Our Mission

This website is a virtual link to the living world. It's mission is to expand education and compassion for our environment and our animal counterparts. 

Welcome! This website is intended to assist in the education of individuals interested in more natural living. There are many topics covered that include tons of links to worthwhile non-profit and commercial sites that reflect the values included in these pages. Please feel free to check the "contents" page for a complete listing of topics touched upon. These pages are constantly being updated and added to, so if you see something missing, have questions or comments please respond through the feedback form.  It is a sincere hope that as you travel through these pages, you will encounter a reinforcement of your values, learn something new, gain respect for our environment and our wonderful animal counterparts and pass this information along.

Yes, there may be some information included in these pages or sites that are linked to that may cause you discomfort or even offend you. An apology is not necessary for coverage of the truth.  While we always do not like to see or hear of things that in the back of our mind we know existed, sometimes to be forced to reality is to bring about change - change in your own lifestyle because you do not like what is happening around you. Remember you do not have to live the life of the majority. Changes that you make does make a difference.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 

Then took the other, just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

 

And both that morning equally lay

IN leave no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

 

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost - a powerful poem for steps of change.

An analysis of the relationship between nature and culture...

Charles L. Redman, the author of "Human Impact on Ancient Environments" (1999 -The University of Arizona Press) takes the perspective that culture directly affects the state of nature and that environmental problems have always existed. Often, past history is ignored as being a vital source for understanding today’s environmental problems. Redman uses many examples to show how the interpretation of the past can alter our future.

Redman states "basic human-environmental relationships have been with us for millennia. It is only the technology with which we operate, the size of the population, and the extent of the impact that have changed since prehistory" (Redman, p.xi). The use of archaeology is a key to finding specific information about a culture and its environment. Redman writes that "the archaeological record is populated with thousands of communities that for varying lengths of time maintained a balance with their environment, yet over time, virtually all developed practices that degraded their surroundings and undermined their continued existence" (Redman, p.xi). Therefore, it is imperative to the survival of culture to learn from the experiences of the past.

Redman points out that because nature can often be harsh and that competition between species or human cultures can often lead one group to develop characteristics that may enable them to survive better in the long run, or they may develop traits that distinguish them quicker from the survival race. Redman uses the example of two basic struggles "defined by nature have exerted immense influence on cultural development: first, individuals effectively situating themselves to maximize their reproductive success, and second, acting as a group to insure their survival versus other groups" (Redman, p.217). These are not necessarily a way to ensure long term survival, however. Redman also states that there is "amble documentation that human groups in all parts of the world have developed and made decisions in such a manner that they were not in concert with the requirements of their environment, and consequently, they have failed as social and sometimes as biological communities" (Redman, p.217).

Human cultures that which to continually survive in harmony with other species and the natural environment must try to not only comprehend the past successes and tragedies, but to put into perspective the problems of today, that could lead to the demise of populations tomorrow. Redman presents us with an opportunity to think, learn and acknowledge previous problems, yet he is sensitive to the environmental perspective.

Three topics that Redman utilizes in the discussion about relationships between cultures and environment that have had both positive and negative consequences are the exploitation of animals, the purposeful destruction of habitat and the constant drive for economic prosperity. These three points or ideas are important because by studying them we are given greater insight into how cultures function from both the past perspective and from a modern view.

Cultures that learned how to exploit animals, became faster at producing food, was able to use a greater number of species for food and were able to use animals for their abilities to help produce material goods. It is encouraging to learn about cultures that tried to keep their usage of animal species in check with their surroundings. Conservation in early hunting and gathering societies, Native American peoples and early European societies leads us to some kind of hope. Yet, many of the examples Redman uses are examples of exploitation that further damages habitat, species variation, causes impoverishment of domestic animals and expands us of animals into extremes. We can learn from understanding these examples what has worked in the past and what is currently failing us now.

Unfortunately, humans have migrated to the idea of purposefully destroying habitat as to make way for agriculture, industry and urban sprawl. Redman states that "the overriding attitude toward the environment that emerged in early modern times in the West and has been adopted by most, if not all, countries around the world is one of use of the environment for the maximum benefit of humankind" (Redman p. 25). Most likely, habitat destruction occurred on a much less frequent basis in ancient times, but then the human population was considerably smaller. Previously, deforestation, destruction of wetlands and other environments were done only to pursue agricultural production, mainly to provide food for human populations and domestic animals. It is important to understand that agriculture, actually food production, was the main reason habitats were destroyed; nowadays, the reasons are much different.

