Finally someone gets it? really? Dude, get yourself some David Attenborough DVD's

Don't call me Dude.
My name is Ian. I have seen many David Attenborough videos and repeat watched the entire series on the life of plants but he has one slight difference in view from myself and that is, nature is something that needs to be protected from mankind, when the truth is, mankind has been living in nature for 6,000 years and when it's done well, it works fine but do it poorly and entire ecosystems can be destroyed.
Places for nature are important but just as important are places for humanity, in my humble opinion.
Don't call me Dude.

"when the truth is, mankind has been living in nature for 6,000 years"

Only 6,000 years? Early Homo Sapiens evolved about 200,000 years ago and if you include other hominids, much earlier. Do I detect a whiff of creationism here? How would you explain cave art dating back about 40,000 years in northern Australia?

With the Neolithic transformation in some parts of life ("about  6,000 years ago" or so) it may be closer to the truth to say that this was the time when some of our form of life moved from being a part of the greater whole to being apart from the greater whole.

Michael S - your frustration is clear over. "We are late-comers to the scene" said Ian Donald.
Yes it indicates an old value systems in our community. However, it is important to remember people with these values can be 'highly intelligent', fully functioning, and successful within their chosen value system.
Unlike others they do not have your frame of reference to see your worldview.
If you want to avoid conflict with others and understand any individual or group of humans evolving, these links below are a start;
Viewing this ppt / .key requires establishing a free account;
http://www.slideshare.net/magx68/spiral-dynamics-introduction-111060

Thanks Bruce.
Perhaps it would be closer to say that around 6,000 years ago was the time we arose as a species and became self-aware, homo-sapiens.

No, that would not be closer to the truth at all. Self-deluded more like it.

All Neolithic life formations have myths which function to say why their choice is the superior one. I read your comment as a mini myth of that type.

The Ways of people who did not embrace Neolithic transformations can be seen as remaining in good faith with their generative context. They have a different condition of Being and accept an eternal place in the scheme of things. Maintaining position rather than getting ahead etc.

They do not make a fetish out of bodily mortality accepting that life is a process of eternal life cycles.

But far better we talk about a Norwegian thinker than try to make sense of the Ways of this country's First Peoples (also homo sapient of the highest order).

Wot! Connect with our actual surroundings? What next!

Thanks withdrawn.

Noted.

And see http://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/

http://api.ning.com/files/fCqGzKTd9TAVSbCI4FgFdXoj0EGXYRebTzkyxoK2qwU_/BiteMe.jpg

Dogma - merely the resting place of thought, never the final destination.

All societies rely on myths, which are the clusters of metaphors by which our Being connects with Cosmos.

Some clusters relate to their surroundings like a misfiring jet engine on a plane, shaking it to the point of destruction.

Others run very smoothly indeed.

Compare this country 1787 to 2012. Bill Gammage has covered part of this story. Link provided elsewhere in this conversation.

The challenge at this time is to fashion new myths - new cosmologies -by which we may all lead full lives. "we" being the whole of life.

In this country the important debate needs to be how Western systems of belief and knowledge relate to Dreaming law and First Peoples practices.

First Peoples in Central Australia signified and signify their core Being by a metaphysical persona in terms of Dreaming.

The European process of 'discovery' of Australia has a long way to go, conceptually and practically.

Part of the challenge is to shift from attempts to dominate life and to learn to relate.

Very good article spoiled by very poor headline.

This is a very good article which I may not have read had the headline not drawn my attention.

I agree with David. The title is intentionally misleading and effective in drawing in a reader to a topic that might not otherwise be of interest. Very clever.

Except that a whole lot of people will navigate away as soon as they realize the deception, which I almost did. The article will probably get a lot of hits because of the title, but I reckon a substantial portion of those hits won't read past the first couple of paragraphs. And with a deceptive title, there's a risk you'll miss part of the target audience.

Bruce, I may be missing something here, but this article seems to me to be making a return to the anthropocentric view, away from the ecocentric. I am interrelated to, and interdependent on, the environment therefore it is an expansion of myself and in my own self-interest to keep suitable for my existence. This isn't new, this is old. The human as central pivotal node. I actually thought we had moved on from there.

That question you asked yourself decades ago: what's wrong with saving the environment as an entity in its own right? Isn't that more the ecocentric view? What's wrong with placing intrinsic value on those last 250 Vaquita porpoises left in the Gulf of California? They don't actually affect my ecological self, and species have come and gone since forever as this author pointed out. If you don't place value on things outside of your "self", why would you bother preserving them? Why do I feel sad anyway, that their little evolutionary branch is about to be lopped off by the human pruning machine, even though I will survive quite nicely without them?

