REPORT of the MEETING OF THE TRIGLAV CIRCLE and Triglav Circle Europe
14-15 June 2014 in the EcoHotelL’Aubier,
Les Murailles 5, 2037 MontézillonNeuchatelSwitzerland
14-15 JUNE 2014:
THE ROLE OF “NATURE” IN THE POLITICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Triglav Circle seeks to promote an approach to international relations and
public policy grounded in moral and spiritual values. It aspires to enrich the discourse on global problems with the accumulated knowledge of
scientists, philosophers, artists, religious thinkers and academics.
The Circle pursues its objectives not only through regular dialogues, edifying conversations, and in-depth research, but also through its relationship with the United Nations, its cooperation with similarly motivated organizations, and the work of individual members in their respective spheres of action.
BACKGROUND
Since the 1960’s, the environment has been a prominent object of public concern as well as of national and international studies, conferences and actions. Stirred by numerous accounts of diminishing natural resources, ubiquitous pollution and massive over exploitation of wildlife and wild places, many individuals, private and public organizations and the international community as a whole have explored options for dealing with these problems. A number of initiatives have crystallised into international norms and conventions, some of which are better observed than others. Several remain the object of lively international discussion. The focus for continued discussion is the human environment concomitant with sustainable development and a green economy. The subject side-lined in all of this action appears to be ‘Nature’ itself.
In the fall of 2011, the Circle shifted the focus of its work from the relations of peoples with each other to the relations of humankind with Nature. The Circle held meetings at Saint Anselm College, New-Hampshire, (October 2011) and in Vaux Switzerland (July 2012) on this topic. The Circle was also involved in the preparation of “Rio plus 20,” the United Nations World Conference on Environment and Development held twenty years after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. Specifically, the Circle made a number of significant contributions – including a written statement with individual addenda from several of its members – on different aspects of the concept. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/636triglav%20circle2.pdf. In fact this contribution was the leading contribution on the subject of “Harmony with Nature” for the Zero draft prepared as a starting point for the Rio + 20 Declaration. Subsequently, the members of the Circle have been by participating in the initiatives of the UN General Assembly’s Interactive Dialogues on Harmony with Nature and working closely with the UN Secretariat on matters relating to its harmony with nature projects. Friends of the Circle and a member of the Circle have been on panels of the Dialogues in 2012 and 2014. See the website www.harmonywithnatureun.org. Barbara Baudot’s paper “Nature the Lost Sheep in the Politics of Environment” was heavily cited in the 2013 Secretary General’s Report to the GA on Harmony with Nature. [A/68/325, Corrigendum 1], and her article “Approaching Harmony with Nature” was published in the Rio+20 commemorative book Future Perfect.
The UN’s work on the concept of ‘nature’ as distinct from the ‘environment’ began as an initiative of the IUCN. The outcome, the World Charter for Nature, was introduced to the GA and adopted in 1982. It was ignored in subsequent world conferences on “environment and development” only to resurface again in 2005, when the UN General Assembly declared the year 2008 the International Year of Planet Earth. In 2009, the UNGA passed a resolution declaring that henceforth, the 22ndof April 22ndwould be celebrated as Mother Earth Day. Annual reports of the Secretary General to the General Assembly on “Harmony with Nature” have appeared since 2011. Subsequently, each year UNGA resolutions on “Harmony with Nature”have been passed convoking Interactive Dialogues on “harmony with nature” to take place on Mother Earth Day, 22 April.
Today the situation is this: “Harmony with Nature” is on the GA annual agenda as a sub-item of the agenda item “Sustainable development.” This item includes all issues pertaining to the ‘environment.’ The topic “Harmony with Nature” is promoted primarily by developing countries, in particular those with significant “indigenous” populations, and usually with some verbal support from the EU, Nordic countries and Japan. This subject is enthusiastically promoted by a number of NGO’s, some of which actively support of the “Rights of Nature” movement.
