What is ecological man?

Answer 1

One point that seems to be missed in the dialog about the environment is the lack of ecological thinking involved. Some of the words are there, but the underlying basis seems to be missing. A large part, if not all of our environmental difficulties stem from never having really learned to deal with the urbanization of the past few millenia and the gradual spread of decent hygiene and nutrition. The combination of these has led to localized pollution so bad that the ecology of the planet cannot properly deal with it, and the massive growth in human population that is the real root of any overall ecological difficulties. The sad thing is that the current crop of greens and the vast majority of the population have essentially the same world view. Both view man as an alien entity that has been plonked down on the planet as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the the web of life on this planet. The greens appear to view us as a cancer, capable of nothing but destruction. In reading the rhetoric I get the feeling they feel that we are a stain on the planet that should have been extinguished before we started. There is a strong element of self hate in anyone who thinks that by our very existence we cause damage to the world around us, while at the same time feeling that something like a beaver dam, with all the destruction it can create on the surrounding environment, is okay. While I was growing up major issues were air and water pollution. While these have not been totally overcome, both the air and water are much better in the US than they were then. So. the environmental movement moved on. Now the issue of the day is global warming. Carbon dioxide has become the pollutant of choice to talk about. Any realistic way to decrease the release of carbon dioxide is almost reflexively shot down. Windmills? They kill birds and they're ugly. Solar power? Cradle to grave too polluting and inefficient. Nuclear? Horrors! Horrors! Dams? They're an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Alcohol? The only easy way to make it right now is from foodstuffs such as corn and sugarcane. Diverting these to fuel will increase food prices which will lead to more hunger and starvation in poorer parts of the world, as well as such practices as slash and burn farming, which has had such negative results in places like Brazil and Southeast Asia. Look in the news and you see the result. What are we left with? Just stop burning fossil fuel. Society worldwide is dependent on fossil fuels, so just to stop using them is tantamount to condemning a large part of the population to even deeper poverty and in many cases, death. The view of the non-greens is that the world is here for our manipulation, our comfort, and our service. Any fouling of our own nests that we cause through our technology is amenable to further application of technology. This is a recipe for a Rube Goldberg socio-economic machine that becomes either increasingly fragile or increasingly rigid as further changes in the way we use technology have to be integrated into prior usage. Wouldn't it make more sense to view ourselves as a natural part of the world? We are not an afterthought. We are not an alien injection. The world isn't here purely for our comfort and manipulation. We are not the kings of all we survey, but an integral part of the planet in which we live. As with all other creatures, by our very existence we change the web of existence and adapt to the changes in the web that are caused by the other creatures within it as well as the physical being of the planet itself. In all the talk of our effect on the environment there is an underlying pride, vanity and hubris which must be laid aside if we are to continue to prosper in this world which we have created, and which shapes us. The fear mongers are just that. It may not be totally impossible for us to destroy the planet for life, but we do have the capacity to change it greatly. In doing so we will make it less fit for our own existence and we will pay the consequences. The most important thing we can do is learn to deal with the improvements in hygiene and nutrition we have experienced. These have led to the large and growing population that currently exists. If we do not learn to slow it, it will be slowed for us. The four horsemen are always waiting in the wings. One point that seems to be missed in the dialog about the environment is the lack of ecological thinking involved. Some of the words are there, but the underlying basis seems to be missing. A large part, if not all of our environmental difficulties stem from never having really learned to deal with the urbanization of the past few millenia and the gradual spread of decent hygiene and nutrition. The combination of these has led to localized pollution so bad that the ecology of the planet cannot properly deal with it, and the massive growth in human population that is the real root of any overall ecological difficulties. The sad thing is that the current crop of greens and the vast majority of the population have essentially the same world view. Both view man as an alien entity that has been plonked down on the planet as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the the web of life on this planet. The greens appear to view us as a cancer, capable of nothing but destruction. In reading the rhetoric I get the feeling they feel that we are a stain on the planet that should have been extinguished before we started. There is a strong element of self hate in anyone who thinks that by our very existence we cause damage to the world around us, while at the same time feeling that something like a beaver dam, with all the destruction it can create on the surrounding environment, is okay. While I was growing up major issues were air and water pollution. While these have not been totally overcome, both the air and water are much better in the US than they were then. So. the environmental movement moved on. Now the issue of the day is global warming. Carbon dioxide has become the pollutant of choice to talk about. Any realistic way to decrease the release of carbon dioxide is almost reflexively shot down. Windmills? They kill birds and they're ugly. Solar power? Cradle to grave too polluting and inefficient. Nuclear? Horrors! Horrors! Dams? They're an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Alcohol? The only easy way to make it right now is from foodstuffs such as corn and sugarcane. Diverting these to fuel will increase food prices which will lead to more hunger and starvation in poorer parts of the world, as well as such practices as slash and burn farming, which has had such negative results in places like Brazil and Southeast Asia. Look in the news and you see the result. What are we left with? Just stop burning fossil fuel. Society worldwide is dependent on fossil fuels, so just to stop using them is tantamount to condemning a large part of the population to even deeper poverty and in many cases, death. The view of the non-greens is that the world is here for our manipulation, our comfort, and our service. Any fouling of our own nests that we cause through our technology is amenable to further application of technology. This is a recipe for a Rube Goldberg socio-economic machine that becomes either increasingly fragile or increasingly rigid as further changes in the way we use technology have to be integrated into prior usage. Wouldn't it make more sense to view ourselves as a natural part of the world? We are not an afterthought. We are not an alien injection. The world isn't here purely for our comfort and manipulation. We are not the kings of all we survey, but an integral part of the planet in which we live. As with all other creatures, by our very existence we change the web of existence and adapt to the changes in the web that are caused by the other creatures within it as well as the physical being of the planet itself. In all the talk of our effect on the environment there is an underlying pride, vanity and hubris which must be laid aside if we are to continue to prosper in this world which we have created, and which shapes us. The fear mongers are just that. It may not be totally impossible for us to destroy the planet for life, but we do have the capacity to change it greatly. In doing so we will make it less fit for our own existence and we will pay the consequences. The most important thing we can do is learn to deal with the improvements in hygiene and nutrition we have experienced. These have led to the large and growing population that currently exists. If we do not learn to slow it, it will be slowed for us. The four horsemen are always waiting in the wings.

Answer 2

"Ecological man" refers to a person who is conscious of their impact on the environment and strives to live in harmony with nature. This includes making sustainable choices, supporting conservation efforts, and advocating for the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.