Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
On the other hand, nature-as-machine proponents view nature holistically, and the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts," (Oelschlaeger 1991 p. 130). Water is a lake, an ocean, or a river. Oelschlaeger calls seeing the forest instead of the trees "synoptic holism." The synoptic holism integral to the nature-as-organism view opposes the reductionistic atomism common to the nature-as-machine stance. In other words, where the reductionist sees a bunch of quarks, the holist sees a bird.
The nature-as-machine proponent also thinks in terms of external relations. Individual parts of the machine interact with other parts as independent entities; thus, they can be removed and replaced without upsetting the balance of nature. This stance supports the view of humanity as external to nature. On the other hand, the nature-as-organism proponent perceives nature in terms of internal relations, and human beings are part of nature's internal whole. Individual parts of nature are interdependent and interrelated; one part cannot be replaced by another without consequence because...
External relations allows clear-cutting of forests on the grounds that trees can be replanted; internal relations views the forest as an ecosystem and takes into account bugs and birds as well as trees.
Invariant repetition is also integral to the nature-as-machine stance. Parts of nature's machine are invariant: they do not change over time and they do not learn or gain intelligence. Moreover, their functions are specific and unchangeable, subject to indefinite repetition. An ant will always carry out ant functions; an atom of carbon will always behave as an atom of carbon. The nature-as-organism stance celebrates the ability of parts to evolve, learn, and grow. Oelschlaeger refers to the phenomenon as "emergent novelty" because of the potential for newness and dynamic transformation as well as "genuine evolution," and "qualitative infinity," (p. 130).
References
Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). Wild nature. Chapter 4 in The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17). A that they assumed that the entire world of plants and animals, even the land itself, was sacred Paleolithic humans did not see themselves as better than other features in the natural world. They thought that everything in the natural world including plants, animals, bodies of water and the Earth itself contained spirits (Oelschlaeger, p. 17). A that they surmised that divinity could take many narural forrns and that metaphor was
" By writing her book, Carson in fact is credited with launching "the modern environmental movement," the authors insist. And her book was far more than just the "cumulative and devastating biological effects of pesticides," Bekoff writes; "it is about life itself, focusing on the many different webs of nature that go unnoticed, misunderstood, and unappreciated until we lose them." Carson's book was "a wake-up call for us to do something
Were such changes necessary? According to what Oelshlaeger explains in his book, it appears that much of these changes are interconnected. With agriculture "naturally" come other transitions in the society. In fact, "neo" or "new" implies the many changes that occurred 10,000 years ago with the advent of growing crops. The beginnings of this huge change can be traced to the food-producing cultures evolving on the eastern shores of
Human beings, while being superior, are nonetheless part of the physical world and subject to its laws. Mankind is made in His image and is therefore distinct from the rest of creation This belief is central to the dichotomy outlined above: human beings are part of the physical world, but also part of God. On the basis of this inner divinity, humankind is given the right to claim superiority to their