Nevertheless, ‘nature’ as a concept and a subject remains marginal in the initiatives of the United Nations. From the Stockholm Declaration adopted in 1972 to the latest report of “Rio plus 20” Conference in 2012, it is humankind’s environment that is the focus of concern, the term “nature” appears in no more than a few sub clauses in any of the documents and declarations adopted by the world environment conferences. Yet, the choice of concepts has strong philosophical implications and serious political connotations. Many questions arise: Why environment in counter distinction to nature? What is the significance and what are the consequences of the shift in terminology since the 1960’s? How would reintroducing natureas a key consideration in public policy considerations change the outcome for the integrity of life on the planet?
The Circle took seriously the observation that aside from the adoption of the World Charter for Nature in 1982, there has been little use of the term natureor attention given to ‘nature’ as a matter of concern. Some participants noted that for most people there is an obvious answer: Environmentis a synonym for nature, and much easier to deal with politically give its social scientific and a physical scientific connotation than the idea of natureitself. Yet is this identification of nature with the environment such a simple matter? Or has key knowledge been excluded from the political discourse by the morphing of nature into environmentand redressing of it as a number of discreet scientific parts with socio-economic tradeoffs: ecosystems, biosphere, andbiodiversity? Wouldnot dealing with concept of natureimplyingaholistic approach to the present biospherecrisis, enlarge the spectrum of policy optionshowever; also complicate further the discovery of solutions to the current crisis?Considerable attention was given to this subject.
Nature—why is the concept ‘nature’ absent in the terminology of contemporary environmentalpolitics and political economy?
Philippe Roch inspired this discussion.[See his attached notes in French.] The following paragraphs contain an English translation of his remarks interwoven with relevant statements interjected in his presentation.
There is no place for ‘nature’ in politics today: the last vestiges were seen in the early 1980’s. One explanation lies in the modern idea that nature is a construct of humankind, which sees itself as the deus ex machinain control of that construct. To consider humankind as part of this ‘humanly orchestrated nature’ is to justify any human activities including those that would destroy Nature, for example;by the careless building of auto-routes, large scale constructions, clear cutting the land, widespread use of chemicals, genetic modifications, and theprolific development of nuclear power projects.Mesmerized by science and technology and their subsequent inventions and innovations, humanity is building the future on these sources of knowledge and activities with no notice that in so doing they are shriveling their view the world into anarrow technocratic visualization.The price being paid is a generalized loss of soul and sensitivity to beauty— in short a disenchanted vision of life fixated on the vulgarization of production and consumption.
This narrow technocratic conception of the world has become increasingly evident in the evolution of the language referencing nature— from ‘nature’ in the 1950’s, to environment in 1972, to sustainable development in 1992, and presently to green growth and economy (2012). At the same time nature has been disaggregatedinto discrete scientific area of concern i.e. biodiversity, ecology, ecosystem, biosphere.
It is clear, however, that the relationship between humans and naturevary according to cultures and that in some parts of the world strong connections remain between people and nature. Philippe Descola, a French anthropologist,classified thediverse types of relations between human beings and nature corresponding to deeply held cultural beliefs: including animism, totemism, analogism, and modern naturalism, which together account for all ways peoples relate to nature as juxtaposed to seeing a simple dichotomy between human-beings, their culture, and environmenton the one hand, and nature on the other hand.[1]
In his artwork and writings, Naturaliste and philosopher, Paul Hainard, [1906-1999] states that in thinking about Natureit is necessary to make a distinction between nature as a human construct and Natureas an entity in and of itself. He refers to the later as «wild nature» i.e. independent of human transformation.In acknowledging this distinction, he adds that when some part of Nature, such as a forest is destroyed, a part of the infinitude[of wild nature] from which life emerges is lost.
