I have been observing the relationship between human and animals, as well as human with nature for some time. Some issues always bring me into deep thoughts. Why animals are always being be the subject of experiment before human? Why only animals but not human must be killed to prevent the spreading of infectious disease? Why environment must always be sacrifice for the benefit of human? Anyway, the first two questions will lead to some other long stories, but the latter is I want to talk about.
After reading the article 'Saving Nature, But Only for Man', I felt that there are some conflicts between the ideas mentioned in the article with those stored in my mind.
I think that the interaction between human and nature is not critical. The idea of sane environmentalism is so confined that either human or nature has to be sacrificed. This makes me feels that human and nature are in competition, and fighting each other on the limited lands on earth. In contrast, what is in my mind is a totally different idea. The relationship between nature and human, for me, was considered as a mutual symbiosis. However, further thinking made me think that this isn't totally true. In fact, human is part of the nature itself.
From a religious point of view, some (or perhaps all) of the religious founders were 'enlightened' in a totally natural environment. Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism was enlightened under the Bodhi tree. Prophet Muhammad had his first spiritual encounter with (angel) Gabriel when he was meditating in a cave on Mount Hira. These suggests that human and nature are inseparable. Human has to be in harmony, not in antagonism, with nature. In Taoism, the 'Tao' aspect emphasizes the natural order of the universe, which human is part of this natural order, and therefore inseparable.
Apart from the non-religious point of view, I sensed the article has simulated several conditions which only extreme decisions can be made. These cases might happen to be real, but instead of thinking of the extreme ends of the choices, there might be a point where equilibrium can be established to minimize all negative effects to both parties, the human and the environment. Moreover, in some cases, alternate solutions can lead the problem to be solved in a win-win situation. Several issues can be raised from the case of man and caribou. Must there be war at the first place before oil? Must energy always have to depend on oil? Isn't that the wastage of energy by human is a more important concern compared to oil dependency? I personally think that rather than making choices, there are always different ways to solve a problem.
Back to the beginning. The first two questions mentioned are still doubting me. However, when comes to the relationship between nature and human, I have a strong belief that nature and human are one and more important, this idea has to be the core when solving environmental problems we are facing today.
After reading the article 'Saving Nature, But Only for Man', I felt that there are some conflicts between the ideas mentioned in the article with those stored in my mind.
I think that the interaction between human and nature is not critical. The idea of sane environmentalism is so confined that either human or nature has to be sacrificed. This makes me feels that human and nature are in competition, and fighting each other on the limited lands on earth. In contrast, what is in my mind is a totally different idea. The relationship between nature and human, for me, was considered as a mutual symbiosis. However, further thinking made me think that this isn't totally true. In fact, human is part of the nature itself.
From a religious point of view, some (or perhaps all) of the religious founders were 'enlightened' in a totally natural environment. Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism was enlightened under the Bodhi tree. Prophet Muhammad had his first spiritual encounter with (angel) Gabriel when he was meditating in a cave on Mount Hira. These suggests that human and nature are inseparable. Human has to be in harmony, not in antagonism, with nature. In Taoism, the 'Tao' aspect emphasizes the natural order of the universe, which human is part of this natural order, and therefore inseparable.Apart from the non-religious point of view, I sensed the article has simulated several conditions which only extreme decisions can be made. These cases might happen to be real, but instead of thinking of the extreme ends of the choices, there might be a point where equilibrium can be established to minimize all negative effects to both parties, the human and the environment. Moreover, in some cases, alternate solutions can lead the problem to be solved in a win-win situation. Several issues can be raised from the case of man and caribou. Must there be war at the first place before oil? Must energy always have to depend on oil? Isn't that the wastage of energy by human is a more important concern compared to oil dependency? I personally think that rather than making choices, there are always different ways to solve a problem.
Back to the beginning. The first two questions mentioned are still doubting me. However, when comes to the relationship between nature and human, I have a strong belief that nature and human are one and more important, this idea has to be the core when solving environmental problems we are facing today.
2 comments:
Thanks, Guo Qi, for your effort with this interesting post.
Here are three sentences with a problem:
Why animals are always being the subject of experiment before human?
Why only animals but not human must be killed to prevent spreading of infectious disease?
Why environment must always be sacrifice for the benefit of human?
Do you recognize the errors? (Hint: the most obvious mistake is the same in each sentence!)
you really think deeply about this topic. i feel it's very ironic that we improved our living condition at the expense of nature, however, when we are already strong enough to protect the nature, we are still asking more from it with such a "justice" reason.
Post a Comment