It's pretty much become feast or famine here on my blog (I suppose in that way it resembles our world, no?). So get ready for a feast of information:
Since my last class of the term was yesterday, I am happily engaging in a stack of titles that I have been wanting to read for some time now. Included in the stack are:
Not Just a Pretty Face-Stacy Malkan
How Doctors Think-Dr. Jerome Groopman
Last Child in the Woods-Richard Louv
Healthy at 100-John Robbins
I finished the Groopman book last night. It had originally been assigned for my Health Systems Organization course and is a great book about why doctors make mistakes and how patients can be better advocates. The doctor-patient relationship truly is a partnership and often we overlook that doctors are human also. It also gives a pretty insightful look at the current health system.
The book I started this morning, Not Just a Pretty Face, is about the toxic chemicals found within the beauty industry that impact men, women, and children. The first chapter alone has me jazzed up and ready to take on the world again. That is partly due to the fact that the first chapter focuses on the entirety of the chemical industry however. In never ceases to amaze me that people wonder why we suffer so many ill health effects....hmmm could it be all the chemicals floating around that are not regulated? Could it be the principle of bioaccumulation? Could it be that we don't adhere to the precautionairy principle at all? Yet, I find myself biting my tongue more frequently than not, especially around family.
Which brings me, sort of, to my next topic. :-) In my home community meeting last evening we talked about Mark 8:34-9:3. The primary part of which is Jesus telling the crowd that to truly follow Him we must give up the ways of the world and our adherence to our own independent identity instead of one focused on Him and His purpose. Now how does this tie in? Because lately I have found myself getting sucked back into the consumerism and expectations of the world instead of looking at the larger picture and trying to live at a more simple existence. In some ways, for me at least, living a life of simplicity is the same as living a Christian lifestyle (although like many Christians, I struggle in living a truly Christian lifestyle). But when I look at the example of Christ, well just think how against the grain he was! How simple, how socially justice orientated! He sat amongst the dirty, the diseased, the poor. He cared about treatment of ALL others and he didn't accumulate more than he needed. In fact, the Bible explicits says that we should live accordingly.
As part of our discussion last evening, we met in small groups to discuss the ways in which we struggle. The ways in which we adhere to the ways of our society and the world, and the ways in which we hesitate in walking closer to the way of the Lord. So now my thoughts are floating back to how to regain satisfaction with needing to do, be, and have less. That true satisfaction comes beyond seeking for more in the physical realm of this world. That, for me, living truly in a mentality geared toward Christ and His mission, also means living simply, giving more to others in a variety of ways, and doing what I can to advocate and educate for the care of all God's people and this planet He gave us as a gift.
One additional link I want to add: http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php I was sent this by a friend who is one of the few in my life who I can truly talk to about environmental issues. The link depicts images from an art installation that demonstrates many of the things we use that are also detrimental to our health, to the planet, and thus to our existence.
More to come I'm sure.....it's spring break after all and my thoughts are flowing.....
3 comments:
Last Child in the Woods ––
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.
But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.
On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not!
On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health –- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items.
It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. In other words, we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase the quality.
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.
Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.
Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.
Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
Abstract:
It is anthropocentric thinking, and irresponsible, to promote the invasion of wildlife habitat without considering: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
Thanks for the links to the photographs. I had seen some of them before but it was interesting to look again - the numbers are so huge its really difficult to get a mental picture of the size of the problem but those photographs do just that.
I always thought Jesus was a pretty radical guy! He sure knew how to live simply and do the right thing for the right reason.
Post a Comment