DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis Rethinking Deep Ecology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thesis Rethinking Deep Ecology THESIS RETHINKING DEEP ECOLOGY: FROM CRITIQUE TO SYNTHESIS Submitted by Chelsea L. Welker Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2013 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Bradley J. Macdonald Dimitris Stevis Paul Trembath ABSTRACT RETHINKING DEEP ECOLOGY: FROM CRITIQUE TO SYNTHESIS Deep ecology represents a strain of radical ecopolitical theory that has, over the past forty years, engaged in various debates with other strains of radical ecopolitical thought. Though deep ecology has attempted to defend itself against many critiques from this field, my analysis aims to reassess deep ecology’s responses (or its silences) related to some of these charges. My goal is to adequately respond to these critiques that have been made against deep ecology, particularly the critiques that have arose from social ecology and from perspectives concerned with the Global South. At the same time, I utilize these critiques and my own responses to them to rethink deep ecology’s role in the transformation of contemporary societies toward greater ecological sustainability. I add to this debate amongst radical ecopolitical theories by outlining the most important critiques that have been made at deep ecology from the above fields, in addition to formulating more adequate responses from the perspective of deep ecology. Moreover, I explicitly concern my analysis with how this re-envisioned deep ecology can constitute a viable political theory and play a vital role in the radical transformation of political societies for the benefit of both nature and human beings. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................... .................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................... ................................................... iii Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................... ..................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The Main Tenets of Deep Ecology: From Critique to Politics ..................................... 9 Introduction ...................................................................... ..................................................... 9 Critique of Contemporary Society .................................... ................................................... 11 Philosophical Assumptions and Ethical Positions: Prerequisites for an Ecocentric Society ... 17 Political Visions, Participation, and Policy ....................... ................................................... 25 Major Critiques and Barriers to Prominence ..................... ................................................... 38 Chapter 3: Challenging Deep Ecology: Social Ecology, Human Hierarchy, and the Charge of Misanthropy .......................................................................... ................................................... 44 Introduction ...................................................................... ................................................... 44 The Basic Tenets of Social Ecology ................................. ................................................... 47 Social Ecology’s Critiques of Deep Ecology .................... ................................................... 52 1. Misanthropy and the Problem with Ecocentrism ........... ................................................... 53 2. Deep Ecology’s Ontological Formulation of Nature ..... ................................................... 64 Similarities, Common Ground, and Avenues for Political Action ......................................... 71 Conclusion ....................................................................... ................................................... 78 Chapter 4: Challenging Deep Ecology from the Global South: Neo-colonialism and the Problem of Exclusion .......................................................................... ................................................... 81 Introduction ...................................................................... ................................................... 81 iii The Critiques of Deep Ecology from Perspectives of the Global South ................................. 86 1. The Current Debate: Wilderness, Othering, and Neo-colonialism ..................................... 86 2. The Problem of Exclusion ............................................ ................................................. 103 3. Reconciling Critiques: Re-envisioning Deep Ecology as a Globally Relevant Political Theory.............................................................................. ................................................. 110 Conclusions ...................................................................... ................................................. 119 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Research ......................... ................................................. 