Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
The many murders by self-described ‘pro-life’ supporters are only the
down payment in deaths of real people rather than zygotes if those who
want to ban all kinds of abortion have their way. Lots more dead people now in the name of ‘life.”
If
the ‘pro-life’ people are correct, these people died because they
followed their directives of their God. Why did their God kill them?
posted July 30, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The pro-lifers believe that fetus’s, everyones fetus’s, theirs and everyone else’s should never be aborted. They believe that the Bible tells them that they are babies, even though they are not born yet.
I’d like to know if they think that the Bible tells them that it is all right to let babies, and children die of diseases, as the ones in Oregon, and Wisconsin have because the parents think only God should heal them, and without any help from doctors. Or are their some Pro-lifers that feel this is wrong?
posted July 30, 2009 at 4:11 pm
The “pro-life” movement has nothing whatsoever to do with life. It’s about control of people’s sexuality and a larger agenda of Christian dominionism.
posted July 30, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Kenneth, please stop being silly by saying the pro-life movement has nothing to do with life. That reminds me of the unthinking “pagans worship the devil” that I often have to argue against with my fellow Christians.
Henrietta22, yes, most pro-lifers believe it’s wrong to deny medical care to children on the basis of religious belief.
Might I suggest that at some point, you actually meet with and talk to real Christians? When I met with and talked to real Pagans, I learned a lot.
posted July 31, 2009 at 1:25 am
If the “pro-life” people were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, they would be passing out condoms in their churches and on street corners, along with instructions for using them. Funnily enough, I haven’t seen any of them doing so.
What the “pro-life” crowd is on about is not abortion as such–it’s about who gets to control women’s reproductive choices. And make no mistake–they don’t just want to reverse Roe v. Wade–they want to reverse Griswold as well.
posted July 31, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I think that lots of Pagans are in favor of life–of almost all life on Planet Earth, in fact. Most of this life is comprised of not-human species, Archaea, Eubacteria, Eukayotes, like that.
I find it somewhat more challenging to discover which Deities favor life on Planet Earth and which do not. Those incorporated into my own practice do, and generally don’t push me towards acts of violence in carrying out their guidance. Some, not included in my practice, appear to push some of their devotees toward acts of violence in carrying out their guidance.
But, because I don’t work with those Deities, They don’t bother to explain Their reasons to me. So I can’t answer your challenging question.
When I was young and clueless, a young and far less clueless woman taught me a street smarts lesson about abortion when it’s all illegal (as it was at the time she gave the lesson). She manipulated a wire coat hanger, then held it up and asked if I would–breaking the law–allow something like that to plunge into my body rather than permit medically competent and legal abortions.
I guess that she provided me with a decision prodcedure for which Deities I wish in my Pagan metapantheon. None that would have me kill or do violence against folks who offer medically competent and legal abortions when the illegal alternatives include what that wire coathanger signified.
It’s a response…
posted August 1, 2009 at 10:49 am
To the author of the blog,
The psychos who shoot up abortion clinics are just as bad as the doctors who take innocent life via abortion. The shooters are part of a lunatic fringe, and their actions are loudly condemned in the media by the mainstream Christian community. Those guys no more represent the Christian mainstream than the characters of The Wicker Man represent most pagans.
Makarios,
Condoms aren’t pro-life. They’re designed to prevent life. That’s why some Christians (e.g. Catholics) are against using them. Now this is your cue to bring up STDs, and my cue to remind you that if sex stays within monogamous marriage, then STDs aren’t an issue.
Kenneth,
I’m a Christian, and I couldn’t care less about controlling your sex life. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no more interest in your bedroom activities than you have in mine.
posted August 2, 2009 at 5:23 am
Bob, First, the author of this blog is named Gus diZerega.
Second, your statement that condoms are “designed to prevent life” reinforces my statement that the “pro-life” crowd is out to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut.
Third, don’t presume to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. STD’s have nothing to do with the point at issue in the original blog post, and I had no intention of bringing up the subject, either in response to your comment or in any other context.
posted August 12, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Bob
you claim to have no interest in controlling sexuality, but you say that sex should happen only in marriage and that birth control is wrong. So, according to your beliefs, we should only ever have unprotected sex within marriage, deserve a STD if we step outside of that law, and should expect to get pregnant everytime we have sex? How is that not controlling sex?
I WILL have sex with anyone I choose to have sex with, anytime I choose. I WILL take steps to prevent STDs and pregnancy when I decide that is is appropriate and prudent and I WILL choose to have as many children as I myself ad no-one else decides to have.
That is my inherent right as a Woman.
Women control reproduction because it is a function of our bodies and we get to control our own bodies. Men’s thoughts, feelings and opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned, since abortion is not a procedure that can be performed on a male body, Men have absolutely no right to even be part of the discussion.
Just like I have no right to decide about vasectomies.
I don’t get to control your consensual sexual activity, you don’t get to control mine. TOUGH.
posted August 18, 2010 at 2:04 am
nice post,I like the post thank you