Moreover,Hainard believes that nature must be cultivated in us. Doing this means seeingthe original or primitive human being in ourselves in the manner of Rousseau and Jung. In this way we come closerto rediscovering respect for‘wild nature’ and the spontaneity of thought responding to her. We are whole only by and in Nature. We are not separated from this unlimited sublimity but are in continuous exchange with it. Hainard writes:
« …entangled in many abstractions, we are hypnotized by the large number of technologies that we have invented or discovered, which offer small insight into ourselves. Thus it is too easy to forget our carnal heritage anchored in a matrix of sensations and many formswhich transcend our flesh. Our bodies are constructed by a number of interactions between constituents, sounds and forms of earthly life; our eyes have evolved through the subtle interactions with other eyes; likewise our ears, by their very structures are in harmony with the howling of the wolves and the honking of geese. Closing off ourselves from these other voices, by continuing with our modern way of life that is condemning these other existentsensations and sensibilities to extinction is to divest our own senses of their full integrity and our spirit of its coherence. We are human through our benevolent contact with those beings which are not human ». [2][translated into English by Barbara Baudot, see the original French version below.]
Politics
Politics and institutions reflect the prevailing cultural trends and values that give them life. Sadly for many naturalists, philosophers and poets, modern culture is empty, in large measure having attributes that are mechanistic, technocratic, consumerist, and reductionist;even the arts often reflect this reductionism and superficiality. Given this situation it is highly unlikely that our political institutions could promote new ways of doing the things necessary to prevent the ultimate destruction of the world’s natural heritage. (Roch, continued)
What to do? The participants largely agreed that action has to begin at the local level and by individuals. There are a number of actions that individuals can take. For exampleRoch proposed the following and some other participants added thereto:
1. Think about nature.
It is important to nourish one’s thoughts about ‘wild nature’ and thereby also to discover new philosophical ideas, perspectives and values. To think, to speak, to write, to take strong positions in the defense of ‘wild nature’ are strong levers by which to counter the mesmeric messages that flood the social media encouraging excessive materialism and consumerism as goals of modern living in urban society. Jean Jacques Rousseau integrated nature in his philosophy. Leopold Aldo held that decision that reduces bio-diversity is a bad thing. There is a long line ofother exemplary thinkers, who have called upon society to appreciate the values of Nature : Giordano Bruno, François d’Assises, Gilbert White, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Michel Servet, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carlson, Arne Naess, Robert Hainard, Pierre Rabhi are just a few such people.
2. Teach about nature
Knowledge of ‘wild nature,’of its infinite diversity, its cycles, and the interdependence of all its living and non-living elements is indispensable for the development of a new consciousness necessary to
pierce through the mesmeric fog of the scientific reductionism beclouding modern society.For this reason school curricula should consecrate space for study of ‘wild nature.’ The establishment of nature centers should be promoted for children and the general public.
Wherever we are we can begin with what is available to usand not neglect the importance of a single opportunity to promote knowledge of nature. In the city for example, drawing attention to the phenomenon of a tree can change lives.
An example of holistic thinking is given by Philippe Roch in Les cinq dimensions de l’arbre(The five dimensions of a tree):
The economic tree– the production of wood, fruits, medicine, rubber, turpentine and other products of the forest
The ecological tree– soil protection and humus production, purification of air, water cycle: capture, filtration, storage and distribution, carbon sink and climate protection, matter and life cycle, biodiversity
The emotional tree– the beauty, feeling, energy, and protection of a tree
The philosophical tree– biochemical unity (atoms, molecules, cells), symbolic tree (René Guénon), alchemy, the archetype (CG Jung), the link between earth and sky, the ax of life
The spiritual tree– place of meditation, cosmic dimension, energy, breath, links, spiritual unity: nature is matter and spirit, we grasp that matter and meditation allows us to live the totality of being, to access the spiritual dimension
3. Live in and with nature.
Immersing oneself in wild nature, one allows oneselfto experience‘harmony with nature,’ emotionally through appreciation of its beauty and sublimity and spiritually in perceiving its infinity. We must ‘live’ Nature as an integrated whole in the totality of our Personhood.
