Norton draws a distinction between two groups within the environmental movement. He sometimes calls them the Aggregators vs. the Moralists or the followers of Pinchot vs. the followers of Muir or the Anthropocentrists vs. the Biocentrists. Briefly describe the two groups. Do you identify yourself with either group? Or would you want to resist drawing this distinction? Please explain and justify your answer.
Bryan Norton lays out an interesting dynamic in his writing as he explains the often strained relationship between different types of environmentalists. The conflict comes from the fact that the two broad groups of environmentalists which he describes may have similar goals but their reasons for desiring those goals are drastically different. The first group which Norton describes is the biocentrists. The biocentrists believe that species and pieces of nature outside of humanity have their own intrinsic value and that they should be respected and preserved on that principle alone. The second group described by Norton is the anthropocentrists. This group believes that the world’s non-human species and nature in general do not necessarily have intrinsic value but that they may have an economic or utilitarian value for human use. Anthropocentrists are environmentalists not because they necessarily have a love or respect for nature or natural resources but because they want to see them managed properly as to best benefit human needs in the future. Although I feel that splitting environmentalists into two large and broad groups is over simplifying a diverse and complex group of people, I would definitely say that I personally identify with the biocentrists. I identify with the biocentrists because I do not think that the planet and its resources are meant to serve simply as humanity’s toy chest for our own selfish advancement, yet I think we would better serve ourselves and our planet if we lived as a member of the global community, not as its ruler.
ReplyDeleteI remember within some of the comments from our first blog students in our course talked about how people are instinctually competitive- yet there are people like the biocentrists who seem to negate the claim of everyone being so focused on competition. How easy/hard would it be for a biocentrist to help teach an Anthropocentrist about the intrinsic value of the environment?
DeleteIn Nortons piece he defines two specific types of environmentalist. The conflicts between the two separate those that are ultimately working towards a common goal. The main separation is the idea of using the Earth as a resource. Norton describes those called anthropocentrists as those that believe that nature has a dollar value. For example, at the beginning of the article he tells the story of a little girl using sand dollars for nickels. The living organism is given a dollar value and used purely as a resource. Although these people appreciate the resources provided it is for an economical reason. There are also those that are described as biocentrists. This group believes that the value of nature goes deeper than just a dollar value. They believe that the Earth and its resources should be preserved because they have a value of their own. I can associate with the later group. I believe that we as a society take advantage of the resources that are provided for us. There should be a respect for the environment and the resources provided. This respect is especially not seen in the south. I drive a Prius and get made fun of for driving a car that is better for the environment. However, it is easier to brush of the harsh comments because I understand that I am shrinking my carbon footprint and trying to respect the Earth.
ReplyDeleteI think its really interesting how two groups can have a specific type of "interest convergence" (in this case the environment) but there is still a tension between the ideals. How does this impact an environmental movement?
ReplyDeleteAs I state in my post, I think that it is entirely posible that the split environmentalist views have led, inadvertantly, to the slow momentum of environmental change as it needs to pass through various levels of bureaucracy. By causing a division in the overall arguement for enviromental change, I think that environmentalists have in a sense made the process overall more challening for themselves. Although it is unrealistic to believe that all people will agree on all aspects of environmental protection, it is imperative that these two classifications of environmentalists can come to compromises and agreements to standards of protection, preservation, and progrese. Otherwise it seems that no momentum can effectively be placed politically behind environmentalist groups.
DeleteNorton makes an interesting point when he divides environmentalists into two separate groups. He says that one group, the anthropocentrists, believes that nature can and should be used as a resource. With this point of view, nature can be exploited to a certain extent, as long as the resources obtained benefit humans. They are considered environmentalists because they want nature to be available for human needs in the future. On the other hand, biocentrists do not believe this. They believe that nature should be left untouched, as it has value outside of human needs. Personally, I do not believe that this is an accurate way to define environmentalists. I do feel that this can describe the two extreme ends of environmentalism, with most environmentalists being in between the two ends. I feel that most people who want to preserve the environment want to do it for both human needs and the value of nature. For example, an environmentalist would want to preserve a tract of rainforest so that the wildlife can live (biocentrist view) and because it may contain resources that humans could use in a time of great need (anthropocentrist view). I feel that like most environmentalists, I do not completely identify with either group, as I fall somewhere in between. I believe that nature should be preserved for both human needs and for the natural world.
