If you’d like to get in contact then you can..
- leave a comment
- send a message via Twitter @cultureprobe
- or send me an email using the ‘Contact me’ link in menu on right of page
Advertisements
Twitter Updates
- @ClimateMuseumUK i have been wondering this too - we are very far from being climate-resilient. Adaptation policy h… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 days ago
- Call for short stories for anthology 'Our Entangled Future' a new narrative on climate change that goes beyond dyst… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
- Fab video - even better with some wolves in it! vimeo.com/297343647 1 month ago
Contact
The Next Level – Manchester black music TV show 1999
Topics
- 21st century competencies
- adapting
- arts
- behaviour change
- biodiversity
- biomimicry
- business model
- change
- city
- clean
- climate change
- coaching
- communication
- competencies
- competency
- complexity
- consumption
- culture
- daoism
- design
- discourse
- dynamic equilibrium
- economy
- ecopsychology
- emotion
- empathy
- energy
- England
- environment
- equality
- ethics
- feedback
- flourish
- frames
- happiness
- health
- hubris
- impact
- integrity
- language
- leadership
- learning
- life
- linguistics
- local economy
- localisation
- management
- Manchester
- materialism
- metaphor
- mindfulness
- mycelium
- natural resources
- nature
- neuroscience
- north
- organisation
- peak oil
- performance
- policy
- quality of life
- research
- resilience
- society
- spirituality
- success
- sustainability
- taoism
- technology
- threat
- thriving
- uncertainty
- values
- wealth
- wellbeing
Meta
Advertisements
I read your blog on framing of nature as container, person, self. I think one of our key disconnects from nature in Western culture is that other living or non living things are seen as not being entitled to moral and ethical considerations – in part due to not being seen as having personhood. What moral consideration do we owe to a wild bird or fish, to a tree, to a river or a mountain if they are not seen as being a bird, fish, tree, river or mountain “person”?
I might argue that a corn plant, a wild oak sapling and a venerable oak tree require different moral and ethical stances, and this confuses many people because they have to adjust the degree of ethical consideration (personhood) those plant entities might deserve. The corn plant in a field is one of millions planted by human beings and lives 6 months, the oak sapling has grown in the wild on its own for a few years, while the ancient oak tree has weathered drought, wind, pest and fire for many, many years. Many people, corporations and government agencies, seemingly blind to some of these issues, would declare that none of the plants deserve any moral considerations at all and could be treated relatively the same. In similar vein what consideration should a mountain get, name or un-named, sacred or not?
Pingback: 3-day Mindfulness nature retreats | cultureprobe