Even modest experiences deeply lived with wild nature by thousands of individuals can be transformative. Then when a society, overwhelmed by materialism and consumerism implodes in chaos, conflict, and violence as the Roman Empire did, society will have a foundation on which to build a new society with nature’s help, even though it may take years to do so.
4. Modes de vie
The way of life of modern society is unsustainable and society is incapable of taking it in a less reductionist and materialist direction.
Only new ways of living in consonance with the rhythms of nature can give the impulses necessary to change social values, and build happiness based on respect for the Other, joy, the idea of sharing, and finally Love in the largest sense of the word [agape]. Society must replace the quantitative measures of progress based on GDP by a series of qualitative criteria including national happiness and various indicators of improved quality of life to be gained byadvancing the art of living in communion with the spirit of nature.
The arts of living need to be improved. Nature needs to be experienced, physically as well as mentally. Spirituality and philosophy should be used as sources of inspiration. Physical activities like yoga, meditation, outdoor activities and farming should be encouraged to form a closer bond to nature.
This is being done today by individuals who have separated themselves fromthe society of the materially obsessed, as did monks hibernating in monasteries in the middle ages. It was those enlightened monks who brought about a new civilization on the ruins of the past. Living on modest farms can be the beginnings of social transformation. Some examples are those self-sufficient agricultural communities such as those of the Longo Mai; or those adherents of anthroposophy who practice bio dynamic agriculture in closed farming cooperatives, or those communities who practice solidarity in many quarters and experience different modesof modest and communal ways of living. All of these movements may not be destined to survive and some of them may even be undesirable for society, but therein one can find ‘points of light’ for a new civilization in harmony with nature.
General discussion
Movements such as Occupy Wall Street do not seek this new society, as they are pursuing larger shares of the modern economic pie and better social circumstances. With the exception of a few dedicated organic farmers and ecologists, few participants in this movement were concerned with nature and the environment. Politicians even those in Switzerland are allowing less protection for the forests and the natural environment even though the voters are seeking these protections. Today’s political discussion is focused on expanding the economy, bringing in more revenue, and promoting more consumption to support the economy.
The role of Christianity in saving nature is ambiguous at best. There is confusion here between creation and nature. The Christianity is linked with the development of the western world and civilization which has been favored by the destruction of large swaths of nature. Nature has predominately instrumental value in the Christian tradition. From early on in modern history, in their quest to civilize Latin America, priests from the western world, haveendeavored to demolishthe nature related cultures that once dominated these cultures. This phenomenon is still going on.
The biblical texts recognizing the sublimity and sacredness of nature are largely found in the old testament of the Bible and are most prominent in the poetry of the Psalms.
Does it matter for the relevance and efficiency of environmental policies that “Nature” is seemingly absent from the public discourse?
What would be the characteristics of a “holistic” approach to human affairs, and in particular to the relations between Man and Nature?
What is the theoretical basis and the practical value of the “holistic” approach to sustainable development as advocated by the UN?
A green economy?
Stryker encourages ‘soft footprint’ modern technology, making use of the digital age. In his perspective, the problem lies in employing people in a growing world population. He sees potential for employment in this digital age and is convinced that green economy and economic growth are not inconsistent. Stryker’s ideas were to “combine external technology and technical services with local entrepreneurship, keeping technology as simple as possible; also selling products in small units for cash, focusing on private profitability”. He encourages creating industries in rural areas to keep people from crowding into cities where they get cut off from nature. There needs to be a different model, not depending on urbanization. The service sector is becoming increasingly important. This can stimulate local entrepreneurship, creating shared values across smaller communities via internet and media. Local decision making can decrease the carbon footprint while the economy is still supported.
