Blog...

How do we explain things that we can’t understand? Throughout history humans depended upon the concept of an all-knowing entity, above the capacity of human understanding, to explain the unexplainable. We grant any unknown thing this status until science allows us to explain it in terms that we understand. Humans have become increasingly scientific as time as past and as we have progressed in this way, many thing that were once mysteries have been explained scientifically and a religious and spiritual view of the world has given way to a more scientific and empirical view of the world. We, as humans, want to understand! We understand more and more about things in our lives, but we are still missing the basic questions in life: Why are we here? How did we get here? And basic concepts, namely, how to deal with our environment.
Things that can’t be explained scientifically are generally the things that are disputed the most amongst people. Can we go a day without people arguing and killing over religious beliefs? Or a day in which no on fights about evolution and creationism? Ethics, morals, religion are things that can’t be generally agreed on. When was the last time you heard two people arguing about whether a rock fell to the ground because of gravity or because of some three headed turtle that lives in the center of the earth and attracts objects? Science makes things concrete. There is no debate over gravity. There is no debate over the concept of photosynthesis or cellular respiration as far as I know. The problem than with environmentalism is that we can’t totally prove, scientifically, that the earth’s climate is changing due to humans and that it is irreversible. We might be able to conclude that it is very highly likely, but even if we could say that it is 100% due to humans, we would still need time for this idea to be generally accepted. Certainly the works of Galileo and others were not immediately accepted, and in fact, large unaccepted as well as alienating. I believe that someday climate change will become a scientific fact, but the problem is that perhaps we don’t have enough time. Currently I believe that it is largely a religious based science which is why there is so much debate about it in the first place. However, this religious aspect is also necessary until it can become a generally accepted scientific fact. We need to be acting now....we needed to be acting long ago, actually....and while science may slowly convince the whole, I believe that religion has, and will continue to, convince a smaller proportion or highly active individuals. If we have any chance at making environmentalism achieve its main goal of preserving the environment, I think we need both a scientific and religious aspect.
http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/index.htm

Posted by Will Clausen at 5:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (99) | TrackBacks (0)

Religion is a confusing thing to say the least. How can such a wide range of thoughts on one issue come from one book? I’m sure that the Bible is up to personal interpretation, but it’s perplexing to me that two people can have polar opposite opinions and claim to believe in the some religion and read from the same book. Is nature God’s gift to humans for the sole purpose of our benefit, or is it a gift that we were meant to both give and take from? Are we the masters or are we the caretakers? I find it inherent that environmentalism should be connected with religion as far as a religious person’s view is concerned and yet there is division. As far as I can see, there is nothing horribly wrong with being concerned with the well-being of our planet regardless of whether you are religious or not, and yet there are the religious conservatives who refuse to admit or take action against blatant environmental problems. Are we to just throw away this gift that we have been given? Perhaps we should use it to advance ourselves, but shouldn’t we then also give back so that we can advance ourselves further?
I am not at all surprised that some of the most important environmental groups are religious, and in fact I’m surprised that they haven’t always been the dominate group in fighting for the environment.
One thing that history has seemed to prove is that as time pasts, the public becomes more and more open-minded. Things like equality in race, gender, religion, have come to pass and I can only assume that it is a matter of time until the even the most conservative of Christians realizes that we have to be caretakers or this world. Maybe they’ll even see that two men being married isn’t so bad either.
I’m tired and this post is real bad.
http://www.thefigtree.org/jan06images/illyn.html

Posted by Will Clausen at 6:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Lisa Couturier gives us a completely new look on how a person can perceive the natural world. While the previous works we have read all point the reader away from society in order to find nature, Couturier shows us how to see it in our own cities. Everything becomes natural, and when you think about it, everything certainly is. She makes the comparison between people in big cities and a community of ants. Most people would look at an anthill(or for that matter, a bird’s nest or a beaver’s dam) and say that those structures are natural, but aren’t these things just like our houses and skyscrapers? I would bet that most people would categorize the Sears Tower as something that is natural. The professor in this work makes this brilliant connection that really offers a new perspective. Discovering that we as humans, and all the byproducts that we create, are only a part of the natural world can be an enlightening experience, but I believe that it can also be very detrimental. Couturier quotes an author named Gary Snyder, who she believes inspired her professor, “ ‘By these lights there is nothing unnatural about New York City, or toxic waste, or atomic energy, and nothing-by definition-that we do or experience in life is ‘unnatural’’�
We touched on this in class briefly last week and I think it is an important thing to note that if we as humans see ourselves and our actions just as a part of nature, we will be unable to notice the things that we do to harm the our environment. Suddenly the pollution that our cars emit into the air becomes acceptable because it’s just a part of the natural system that we are part of. While humans may essentially be just one part of the natural world, we need to be able to step back and be responsible for our actions because they have the more impact than the actions of any other species. We may be just as much a part of nature as the squirrels that run all over Minneapolis, but are they capable of destroying the world the way we are?

http://www.lisacouturier.com/

Posted by Will Clausen at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

When I compare reading Thoreau and Annie Dillard, one large difference is very obvious and very important. Both writers are experiencing the exact same situation, that is, exploring and appreciating the wilderness by themselves, but the way that they describe there experience is completely opposite. Both books provide philosophical views on nature and our relationship with it, but Thoreau writes in a rather dry and slow-paced manner while Dillard writes in a more upbeat and lively fashion that really grabs the attention of the reader. I really enjoyed reading Dillard much more than Thoreau simply because of the writing style that she employs. She gives everything life and really expresses what nature is to her while added in philosophical ideas for the reader to ponder while Thoreau focuses largely on the mind and the state of mind that nature can put one in and focuses secondarily on what that nature actually is. The reader gets the sense that Dillard has come to the woods because she genuinely enjoys it while in Walden it seems more that Thoreau has retreated to the woods mainly to get away from the village. Certainly Dillard is a much more contemporary author and so it is easier for me to relate to her, but I just love the passion that she writes with. She doesn’t hold everything in nature up on a pedestal. She yells at steer and tries to scare frogs, but all the while she is still in awe of everything. She offers an idea to people to take or leave and merely suggests that we take more time to notice nature and understand it. She doesn’t force us into anything, but her writing persuaded me so effectively. She makes nature sound like the most exciting thing ever and I’m sure this reading would appeal much more to the average person than Thoreau’s would.

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/dillard/bio.htm
This gives you an idea of the kind of person that she is and her writing style.

Posted by Will Clausen at 5:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)