Posted by john on September 03, 2002 at 07:09:32:
In Reply to: Another Rant from Bob posted by Bob - the Alien on September 02, 2002 at 23:51:48:
Great rant by the way.
But I'll comment. First of all, ecofeminism is, in my opinion, nothing more than a misguided militant offshoot of some people with displacement and inferiority complexes. (Sorry to anyone who beleives this way, but we can argue it out sometime later). Bob, you pointed out several of the flaws and there are many more, perhaps the worst of which is NOT allowing themselves to look at things in context. Ecofeminism often interprets ancient religions and society and even history from a decidedly modern, post 70's feminine power viewpoint.
As for human superiority, I don't think anyone could really argue that. Our species has been able to survive in any ecosystem and alter it, assert ourselves as top predator, and even manipulate the lifehabits of other species (agriculture and animal husbandry) We are truly the most invasive species on the planet. But you said it, we have to recognize that we are not the only species on this planet and that we need to consciously make room for the rest of it. Because it has value and rights, but also because we need it to survive. The latter is the mechanistic view, so I'll leave that alone for now.
However, this does not mean abandoning technology or even quality of life. It does mean adandoning consumerism, elitism, etc. Sufficient sustainable technology exists today for us to live at our same quality of life, or even better. We just have to use it. It is really too long to just detail all that I am talking about, but feel free to ask about anything and I'll elaborate. I am a firm beleiver that we can develop sustainable technology that can increase our ability to live in our world, but it does require a change of paradigm.
Now you seem to think that this is impossible, and in most ways I agree, but there are many more people who think this way than you may expect. And many more who potentially could if given an understanding of how their beliefs already support it. Many major world religions justify this mindset. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism (certain types), just to name a few.
What i'm talking about is simply switching from the idea that we can control and manipulate to the idea that we are a part and product of nature and that we do no unnecessary damage to it. Of course every secies damages nature to some extent in order to live, but the strength and sublimity of the natural world is in its resillience. We just need to tread lightly. I don't beleive that humans are capable of destroying the earth. Destroying ourselves? Absolutely, but no created thing is greater than its creator, and we are creations of the earth, through the will of God who transcends it all. So to say that the earth's needs are in conflict with ours is merely a misunderstanding of the immense complexity of the cosmos and the ecology. It is truly a religious expereince to finally apprehend this complexity in even the smallest way. In the most literal way, you can see how God lives in and through our entire universe, binding it together.
This is why I love deep ecology so much. To me, my Christian beliefs are one and the same with my ecolgoical bleiefs. How can they be separate, when I have sat in a swamp and prayed, meditating on the world around me and awakened to my interconectedness as God shows up. Our world is a religious place. It is full of the divine and it is far too sublime for us to gaze at in full. To truly see the full ecology of the cosmos (the interactions and relationships that create an interdependent synergistic system) is to see the will of God. Truly who can know it!
So the question isn't one of how do we save the world, as much as how do we save ourselves. I also beleive that this world is doomed under the curse of sin. so it is no surprise to me that air is becoming increasingly toxic, that water and soil are becoming fouled. All things spin toward entropy. This is the curse of sin. But as a restored being, one who has been made incorruptible by Grace it is my duty to live in as much of a holistic way as possible. I'm not trying to save the world in the physical sense, but merely do my part to illuminate the Truth for others so that in the end when this world is restored (the "new" heaven and "new" earth-- translate "REnewed", thanks to Chip Bennet for this), they will be a part of it. Like I said, to me it is all one and the same.
Beleive me, if you ever experience the true power of nature, you'll be able to agree with George Carlin, that when its ready, this earth can scrath us off like a bad case of fleas.
If anyone is truly into experiencing nature in this way, let me know, I'd love to go with you.
: OK,
: I did get back to that site. And most of it seems fairly reasonable and logical to me.
: But, allow me to pull out one quote that, although not even the main topic of the site, made me stop and think and yes, post:
: "Ecofeminism believes that Patriarchal society is built on four interlocking pillars; sexism, racism, class exploitation and environmental destruction."
: I think that they are mixing up cause and effect here. Sexism is the foundation of patricarchal society. No question there, its practically the definition of patriarchal. I think that racism and class exploitation are not the foundation, but they are an unfortunate follow on, because the patricarchal society builds a feeling of superiority.
: And that is what everything on that site really drives at -- assumed supieriority, and its negative repurcussions. The last item on that list, environmental desctruction, is by no means a pillar of patriarchal society. Rather, it is a distinctive effect. It went unnoticed for years because of the assumed superiority of men. Only now are people beginning to both understand the ecology and have the education to try to put a stop to the damage.
: But the assumed superiority is always the catch. Even that site said to not damage nature except for 'vital needs'. Whose vital needs? Ours? Or the planets? Frankly, the planet's vital needs are at this point contradictory to our current society. That site has good ideas on how to change society to fix things, but can they be done in time? I truly fear that they cannot. To change things fast enough, all children in the world would have to be brought up today believing that nature is more important than humanity. And even that might not be fast enough. We are in a bad spot, folks.
: So lets look at this from another angle -- because society (including religious beliefs, BTW) will most likely not change their mind about the superiority of humanity, how can we save the ecology? I think it will have to boil down to sacrifice. In a way, we need to play up to the ego of humanity as a whole. Teach the people that they are killing their own world. Tell them that yes, they are superior. Superior enough to make personal sacrifice, and sacrifice all that has been given to us over the last 500 years of invention. For the sake of all natural life, we need to stop being selfish as a culture. We need to accept the problems of living life using only archaic technology and living an ecologically sustainable life. Just because we are capable of doing things does not mean that we should. Quite the opposite -- we have to take a step above the animal kingdom and do what no animal would do -- sacrifice parts of our own well-being for the sake of other life.
: Now tell me -- how does that last paragraph sound to you all? Most of society would call me a freak for putting such words down. But what other choice has been presented that will successfully stop the damage being done to nature? I'd love to hear one. But if we cannot make such sacrifices to save our own world, then we are not superior to the rest of the planet. Instead, we prove ourselves wrong by acting just like any animal would and protecting our own well-being. I think we are being tested, honestly. And so far we are failing...but I hope we will recover.
: With Love,
: Bob