Now the conflict with humans shifts from a conflict with humans and the way we treat animals to the conflict of humans and the way we treat nature and how we perceive nature. I honestly think Kohak is trying to make humans look like the bad guys in certain situations. Yes I do agree that factory farming is wrong but our society will never change and we don't think of factory farming as animal cruelty. The second section of The Green Halo deals with nature and how humans respond to nature and what it gives us.
Kohak explains in detail three possibilities of how humans relate to nature. The idea of the hunter gatherers accepts nature for what it is, and they live with in nature. In this view nature had all the qualities that God has. Even though he would want that to be the way it is now, it will never be the same. The second possibility is through the ploughmen and shepherds. This possibilty may still be around because there are still farms around which farmers take care of the earth by farming and learn to respect nature and give nature what it really needs. I really liked the idea of Kohak stating that now nature is shown through the work of God's hand. The third possibilty is through the craftsmen and how they perceive nature as a gift, and will respect and reshape nature.
Then Kohak goes into deatil how the society now has shifted dramatically to a consumerist view of nature. I do agree Kohak saying how we consumer more than we ever need, but it is the way our society was brought up in that caused the way we act. It would be nice to not be so greedy and only get what we need, but that will never change because it would be so hard to implement the changes for society. People will never come to an agreement on how nature should be perceived because everyone has different opinions on the matter.
In the Fear of the Lord section, I don't agree with Skolimowski and how he says that if one puts God as the center of all nature and the respect for nature that over-consumption and egocentrism will be rid of. I don't agree with this because not everyone in a society has the same beliefs and may not wish to have God as the center of nature even though God did in fact create nature.
I think that what Kohak is addressing here is the different ways that humans can value nature. Do we, as a "hunter gatherer" society revere it as a grand and awesome thing? Do we, as an "agricultural community" respect it for the gifts it givs us and treat it well, accordingly? Or, do we as a materialistic and consumerist-driven urban culture forget completely about nature, trash it, disrespect it and only give a second thought when something goes wrong that inconveniences out lifesttyle? Here you have a spectrum, with one end valueing nature intrinsically,seeing it as having value because it is. The other end regards nature as only having value with respect to humans, only for what it can give us and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteOften, when making decisions about policy that will affect the environment, people come into conflict due to these differing views of the human's relationship to nature. If global warming had no affect on our way of life, leaving only the forgotten and "less-charismatic" species for dead (ie. the ones that aren't cute or affecting important industries)... I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't give a second thought to how their actions affect global warming. The whole idea is figuring out the worldview (how humans relate to nature), so that you can explain the ethics of action taken.
P.S. "Yes I do agree that factory farming is wrong but our society will never change and we don't think of factory farming as animal cruelty." Well, with an attitude like that, nothing will change, will it?