ReplyDeleteThe two groups from which Norton draws a distinction are the Aggregators and the moralists, and can basically be seen as polar opposites when it comes to their views on nature. In the views of Pinchot, the view of the aggregators, it is more important to find a monetary value within the resources in nature rather than to preserve nature itself. It goes along with the idea that the earth was created simply for the benefit of man and not for any other creatures who inhabit it. The moralists on the other hand feel completely differently. They feel that it is most important to preserve the land in which we live so that not only humans but all living beings can benefit from the land just the same. I feel that both groups present important ideas for the prosperity of the earth and for that reason cannot seem to find a way to identify with either separately but with both together. In today's economy having money is important to almost every aspect of life, meaning that finding a monetary value in nature makes sense. Through using nature to make money one can afford necessities, but this also causes damage to the environment. On the other hand, the protection of the environment is extremely important because without a nutrient filled environment to live in money will be meaningless.
ReplyDeleteNorton tells about the Anthropocentrists and Biocentrists uniquely in this article. He uses an analogy of a little girl using a sand dollar or nature as "money", which is the Anthropocentrism point of view. The anthropocentrists believe that nature and humans don't need to have a cooperative relationship but instead humans need nature for economic reasons. On the other hand, Muir leads the Biocentrists and supports the prevention of nature. They believe that species have their own intrinsic value and we need to respect them. Personally, I agree more with the Biocentrists. I believe that nature is just as important as a human being and that we need to all share the earths resources in unity. I believe that we can take nature for our purposes to a certain extent which is more of along the lines of Pinchot, but not as extreme. I believe that if as humans we can find a way to sustainably "borrow" the earths resources if we replenish or justify the use. I believe that both parties can live in unison together if they agree to disagree and don't try to battle each others opinions. Norton presented the information in a entertaining way and made the understanding of new information simple.
ReplyDeletePinchot's followers, or Economic Aggregators, view nature as first and foremost a resource for human use and they believe there use of these resources should be based on providing the greatest good to the most people over a long period of time. They do want to avoid waste and use land wisely but Aggregators focus on the economic benefits of using Earth's resources. Oppositely, Muir's followers, the Moralists, believe every animal, plant and part of nature has intrinsic value and must be looked at differently. They believe humans look at nature only based on human values. Their goal is to protect large areas of nature from alteration regardless of economic costs and benefits. I would not strongly identify with one group or another, however, I am sure I lean towards an Aggregator. I believe nature should be preserved but not at the cost of human benefits. I believe land should be used wisely and appropriately, but that doesn't mean land cannot benefit humans - whether economically, ascetically or physically. I do not believe in Muir's idea that nature is a "great spiritual whole" or that plants and animals have the same intrinsic value as humans. Nature is our resource to be used but that does not mean we should selfishly exploit the land.
ReplyDeleteThe two groups Norton brings attention to are often referred to as the Conservationists and the Preservations. The Conservationists embrace the idea that the Earth is here for human use. They want to use the land, but they want to use the natural resources available in an efficient way with minimal waste production. These are the followers of Pinchot. To me, it seems they are reaching a sort of compromise between humans and nature. The use of natural resources exists, but it is limited in a way to avoid completely exploiting the environment. At the same time, humans get what they want in terms of economics. This view is not as extreme in protecting nature as the Preservationists’ ideas, and as a result, human consumption may continue. Pinchot’s thoughts have more of a focus on the economy and how to blend that with trying to reduce humans’ impact on nature. Preservationists contrast in these ideas in that their focus is mainly toward keeping the natural spaces we have pristine. Muir believes that nature is not here for humans to use however they please. There is much emphasis on the “spiritual whole” and the connection of humans with nature. Preservationists see the natural world around us as a representation that it was created as we were: by a higher power. Humans are not above nature. We both exist, with nature reminding us that there is a God above us all, one who did not create nature specifically for the uses of men. I think I lean more toward the ideas of Muir. I think I agree more with the Biocentrists because I do not believe the Earth and the nature on it were created specifically for humans. I see the wonder and beauty in nature, and that makes me think of it outside of economic terms. I don’t think nature can be appreciated enough if it all eventually becomes destroyed or simply modified. I feel like Pinchot’s ideas would cause a downgrade in the quality of nature, and Muir’s preservationist ideals of keeping areas completely protected from change would serve to remind us why it’s so important to protect nature instead of just to use it well.