123 Main Arguments .............................................................. ................................................. 123 Rethinking Deep Ecology as Political Theory ................... ................................................. 132 Future Research................................................................ ................................................. 134 Bibliography ......................................................................... ................................................. 138 iv Chapter 1: Introduction Contemporary political societies are increasingly faced with a wide variety of ecological crises, including climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, deforestation, and pollution. Given these increasingly serious environmental issues and the role that they play in both the destruction of nature and the suffering of human beings around the globe, it is not surprising that the field of radical ecopolitical thought has greatly expanded in the last forty years to encompass a wide variety of perspectives about how humans should relate to the environment and reach toward greater sustainability in addition to how humanity can combat social problems in ways that also account for nature in politics. These radical theories often come into conflict with one another, with each theory defending its own unique formulation of how humans and nature fundamentally relate and how political societies can incorporate nature into decision-making processes. Deep ecology, social ecology, ecofeminism, and socialist ecology are just a few examples of the broad spectrum of perspectives encapsulated under the name radical ecopolitical thought. All of these strains of radical ecopolitical thought will become increasingly relevant in the field of political theory in coming years given the growing vulnerabilities of both nature and humanity in the face of global ecological crises. One particularly relevant strain of radical ecopolitical thought is deep ecology, a theory that promotes radical cultural changes in the way that humans and nature relate in order to bring about better practices and policies toward nature on a global scale. Deep ecology is particularly relevant in the face of global ecological problems for a variety of reasons. First of all, deep ecology goes further than any of the other radical ecopolitical theories in its conception of how nature should be incorporated into political life. For example, deep ecology explicitly incorporates the concept of intrinsic value into the process of 1 political decision-making, arguing that all biological entities and ecosystems possess an equal right to fulfill their vital needs and flourish to their fullest potential regardless of the instrumental value that these other beings provide to humanity (See Naess, 1986, pp. 68-9). Secondly, deep ecology promotes radical cultural change as a pathway toward the establishment of ecocentric societies, arguing that humans should pursue a wider identification with nature in order to establish ecologically sustainable communities (See Fox, 1985, pp. 136-9; Eckersley, 1992, p. 59; Naess, 1973, pp. 80-1). Both of these ethical principles are unique to deep ecology, playing a vital role in the overall consideration that nature will be given in ecologically sustainable societies. Furthermore, the focus on deep ecology in my analysis is both necessary and important for several reasons relating to its status as a strain of radical ecopolitical thought. First of all, the intentional prioritization in deep ecology on how political societies can recognize intrinsic value and ensure the flourishing of other living beings and ecosystems beyond human beings serves a vital purpose, namely to incorporate other life forms into political life and account for their needs in political decision-making. Not only does this stance towards other life help to ensure that the importance of nonhuman life to the overall flourishing of the planet is accounted for in political societies, but it also helps to ensure that nonhuman life is treated with respect far beyond its current status in contemporary societies. For example, deep ecology explicitly argues that the vital needs of nonhuman life should not override the non-vital needs of humans given that the flourishing of the planet (and humanity) particularly depends on the security of former (See Naess, 1988, pp. 68-9). Secondly, by making an argument in favor of cultural change
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE THOREAU SOCIETY 75Th Anniversary Annual Gathering, July 6-10, 2016
