Blog 5

This so far was probably one of my favorite sections of this book, because there were so many different alternatives to how you relate with nature and views that people can take sides with. Since there are all these options, it was hard to pick one that I could most closely relate to, but there were many aspects of separate ones that I would agree with.

For example, out of the theocentric, anthropocentric, and biocentric views, I would have to say that although I may not completely follow this view, I would pick Schweitzer and the biocentric view. "Schweitzer's concern was not to 'save nature.' ... His concern was to do good, not evil, and it was this deeply felt task that he formulated as the ethics of reverence for life." This really makes sense to me because I agree that, as humans, we may not be able to save every animal and every tree, but if we are doing our part to help it, then we are doing good. However, I don't believe that we have to do good because they are God's creatures (theocentric), I think that we should be doing good, because everything natural has a "right" to be treated with respect.

Paul Taylor, so far, has been my favorite person in this book because of his 4 theses of biocentrism. I completely agree with his first statement, that "people, animate beings of the subspecies H. sapiens sap., are equal members of the community of all beings." Since he says "of ALL beings," this made me think, that everything needs to be treated equally. However there is a different equality in humans than in nature. Obviously there is no need to worry about which plants get the best sunlight because of their color (relate to racism), but they all should be equal in that they shouldn't be chopped down since they are only plants.

His second point, "the Earth is a web of mutual dependence," is also very true. Everything depends on everything else. If there isn't trees in the forest, animals don't have homes, things to eat, and we are not getting all the nutrients either. If you were to take away one thing from an ecosystem, there are many different things that would be affected because that ONE thing was destroyed.

"Every member of the biotic community is valuable simply because it is." This is one of the strongest statements in this book so far. Just because it is. Everything doesn't have to have a reason for being the way it is. Like Taylor said, as long as something is exceeding the limits of what they need, then they should be able to live just because they are. I don't remember what section was talking about the beavers making the dams, but to us we may think what is the need for beavers. But to the beavers, they know they have a purpose, even if it just to be.

The last thesis about human racism is important because most people wouldn't think of it that way. If we continue to think we are the all-being and the most important part of the earth, that is being racist/speciest towards ourselves. What proof do we have that we are actually the most important thing? Or what do we know that tells us every other being could possibly not be as important to us? Think about it.