Environmental Philosophies 2023 by Shannon Davies Mancus https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai For reference later! en-us 2023-05-07 03:34:21 UTC 2023-06-22 05:38:01 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/1f331.png Jack Hall Environmental Philosophy jchall7 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598037057 After all of the readings I must say that my values seem to primarily reflect those depicted by Price and Nash. Price's analysis depicting that all objects contain some degree of nature and her statement regarding environmental justice resonate with me. Additionally I agree with Nash's depiction of the importance of nature within society, and while Nash primarily focuses on the United States I believe that his principles apply to most other nations. Both of these readings show that society has a great impact on the environment around it and I personally think that our society needs to be partly shaped to preserve and responsibly live within nature. This leads me to White's argument. Despite his poor research and clearly eurocentric attitude, I see a lot of value within his analysis that pieces of literature, especially those with religious connotation, can be impactful on society's approach to the environment. However unlike White I don't think the fault lies solely upon these works and I certainly don't think a forced restructure of individual's beliefs is needed to correct the current problems. I think an alternative solution is the more subtle one shown by Kimmerer and the Potawatomi people and their approach to linguistic understanding with nature being considered a being rather than an object.

Ultimately my philosophy boils down to the idea that technology and nature are not exactly counter opposites as it's often depicted, but rather technology is the utilization of nature. And that within a responsible and respecting society the technology should not over exceed the bounds of nature but rather should be used to not only help the society develop but also help maintain the balance of nature and bridge the believed gap between society and nature (though regardless of beliefs in reality they are always connected as society will impact nature and vise versa). Fundamentally I also think that nature is the foundation of any species and without it any species will collapse. Ultimately everything is apart of nature and the physical properties which make it up, and to ignore it is paramount to ignoring the condition of a house one is living in. You need to rely on that house for comfort, safety, and to live but if you ignore the damage you cause to the house then it could come crumbling down on top of you.]]> 2023-05-19 22:59:49 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598037057 Environmental Philosophies alicrod23 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598042351 The environmental philosophy that resonated the most with me was Price's different ways of seeing nature in LA, in particular the third way (nature in the resources we use) and the fourth way. Previously I had never thought about how nature exists in everything that I use and the mango body whip example really put into perspective how most of our resources start with something that comes from nature. The fourth way resonated with me as well because I grew up in a relatively low-income area of Aurora and Westminster, Colorado and I was able to realize how much nature lacks in the neighborhoods I grew up in, compared to a neighborhood in Cherry Creek for example. Nature being different as to different people is an idea that really shocks me how even marginalized communities suffer a lack of nature. 

The philosophy that does not resonate with me as much, is White's philosophy on nature and the bible. Growing up Catholic myself I would not agree that I was taught in my religion that humans have a dominance over nature but rather the opposite and that all things in nature are to be respected. My religion instead taught me a non-anthropocentric view of nature and that we are one with nature, and should use nature but not necessarily dominate. ]]> 2023-05-19 23:17:57 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598042351 Environmental Philosophy dvinod1 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598050042 I found Price’s environmental philosophy to be super eye-opening, and I agree with a lot of her points. She argues that we should recognize our daily encounters and actions to be with nature: as all things come from the wilderness. Failure to do this makes us ignorant and more likely to live less sustainable lives. I like how she recognizes that humans need resources from nature to survive, and unlike most nature writers, she argues that using materials from the wilderness is necessary but we need to be more aware of how we use and transform it. I think that as a society if we were to pay more attention to how things made we would live more sustainably. I also agree with Nash’s environmental philosophy, however, it wasn’t as new to me as Price’s. Nash refers to the wilderness as what most people think of the wilderness as. I agree with his points that nobody should ever become completely civilized and that national parks are important to maintain individuality, diversity, and balance.  Lastly I found Kimmerer’s environmental philosophy to also be very impactful and innovative. Her argument about the language we use and how it influences our interaction with nature was very interesting and I agree with her points. It’s unfortunate that English doesn’t have any way to refer to non-humans other than “it” and makes me think about how this inadvertently affects our relationship with the environment negatively. There also could be a connection between language and how much a culture respects nature. 

