In the application, one question asked me to define my naturalist philosophy. I haven't studied naturalist philosophies, and so I'm not sure what limits might exist. I've never set out to construct such a definition for myself, but I was pleased with my quick and concise answer which I see as a foundation I might build upon later.
What is your naturalist philosophy?
[Response:] "To narrow down my "naturalist philosophy", I would say that I believe the human and non-human communities must be co-dependent. This means that humans cannot expect "nature" to exist as a human-less landscape; instead, humans must learn how to develop benign technologies and live well in harmony with the environment. This involves an increased understanding of the non-human world--biology, geology, etc (through education)--which will increase an appreciation and care for it."
I would add that by losing such co-dependence, humans will lose the benefits offered by connection with the non-human world--the most important of which might include health and sanity! That's a lofty and over-generalized statement, I suppose. But if you think about the holistic benefits found in "nature," and consider the timetable of Earth and evolution of humans, it only makes sense that our industrial revolution is depleting the non-human world and our connection to it in an unprecedented way. We cannot rely on substitutes like multi-vitamins, air-purifying machines, and sunlight-spectrum light bulbs.
Also, consider this tangent: as natural resources are depleted, costs will rise. The first to be robbed of them will be low-income families. It's no stretch to suggest that the inner-city Poor of the developed world have lost such a connection.
dear D Strong skrilla,
ReplyDeleteyou're so smart.
love
JB