ReplyDeleteThe Aggregators or Anthropocentrists, have an attitude that nature should not stand in the way of economic growth or efficiency. They believe that humans can and should use nature to their benefits, regardless of how these actions affect nature itself, for we are masters of nature and have a right to be. The Moralists or those who follow Muir believe in nature’s coherent value as being a pathway to God or spirituality. These Biocentrists believe that nature does not exist solely for the sake of human use and that we should respect nature, not stripping it of its resources.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose to identify myself between the two, I would identify myself more with the followers of Muir because I do strongly believe in the spiritual value of nature and I think we, as a human race, have become disconnected with nature as a natural connection to our roots. At the same time, I can’t rightly call myself a “Biocentrist” because, although I believe nature has coherent value, I also believe that humans do too. I don’t think we, as humans, are an evil race who are “out to get” nature and that nature would be better off without us. Perhaps nature would be better off without us as of now, but that’s something we can change: how we view nature and our relationship to it. I believe strongly in the co-dependence of nature and humanity because I believe that humanity is a part of nature. We’re not separated into categories of humans verses nature. We’re all on the earth together and therefore should learn how to share and respect the limited space and resources. Humans are naturally going to “take” in some way from nature in order to survive, but that is a natural cycle and a beautiful one. We also, in some respects, give back to nature. A simple example of this is when we breathe out carbon dioxide, which plants breathe in.
I think there is a holistic view of humans and nature that has failed to be recognized by both Aggregators and Anthropocentrists: We can’t be just on humanity’s side or nature’s. We cannot devalue one or the other. It’s about being a team, working together, and being tolerant of the other. It’s about finding the right balance and sticking to it. This might mean changing the ways in which we have become accustomed to living, but that is neither impossible, nor a negative concept. It’s a wholesome one.
Norton identifies the central issue that environmentalists must face; he calls it the “environmentalist’s dilemma”. This translates to a dilemma in “values, conceptualizations, and worldwide views more than a dilemma regarding actions and policies” (Norton 5). Conservationists aka Economic Aggregators embody the philosophy to “only take enough to accomplish the sustainable yield of the colony”. Led by Gifford Pinchot, the first official forester in the US and founder of the National Forest System, conservationists focus on the avoidance of wasting materials and hope to augment economic stability and growth by using natural resources in a wise and efficient manner. They have a theory of reductionism and often team up with economists that hope to increase economic aggressiveness for the benefit of humans. A modern definition or view of conservationists would be someone that “has demonstrated willingness to compromise with economic interests”.
ReplyDeleteOn the other facet of the environmentalist’s dilemma lie the category of preservationists, aka Moralists. This paradigm was initiated by John Muir who was the first president of the Sierra Club, dating back to 1892, and focus on the ideals of moralism in regards to nature as well as an obligation to preserve nature due to its divine qualities and significance. Muir was against human arrogance that judges/classifies the importance of nature according to human values. He was referred to as a “man of God” by his fellow environmentalists and writers, and supported that nature is a vehicle of God’s communication with humans. In my opinion, he was a leader in the early environmental moment that closely associated the treatment of the environment with the intrinsic value it holds in Christian and Judaism theologies.
