Nature is Already Sacred

Environmental Values 8 (4):437-449 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Environmentalists often argue that, in order to address fundamentally the harmful impact of their activities on the environment, western industrial societies need to change their attitude to nature. Specifically, they need to see nature as sacred, and to acknowledge that humanity is a part of nature rather than separate from it. In this paper, I seek to show that these tow ideas are incompatible in the context of western culture. Drawing particularly on ideas expressed by western conservationists, I argue that nature is already seen as sacred, and that its sacredness depends on it being seen as separate from humanity, an idea which effectively contradicts the scientific knowledge on which many conservationists base their actions. Goodin's green theory of value is used as a source of ideas about why non-human nature is experienced as sacred, and can be extended to suggest that other values, such as 'development' and progress', are also seen as sacred.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-09-29

Downloads
24 (#644,535)

6 months
6 (#700,930)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Nature.Phil Macnaghten - 2006 - Theory, Culture and Society 23 (2-3):347-349.
Green symbolism in the genetic modification debate.Ian M. Scott - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):293-311.
Nature Connoisseurship.Allan Greenbaum - 2005 - Environmental Values 14 (3):389 - 407.

Add more citations