The idea that altruism and moral duty might be becoming outmoded in the environmental debate truly worries me.

Making choices out of a sense of ecological self-image is fine if you have developed one, but this can't yet be relied on to have much effect. Reading eco-labels and paying that extra 50% is a bit of a luxury the majority of the world can't afford to worry themselves about - they just focus on getting a meal at all. Another large portion of the world just doesn't care. They eat whatever tastes good.

I think a really novel environmental approach would be one that takes "self" out of the picture altogether to allow an objective analysis of what this particularly clever hominid species has done, and what it must now do, to create a desirable balance of, and for, all living things. Maybe it's not possible - I just like the idea.

"Within this web, the porpoises in the gulf of california can absolutely be seen as part of your ecological self - why not?"

If I stub my toe it has absolutely no effect on the porpoises. No amount of , deep ecological philosophy or ecofeminism or social ecology or any other of the environmental philosophies can make my intellectual understanding of the relatedness of lots of stuff as visceral as a stubbed toe.

There is a boundary to me and I cannot be linked to every other thing in the universe for very good physical reasons. White noise in the form of quantum mechanics and chaotic non-linear dynamics.

Why don't we define a metric that can compare the interrelatedness of stuff. Why not call it something like "the existential footprint".

Intuitively a virus aught to have a smaller existential footprint than a human simply because over it's lifetime it will have been influenced and will have influenced fewer things.

Fern, I've been trying to see it your way, but I'm coming up with this:
The POEO Act 1997 comprehensively and simply defines environment as "components of the earth ... and includes interacting natural ecosystems". The web of knots which you are naming "ecological Self" is, in fact, the environment. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
As we, and all our fellow organisms, are indeed all knots bound together, no knot in itself is an independent entity. The total of knots, ie the environment, is the only true entity that exists. The knots themSelves are but components, and will come and go, but the web alone continues in its own right.
The expiry of my own ecological Self will be of little consequence to the web, in fact the web will be better off without my Self because it is currently way over-balanced by all the Selves that are like me: big knots that take up too much web space, devouring and crowding out the beautiful simple little knots that are barely hanging on to the web at all.
My ecological Self cannot claim to BE this entire web, but, in a god-like way, I can look upon it and imagine how I would prefer it to be and act towards making it so in the time I have on this web. My ecological Aesthetic tells me those big knots are ugly, disproportionate, and a hazard to the web. those huge, expanding cancerous knots is offended by it is ugly and lumpy. Some knots are so huge and heavy, growing like cancerous tumours, that they are tearing the delicate web fibres trying to hold all the knots together.
I cannot claim that the whole web is my Self. I can try to imagine this, but it will only be a concept in my head. The reality is, I am no more than one of the countless knots, but the thing about all us big knots is we have the ingenuity to make ourSelves smaller, in better proportion on the web

Intuitively yes, and counter-intuitively, perhaps not.

It would appear that viruses exert a vast influence, one that extends beyond it's basic programming function. For example, the common cold is a virus. It continuously mutates, meaning we can contract it repeatedly. When we do, it spreads with relative ease, and results in numerous social, economic, and health effects that in turn influence non-human life forms. Just as a simple thing, imagine how many trees are lopped every year to produce the tissues used to blow our noses? How many birds, insects, and other beings are effected by that? All traced back to the common cold, and how we deal with it.

As for stubbing your toe, I doubt that relates to Californian porpoises. But it does effect the microbes on your toes, and possibly elsewhere in your body (perhaps as a consequence of metabolic changes due to the healing process) and on the object you stubbed your toe upon. Some microbes will die from the impact, the balance might change, and that might lead to an increase in other microbes. If the increase in microbes happen to be of the sort that produce other health conditions or change the chemical composition of the soil or air in the local biosphere, it could change the behavior of the larger organisms in that biosphere. In turn, that behavior might influence the larger biosphere, which will, in turn, influence the Californian porpoises. A bit of a stretch. But, there it is.

Thanks for taking the time to think about and respond to my comment.

I'm not sure I made myself sufficiently clear. My point was that one virus is less fuzzy than a human being. It has fewer chemical pathways, it presumably is not made up of a myriad of other organisms (in the way that a human is) and because of it's limited physical size any physical impacts it may have are more likely to be rapidly attenuated due to the inherent randomness of stuff at small physical scales (quantum mehanical effects and chaotic process).

