lowest among those in the U.S. Many would claim this is because we suffer from Affluenza. However, research shows that countries with low expectations are generally more content. Because they don’t expect much, when they don’t get it, no one is saddened by the result (footnote 2). There is a reason the world’s scholars come to the U.S. for their education and why millions cross our borders illegally. The inherent dissatisfaction among the American populace is what drives the dream to pursue and improve. On the negative side this is greed and should be eschewed. But on the positive side, it is what drives our interest to create sustainable solutions to present problems. As Dawn Leslie’s post states, we are making baby steps. I maintain a blog as my personal effort to say in agreement with Dawn’s comment that, “Yes, we are making progress and should maintain a positive outlook.”
If mankind can make such a negative impact in such a short time, then he must have the potential to make a positive one as well. And when this potential is coupled with the speed of technological advances and the motivation of the next generation to change course and set a new sail, why wouldn’t the solutions follow? Paradigms can’t be planned. There may be a new one just around the bend…
References
1. http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-body/what-chemical-elements-found-within-human-body
2. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/the-secret-to-happiness/
Suzuki, David & Dressel, Holly. (2004). Naked Ape to Superspecies. Greystone Books. Vancouver.