The environmental philosophy that did not resonate with me was White’s. I thought he made a lot of conclusions with a lack of evidence to support them. He thinks that Christianity says that humans are allowed to exploit the Earth, but I believe he had a different understanding of the Bible compared to most people. A lot of things factor into how a person treats nature and religion is not the only factor.  I did not agree with his points, but I do believe that it is important to recognize our values and how they affect our relationship to the environment. ]]> 2023-05-19 23:43:00 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598050042 Paige Canetto Environmental Philosophy pcanetto https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598066137 I like the more broad definition of environment and nature that Price proposes because it really makes us consider all of our interactions with our environment. We talked a lot about "systems thinking" in one of my classes last year, and this applies perfectly to nature. Nature is a system and our interactions with it are complex, layered, and built into every aspect of our society, so we have to try to understand the system to address specific problems. I also think that environmental justice and environmental racism are important to include since they help us understand that not everyone experiences nature and their environments in the same way and that we have a duty to try to understand others experiences and address inequalities and imbalances. 
I most disagreed with the various philosophies that put humans as outside or above nature. A couple of the different authors implied that this kind of thinking is extremely prevalent among Americans and even that it is intractable. However, I don't think this is true either. Sure, they are some arrogant people who think of themselves as invincible, but I feel like actually spending time outside (whether that be in "wilderness" or not), makes a convincing argument for nature being something you cannot control. ]]> 2023-05-20 00:31:48 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598066137 Jocelyn Environmental Philosophy ricosullivan1 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598107904 I really enjoyed these readings, I feel like Price's conception of nature is all about all living things have value and should be respected and protected. This conception entails that humans should live in harmony with nature and not dominate it. I find this most important since we need to slow down and consider the long-term consequences of our actions before it's too late. I like what Nash's had to say, it really highlights the importance of maintaining biodiversity and the intrinsic worth of untouched nature/ecosystems. Which is very important to the health of our planet. I don't really agree with White's ideas because we shouldn't be using cultural or religious narratives as reasons for how we treat the environment. Kimmerer focuses on understanding the land as a living thing and the need to give back in gratitude. We as humans should see that we are part of nature as well and shouldn't try to separate from it. ]]> 2023-05-20 02:32:11 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598107904 Morgan Environmental Philosophy mkhampton https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598115959 After reading all these pieces of literature, I would say that my favorite was the last one. It was the easiest to read and relate to. I really liked how it created the connection that the language a culture and society use to talk about nature impacts how that society views nature. The English language is composed primarily of nouns whereas the Potawatomi language is 70% verbs. To relate this to American society, America is a very possessive society. For example, when I used to babysit kids and coach them, one of the most common words I would hear them say was, “mine”. Whereas it seems the Potawatomi language addresses the idea of living and nonliving more instead of possession. For example, when water is in a bay and it is trapped, it is dead and it is a noun, but when it escapes the water becomes living, it is free, and it also becomes a verb. It is also interesting how in the Potawatomi language precision and detail is necessary. I believe language is a gateway into a society’s values and beliefs. One interesting thought that was brought up through discussion was the idea of “by reducing language you reduce the thought available” from George Orwell’s 1984. The English language has reduced certain aspects of language, but they have also developed different words for things in society that seem more important and pertinent. It would be interesting to explore where words have decreased and where they have been added to with certain topics. 