As contemporary humans strive for economic prosperity, the concern for the environment diminishes. The importance of economic growth allowed the cities of the world to become "centers of production, administration, and innovation" (Redman, p.127). More food equals more people that need more building materials to continue to increase industry, materialism, businesses that support the growing populations, and a continued toll on the environment. Obviously, the constant growth of people and their economic needs takes away natural resources, many that cannot be replenished. We really need to closely examine our urban society and its economic needs- how important are they really compared to a healthy environment that would ensure a healthy life for all living things for the future?

 Redman says "The basic questions remain: Have we learned from these many disasters? Are we refining and improving our strategies for living sustainably in our world? Or are we destined to repeat these failures on an ever-increasing scale, ultimately leading to the extinction of our species or at least of our way of life"? In the light of the above quote, do you agree with his optimistic view or with the pessimistic alternative? Support your argument with specific examples of cultural values/themes that you believe will either become or will remain dominant/mainstream.

Redman seems extremely optimistic that not only will the present day cultures learn from tragic mistakes made in the past but also states that these previous disasters "occurred at a different scale and certainly did not threaten the basic life-supporting system of the earth" (Redman, Human Impact on Ancient Environments, p.218). Redman then queries about the present day environmental issues – are any of them serious enough to destroy our world or diminish our current lifestyle? He continues "Nuclear weaponry, hazardous wastes, chemical water and air pollutants, massive deforestation, the extinction of species with great medical potential, global warming, and ozone depletion are all candidates for global disaster, yet will it happen? Although each one poses a distinctly real threat, I doubt any one of these will lead to the demise of urban society" (Redman, p.218). It is a statement such as this that will lead individuals to a callous attitude in thinking that although these are real threats, that human beings will survive them anyway. Yet, Clive Ponting in A Green History of the World, points out "Instead of seeing the environment as the foundation of human history, settled societies, especially modern industrial societies, have acted under the illusion that they are somehow independent from the natural world, which they have generally preferred to see as something apart which they can exploit more or less with impunity" ( Ponting, p. 406).

In order for all living things, including human cultures to live in a sustainable system, in balance with the natural environment, we must treat each threat separately and yet consider the multiplicaying effects of both man-made disasters and natural ones. It is the compounding effects of each environmental issue that threatens culture, society and rural human groups, not to mention the effects on other living plant and animal species that humans rely on for survival.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to be lead to believe the above serious threats will not destroy urban society, I feel that Redman has too optimistic a view. Has he forgotten about cultures that exist mainly without support from developed cultures – certainly these disasters can destroy them, especially if they are unaware of the situations caused by those in power, political or otherwise. Optimisism can be a wonderful thing, but can also lead to overlooking the obvious effects of dealing with a huge number of environmental threats, many of which seem so insignificant now – but maybe the next bold headlines of the news or the next disaster that kills human or animal species in the millions without apparent cause.

A slightly different optimistic view is found in Microcosmos. Margulis and Sagan state "Each individual, population, or species is an option that is exercised only under favorable conditions. If catastrophe strikes, as it regularly has in life’s history, some options will no longer be viable. But their expiration, in the form of death or extinction, makes the biosphere as a whole stronger, more complex, and more resilient. (This of course, has nothing whatever to do with human progress or well-being. There is no evidence for progress in the fossil record, only for change and expansion.)" (Margulis, Sagan, Mircocosmos, p. 275). Although Redman uses the archaeological record to view progress and destruction within human cultures, he still believes that "despite the maladaptations we have created in developing the urban society of today, we also have built in balances that continue to bring the system back in line" (Redman, p.217). Yet how long do these balances last? Are they just "band-aids" to the current problem?

We discussed many themes in our classroom group discussions that touched upon ideas of nature and its ability to be very diverse and dualistic and even contradictory in our descriptions. Focusing on the more "pessimistic" themes, we find that urban culture often wishes to "see and be" apart from nature. For those who are more interested in sustaining economic progression and tackling environmental problems "one at a time", nature can be manipulated and conquered. Several themes that depict nature as "apart" from human culture are: nature is consumerable for human use, humans can "create or improve" nature, nature is scary and chaotic – humans provide order, nature is unknowable, nature is a force of change – often to be feared, nature can be evil, nature is symbolic of a lost golden age, and nature can be a playground for humans. These are fairly mainstream views of nature. These views are often supported by religious and social organizations, industry, governmental bodies, political systems and by businesses that can use negative images of nature to further "advance" usage of natural resources or other matters.

What about animals societies that are distinct and complex in their own right? The fact that human society can develop weaponry, chemicals and increase habitat destruction and still survive does not mean in the very long term of existence that these abilities to overcome each environmental disaster will not eventually lead to one mass extinction. So much food for thought...

Contact Information

Electronic mail

General Information: biocentriceducation@lycos.com
 

Send mail to biocentriceducation@lycos.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 07/29/03