Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

In “The Ecozoic Era”, author Thomas Berry discusses the six principles that need to be followed so that the world can enter into the Ecozoic era. This new era is a period where humans will cease to be destructive to the Earth and will instead respect it by living within an “Earth Community.”

There are a few points that I can appreciate about Berry’s writing, one is that he identifies what so many people fail to understand: that a healthy society or community cannot strive on a sick planet. His second principle identifies biocide and genocide, which are two terms that I was unfamiliar with prior to this reading that I believe could be referenced more often. It is undeniable that these acts occur, and the increasing rate at which it's occurring while the level of awareness on behalf of the public is seemingly decreasing is saddening.

Overall it was an interesting read, but unfortunately most people fail to grasp the fact that the success of the whole of society is dependent upon a healthy earth (agriculture, shelter, economy, etc). Therefore, the probability of any of these principles being adopted by society before life-changing climactic events occur is small.

I really enjoyed these two readings. I liked the comparison of suicide, homicide, and genocide to biocide and geocide in the Ecozoic Era article. I think that the harm that humans are doing to the earth is a very important issue and should be taken as seriously as other types of killing, because if we continue to take advantage of the earth, it will become unable to support human life.
The second half of Cedar Keys was my favorite part of the readings. The author raised a valid question when he asked if all of creation is made for humans, then why are there man-eating animals and blood-sucking insects? I think that the desire of every species is to fulfill their own happiness, not the happiness of humans. My favorite line of the reading is that Christians are “not content with taking all of earth, they also claim the celestial country as the only ones who possess the kind of souls for which that imponderable empire was planned.” I’m not sure why it affected me, but I laughed out loud at the thought of how egotistical humans can be.
Of course I don’t believe that Christianity is the direct or only cause for the state of mind that humans have concerning wastefulness and consumption, but I can see how Christian views could have helped in development of this kind of culture.

Although Berry presents many interesting points, he fails to consider the complexity of the issue. Berry’s ethic pertaining to “the wanton killing of life systems . . .” or biocide/geocide is, in reality, somewhat overstated. I also found Berry’s notion of the planet’s “former grandeur” utopian as if we should be headed towards an absolute goal. To “recover” the former grandeur of the planet would require the “wanton killing” of many life forms. As humans, we cannot impel the earth in one direction or another; we can only “change” it. Humans impact the environment, but so does slime mold; the only difference is humans have the conscious ability to change the homeostatic “bar” of the environment. Maybe humans are a metaphorical burning of the prairie where after such burning, the prairie seems to be revived and breathing again – just an idea.

I think Muir asks one of the most important, nonetheless thought provoking questions – “why should man value himself as more than a small part of the one great unit of creation”. We revere nature as an icon of beauty. We recognize such beauty in contrast to the monotonous environment we go home to. It is comical in the way we try to bring the beauty of nature to us, as we plant shrubs surrounded by rocks or woodchips and plant grass to fill in the gray areas in between. Are we trying to emulate what we perceive as nature? If so, we do a terrible job. We forget to include the rotting dear carcass and in many instances have an obsessive compulsion to remove the fallen heroes of summer from the lawn with a rake. Of course this is Midwestern, but homologies exist elsewhere. In our attempt to blend in with the vibrant colors in nature, we forget to look at our shoes and see the brown we just stepped in. The fact of the matter is we are apart of nature or the “unit of creation”. I think the beauty we see in nature makes us feel like we are the audience of one fantastic production – one we try to act out ourselves.

There was something the Berry article said, that “we cannot make a blade of grass.” However, it sometimes feels as if we are going in the complete opposite direction of that. It kind of feels like humans are trying so hard to make everything artificially as if to prove to the earth that we think we can live without out. This is horribly ignorant of us and would just take so much effort whereas if we lived in harmony with the earth, as in the Ecozoic era, it would take a lot less effort.

One other thing I want to talk about is the concluding paragraph of the Berry article. The message I got out of it was that we simply need to unite as a world, like have one big country instead of lots of little ones. The author also skirted this point when he talked about being concerned with the ‘Gross Earth Product,’ instead of the Gross Human product. I definitely agree that this being concerned with this type of product could unite the world and bring us into the Ecozoic era, which is a good thing.

The Muir article was a bit flowery, but I suppose one does have a tendency to rant when describing a life changing experience. His observation about how even though the world was supposedly created for mankind, humanity is still surprised by a vast majority of nature, amused me. Our consciousness sets us apart from other animals and we use our knowledge to create, but our ability to be self aware has also brought forth arrogance. It is merely our perception that makes us better and not actual reality. Christians believe in the word of the Bible, but a Lion will not stop mauling because of your faith. The world is too big to just be made for one species, especially a species that barely contributes back to their own environment.