In terms of the other pieces of writing, I would say that I agree with Nash’s arguments the most. I like how he does not limit it to only a couple meanings. I think I also agree with him the most because my view of wilderness and nature fits into his mental health and developing environmental responsibility topics. I also think the way he delivered his ideas were to the point and not confusing. I also really enjoyed his idea of the pioneer and how he connected that definition to show how the meaning of wilderness has changed. Next, I agreed with Price’s ideas the third most. She had an interesting take on wilderness and nature as she was viewing it from a city full of pollution, concrete, and people. I initially agreed with her first point that it was inexistent, but through her other arguments my perspective opened. I am still not sure that I fully agree with the idea that Mango Body Whip is full of nature and wilderness, but I am open to the idea. Finally, I agreed the least with White. I felt that his piece was extremely hard to read through and I did not enjoy it very much. 
]]> 2023-05-20 02:58:04 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598115959 Environmental Philosophy skirde1 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598132565 Personally, I agree with the Prices concept of nature being seen as the wild things and also as something we interact with and use every day. I feel like these two points are sort of two sides of the same coin. Being an engineering student and living in Colorado my whole life I can see both in my daily life. I learn about how we use natural properties of the world every day in my classes and can see them in each aspect of life. After earning about how crystal structures and polymer chains interact and form, I started to see them in everything around me from the rocks I see on the ground to the perforation in paper towels. Living in Colorado has also shown me how much of nature we don’t see on a daily basis. I can take an hour-long drive into the mountains and see rock formations and plants that I would never see in a city. Part of this comes from these types of places being ‘undesirable’ to develop and live in, but also shows how much we do develop and change the world around us to make somewhere to live. If you drive anywhere west along I-70 you will see where we have blasted away the sides of mountains to put our roads right next to a scenic lookout. I resonate with the idea that there is no more frontier because if we have the will to change something about our surroundings we will find a way. ]]> 2023-05-20 03:52:10 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598132565 Emma Reinhardt Environmental Philosophy ejreinhardt654 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598158269 I found that the reading which resonated the most with me was Kimmerer's concept of nature. Her writing immediately grabbed my attention and connected with me on an emotional level in a way the other readings didn't. When she described how the water of the bay is simply existing in this form and could easily change it in the future because the water is alive, it really changed my perspective. I grew up exploring and doing things in the mountains and, similar to the biologist Kimmerer describes, my language often adapts to better describe the world when I'm in that environment. In the past, talking to plants and animals instead of about them felt almost childlike. Like you're a somehow expecting them to answer back. However, this reading gives us the understanding that viewing the world with empathy is never without value. Treating the world around you with respect makes you feel more connected to it. ]]> 2023-05-20 05:34:39 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598158269 Alex Fredette Environmental Philosophy afredette4 https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598165123 Although Nash had some good points, I feel as if the writings of Price and Kimmerer resonated with me the most. I find that a good example always does the most for my understanding, and there was definitely a good story narrative with Kimmerer's Potawatomi language example. With the "humanizing" of nature as verbs, it's clear how nature itself is a living, growing, evolving being. While somewhat metaphorical, it makes a huge point as to how humans are not the only "people" alive on this planet. As for Price, the story that resonated with me most was the eaten chihuahua. Showing both sides of the extreme and punctuating them with "in which case we'll die" shows just how necessary it is that we adapt to our surroundings just as much as we adapt our surroundings to fit us. By combining those two ideas, I feel as if nature should be treated as another person or society alongside us, someone who can't always be accommodated without harming others, but who should be treated with love and respect like any other.]]> 2023-05-20 06:01:30 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598165123 Allison Environmental Philosophy allisonbongiorno https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598592944 I agree with Kimmerer that nature and/or wilderness should and does posses an inherent value to it. However, I don’t think that we should go so far as to humanize it, even metaphorically. This is because I believe that failing to distinguish between humanity and nature would rob both terms of their true significance (just as darkness has little meaning until juxtaposed against light). Of course, this is not to say that humans should be or are placed on a proverbial pedestal “above” nature. However, I don’t see how we can hope to protect or sustain something that we cannot define. I agree with Nash that the definition of wilderness has changed and that it is important for us to integrate it within our society. However, while I appreciated how he did not limit the meaning of nature a single definition by exploring historical contexts, I thought that his idea of nature was not as encompassing as Price’s. I agree with Price’s analysis that, in order to sustain our environment, it is essential for us to see the nature within all objects. However, especially as laws are made and more precise language is needed, so as not to be misinterpreted, I believe that noticing the natural resources as opposed to the nature itself within objects would be the more accurate term. Finally, I simply did not agree with White’s philosophy. It was ill-researched and euro centralist. However, I believe every argument must contain some modicum of truth to it. I agree with his claim that social normatives are incredibly significant in shaping how we view our surroundings.

