From the reader:
From Nash, Rights of Nature
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
From Nash, American
Environmentalism:
#42 Berry
2) Why is Cronon concerned about activists who have and "instrumental view of the past" (p. 6)? What do you think about his issue?
3) Can you think of examples of the findings of environmental historians, listed on pages 8 and 9?
4) List, explain, and apply the broad themes Cronon discusses at the end of his piece.
5) What are the implications of the third lesson, that "All environmental knowledge is culturally constructed and historically contingent -- including our own"?
6) What do historical "parables" provide our understanding that science doesn't?
2) "Planetary history has been fundamentally environmental history" (p. 90). What themes does Worster suggest support this assertion? Compare this idea with Cronon's lessons of environmental history #1 - 3.
3) To what factors does Worster attribute the change in attitudes reflected in Buffon's and Marsh's views of the human place in nature?
4) What flaws does Worster find in the interpretations given to the relationships of these factors? How does environmental history serve as a corrective?
5) What specific roles does Worster say science has played in our recent planetary history?
2) How has the definition of progress been narrowed, and why? What do you think might be done to broaden society's vision of progress?
3)"The majority of Americans has been indoctrinated with a set of rationalizations which explain the effects of a relatively brief era in Western history as an infallible social philosophy which will produce the same abundance if applied in the future int he Third World" (317). What rationalizations does he mean? How do they work to shape our hopes and expectations?
4) LaFreniere says we must "infuse political debate with questions of environmental ethics in order that implicitly assumed value systems of citizens be made explicit, thereby opening and expanding public debate concerning the deeper meaning of environmental problems." Do you agree, or not, and why? Can you give examples of how this might be done in an issue you know about or have been involved in? What would the likely range of responses be? How might one respond to these responses?
2) List as many facets of Christianity as you can which White connects to science, technology and/or to environmental problems. Which are most convincing to you, and which least? Why?
3) White clears conceptual space for his main emphasis in his discussion of science. How does each point he makes here support his main thesis? Do you buy their validity?
4) White says modern environmental attitudes spring from the Judaic and Christian traditions. As a thought experiment, pick a contemporary positive or negative environmental belief, attitude, or action, and interpret it as an expression of ideas in the selections from Genesis. How strong do you think your interpretation is?
2) What role does Opie believe artists played in the transformation in spiritual world which he traces?
3) What roles do you think artists today might play in relation to environmental crisis?
4) Do you agree with Opie's focus on humanism? What about the other authors we have read who stress other forces such as Christianity?
2) Can you identify experiences of your own which are better described in terms of relationships being foundational, rather than on yourself as a separate ego? Can you extend this beyond rather obvious mammalian relationships?
3) What value do you see in discussing metaphysical concepts such as those Callicott addresses? Is it too abstract and impractical, or is it utter central since so much else stems from it?
4) Does Callicott's discussion of ecology fit your understanding of the current state of that field?
2) What is signicant about the changes listed in the table on page 148 of Botkin's text?
3) What are the three "schools of thought" about the balance of nature at the global level? Explain the main metaphor associated with each.
4) Which of these does Botkin prefer, and why?
5) What are the implications of Botkin's favored metaphor for humans' modification of both local and global systems? 6) Does Botkin's view make you more or less optimistic about humans' role in nature? Does it make that role more simple or more complex? Consider the examples given in the secont selection.
2) Examine one case where ecological thought was blended with other considerations (morality, ethics, degradation, theology). Describe it and its consequences. What lessons would you take from this regarding the role of environmental values in ecological science today?
3) Summarize 5 key points different thinkers have made about Leopold's A Sand County Almanac, or other works.
4) Relate the ecological and ethical contributions of Carson.
2) Briefly paraphrase or summarize 3 distinct religiously-based environmental ethics (eg, White, Baer, Lowdermilk, Sittler, Dubos, Santmire, Cobb etc.).
3) Baer's and Berry's (see below) environmental ethics are not non-anthropocentric, but have the virture of acknowledging our need to use nature, and of trying to define how and why we should. Do you see this as a shortcoming or a strength? Explain.
4) Summarize the various positions Nash discusses on the question of monotheism versus pantheism, and their implications for the environment.
5) Do you think that the ethics proposed by any of the theological writers Nash discusses are more radical than the natural-rights school (Nash, ch 1)? Explain.
2) Berry complains that Christianity is not sufficiently "earthly" - it is too concerned with the hereafter. Explain (with examples) how his interpretation of the Promised Land helps rectify this.
3) What kind and degree of respect does Berry's Christian environmental ethic grant to nature? Do you think his position is a good one, or does it go to far - or not far enough? Why?
4) How do you feel about the position and duties of the "fallen" person in Berry's environmental ethic? Give and explain your response.