I found it interesting the separation between the romanticism of nature and the science of nature. On the romantic side, people were in awe of nature because of what it meant to humans, as a defense of our morals or as proof of religion. However, I think the same kind of awe can be found when looking at nature from the scientific position. I don’t think knowing more about how and why nature is the way it is takes away from the feeling of awe you can get from it. Maybe the best way to present modern environmentalism is to promote that feeling, but support it with facts.
Even though Capitalism and Marxism approach and use nature in different ways, they both end up finding nature’s value in its usefulness. With so many different viewpoints ending up here, is it just general human nature to base the value of the world around us on its usefulness to us? Since I’m mostly sure the answer is yes, is there a way for the environmental movement to use this?
I like that in ‘new ecology’ he makes the point that nature, without the input of humans, is still changing, so the real issue is to find the line of what is natural change and what is anthropogenic change. This winter is a good example. How much of the lack of cold and snow was a result of the naturally occurring El Nino, and how much of it was human impact exacerbating the El Nino?
I have two current events because they’re kind of small.
- Australia had to close down many beaches because human feces was being washing up with the flooding. Poopy Situation Down Under
- A Cropan’s Boa was spotted in Brazil. This is only the second time it’s been spotted alive and the last time was 64 years ago World’s rarest boa