Although some might think it would be nice to live in a world where humans live alongside nature, in perfect harmony, that is simply not the case. I believe that it is a waste of time trying to regress back to the ways of our hunter gatherer ancestors, nor should we be striving towards that goal. The idea of living in nature is presently romanticized, because most modern humans have no idea how difficult that lifestyle was. However, I do believe that we should strive to sustain our natural surroundings due to their inherent worth. I believe that this will also lead us to a greater appreciation for our natural world and will help motivate what I believe should be our other goal as a species: to responsibly and respectfully use our natural resources as tools to create the technology which has lead to the betterment of humanity. If we are unable to sustain our environment, we are unfit to sustain ourselves. 

]]> 2023-05-21 02:13:00 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2598592944 Jusitn - Enviornmental Philosophy justinduffy https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2600256130
After reflecting on the differen perspectives we have com across so far, I really like what Kimmerer says about everything in nature being alive and important. It feels right to me that we should see nature like that - full of living things, not just objects. I think this way of seeing the world helps us take better care of it and remember that everything has its own worth.

On the other hand, I'm not too fond of certain elements of White and Nash's philosophy. They seem to say that humans are the most important and everything else in nature is kind of secondary. I get that we humans have a big impact on the world and should use it wisely, but this view feels a bit too human-centric. It's like saying we're on top of everything else, whereas I feel we are more of a piece of the puzzle.

I'm also not sold on a couple of Price's ideas, though he did have some good points. Price's 'commodity conception' of nature feels off to me. The idea that nature's value is mainly economic seems to diminish the inherent value of the natural world and all it has to offer. Yes, nature does provide resources, but it also holds so much more. It's a source of inspiration, wisdom, and awe-inspiring beauty, all of which defy commodification.
]]> 2023-05-22 15:32:07 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2600256130 Cora Environmental Philosophy cperk https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2607785318 When it comes to the environment, it is important to understand the perspective in which to look at it from. Because we are a part of humanity, the relationship between these two is inseparable from the way we look at it. Even if I would want to see value in the world around us without the consumption of its value in some way (be it beauty, products, or otherwise) who would be there to make that value be real? Overall, I think that is why I resonated with Price’s discussion of wilderness. The “wild” used to be something that was to be avoided for our own safety. But ever since we saw what we could create with its fruits, it has become less of a thing to avoid. 
Because there are so many ways to use nature, the value in it is different for different people—like it Nash’s article. Some can see it to connect back to a wider perspective of the world around them, others a place to find and build with the resources, others an opportunity to trim down and take the things they like while leaving the ones they don’t to make something more beautiful. Ultimately, nature is important to everyone. No matter how much someone is far away from a forest, or the wild, they are still touching nature all around them. The seat I’m sitting on has leather coming from a cow, metal forged in coal from the ground. The father one tried to run from nature, the more the nature is simple manicured and distilled into something different, but still has roots from somewhere on this earth. 
I wish nature could be something that has inherent value with out it’s commodification. The value of having life and cycles and beauty with no eyes to take it in. But, for something to be appreciated it must give value to the appreciate. Humanity may run from the wildness of what nature can give, but no matter where we go, the things we have still some from the natural world. 
]]> 2023-05-29 10:33:20 UTC https://padlet.com/shannonmancus/3ux6wjplhncfq7ai/wish/2607785318