Thursday, January 28, 2010
The chapter continues on with what I view as bashing of Christianity. As a Christian I am more than willing to admit that scripts and texts have been interpreted for man's "benefit" and that the Bible has been a means to an end for many unsavory deeds. The author does not seem to realise that not only is the Bible obscure, but it can be used for good and "Evil". Just because High ranking churchmen have rammed the interpretation of man's dominion meaning to exploit, does not mean that Christianity is at the core of modern environmental miss doing. The views of those in positions of power are to blame ultimately in the end. Science has been used for very bad thing but has produced wonders such as medicine.
I just wish the author had spent some time to reflect on the points I've mentioned rather then plowing away with the negatives. I will give him credit for the half section devoted to Saint Francis and his belief that man as a whole, not just individuals, could use humility and how he tried to set up a democracy for all of God's creatures.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
We then went through the concept of environmental justice and the terms Anthropocentric, Biocentric and Ecocentric?. I lean more towards Biocentrism in that I believe everything we do in some way may impact the environment and that all life has ethical standing. In other words, we must be careful what we do and how we interact with the environment so as to avoid damaging it and interrupting natural cycles as best we can.
If we are deeply connected to nature we are more likely to rule in favor of nature in an argument or decision making process. This is because we have formed a bond and that bond will tend to sway our decision making because it has altered or enforced our personal values. For management decision we may see more companies and people investing in green technology and immersing their businesses in more eco-friendly workplaces. A deeper connection to nature will cause more and more people to reduce their resource consumption and or look towards less harmful alternatives to fossil fuels. The same can be said for waste generation. People will feel a greater need to cut down on hazardous wastes or just waste in general. A deeper connection to nature will change our values from being more economically and self oriented, to being more outward and world conscientious.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Personally I feel that this is what society needs in some case when it comes to the environment. If there is a issue or imminent disaster, there is little to know time to determine what, at the end of the day, may be the best answer because you may not - or do not - have all day. You deal with the situation in the best way you immediately can, and after disaster is averted, then you sit down and see how you can improve.
Wide use of this Principle could really speed up global improvement on mankind's "war" on climate change. We have many of different ideas on how to combat environmental issue and way way more speculation. We have some proof that if we don't act now, we'll be in big trouble.
However, we can't just change overnight or immediatly act on every idea just as it comes into our heads. While society needs to hurry it up with combating climate change we need to also be aware of what we have to go through to do so. If the whole world woke up one morning and said: "I'm going to stop using fossil fuels starting this moment and put a wind turbine up in my back yard" for example, the global economy would collapse, the factories and machines used to produce the trubine would not have the power to do so because power plants all over the world would be shut down. We would have blackouts and chaos.
The world does need to start moving forward to reduce climate change and its effects, but in rapid yet calculated bursts like phasing out a power plant or two with wind or tidal farms over a specific period of time. Not an instant overhaul.