Personally, I believe that I have beliefs that can side with either Pinchot’s or Muir’s views, as I am Catholic and we do believe that nature is closely connected to the soul (and by default, God) and one’s value of life can be altered by their own relationship with nature. However, I also see the value in Pinchot and conservationist’s stance of siding with economists and the importance for America maintaining a strong economic system. This being stated, how are we doing? Not very well, but perhaps that’s because the speed of conservationist moments have been greatly hindered by the split in environmentalists’ ideas and therefore this disagreement has caused anunconstructive effect on the momentum of environmental issues. On the whole, I would most closely associate with Conservationists; I think this group has society’s overall well-being in mind and with the right direction and momentum could have a positive impact on political and economic structures.
In the piece, there are two groups identified: Aggregationists, and moralists. The followers of Pinchot are known as the aggregators, and the follows of Muir are the moralists. I do not feel that these groups are completely opposite, because both do care about the environment and want to preserve it; the two groups just have different views and ways of solving problems and answering questions. I do not think I would fit into either group, but I do believe the environment should be preserved. I wouldn't fit into either group because both are a little bit too extreme for me. Unlike Muir, I do believe that the world was made so that humans can use it and it's natural resources to prosper. No, this does not mean that we should invade habitats and tear apart ecosystems. We should have sanctions and areas that are preserved for wildlife. So, that being said I can relate more to Pinchot who said, "The first great fact about conservation is that it stands for development.. its first principle is the use of the natural resources now existing on this continent for the benefit of the people who live here now." We should use the natural resources that have been provided for us, but we should not abuse them.
ReplyDeleteNorton's two groups made a lot of sense to me, he definitely had a point with the moralism vs utilitarianism. The moralists, or preservationists, feel it is their duty to protect the Earth from large amounts of alteration. I can completely respect that, but I could only take it to a certain point, whereas some people go to the extremes to stop damage from being inflicted on the Earth. On the other side are the conservationists, the people who look at sustainability from an economic standpoint. They believe that the Earth is giving us all of these resources to use, but also try to promote ways of minimizing the use of the resources so there is less of an impact on our Earth. I can agree with them too, our world should take advantage of the things we have offered to us, but we should be careful not to harm the planet as we do it. I am a person who stands back and looks at the pros and cons of each side and learn as much as I can about them, but I never choose sides. I agree with both the conservationists and preservationists, but don't feel like identifying myself with one group.
ReplyDeleteNorton speaks of two distinct groups, the Anthropocentrists and the Biocentrists. In the first paragraph he talks about a little girl using a sand dollar as a form of money, symbolizing nature, which is the point of view of the anthropocentrists. He then goes on to identify a main issues which environmentalist face, to what he describes the "environmentalist dilemma". Norton sees this dilemma, because he can't explain why the little girl should put the sand dollars back, but understand what he wanted her to do with them. Coming to conclusion that the little girls view were those of the anthropocentrists beliefs. That humans need nature for their own economic reasons, and not that nature and humans need to live in harmony with each other. Essentially, anthropocentrists see nature as something that they should use to their economic benefits regardless of the effects it has on nature.
ReplyDeleteOppositely, the Moralists, have a belief where every animal, plant and part of nature has an intrinsic value of some sort. They believe that this should all be looked at differently, with the idea that human and nature live as one instead of separately based on human values. Moralists just want to protect nature regardless of its monetary values and benefits. They remind me of Pocahontas and their way of living, where everything had a purpose and reason and they all lived together as one in the same environment. The belief that they were all interconnected and to look at nature as more than just what it can be used for.
I wouldn't identify myself with either group per-se, however I definitely think I am most likely more of an anthropocentrists. Believing that nature is definitely more than just an economic beneficiary, but at the same time it still has benefits unexplored past it's own natural beauty.
