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
Contact
Twitter Updates
- RT @LeagueACS: Do you suspect #cubhunting in your area? We're offering £1,000 reward for info that leads to a successful conviction https:/… 2 days ago
- Schroders new Climate Progress Dashboard & report schroders.com/en/lu/professi… … great to see this work happening. Evidence-based realism rules! 2 days ago
- RT @ChrisGPackham: If you've had enough of our wildlife being slaughtered please sign up thunderclap.it/projects/59543… 5 days ago
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 efficiency 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 wellbeingMeta
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