    THE THOREAU SOCIETY 75th Anniversary Annual Gathering, July 6-10, 2016 Finding the Extraordinary in the Ordinary: Henry D. Thoreau as Proto-ecologist, Reformer, and Visionary THOREAU SOCIETY STAFF ANNUAL GATHERING STAFF Michael J. Frederick, Executive Director Clarissa Eaton, Director of Registration Chynna Lemire, Business Manager Rachel Gulick, Registration Coordinator Magdalena Bermudez, Annual Gathering Coordinator Delia Frederick, Registration Assistant Jon Fadiman, Shop Supervisor Finley Janes, Director of Hospitality Richard Smith, Historian Rhana Tabrizi, Audio-Visual Technician Victor Curran, Shop Associate William Bermudez, Audio-Visual Technician HONORARY ADVISOR Edward O. Wilson Harrison A. Glasgow Manassas, VA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Michael Schleifer, CPA Allen Harding Brooklyn, New York Matamoras, PA President Ronald Hoag, PhD Robert Clarke Grimesland, NC Woodbury, CT Treasurer Michael Lorence Williamsburg, VA Gayle Moore Martinsville, IN Tom Potter Clerk Martinsville, IN Barry Andrews, D.Min. Rochelle Johnson, PhD Bainbridge Island, WA Caldwell, ID Michael Berger, PhD Paul Schacht, PhD Cincinnati, OH Rochester, NY Andrew Celentano Michael Stoneham, PhD Stoneham, MA Washingtonville, NY Dianne Weiss Concord, MA EVENT MAP Program Schedule Wednesday, July 6 First Night Masonic Temple 7-9 pm Panel Discussion “Is Thoreau Really ‘Pond Scum’,” Joseph L. “Joel” Andrews and Michael Lorence Performance “Skimming the Surface, A Katherine Schultz Inspired Play” Tammy Rose Thursday, July 7 8 am Registration Opens Masonic Temple 9-10 am Session I Masonic Temple Main Level “Reading Thoreau’s Journal,” Barry Andrews, D.Min. Lower Level “How Walden Works: The Hydrology of the Pond,” John M. Nevison 10:15- Session II Masonic Temple 11:45 am Main Level “Nature, Ecology and the Spiritual Vision of Henry David Thoreau,” Rev’d Dr Daniel Medina, CJ, O.S.B., D.Min.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Ecology and Eco Feminism an Approach to Sustainable Development
    Volume : 3 | Issue : 10 | Oct 2014 ISSN - 2250-1991 Research Paper Economics Deep Ecology And Eco Feminism An Approach To Sustainable Development ICSSR-Doctoral Fellow Research Scholar (UGC-NET) DEPARTMENT S. RAVIKUMAR OF ECONOMICS OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD-500007 KEYWORDS Deep ecology, Eco-feminism, Ecological crisis, Livelihoods. The ecological crisis reflects the inequal livelihoods of indigenous communities. Due to globalization, only minority sections are benefited, majority of poor lower. Eco-feminists argue that deep ecology is not deep enough because its call for biological egalitarianism does not extent to women (Salleh 1984).Deep ecology is preoccupied with anthropocentrism (Human centeredness) as main cause of environmental degradation when the real problem is andro centrism, ecological destruction being male dominated. In the process of globalization, industrial and development projects cause a serious harm to the forest or eco systems. In Indian the destruction of five lakh hectares of forest in the past five years alone for mines, dams and industrial project in the name of development. Economic growth do not result in poverty reduction and gap between the rich and poor ABSTRACT widen. So that’s why development should be from the below .To have better future for indigenous people, their values must be respected, by making them access to equitable and distribution of GDP. Alternatives, new economic theories, developmental programmes and policies must be framed, and implemented at root level INTRODUCTION: world poses a threat therefore, not only to human but to all The ecological crisis reflects the inequal livelihoods of indige- organisms constituting the natural order. Deep ecology’s core nous communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecocentrism, Economics and Commensurability
    www.ecologicalcitizen.net EDITORIAL Ecocentrism, economics and commensurability “Whatsoever is not conscious of itself and discipline, committed in some basic, Adam not master of itself is a thing. Whatever fundamental way to anthropocentrism? is conscious of itself and master of itself Certainly, the latter thought is encouraged Dickerson is a person. […] Man alone is a person; by passages like the one quoted above About the author minerals, plants and animals are things. from Léon Walras’s great founding text Adam is a philosopher who From the rational point of view, the of neoclassical marginalist analysis, the has taught at universities purpose of things is under the dominion Éléments d’économie politique pure (4th in the UK and Australia. of the purpose of persons. […] If there edition, 1899). But perhaps passages like He is the author of Kant were only one man in the world he would this, extolling human mastery over non- on Representation and be master of all things.” human nature, are inessential to economics Objectivity (Cambridge University Press, 2004) (Walras, 1954: 62)1 proper; perhaps they are of no more and various papers in relevance to economics than Newton’s philosophy, aesthetics, occultism is to the theories of classical and cultural history. he discourse of economics – at least mechanics. in its orthodox, ‘neoclassical’ form, That would certainly be the mainstream Citation as taught to tens of thousands of view, in which economics is conceived of Dickerson A (2020) T Ecocentrism, economics university students every year – wields as a ‘positive science’ whose relationship and commensurability. The tremendous institutional, and therefore to ethics is easily stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Theory and Complexity: a Potential Tool for Radical Analysis Or the Emerging Social Paradigm for the Internationalised Market Economy?
    DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY Vol. 6, No. 3 (November 2000) Systems theory and complexity: a potential tool for radical analysis or the emerging social paradigm for the internationalised market economy? TAKIS FOTOPOULOS Abstract: The aim of this paper is to critically assess the claims of systems theory and complexity in the analysis of social change and particularly to examine the view that ―if certain conditions are met― both could potentially be useful tools for radical analysis. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that, although systems theory and complexity are useful tools in the natural sciences in which they offer many useful insights, they are much less useful in social sciences and indeed are incompatible, both from the epistemological point of view and that of their content, with a radical analysis aiming to systemic change towards an inclusive democracy. Introduction It was almost inevitable that the present demise of Marxism would bring about a revised form of functionalism/evolutionism, which had almost eclipsed in the sixties and the seventies, particularly in areas like the sociology of development where it had been replaced by neo-Marxist and dependency theories. The new version of functionalism/evolutionism is much more sophisticated than the original Parsonian functionalist paradigm and incorporates recent developments in “hard” sciences to produce a new “general” theory of social systems. A primary example of such an attempt is Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems[1] which we
    [Show full text]
  • Social Ecology and Communalism
    Murray Bookchin Bookchin Murray $ 12,95 / £ xx,xx Social Ecology and Communalism Replace this text Murray Bookchin ocial cology Social Ecology and Communalism and Communalism Social Ecology S E and Communalism AK Press Social Ecology and Communalism Murray Bookchin Social Ecology and Communalism Bookchin, Murray Social Ecology and Communalism Library of Congress Control Number 2006933557 ISBN 978-1-904859-49-9 Published by AK Press © Eirik Eiglad and Murray Bookchin 2006 AK Press 674–A 23rd St. Oakland, CA 94612 USA www.akpress.org [email protected] AK Press UK PO Box 12766 Edinburgh, EH8 9YE Scotland (0131) 555–5165 www.akuk.com [email protected] Design and layout by Eirik Eiglad Contents An Introduction to Social Ecology and Communalism 7 What is Social Ecology? 19 Radical Politics in an Era of Advanced Capitalism 53 The Role of Social Ecology in a Period of Reaction 68 The Communalist Project 77 After Murray Bookchin 117 An Introduction to Social Ecology and Communalism We are standing at a crucial crossroads. Not only does the age- old “social question” concerning the exploitation of human labor remain unresolved, but the plundering of natural resources has reached a point where humanity is also forced to politically deal with an “ecological question.” Today, we have to make conscious choices about what direction society should take, to properly meet these challenges. At the same time, we see that our very ability to make the necessary choices are being undermined by an incessant centralization of economic and political power. Not only is there a process of centralization in most modern nation states that divests humanity of any control over social affairs, but power is also gradually being transferred to transnational institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Ecocentric Theory
    Democracy and the Claims of Nature Edited by Bob Pepperman Taylor and Ben Minteer Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2002. “Environmental pragmatism, ecocentrism and deliberative democracy: between problem- solving and fundamental critique’ Robyn Eckersley Introduction The debate over the virtues of ecocentric theory (moral monism) versus environmental pragmatism (moral pluralism) provides an occasion to reflect upon the democratic character of these respective environmental philosophies and their associated political practices. Environmental pragmatists have been generally critical of monistic philosophies, which they understand ecocentrism to be, on the grounds that they are dogmatic, insensitive to diverse cultural and moral contexts and therefore too inflexible to be of any assistance in the practical resolution of environmental problems and conflicts.1 Environmental pragmatism, on the other hand, is defended as more tolerant, open-minded and ecumenical in its respect for moral pluralism and cultural diversity and more democratic in its defense of environmental policy deliberation by the affected parties. It is also defended as more effective when it comes to practical environmental problem solving. In response, ecocentric philosophers (most notably J. Baird Callicott) have argued that the pragmatists’ embrace of moral pluralism carries with it the danger of lapsing into indecisive relativism. In particular, the refusal by environmental pragmatists to privilege any substantive environmental values in advance of policy dialogue is seen as problematic insofar as it can lead to philosophical contradictions and dubious political outcomes that may not necessarily protect the environment.2 According to this construction, ecocentric theorists and activists are the fearless environmental justice advocates, standing up for the interests of the environmental victims of economic development, including both humans and nonhuman species.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbinger, a Journal of Social Ecology
