Steven Vogel
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780262029100
- eISBN:
- 9780262326988
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262029100.001.0001
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Environmental theory would be better off if it eschewed the concept of “nature” entirely. The concept is too ambiguous and potentially politically dangerous, while as McKibben and others have argued, ...
More
Environmental theory would be better off if it eschewed the concept of “nature” entirely. The concept is too ambiguous and potentially politically dangerous, while as McKibben and others have argued, if “nature” means a world independent of human action it may no longer exist – and even if it did that’s not where environmental problems arise. The world that actually “environs” us is always a built one, and is “socially constructed” in the sense that humans literally construct it in their practices. We are not alienated from nature but rather from that (built) environment, in that we do not recognize, or take responsibility for, its builtness. “Thinking like a mall” means recognizing that the distinction between the “natural” and the “artificial” is untenable: artifacts are as material, and so as independent of humans, as anything else. Environmental questions are political questions, about what sort of environment we want to build: “nature” can’t answer them, only those beings capable of engaging in democratic political discourse can. But under capitalism such discourse is virtually impossible, and instead individuals can only engage in private market transactions with each other that when aggregated produce harmful “externalities” that no one intends. This is the source of environmental problems. Only by choosing our practices not as individuals but as democratically a community could such problems be overcome.Less
Environmental theory would be better off if it eschewed the concept of “nature” entirely. The concept is too ambiguous and potentially politically dangerous, while as McKibben and others have argued, if “nature” means a world independent of human action it may no longer exist – and even if it did that’s not where environmental problems arise. The world that actually “environs” us is always a built one, and is “socially constructed” in the sense that humans literally construct it in their practices. We are not alienated from nature but rather from that (built) environment, in that we do not recognize, or take responsibility for, its builtness. “Thinking like a mall” means recognizing that the distinction between the “natural” and the “artificial” is untenable: artifacts are as material, and so as independent of humans, as anything else. Environmental questions are political questions, about what sort of environment we want to build: “nature” can’t answer them, only those beings capable of engaging in democratic political discourse can. But under capitalism such discourse is virtually impossible, and instead individuals can only engage in private market transactions with each other that when aggregated produce harmful “externalities” that no one intends. This is the source of environmental problems. Only by choosing our practices not as individuals but as democratically a community could such problems be overcome.
Steven Vogel
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780262029100
- eISBN:
- 9780262326988
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262029100.003.0001
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Environmentalists are concerned with the protection of nature, but (as has often been noted) nature may already have ended. The “environment” – the world that environs us -- seems to be a built one, ...
More
Environmentalists are concerned with the protection of nature, but (as has often been noted) nature may already have ended. The “environment” – the world that environs us -- seems to be a built one, and environmentalism ought to focus on that. It ought to drop the concept of "nature," both because there may no longer be such a thing (if there ever was), but also because the concept is so ambiguous as to be practically useless. Are humans part of nature or not? If they are, then the built world is natural too, so nature is in no danger. If they're not, how did that happen? Mill pointed out years ago that the word “nature” has at least two meanings, but on neither one does it make sense to talk of human actions as harming nature. The distinction between the natural and the human (or the artificial) does not stand up to analysis: it depends on an unjustified metaphysical dualism that seems at bottom both Cartesian and anthropocentric.Less
Environmentalists are concerned with the protection of nature, but (as has often been noted) nature may already have ended. The “environment” – the world that environs us -- seems to be a built one, and environmentalism ought to focus on that. It ought to drop the concept of "nature," both because there may no longer be such a thing (if there ever was), but also because the concept is so ambiguous as to be practically useless. Are humans part of nature or not? If they are, then the built world is natural too, so nature is in no danger. If they're not, how did that happen? Mill pointed out years ago that the word “nature” has at least two meanings, but on neither one does it make sense to talk of human actions as harming nature. The distinction between the natural and the human (or the artificial) does not stand up to analysis: it depends on an unjustified metaphysical dualism that seems at bottom both Cartesian and anthropocentric.
Steven Vogel
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780262029100
- eISBN:
- 9780262326988
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262029100.003.0004
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Environmental restoration projects have been criticized by some (e.g. Katz) on the grounds that restored environments are no longer “natural,” but are rather anthropocentric “artifacts.” Nature for ...
More
Environmental restoration projects have been criticized by some (e.g. Katz) on the grounds that restored environments are no longer “natural,” but are rather anthropocentric “artifacts.” Nature for Katz is a realm independent of human intention, while artifacts are built for human use and have “no nature of their own.” But the relation between artifacts and intention is more complex than this. A restored landscape can be “wild” in the sense that processes are at work in it that no human planned or even knows about. The latter, further, is true of all artifacts, and of all building. To say humans build the environment is not to say they control it or are reflected in it; it’s still wild. Rather than interpreting nature in terms of difference, as some continental environmental thinkers do, the (materialist) account proposed here sees nature and difference both as moments in practice.Less
Environmental restoration projects have been criticized by some (e.g. Katz) on the grounds that restored environments are no longer “natural,” but are rather anthropocentric “artifacts.” Nature for Katz is a realm independent of human intention, while artifacts are built for human use and have “no nature of their own.” But the relation between artifacts and intention is more complex than this. A restored landscape can be “wild” in the sense that processes are at work in it that no human planned or even knows about. The latter, further, is true of all artifacts, and of all building. To say humans build the environment is not to say they control it or are reflected in it; it’s still wild. Rather than interpreting nature in terms of difference, as some continental environmental thinkers do, the (materialist) account proposed here sees nature and difference both as moments in practice.
Steven Vogel
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780262029100
- eISBN:
- 9780262326988
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262029100.003.0005
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
The sad story is told of the City Center Mall in Columbus, Ohio, which was built in 1989 and was highly successful for more than a decade but then lost favor with the public, failed, and was ...
More
The sad story is told of the City Center Mall in Columbus, Ohio, which was built in 1989 and was highly successful for more than a decade but then lost favor with the public, failed, and was demolished. Leopold said we should learn to think like a mountain, but thinking like a mall raises the question of why mountains or wolves seem morally considerable while buildings don’t. The mall had a life story, had goals, depended on natural forces for its existence, had a “good of its own.” It was independent of human intention – shown above all by the fact that it failed, which was surely not its builders’ intention. Environmental philosophers give too little respect to artifacts, whose very existence undercuts the distinction between humans and “nature.” We should acknowledge the artifactuality of the environment and our responsibility (causal and moral) for it, instead of calling it nature.Less
The sad story is told of the City Center Mall in Columbus, Ohio, which was built in 1989 and was highly successful for more than a decade but then lost favor with the public, failed, and was demolished. Leopold said we should learn to think like a mountain, but thinking like a mall raises the question of why mountains or wolves seem morally considerable while buildings don’t. The mall had a life story, had goals, depended on natural forces for its existence, had a “good of its own.” It was independent of human intention – shown above all by the fact that it failed, which was surely not its builders’ intention. Environmental philosophers give too little respect to artifacts, whose very existence undercuts the distinction between humans and “nature.” We should acknowledge the artifactuality of the environment and our responsibility (causal and moral) for it, instead of calling it nature.