I think Thomas Berry has underestimated the destructive nature of humanity. I disagree with his statement of, “Ultimately humans cannot extinguish life on the planet”. If it comes down to a pretty tree that has withstood the ravages of time, or making a warm fire to keep us warm for a single night, I think most humans would choose the latter. Same analogy goes for any animal when we are hungry enough. We kill our own species over less things. His proposal of an Ecozoic era where humans have complete control over the Earth is repulsive. His vision is a place where, “ we will control the inner workings of the planet. We cannot make a blade of grass. But there is liable not to be a blade of grass if it is not accepted, protected, and fostered by the human.” does not seem right. I will not be celebrating or else joining Mr. Berry in his vision of an Ecozoic era. I appreciate his wanting to create a world where we are more aware of nature, but it is one thing to protect the Earth by making better decision to help influence the planet’s growth (plants, animals, and oceans), but it is another to exert complete control.

I found Thomas Berry’s piece, “The Ecozoic Era” somewhat intriguing. He mentioned that, “in the future the Earth will function differently than it has functioned in the past.” When people often mention the end of the world, I envision there being no more world, no more Earth. However, when we actually think about it, the Earth will most likely exist, just without us. No matter what causes the end of civilization, global warming, war, whatever the cause is, the Earth will still be in place. I think that is kind of a comforting thought in a way, knowing that humans and other life forms will forever remain on/in Earth. Earth was in existence long before humans, and Earth will continue to exist long after humans are extinct. We don’t define the existence of Earth as we think we do, Earth defines the existence of us; we depend on the Earth, it’s not the other way around. I don’t think humans really understand how great the planet truly is. We take it for granted and don’t take the time to explore and see all the wonders it has to offer. “We no longer listen to what the earth, its landscape, its atmospheric phenomena and all its living forms, its mountains and valleys, the rain, the wind, and all the flora and fauna of the planet are telling us.”

All in all the ecozoic era seems nice, but I honestly can't see it possible. Berry did mention something it following a mass extinction though. Maybe a mass extinction is what it would take for us to begin celebrating and unite to ultimately bring in the ecozoic era. I enjoyed Berry's comment about economics being the number one priority today. The Gross Earth Product is a cool concept in theory, but how would we go about measuring it?
Geocide is another vocab word thrown around a bit in the Berry text. Geocide is an outcome of man's inability to calculate the "long run." We need houses to live in, and burgers to eat NOW! We can't concern ourselves with matters such as geocide and biocide.
Beyond thinking of the universe as a community of subjects, I feel like we should still take one step farther and say that the universe is a subject. Any action that goes on within it shapes the universe because the universe is one.

As far as creations being for man go, I view it like this… As humans we are rational and wise. We have the choice to pretty much act however we please. We don't view animals as having the same cognitive abilities that we do, and presuppose that they act out of instinct and necessity. Well, if that be the case, I'd much rather be an animal and not have to deal with the pressure of choice or the anxiety of what's sanctioned.

Thomas Berry’s essay on “The Ecozoic Era” somewhat confused me. The eons, eras, periods, and epochs of our earth’s history have always been named after the fact to help organize and classify our information about the past. Since humans have only been around for a handful of years, and have only really studied earth’s history for a small fraction of those, I doubt there has been any debate or question as to when we will move out of the Cenozoic era and into something else. Maybe Berry was just using this term for impact value, but it still didn’t sit well with me. That being said, I do think that Berry makes some very valid points. I thought what he said about focusing on the progress of all living things, rather than just the progress of humans, is very important. However, I’m not sure that humans, by nature, can pull this off. We are inherently egotistical; self-preservation is undeniably a large motivating factor in all of our actions. How can we satisfy this need while, at the same time, making sure to protect our planet? It goes against evolutionary nature to care for something so much that is neither a mate nor kin. On the other hand, humans are not your everyday animal. We have defied evolution in more ways than one, and (in my opinion) it is clear that we do have the power to make the change.

When I first read the topic for this class period, God’s Favorites?, I was intrigued. In class we have devoted a good portion of discussion to freewill, human dominance, the soul, etc. A lot of views held in class are that humans are the prime species, and that we are, like the topic suggests, God’s Favorites. Reading Muir’s piece, I found his comment at the end about moving a human to a deadly climate to be fitting. In all of our scientific advances, we are pushing the limits of what is “natural” and suggest that if humans cannot do something or go somewhere, it is our responsibility to fix that situation. Humans did not evolve with wings, yet we still manage to fly thousands of miles. Here is where I find myself at a conflict because I believe in the power of investigation, curiosity, and pushing scientific bounds.