In the opinion of others, nature can never become an important value if human kind’s greatest concern is employment. Employment classifies humans, making the higher status in society the priority. Social status seems to occupy the current mind set. Employment, however, is not the solution, but a fair share of the fruits of creation. Running an economy does not necessarily mean selling products. How then, can a fair share produced by economy be arranged?
Values in decision making
In global governmental debates, the “assumption of (desirability of) homogeneity between nations and cultures” influences decision making (Smith). Moving towards uniformity is a deceptive progression ignoring the differences between cultures and traditions, inner values and interests. These are “absent from this debate, partly because they are deemed irrelevant … and partly because they do not see their relevance to these kinds of decision” (Smith). Values inspired by the arts, sports, philosophy, religion, etc. need to be taken in account and included in intergovernmental decision making, because these are “forces thatactually shape culture … and therefore behaviour” (Smith). This becomes a problem when values are driven by wrong things; for example the Olympics or FIFA where fair play has been lost in corruption.
Governments follow the trend of civilization, and decisions are made in the public domain. Culture and popular values are the driving factors for politics. Therefore, the problem originates where our interests lie. In the past, every great thinker was also a poet, philosopher, scientist and artist. Today everything needs to be academic, professional and specialized.If one has no academic degree to prove that their knowledge is sincere, one is not eligible to speak in court. That is the monopoly of scientific knowledge. Indigenous knowledge has therefore no acknowledgment in politics. The only way to great decision making, however, is to take all values in account. Because education today is essential and follows a strict path, allows no open-mindedness and ever less creativity, it becomes more difficult for people to obtain an own experience, being led by inspiration, and explore the artistic side in themselves. How does one remind people of their sovereign values, their uniqueness?
Nature needs to be preserved for its own sake, solely for the purpose of its presence. This idea can be realized by making it a shared value among people. In small and homogeneous communities values are more likely mutual; decision making becomes a simpler process, and the consciousness of collateral effects is greater. As a larger community, however, humanity has failed in many ways. Examples for this are the world wars in the past and the growing inequality we can witness in many developed countries. As a species inhabiting this planet, we have also failed to protect the natural, rudimentary environment we have lived in for over 10.000 years; global climate change will change this environment tremendously. We can learn more natural ways of living from the population on the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. These are the small communities below the poverty line in developing countries. Due to lack of access to electricity, undeveloped infrastructure, low levels of technology, and lack of clean water, energy is used efficiently and means of transport are found in animal or human power. People depend more on what nature offers them.
A loving attitude is required to change this world; an attitude that accepts and acknowledges the differences in cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, and language. Nature adapts itself to its environment, varies from place to place; so has humanity also adapted itself to different environments and developed languages to cope in their communities. People know their local environment, themselves and each other. In a community, one stands up for another. Decisions are made as near as possible to the problem. This close-to-citizen approach assures better problem solving because the intrinsic values and the prosperity of the community are in each other’s interest. The familiarity of knowing your environment (or community) is expressed in popular wisdom. Conceptions of these environments must not be lost. If decision making needs to take place elsewhere, it is necessary to listen to and understand the affected community.
Spirituality and indigenous knowledge
We often see ourselves separated from the universe; that “the universe is out there and we are here” (Stryker). We forget, however, that we are all part of this entity, in many different ecosystems which cannot be separated as they are all interconnected (Dommen). Arthur Dahl points out again that nature has become distant to human kind; something that we put in reserves to admire or capture and lock up in zoos, gardens or parks. Human kind’s relationship with nature can be seen in the analysis of human kind’s nature. Humans live a physical reality in a material world in which we, like other species, need food and water to survive and shelter for protection (Dahl). We differentiate ourselves from other species because of our rational mind, the intellectuality that lets us reason and understand science (Dahl, Stryker). With knowledge we can ‘overcome’ nature, going beyond the limitations of nature in a sense of using technology (Dahl). Many also believe in a spiritual reality, “rising above the material reality and escaping from it”, and in which the qualities of God are reflected in nature (Dahl). This is often questioned, but taking the religions of indigenous populations as an example, spirituality that appreciates and teaches respect for nature harmonizes and creates an environment in which humans and nature coexist in a symbiotic relationship.