    a journal of social ecology Harbinger What is Social Ecology? VOL. 3, NO. 1 SPRING 2003 Harbinger - SPRING 2003 { 1 } Harbinger, a Journal of Social Ecology, publishes analysis relevant to the growing social ecology movement and news of the activities of the Institute for Social Ecology (ISE). It is our intention to explore the theory and practice needed to help create an ecological society, and to cultivate a generous intellectual outlook that can inform the principle of hope. Just as the outlook proposed by social ecology is concerned with both what is and what ought to be, so too is Harbinger and we will explore the tensions between the two. The central questions we address in the pages of Harbinger regard the process with which we must engage to create an ecological society, a society free of hierarchy and domination in all of its forms. A harbinger is a messenger, or a sign indicating that a major event or change is coming. It was the name given to the journal published by Emerson, the Alcotts, Thoreau and other New England transcendentalists associated with Brook Farm in the 19th century. The name was revived in the early 1980s by the ISE for our literary and philosophical journal. In its current incarnation Harbinger will continue the tradition of critically examining theory and practice, attempt to bring you stimulating work by talented authors, and, in addition, update you on the important work of the ISE. Our intention is to publish twice a year and we invite your comments and contributions. While Harbinger will entertain many points of view, our primary focus will be on a clarification and expansion of those ideas and practices that contribute to social ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Takis Fotopoulos[1]
    Social Ecology, Eco- Communitarianism and Inclusive Democracy Takis Fotopoulos[1] Social Ecology and Inclusive Democracy John Clark’s critique of the politics of social ecology has no direct bearing on the Inclusive Democracy project ―only to the extent that the latter constitutes a synthesis of, among other traditions, some elements of libertarian municipalism. Readers of this journal are, anyway, well aware of the fact that the project of inclusive democracy represents a synthesis as well as a transcendence of the two major historical traditions, the socialist and the democratic ones, as well as of the radical currents in the new social movements (the open in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com feminist and particularly the ecological, of which social ecology is the most important radical component). Therefore, John Clark’s exclusive reliance on Murray Bookchin’s work on democracy in order to carry out an outright attack against direct democracy, ignoring, in the process, the work of Castoriadis and of this journal on the matter, seems —superficially at least— to be bizarre. However, this significant omission could easily be explained if one notes that what is from Clark’s viewpoint ‘one of the greatest strengths of Bookchin's politics’, is also, from a democratic perspective, the greatest weakness of this politics. Thus, according to Clark: One of the greatest strengths of Bookchin's politics is its grounding in ethics and the philosophy of nature (...) For Bookchin, politics is ultimately grounded in the process of evolutionary unfolding and self- realisation that has been taking place over the natural and social history of this planet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eco-Feminist Connection
    DISCUSSION PAPERS Deeper than Deep Ecology: The Eco-Feminist Connection Ariel Kay Salleh* I offer a feminist critique of deep ecology as presented in the seminal papers of Naess and Devall. I outline the fundamental premises involved and analyze their internal coherence. Not only are there problems on logical grounds, but the tacit methodological approach of the two papers are inconsistent with the deep ecologists' own substantive comments. I discuss these shortcomings in terms of a broader feminist critique of patriarchal culture and point out some practical and theoretical contributions which eco-feminism can make to a genuinely deep ecology problematic. ... beyond that perception of otherness lies the perceptioll ofpysche, polity and cosmos, as metaphors of one another. ... lohn Rodman I In what sense is eco-feminism "deeper than deep ecology"? Or is this a facile and arrogant claim? To try to answer this question is to engage in a critique of a critique, for deep ecology itself is already an attempt to transcend the shortsighted instrumental pragmatism of the resource-management approach to the environ­ mental crisis. It argues for a new n1etaphysics and an ethic based on the recognition of the intrinsic worth of the nonhuman world. It abandons the hardheaded scien­ tific approach to reality in favor of a more spiritual consciousness. It asks for voluntary simplicity in living and a nonexploitive steady-state economy. The appropriateness of these attitudes as expressed in Naess' and Devall's seminal papers on the deep ecology movement is indisputable. 2 But what is the organic basis of this paradigm shift? Where are Naess and Devall "coming from," as they say? Is deep ecology a sociologically coherent position? * P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: for the END IS a LIMIT
