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.
Since I’ve had to delete an enormous amount of garbage the past two days, unleashed by the
“Climategate” post, I want to go over MY rules for posting on this blog once again.
First, personal attacks are out. I occasionally fail here myself – I called “Low Key” “spam,” for example. These are emotional issues. So I cut everyone some slack, but only a little. Make a habit of it and you are GONE.
Second, whether you agree or disagree with me is not important, but I treat this blog as a source of useful information for people, so if your comment gets in the way of intelligent discussion, it’s in danger.
As anyone with eyes to see and a brain to read can tell, when a person VERY critical of the research outfit whose emails were exposed took the time to provide us with intelligent links, not only was his (or her) post accepted, I listened and it changed my own tone because it brought up disturbing issues of possibly incompetent or dishonest research. I had not addressed these issues in my first post. Not being a person knowledgeable in programming, I am willing to wait and see how that issue transpires, but from my limited understanding it looks bad for them at this point.
Third, a post that is simply name calling, accusations, and assertions that people he or she does not know are “criminal,” acting in bad faith, etc. WILL be deleted. Neither I nor most other readers are interested in opinions without the person sharing them making an effort to defend them in a reasonable manner. By “reasonable” I mean being open to logic and evidence. Ask yourself before making a serious accusation or statement – what could possibly get me to change my mind? If you cannot think of anything earthly, you’d best not say it here.
Radicals in this country have poisoned public debate by making it very unpleasant for most people. They specialize in name calling, finding conspiracies everywhere, and assuming anyone who disagrees with them is their enemy, dishonest, etc. They can be on the left or the right, but these days are usually on the right. I used to try and reason with them. No more. I am tired of it. I do my bit for truth, democracy, and decency by kicking them outta here when they expose themselves.
You disagree with something I say or another commenter says? Fine. Give reasons, evidence, stuff like that, and assume we are at least as well meaning as you are. If you cannot do that, go play elsewhere.