Why wolves?

 

There is an ongoing debate in norway about whether we should have wolves or not, and how many. The fault lines – as so often these days – seem to go between the urban and/or more educated, and the rural and/or less educated.

Here are some of the arguments against wolves, and my comments.

They take livestock. They do, but they take far fewer than trains, traffic, and disease. And the farmers receive compensation from the state if any are taken.

They are a risk to humans. No, they are virtually no risk to humans. The real risks are what we all know about, including traffic, suicide, poor lifestyle and food choices, and much more.

They are evil and scary. Yes, we may culturally have learned to see them as evil and project our shadow onto them, and they may trigger fear in us. That’s no reason to get rid of them. (I suspect this is what’s really going on since the apparently rational arguments are not very strong.)

And here are some arguments for having wolves.

For the benefit of the wolves. They have as much right to be here as we do. They are sentient beings just as us and wish to live.

For the ecosystems. Our ecosystems evolved with large predators, and healthy and thriving ecosystems depend on large predators.

For our benefit. Just as ecosystems, we need the wild. We evolved with and in the wild, and with high level predators. We need it for our own health and well being. We need it as a reminder of who we are, in an evolutionary context. We need it to feel alive.

Why are people really against wolves? I suspect primal fear of wolves is one aspect. Specifically, fear of losing animals to wolves may trigger a more primal fear than losing them to illness or trains. Another may be instinctual competition. Humans and wolves are both large predators, and it’s natural to try to eliminate the competition.

In my view, the arguments against don’t hold up well. And the arguments for are far more important – for them, for us, for nature as a whole.

As usual, I can add that this view is very predictable for someone with my background. I grew up in a well educated urban family. I love nature. I want to consider the rights and needs of other beings, including nonhuman species. I am liberal in terms of politics. If I had grown up as a sheep farmer in an area with wolves, my views may well have been different. And that doesn’t mean I won’t speak up for wolves. They need someone to speak for them.

(more…)

Ecopsychology and inquiry

 

Inquiry can easily be used in an ecopsychology context.

Specifically how depends on the person and his or her situation.

For people concerned about our current ecological situation, we can look at fear, stress, a sense of inadequacy etc.

For people worried they are not doing enough, we can look at guilt, shame, fear, and commands to do more (or less!).

For people caught up in us vs them thinking, we can look at identities and perceived boundaries creating this sense of division and separation.

For people who want to experience a deeper connection with nature, we can look at identities with a charge that creates a sense of separation.

There is no end to possibilities. It would be fun to do a workshop on this one day. It could perhaps be combined with Practices to Reconnect developed by Joanna Macy.

(more…)

Historical perspectives: Including nonhuman species, ecosystems, and future generations

 

I just listened to the Revisionist History episode of Stuff You Should Know.

As they suggest, all history is by nature revisionist. We always change how we see and interpret the past, based on what’s important to us now (and sometimes just new information).

For a while now, historians have looked more at economy and class, gender, ethnicity, religion, and more. They have used these as filters, and looked at history from the perspective of groups previously left out such as women, children, non-European ethnic groups, the working class and poor, and religious minorities.

Two things were not mentioned in the podcast:

First, the difference between focusing on “ordinary” people vs. extraordinary people in history. Both has it’s value, and more historians are now focusing on the history of the ordinary people. How was their life and conditions? (This was a big part of my history classes in school.)

The other is looking at history through the filter of nonhuman species, ecosystems, and future generations. If history is, at least partly, about giving voice to the voiceless, and giving focus to the previously invisible, then this has to be included. How has our actions through history impacted nonhuman species and ecosystems, and also future generations? How have we treated these? How have they been ignored, or included and valued, in our decision process? 

A Green History of the World by Clive Pointing is an example from the 90s, and many people in the Deep Ecology and ecopsychology world have addressed the topic, but it’s still not included in mainstream history. It will, most likely, and perhaps sooner rather than later as ecological and sustainability issues become more and more obviously important to us.

Some green history questions that come to mind:

How have we (humans, at different places and times through history) treated the nonhuman world? How have we treated nonhuman species, nature, ecosystems? How have we treated future generations? (Both human and nonhuman.)

