12, B 14, 15, 16, From Enviveamente! Ebbives, Brol- cot, bobs by 200 part one: Te MUCTOSOPLIARY CONTEXT OF ENVRONMENTAL ETHICS Sosen Armsbrons and ki chard Betehe- (Me brow Hi Lovejoy, Essays in the History of Ideas (New York: G. P, Putnam's Sons, 1960), pp. 69-77 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962), p. 297 “Pesticides: The Price of Progress,” Time (September 28, 1962), p. 45 For further elaboration of this see Neil Evern- den, The Natural Alien (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), Mary Douglas, “Environments at Risk,” in Jonathon Benthall, ed., Ecology: The Shaping Enquiry (London: Longman, 1972), p. 143. JOH. van den Berg, The Changing Nature of ‘Man: Introduction to a Historical Psychology (New York: Delta, 1975), pp. 225~26. Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 35-36. Sce Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985). See Brazim Kohak, The Embers and the Stars (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). See, for example, Peter Singer's Animal Liber- tation (New York: Avon Books, 1975), Warwick Fox, Deep Ecology: A Response 10 Richard Sylvan’s Critique of Deep Ecology (Hoban, Tasmania: University of Tasmania, Environmental Studies Occasional Paper #20, 1986). Van den Berg, Changing Nature, p. 52. Ibid, p. 53, Ibid, p. 56. Ibid, p. 125. Similar arguments have been put by many writers. See for instance John Livingston, One Cosmic Instant (Voronto: McClelland, 1973); Morris Berman, The Re-Enchantment of the World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981); Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends (New York: Doubleday, 1972); Neil Evernden, The Natural Alien; David Ebren- feld, The Arrogance of Humanism (New York ‘Oxfor University Press, 1978), Allred North Whitehead, Science and the Meclern World (New York: The Free Press, 1925), pp. 54-55, 18, oO Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 201-2 Marshall Sahlins, The Use and Abuse of Biology (London: avistock Publishers, 197), p. 105. Nature in Industrial Society Nell Evernden Lome Leslie Neil Evernden is on the faculty of env ronmental studies, Department of Environmental Sci- ‘ence, York University, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, He also has written The Natural Alien (1985), a critique of the philosophies in the environmental ‘movement Ina chapter from the book Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, Evernden analyzes three definitions of nature. The perception of “naturesas- object” results in exploitation of nature. The view (of “nature-as-self” implies the extension of a sepa rate selfhood 10 nature; this view allows thinking about environmental ethics and rights of nature. ‘The perception of "nature-as-miracle” emphasizes its uncanny and wnpredictable characteristics. In ‘contrast to traditional scientific conceptions of nature, Evernden proposes that the nature-as-miracle defi fion allows an understanding compatible with human experience. Nature, t0 all appearances, remains remarkably “popular” in America. It is part of everyone's vo- cabulary, something we all have knowledge of and opinions about, and something many are moved to defend. Nature is very much a part of “popalar cul- ture” But which nature? The question seems nonsensical, of course. There is natue, and there is culture, separate and distinct from each other. But while we acknowledge that we 4do no all dwell inthe same eulture or subculture, it is sckdom acknowledged that we might not all share the same nature or "subnature.” So firmly embed ded is the notion of nature as a unitary entity, en tirely separate from or even antithetical to, culture, that it is very difficult to entertain the notion of there being more than one understanding of nature (Anthur Lovejoy once listed 66 uses of the word “nature” in polities, ethics, and metaphysics, and another 20 as used in aesthetics.) In colloquial us- ‘age, nature is often simply “the world as given.” the force that determines the way things are as well as792 PART ONE: THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS the clutter of objects that we see interspersed be- tween the “developments” of civilization. fa the lat- ler sense, it is nearly synonymous with “environ- ment.” or at least with “natural environment,” and the “environmental movement” is widely under- stood as a defense of nature. However, in recent years the very prominence of that movement has been the cause of some reflection on just what this ture” is that is being defended. As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that people do not al- ways have the same thing in mind when they speak of nature. This might be most easily illustrated by reviewing one of the success stories of the enviro ‘mental movement. (The year} 1987 marks the anniversary of one of the most remarkable incidents in the history of na- ture preservation in America, and indeed the world In 1962, a biologist named Rachel Carson made a brave and inspired decision to try a different means of defending nature. The result was a book called Silent Spring, which evoked a reaction that has never entirely subsided. To the surprise of many, the resulting “environmental movement” has endured remarkably well, and most people still rank envi- ronmental issues above all others in importance. Yet it is doubtful whether. twenty-five years ago, they would have been concerned at all. Rachel Carson changed all that when she challenged our collective right to manipulate nature at will. “Control of na- ture,” she said, “is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born in the Neanderthal age of biology and philos. ophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man.”? But isn't “control of na~ ture” what our civilization is principally concerned with? Did Carson genuinely challenge that assump tion? Or did she merely wish to? Although Rachel Carson tad spent her life in the defense of nature, she concentrated in Silent Spring on one problem only: the widespread and indis- criminate use of pesticides. Her challenge drew the inevitable response from those whose oxen were being gored, and she suffered considerably as a re- sult. Her own integrity was impugned, her publisher Was threatened with loss of textbook sales, and the Popular media attempted to dismiss her out of hand, A sympathetic but patronizing review in Time mag. azine concluded that while many scientists might sympathize with her intentions, they “fear that her emotional and inaccurate outburst in Silent Spring may do harm by alarming the nontechnical public.” ‘Who should be reassured that while some pesticides ‘may be dangerous, many “are roughly as harmless as DDT™ (which is, of course, now banned in most industrial countries). The Time review now seems dated; Carson's book does no. People reading it for the first time today are struck by the fact that all that Seems to have changed are the names of the poi= sons. Despite Carson's apparent effectiveness as an advocate, the problem she addresses remains a seri ous one. Was she actually successful, or did the at- tempt fail? Or did she, perhaps, accomplish some- thing other thant whar she intended? The American debate over the best uses of nature hhas been unique, and the tradition Rachel Carson rep- resents, following the likes of Henry David Thoreau and John Muir, is a noble one. But because the de- fense mounted was usually very personal, the audi ence tended to be made up of those who shared, in some measure, the valued experience of nature that motivated these famous advocates. In other Words, they spoke to a constituency of nature-lovers, and however many prestigious names might figure among them, it was stil a minority interest. In con- fast, everyone had a stake in the economic devel opment of the nation, and everyone was therefore a Partner in the quest for control of nature. It was Car~ Son’s acceptance of this simple, arithmetic fact — that there were more of “them” than of “us”—that led, however indirectly, to the revolution that was Silent Spring. ts success led to widespread concern, and from “Barth Day” in 1970 the environmental movement became a force to be reckoned with, But Carson's book was revolutionary not be- cause it challenged the indiseriminate use of pesti= ides. Others had sounded the warning long before she did, and it was common knowledge in “wildlife” Circles that many species were being harmed by this practice, Carson’s originality lay in the manner in which she chose to speak and the audience she chose to address. She did not try to appeal to nature overs alone: she addressed the entire adult popula tion. She did not speak to the protection of particu lar organisins that most people had no experience of or concern for, but instead created an entirely new Protagonist. Rachel Carson made “environment” the endangered entity, rather than a wildlife species *And Since hum, ans ronment, on “en, ‘Ceosysteme Collective attention re simitay