Viruses as a group are clearly one of lifes major players - but a single virus is less likely to be so. In the same way any one organsim will have a smaller existential foot print than say ... our planet considered as a living organism.

My point was that there is a limit to these sorts of ideas of expanded fuzzy biological entities. To much of this shamanic thinking and one is rapidly in untestable waters.

No worries, thanks for your insights and clarification also.

Yes, if we do too much navel gazing things become wishy-washy and ultimately impractical. On the other hand the concept of self is wishy-washy and defining it requires some navel gazing. So this idea that we have an ecological self is less about the practicalities and more about the awareness....a sort of theophany without any religious prerequisite.

I see what you mean about the viruses being simpler organisms and singularly having a different impact to that of viruses as a group. Same of humans being ecosystems of organisms. The change in complexity also brings a change in interactivity. A virus may have a discrete, uniform mechanism - it does one thing and so one thing can be measured without being too worried about confounds. Whereas a human is individualised and so one thing in one person may be different in another. Such as some people being more likely to get a cold than others, with variance in immune system being just one cluster of reasons why. This makes humans fuzzy as you say, and also more difficult to test empirically.

Yet there are many ways in which humans are tested successfully, including relating to discoveries of what viruses are and how they work. So it is not untestable so much as it is subject to a margin of error, and with limits on generalisability.

If a humans is treated as a local ecosystem then we might assume that the issues that apply to testing humans might also apply to testing other localised ecosystems. Including all those small scale issues you mentioned but let's not forget large scale. Planet earth is itself a local ecosystem in our solar system, and our solar system is a local ecosystem in our part of the galaxy. To say that planet earth exercises an influence on....Alpha Centauri (for example, think maybe gravitational forces or something like that) may be true in the tiniest of numbers even though it's on the largest of scales. Its weight in the grand scheme of variables is of course so ridiculously small it isn't worth bothering ourselves with. On the other hand, there it is, and maybe Alpha Centauri also has a ridiculously small influence on earth too...like a dance.

The difference between a virus and a human is more than this though. A virus requires a host. When the host dies, unless it has somewhere else to go, the virus dies. But if the life changes in the local ecosystem of a human, we're capable of moving somewhere else. Planet earth is apparently changing and so people are talking about colonising other planets. And humans are capable of destroying non local ecosystems without ever being present - a virus can't do that. Destroying it for thousands of years even..with nukes. This is an extraordinary power, and it comes with a responsibility. Perhaps recognising this is what the navel gazing is good for, even if it is a bit wishy washy.

I pretty much agree with you. And there is nothing wrong with a bit of navel gazing but ... there are philosphical problems associated with some of the more "radical" ideas of self-realization that come from Naes's deep ecology.

My understanding is that these earguments fall under the title of "the discontinuity problem" - i.e. we tend to see ourselves as discontinuous from the rest of nature. The deep ecological idea that recognition of our interdependence through a process of self-realization will lead to some sort of expanded or transcended self sounds more like religious fervour than reasoned environmental philosphy to me.

In particular, these sorts of ideas are predicated on assumptions of biocentric egalitarianism and fail to recognise how to recognise how problematic human social heirarchies, and inter human ethics are a part of environmental problems.

Sandra, take the "self" out of the picture? If only it was so simple, but the problem is that for the very large majority of us we are a "self" centric species. The difficulty is, and has been, arguing the case in a way in which the large majority of people are able to realise that this is in their own self interest.

To get people to understand it is in their own self interest is difficult when we have such a large proportion of people largely scientific illiterate even though our modern world in completely built on scientific knowledge. When we add the even greater complexity of the mix of politics and religion to the debate the problem of that scientific illiteracy makes the debate exponentially more difficult.

For a start we have about 40% of the American population who do not even accept the theory of evolution. They do not even accept that we evolved from Apes, let alone that our multi-cellular body's cells evolved from single cell bacteria. So I wonder how you are going to introduce them to the idea that we are not simply individuals created by God, to instead being an interdependent evolved ecosystem in our own right relying on a multiplicity of micro-biology for our own health, let alone our existence.

After all, to convince them that we are the least important species on this planet and that bacteria are the most important species, if you can call them a single species, is a large jump for many people out there. We could disappear off this planet with no real detrimental impact, and probably with a very large positive impact. But if bacteria were to disappear, all life would disappear. That should be a sobering thing for all of us, that we are in fact the least of species, but I doubt most of would like to accept that one, even if it is the truth.