Have they been ignored? Included in our decision making? Respected? Have we been blind to them? Have we justified mistreatment of them, and how?

And why? How has our world view, values, fears, survival needs and more influenced this?

What can we learn from this? How does it apply to our current situation? What are the lessons?

(more…)

Eco-fascism

 

I am ambivalent about right wing sustainability.

It’s good that sustainability is a concern across the political spectrum, and I wish to support that.

At the same time, would I really want to cooperate with eco-fascists? With fascists who happen to be into sustainability and even deep ecology? I don’t know. I guess I could if I made it clear that I don’t support many of their other views, we agree to disagree on those, and leave what we disagree on aside while focusing on practical sustainability solutions we can agree on. I see that as very possible.

It’s interesting that right wing folks in the US often are vehemently against sustainability, while right wingers in other places of the world often see sustainability as central to their orientation and views. After all, being conservative – at least in my view – means protecting our natural resources for our children, and be good stewards of God’s creation. It can also mean protecting the nature where our ancestors lived, and which formed our culture.

Of course, the ancestors of white conservatives in the US didn’t live in the US, and their culture was not formed by this landscape. Maybe that’s part of the reason for this disconnect. Maybe that’s why they see it as more OK to ravage it, while people living where their ancestors lived – and where their culture was formed – are more inclined to protect it.

I also realize there are many ways of being conservative, and I agree with many of the views of traditional conservatives. (At least in terms of being a good steward and caring for our families, communities, and culture.)

It seems that it’s more the neo-liberals who feel threatened by the idea of sustainability. They see it as impinging on the freedom of businesses and corporations to do what they want to make more money. Which is true. Although they sometimes overlook the huge business opportunities in sustainability and our transition to a more sustainable society.

I suspect that in the (near?) future, neo-liberals or their ideological heirs will embrace sustainability exactly for that reason. It means new and amazing business opportunities, the possibility of big profits, and even the possibility to channel public money to corporations (now) working with sustainability.

Inquiry and Deep Ecology

 

There are many topics I don’t address here, mainly because what comes to me to say about it seems too obvious or predictable, at least if addressed in a brief blog post. Inquiry and deep ecology is one of them.

I also realize that by writing about it, I may uncover things that I wasn’t initially aware of. Or, engaging with the topic with curiosity may plant a seed that reveals something to me later.

How does inquiry connect with deep ecology?

One approach would be to look for…..

A boundary between me and the wider world, nature, the universe.

A boundary between me and nonhuman species, and future generations.

Me, nonhuman species, future generations, Earth, the universe.

Can I find any of these boundaries? Can I find it, outside of words, images, sensations?

Can I find what stops me from acting on behalf of nonhuman species, ecosystems, and future generations? Can I find the fear, lethargy?

Can I find a command to act, or not to act?

And so on. (Living Inquiries.) I can also identify and question any stressful thoughts, or any assumptions, I have on any of these topics. (The Work.)

Nonduality, systems view, ecophilosophy

 

I went to a talk with Stephan Harding and David Abram at Schumacher College earlier tonight, and was reminded of the connection between nonduality and ecophilosophy. (Mainly because the way they talked about it bordered on the nondual, but didn’t quite embrace or come from it.)

To me, nonduality, systems views, and various forms of ecophilosophy are natural allies. They complement each other beautifully.

Nonduality simplifies and unifies, and offers pointers to see through stories.

And the other ones are powerful stories which can transform our lives at individual and collective levels in a very much needed way at this point in our history.

What these all have in common is a recognition of stories as stories, with a power to guide and transform our lives. And of the oneness of all life, of everything that is.

Deep Ecology & Kant

 

In the beginning of this excerpt, Arne Næss speaks as if deep ecology and Kant are incompatible.

For me, both appear equally valid.

Deep ecology invites a deep caring for the whole of nature, a deep meaning, and it supports a deep engagement.

Kant invites an exploration of how I create my world. I come to recognize that my world is created in my own world of images, and this helps me hold it all more lightly.