“Does it matter that we are increasingly separated from the conditions of nature?” (Orr 187).
 |
| "Artificial Connection to Nature" https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZhzuxUiU3yamQAMHOIZICJhnOKTntsAIoYDr2QbT8o7RhUUj92qAsFr2rKqPwbT1ZWRDEI5v_oBwG82SyyFAMUZMtsIO64cWS26LV0xjLhDGVQemT-TcXJ2Drl1NZphP3v5uNdIwRi7eE/s1600/nature.jpg |
I believe this is a question that every human confronts living in a modern, globalized world. So, does it matter? If I am to answer this question honestly I must say I see both sides of the argument. Nature matters and conservation efforts are both beneficial and necessary, yet, we live in a world where technology is omnipresent and engrained in nearly every aspect of our lives. For those like myself who grew up in an urban environment, a balance between biophobia and biophilia seems like the ideal goal. This would place me along the middle of the continuum and far from either extreme. I would like to live in a world where I can take advantage of technological advancement and globalization while making an effort to be ecologically conscious.
“We, in contrast, must choose between biophobia and biophilia because science and technology have given us the power to destroy so completely as well as the knowledge to understand the consequences of doing so” (Orr 188).
 |
| "We all in this together" https://brigitree.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/grandma-to-child.jpg?w=490 |
I agree with David Orr’s argument that tribal cultures were more ecologically innocent, partly due to simple and limited technologies. The technologies we currently possess are analogous to a double-edged sword. Mankind’s understanding of the science of nature has greatly increased and with this knowledge has come a greater ability to alter or destroy it. Once again I feel caught within an argument of polar extremes and ask myself can humanity exist in synchrony with nature? Call it idealism but I believe it is possible. An increase in knowledge should lead to a greater sense of ecological responsibility with the development of technologies that benefit or do not harm the natural environment.
“Is mass biophobia a kind of collective madness? In time I think we will come to know that it is” (Orr 192).
 |
| https://3sirving.wikispaces.com/file/view/recycle-hands-300x300.jpg/464159214/recycle-hands-300x300.jpg |
David Orr argument against biophobia is unyielding and strong. His comparison of biophobia to a sociopathy of the masses seems like an extreme argument. I find his description of environmental “free riders” to be interesting and I can’t help but ponder the extent of lack of individual contribution and its ramifications. I live in a gated community where on Tuesdays I see my neighbors line up their normal waste and recycling and I wonder if all my neighbors choose to recycle. I realize that recycling is trivial in comparison to Orr’s argument, which extends far beyond the simple act of recycling into the fabrics of our modern society. In fact, if I were to analyze most of my surrounding I have no doubt Orr would place me amongst the biophobic’s. Nonetheless, I believe in the need for balance and feel humans have a moral obligation to care for the environment. I believe knowledge is a powerful tool that can be used to create a society that is more ecologically aware so that a modified, biophobic environment is not our sole reality.