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: FOR THE END IS A LIMIT: THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENT Ozguc Orhan, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Dissertation Directed By: Professor Charles E. Butterworth Department of Government and Politics Professor Ken Conca Department of Government and Politics This dissertation argues that Aristotle’s philosophy of praxis (i.e., ethics and politics) can contribute to our understanding of the contemporary question concerning the environment. Thinking seriously about the environment today calls for resisting the temptation to jump to conclusions about Aristotle’s irrelevance to the environment on historicist grounds of incommensurability or the fact that Aristotle did not write specifically on environmental issues as we know them. It is true that environmental problems are basically twentieth-century phenomena, but the larger normative discourses in which the terms “environmental” and “ecological” and their cognates are situated should be approached philosophically, namely, as cross-cultural and trans-historical phenomena that touch human experience at a deeper level. The philosophical perspective exploring the discursive meaning behind contemporary environmental praxis can reveal to us that certain aspects of Aristotle’s thought are relevant, or can be adapted, to the ends of environmentalists concerned with developmental problems. I argue that Aristotle’s views are already accepted and adopted in political theory and the praxis of the environment in many respects. In the first half of the dissertation, I
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Cascadia
    Imagining Cascadia: Bioregionalism as Environmental Culture in the Pacific Northwest Ingeborg Husbyn Aarsand A thesis presented to The Department of Literature, Area Studies, and European Languages North American Area Studies Faculty of Humanities Advisor: Mark Luccarelli In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Fall 2013 Author: Ingeborg Husbyn Aarsand Title: Imagining Cascadia: Bioregionalism as Environmental Culture in the Pacific Northwest 2013 http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo II Abstract This thesis discusses the usefulness of the concept of bioregionalism as a social and cultural environmental practice, and as a response to the environmental crisis of our time. The thesis addresses an important issue in environmental discourse by considering whether bioregionalism’s place-based approach with its ethic of “reinhabitation” could challenge mainstream environmentalism. The thesis raises a critique of today’s professionalized and technocratic environmental movement. This thesis will argue that bioregional thinking evokes agrarianism and is indeed useful, because it can offer a “practical utopian” answer to the current environmental catastrophe. It is pragmatic, regionally specific, and reinforces the concept of place as central to the environmental discourse and debate. Ecological utopias have a role to play in environmental thinking because of their transformational power and pragmatic aspects. This thesis will show how the imagined bioregion of “Cascadia” is being constituted in different cultural representations of place, such as narratives about imagined places in music, film, and literature, and how this in turn is “placemaking.” This thesis argues that cultural representations of “place,” such as narratives about imagined recovery of places, can bring about both desperately needed inspiration for us humans to find local solutions to a global environmental crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • From Deep Ecology to the Blue Economy 2011
    The Blue Economy From Deep Ecology to The Blue Economy A review of the main concepts related to environmental, social and ethical business that contributed to the creation of The Blue Economy written by Gunter Pauli February 2011 based on an original article written by the same author in 1999 © 2011, Gunter Pauli If I can see beyond the green economy today, It is thanks to the giants on whose shoulders I stand Environmental deterioration and the imbalance between man and nature increasingly preoccupy scholars, philosophers, businessmen and policy makers alike. The disparity between rich and poor and the continuous incapacity to respond to the basic needs of all (not only humans) preoccupies many. It seems that the only sustainable phenomena of our modern time is the loss of biodiversity and our incapacity to eliminate poverty. Even though we all look reality in the eye, we seem to lack the vision and the tools to make a difference and steer our excessive consumption society in general and our competitive business world towards sustainability. Our media continue to report on the loss of forest cover, biodiversity, and human dignity. My concern has always been: in spite of the statistics showing the downward trends, what can I do to make a material difference on the ground. Since the 1950s we have seen a series of ideas and conceptual frameworks that have emerged from studies that illustrate the disconnect between our exploitative culture and the Earth's limited resources. This document attempts to summarize the most important persons and organizations whose work has greatly influenced my present thinking on business, environment, social development and ethics.
    [Show full text]