Peter, I agree it is very hard to tell humans they are insignificant when they are so self-aware, and many believe they have a God-given right to the top of the "importance" hierarchy, that intelligent design made us so. Religion aside, we have the intellectual power, and therefore responsibility, to shape this planet with conscious decisions. We have the imagination to step outside of ourselves for the purpose of globally surveying the proliferating human monoculture and diminishing biodiversity, and deciding if this is a desirable picture, and if not, coming up with an intelligent re-design in a timely manner, ie yesterday. To me, the solution involves a sacrifice of human flourishing: pulling back, breeding less, consuming less, hoarding less, building less, travelling less, eating less grain-fed beef, and negative growth. My eco-Self is wanting me to diminish my self.

I agree, self-centrism comes naturally, and would be an easier way to sell environmental responsibility if only we can get past the scientific ignorance and other prejudices. Who doesn't want cosy surroundings and good health for themselves and their children? What really depresses me is the alarming argument that, yes, we accept global warming but not its anthropogenesis, so why make our lives miserable while it's happening? We'll need more air conditioners, not less! We have to sort out this "science" ambiguity pdq, because it looks like both Australia and the US are headed for new governments that have an even less sense of urgency than the current - a reflection of popular opinion.

The Conversation mostly preaches to the converted - the many comments here are fundamentally on the side same. I think we should all try and get on to other less-enlightened forums, use facebook, whatever, to counteract the scientific illiteracy you have mentioned. I do commend Fern on this article, but as the Arctic melts before our eyes, and big oil salivates over the new frontiers, I fear arguing about "eco-Self" vs "environment" may be just a little moot.

Sandra

You may be correct up to a point. Unless you are into masochism, spending time on some of the less literate sites can be completely debilitating. Like the seriously religious, some people don't want to know, they just want everything to remain the same. And they don't care how malicious they may be in confirming their world-view.

You should try debating the "nuclear option" right here on TC. There are some rusted on old fogies who believe in nuclear like the Pope believes in red shoes.

"sigh"... I think you are right Dianna. Sometimes I almost feel thankful to the minority of stroppy troll-like commenters on TC for the skin-thickening service they provide, in preparation for the really debilitating sites! I intend to search your nuclear options debate once my final submission is over. Back to the grind...

Dianna
Aha! I found the August nuclear Conversation complete with 274 comments and red minuses going berserk! And the previous one with almost as many comments including a tenacious thread that went way off my screen! Very interesting...but a diversion I can't afford right now. Curiosity is killing my assignment.

Fern,

Having read this article a few times, I think I'm getting closer to understanding your point. Whilst I agree with the premise that we are part of a much broader system and that we should see our actions as having impact on that system of which we are an integral part and therefore on ourselves both directly and indirectly, I'm not convinced it's a particularly useful philosophy.

It seems to be an extension of the concept of elightened self interest, which does have a purpose as a means to an end, but philisophically I'm not a big fan.

Essentially, the concepts espoused here maintain this anthropocentric approach to considering the environment, and that seams to me to be a bad starting point.

It never ceases to amaze and disturb me when I fly into different cities the vast footprint of humans on the globe. An independent observer would truely regard us as a plague on the planet. No amount of articles such as the one above (which espose this interconnectedness) can convince me that over the short term at least we have set ourselves apart from our environment. Whilst the interdependencies that you speak of are no doubt there, they are so far from being immediate that consideration of them as a basis for determining actions to be taken (or not taken) discount them to such an extent that they become almost meaningless in decision making.

Ultimately the concept of ecocentrism is a much purer basis on which to make decisions and I agree that we often shoe-horn this concept to the extent that it almost becomes lost, but I can't think of a better starting point, given the simplicity and purity of this as a concept.

Ecological self, egotistical self, metaphysical self?

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti.

Amen.

I am not sure what you mean Robert, with your point about meat?
If I raise an animal and treat it well throughout it's life, breed from the animal, humanely slaughter the animal's offspring and make the best possible use of that animal, I have invested in a system I feel comfortable with and if I do it all in my own yard, I have reduced the ecological footprint down to a few yards. (The same sort of could be said about veggies as well.)If, however, I was to buy imported pork, imported cabbage and imported potatoes, I wouldn't know much about my meal or it's origins and my ecological footprint could be global.
I still think I must have missed your point somehow, would you care to elaborate?

Fred, I'd only suggest common metaphors like 'ecological footprint' suggest humans are separate from 'the environment'.

Yes it could be interpreted to be a sloppy term ... but it is worth noting that you could apply this metric to the effect of a seal colony or a termite mound for instance - both of which modify their embedding environment. The fallacy here is in thinking that the term "ecological footprint" can only apply to human activity

Dude I agree with you, whilst this article was an alright read, it only suggests a re-branding of what people have been doing and thinking for decades.

