Blog 4

In the beginning of Kohak's second part, Of Nature, Value, and Ethics, I found his writings on the different perceptions of nature to be very insightful. While I found each to be valid and very different, I also could see the similarities between three of the four. What the hunter-gatherer, shepherd and ploughman, and the craftsman and trader all seem to have in common is there deep dependence on and respect for the nature that surrounds them - without it, they would be and have nothing. The sense of frugality possessed by the craftsman and trader, the loving respect toward nature shown by the shepherd and ploughman, and the sense of awe and dependence captured within the hunter-gather, stand as strong pillars of light compared to the experiences and actions of the producer and consumer. When looking at all four, the producer and consumer seem to the be the most unhappy, searching for meaning along his self-centered, empty quest for fulfillment, leaving all things but himself destroyed in his wake. Kohak's presentation of the four perceptions, shows just how unnatural the fourth one is - to continuously want more is not only unnatural but unhealthy.

Next, I liked Kohak's tie to religion and fear of the Lord in his discussion about the reverence of nature. His comparison between people's deep dependence on nature and the way people of different faiths view God was quite insightful - "For humans whose fundamental reality is God...who not only consider but truly experience themselves as unworthy servants of God, for whom the meaning of life is to gratefully care for the beloved creation (of God)...the purest ecological attitude of humility, simplicity, and service are an obvious expression of all life. That is what it is all about" (Kohak, 61). As one truly praises God through the actions of their life, they are forced to fall into line with many ecological teachings because to love God means to love all the things that possess God - all of His creation.

Lastly, Kohak dealt with the idea of humans as natural destroyers or as destroyers by choice. While I agree that humans are not destroyers by choice, I did not agree with all of the "rules" that Kohak thought that humans should impose on themselves to spare their effect on nature. While I do agree that one must almost reconstruct society to remove the idea of over consumerism, I did not like the train analogy that he used. When using the train example to describe human's overpopulation of the earth, I was mortified that Kohak would suggest lowering/controlling the human population. With all his talk about the sacredness of life, I would think this sacredness would extend to the human population as well. Changing attitudes is one thing, limiting life in sake of conservation is quite another.