With Berry’s piece, there were many good points brought up about humans having to live with the world rather than in the world. Humans are still animals, and naturally we don’t have any evidence to support our dominance besides the fact that we have evolved to a society that is much different than other animals. Berry also brings up god principles that need to be taken into consideration. While I think these principles would be beneficial to have in effect, the execution is difficult since they are drastic changes from how our society and lives are currently set up. We need baby steps and gradual change to make the principles last.

I really respect John Muir, and I think that reading a bit about him was fascinating. I really liked a lot that he had to say. I think his best point was about the cosmos not being able to survive without humans, but also not being able to survive without the tiniest of creatures. It reminds me of the notion of the circle of life. Remove even one species of life from our ecosystem and our Earth changes completely. Each species, from plankton to bull elephants, make everything work in this delicate balance. This amazingness, which works for some people as proof of God’s existence, is somehow often ignored. The same people who are viewing the balance as proof of God’s existence are often the same people who treat Earth as if it’s okay to disregard it. Whether God put all the work into creating Earth so that everything hung in such perfect balance or whether it was the work of nature, it is the truth that it hangs precariously. Thus, we must take care of it as such.

Berry's "The Ecozoic Era" was an interesting read but in my opinion was like reading fiction. It seems completely reasonable that if we all come together and become an "integral community" as a "communion of subjects," that we can "mutually enhance" one another. However, today's reality crushes that possibility. Too many people are concerned with their own path in life and unfortunately that usually leaves out any commitment to the health of the Earth. Berry makes that point that we must assist the "wilderness to reactivate itself." However, we continuously stop natural processes from occurring, prairie lands from burning to grow back stronger than it once was before because this causes a great inconvenience and a threat to houses that should never have been built where they are to begin with. The population has yet to understand that if we continue to interrupt natural processes then it throws off the cycle of everything. This is also the case with extinction of animals. We put them on an endangered species list when their numbers decline to protect them but there is no concern before that point or understanding that renewal is not always possible.

I like Muir's writing, of course. He hit the nail on the head when he states, "Now, it never seems to occur to these far-seeing teachers that nature's object in making animals and plants might possible be first of all the happiness of each one of them, not the creation of all for the happiness of one." And though I do like this statement I believe that humans are, in a sense, beyond the normal animal. I mean seriously, no other animal does what we do, to the extent of what we do, on this planet. At the base of it all we are the tool maker. That is our skill for survival and it has become so pervasive of us all. If man makes tools to survive and better his life, then is it possible to make tools that don't better his life or help him survive? In some ways even tools like nuclear bombs and land mines can be argued. Technically they are there to prevent us from being killed. The kill before we are killed. Even when we get to things like deforestation. The tools we make to help us along the way aren't bad, they're just tools. Are intent or ignorance or greed could be bad. I guess this posting doesn't really have solid direction, I'm not sure what I'm getting at...

“It's a place where the "sun shines not on us, but in us. The rivers flow not past but through us, thrilling, tingling, vibrating … the very stones seem talkative and brotherly.” –Jon Muir

I thought this was an interesting quote because it emphasizes that we are not independent of nature, it’s part of us. We too often like to think ourselves as outside observers, when in reality everything inside of us came from what we feel we are no longer a part of.

“Until we do listen, until we do hear these voices and understand what they are telling us, our lives will continue to be shriveled, our judgment as absurd, as destructive as we can presently observe in what we have done to the soil, the water, the air, and the living forms of this loveliest of planets. We will appreciate or revere the planet if we are to form a viable Earth Community.” -Berry

This quote reminds me of something my father will say from time to time. My father is soil scientist, and treats the word “dirt” as if some insulted his mother, because to him you have, his mother earth. He from time to time will hold up handfuls of soil and explain to people they should get to know the contents of his hand and become friends. His rational is that you might as well start building relationships with what you are destined to become, treating the granules of soil how you want to be treated when you join them.

As the human race, we tend to take a short-sided view of nature and the environment. We may intend better, but our immediate “necessity” for consumption on average tends to trump any desire to sustain a healthy environment. Many people, especially those with a utilitarian view of the environment, do not view environmental sustainability as a necessity. In fact, they believe that we should exploit the environment for our own use in the fullest extent possible. What is interesting is that those same people would never run a business in such a manner. If a CEO were to exploit a company’s resources to the fullest extent possible for his/her own gain without consideration for the other people in the company or for the company’s interest as a whole, he/she would be immediately fired, or even thrown in jail. Economists seem to have a deep understanding for the necessity of sustainable practices when running a business, yet they tend to be the same people who advocate a utilitarian view of the environment. This is a vast contradiction and it is hypocrisy. Those people should realize that nature is like a business. It needs to be run with sustainable practices, or we will eventually use it up, or even destroy it. Then where will economists be? Out of a job!

i1XtAC comment2 ,

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Incredible site!

vCmeRK

74AFPL

eHndiL