Hey if it catches on and makes more people take the environment seriously then awesome but it always rubs me the wrong way when I read stuff like this and then read comments like those above exclaiming "Finally someone who gets it...." - Its like these people had their head in the sand? and then hear this stuff and respond as if this isnt what the environmental movement has been about forever and a day "Wow, we should take care of the environment because we live in an environment, wow, if only the environmentalists would understand this, if only the greens would recognise that humans live in an environment..."

Facepalm, I can only think this is aimed as a call for out of touch hipsters and conservatives

Hi Greg.
I agree that places for nature are important and some areas of great natural beauty deserve National Park status. I just have concerns when large areas of land that were common land (or ocean) get locked up as wilderness areas as this can lead to ridiculous situations of conflict.

I also agree with your ideas about native species as alternative pets to introduced species. It would help ensure their survival. It will take others more time to come to terms with this concept as they still see nature as something separate from the human world and anything that is native as sacrosanct, even if they bulldoze the natural habitats of a dozen native species to build their houses. Don't worry about the red marks you might earn, it happens all the time to me.

Mr Lowe

Don't worry about the red marks, in fact you should wear your Red Ticks with pride. It proves you are willing to think and go against the mindset that appears to infest The Conversation.

My record, from memory, is 44, but nobody I know can match the Red Tick Champion, Mr Hendrickx. I haven't seen him on this site recently - perhaps they wore him down.

Still, I do enjoy this blog because it attracts intelligent, educated readers who are passionately keen to change the world to address climate change and live more sustainably.

Alas, for poor mother earth, these same people also choose to burn Jet A1 fuel on discretionary holidays overseas.

Funny old world, isn't it.

Gerard Dean

There are lot of things that need to be done and the reasons why coal mines are still profilerate are just as important as the reasons why it's a stupid idea to keep supporting the industry.

On a very basic level, it's not so much about the economic system as the short term lack of alternatives. Obviously solar, wind and so on are in a much better position than big-coal/big-oil would have us believe, and under supporting (or outright blocking) accessibility to these is part of the issue, but it's not what I mean by short term lack of alternatives.

What I'm referring to is something that might be likened to the experiences of workers in other eco-hazardous jobs such as logging and commercial farming. A town or region has a main industry that everything else seems to be dependent on. Take away the main industry, and the other industries, and the town as a whole suffer. The workers need the money and the town needs the workers. So with mining, it's been the same story for hundreds of years. Go for the quick bucks if you can and move on to the next big thing in mining when the lode runs dry. Never mind that the company gets the loot, the locals and the workers get slim pickings and live with the consequences - but, what do you do if you live in the middle of nowhere and this is how you're supposed to make a crust?

We're beholden to the economic system at large, sure, but, this is as much about practicality and lifestyle as it is about the other things. The lifestyle of our system dictates dependance on that system and a lack of access to other lifestyles. It is impractical to choose otherwise, and in doing so, it is impossible to not be interweaved into the broader economic rubric. So rural communities in particular are forced with these choices, even as they attempt to do otherwise. Having to survive today means what happens in twenty years doesn't matter.

Gerard Dean

We get that you are Gerard Dean, Gerard Dean.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Moving right along, back on topic.

I believe that homo sapiens is the only apex predator that could be removed from the environment AND by so doing advance the living conditions for the majority of this planet's species - with the exception of some strains of bacteria and other assorted microbes which have become completely dependent on humans.

As for eating meat, I feed my pets meat - they cannot live healthy lives without it. I figure it would be somewhat disingenuous to force myself to be a complete vegan if I feed other animals meat.

That said, I try to source my protein from the more enlightened farmers, butchers, local markets and, compared to supermarkets, I don't think it is much more expensive because the quality and flavour is such I don't need to eat huge chunks every day.

Are environmental challenges met through the bourgeoisie preaching about the environmental virtues of their expensive choices of food when the overall ecological impact of their relatively wealthy lifestyle, including air flights perhaps, overwhelms what contribution their pious consumption may make?

If we really are to make a difference through what we eat, it would be through eating scraps and refuse. Mimicking the recycling and reuse of the rest of life.

"If we really are to make a difference through what we eat, it would be through eating scraps and refuse. Mimicking the recycling and reuse of the rest of life."

Fortunately there is a healthier solution: ensure that our bodily excretions are not waste or pollution but input to the nutrient cycle. This can be done safely and effectively via a composting toilet.