Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Wed May 2, 2012, 10:04 AM May 2012

David Suzuki: The fundamental failure of environmentalism [View all]

Hard on the heels of Paul Kingsnorth's recent repudiation of environmentalism comes a similar lament from none other than Canadian enviro-great David Suzuki.

While perhaps not as deep a "cri de coeur" as Kingsnorth's article, Suzuki's shift towards biocentrism echoes Kingsnorth's words so closely that the question demands to be asked: "Have we passed a cultural tipping point along with the economic and biophysical ones?"

If so, does this shift represent a goad to progress or a collapse into defeatism?

David Suzuki: The fundamental failure of environmentalism

Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.

We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.

When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.

It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fish... RobertEarl May 2012 #1
I don't know if it's Big Business so much as The2ndWheel May 2012 #2
It's not either/or - it's both/and GliderGuider May 2012 #3
another important fact KT2000 May 2012 #4
+1 GliderGuider May 2012 #5
Do we have to go through this every 4 years? cprise May 2012 #6
The Empire GliderGuider May 2012 #7
My point was that he was bemoaning cprise May 2012 #8
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»David Suzuki: The fundame...»Reply #0