The division among environmentalists emboldens the arguements of to what extent humans can manipulate the earth regardless of its sustainability. The so- called anthropocentrists assert that humans need to learn to live in greater harmony with the earth but that natural resources are indeed acceptable to be exploited. The fine line between this group and the masses is the concentration with which humanity can deplete. A theme of efficiency echoes through all its principles whether it be through the elimination of waste,economic reductionism. On the other hand, Muir's disciples fit nicely into the radical stereotype of tree- hugger intent on radical change at any cost. They also call for reharmonization but on a much larger scale by rejecting human dominance over nature in any fashion.Radical inconsistencies within the environmentalists community have given the movement an inconsistent, disorganized front to hinder progress. I hesitate to pick a side for this very reason because this seeming civil war occuring within one unit degrades the very notion of renewal. I think Muir's ideas may be a tad idyllic for modern society. Humanity has dug itself into a hefty hole and in order to get out of it, sacrifices need to be made. Overpopulation and depletion will not tolerate the sugar- coated methods of preservationism without substantial population reductions and a staggering sweep of inherent goodness and morality sweeps the globe. For this reason, I would have to say that while I would tend to agree more with the preservationists, the global community needs the practicality and relatability of conservationism.
ReplyDeleteNorton’s first chapter opens with him telling a story about a little girl who really made him realize how much help preservationists are going to need to make significant change in the average perception of nature. He goes on to tell the difference between Economic Aggregators and Moralists, and why they are considered environmentalists. The Aggregators are environmentalists in the sense that they want to sustain the environment for human use. Earth has valuable resources, and conservationists believe that we must protect and harness them for our own benefit. Moralists are environmentalists who feel that nature is meant to be preserved for future generations to view the way man found it. They feel that protecting the landscape from man-made altercations is the most important thing. Moralists believe the green revolution is for every natural habitat and scenic view on the planet more so than just human consumption. Personally it is difficult to make the distinction for myself because the two are on extreme ends of each other. But I do fall somewhere closer to Muir on the spectrum. I feel we all need to have more environmental awareness, and realize the beauty of the simple and free beauties found in nature. We don’t need plastic bags at the grocery store and paper product everything; the consumer industry is getting very out-of-hand.
ReplyDeleteThe convervationists, or the followers of Pinochet, believe that the Earth is our home, and that her resources are ours to use. However they believe that we should attempt to minimize the amount of resources we use, so that they will last longer in our future. They also have the goal to use the Earth's resources with as little waste and impact on the Earth.This is the economic viewpoint. The preservationalists, or the followers of Muir, on the other hand want to protect the Earth from being changed in anyway.They believe that nature is not our to use however we want, and our goal should be to protect its ecosystems. They believe that nature is above humans because it was created by God, and instead we should live in harmony together. I agree with bits of both groups, however I feel that I identify more with the convervationalists. I think it is unrealistic to tell people not to use the Earth's resources,but if they are doing it in a more Earth friendly way with less waste, then I think that is fine. Using the Earth's resources is a way to improve our society and economy with will benefit everyone.This being said, i do not think the Earth should be exploited in any way. I dont support people tearing down natural habitats for their own gain.
ReplyDeleteNorton explains the differences between two sides of environmentalism: Anthropocentrisism and Biocenrisim. Anthropocentrists believe that humans are the superior race and that the resources here on Earth can and should be used to our benefit. I would assume that most anthropocentrists, since they still are environmentalists, do not want to necessarily abuse these resources simply because they are there. They argue in favor of saving the earth for the sake of human flourishing. Or in other words, if these resource we have now run out in the future due to exploitation there will be an even bigger problem for humans to get by. On the other side are biocentrists. Biocentrisism is the view that nature does not exist only to be used or consumed by humans. That humans are part of a community alongside all these other species with a system of interdependence among all the species. Both sides of Norton's description of environmentalists want a common goal but differ in the motives behind it. I feel like not all environmentalists can be classified into either category. It is difficult to fall on one side only and I believe that it is necessary to have a balance of both ideals. Personally, I feel guilty whenever I see another species being used for our benefit. But, to an extent.. Humans are the most advanced species. You don't see animals or plants making technological advances, etc. So in a way I do think these resources are for our use and that is where my antropocentrist view comes from. It is important, though, to have a moralist stand point sometimes and know when enough is enough.
ReplyDelete