Arthur Dahl focuses especially on the spiritual aspect in human kind’s relationship with nature: “Beyond any particular religious or philosophical context, there are more general spiritual dimensions to our reaction to nature. The greatness, grander, beauty, power, and wonders of nature can invoke in us a sense of humility … If humans have a spiritual reality, then they also have a spiritual purpose, to acquire virtues and attributes of what it is to be really human: love, compassion, forgiveness, trustworthiness, justice, humility, etc. While these are best expressed in human interactions, many can also be fostered by contact with animals and more generally with nature. Respect for all living beings is deeply rooted in most spiritual traditions … This knowledge of nature from spiritual sources is an important complement to scientific sources of knowledge. It is in no way contradictory, but while science tells us what to do with nature, and how to do it to preserve it, the spiritual knowledge tells us why. It provides moral underpinning to the effort to bring nature back into the politics of the environment”.
Dahl describes indigenous knowledge and spirituality as deeply linked with nature. Indigenous populations had no control over nature, but tried to understand and be one with it: “This traditional knowledge from the ancestors contains much that is scientifically valid, based on generations of observations and confirmations (Dahl 1985,1989). It includes both a detailed understanding of natural systems and processes, and practices that ensure the sustainability of natural resources … While the process of the observation of natural phenomena in Kanak society was similar to that of modern science, the intellectual context within which the observations were interpreted was very different. The Kanak did not identify himself as separate from the world around him; on the contrary, he was part of the world and perceived himself by analogy with objects in nature such as the yam, whose cycle symbolized the cycle of life. The ancestors were born from trees, and the body was identified with the vegetable kingdom. The different plants had symbolic meanings that were used as a kind of language. The land was the spiritual as well as material source of life. The habitat was worshipped, and there was no distinction between magic or myth and the natural world. The doctors and healers had their special knowledge of sicknesses, medicines and other treatments. A knowledge or skill was intimately related to the myth or magic with which it was inherited. One missionary describes a skilled sculptor and surgeon whose confidence rested in the gift from his deified ancestors; when he became a Christian, this confidence was destroyed and his skill was lost”.
Values seen in the UN – Jacques Bardot
The purpose, function and role of international politics is the augmentation of general knowledge, diffusion of information and increase in knowledge. International organizations are indispensable. Only the state has the capacity to impose on their cities. Many problems today are global, therefore global organizations are necessary. The UN has been the place where international negotiations take place and also where sustainable development goals (SDGs) are discussed. The official documents still show a negative trend towards biodiversity and climate change. This trend will continue unless policies change. The UN has had good reasons to link the environment with development, because that was the public interest at that time. However, the result turned out negative as a great counter revolution at the end of the 80s evoked neoliberalism and neoconservatism. The UN is no longer considered legitimate to look at situations of world economy or at progress, but is seen as a place to propagate the ideas of development. The UN has a diplomatic culture because that is the professional way to express problems. A diplomat thinks in rational terms and in national interest; global thinking is therefore difficult. Compromising diplomatic culture is not adequate to address urgency in dramatic aspects of the environmental crisis. The diplomatic culture is short term and depends on negotiations. The horizon is the next meeting, therefore change must happen in a short time span. The organization is run by politicians led by the spirit of the time; a debate of change of civilization cannot be counted on because that is against the nature of a diplomatic culture. Raising philosophical questions is seen as inappropriate in the UN. Philosophy and Religion complicate debates and make agreements more difficult. The UN avoids inserting questions of values, nature, and spiritual meaning because it creates a dilemma; in the contradiction to the way the UN has evolved and in the incapacity of transforming the spirit of the time. The indispensability of the UN needs to be overcome. The transformation of society will occur nevertheless.
Conclusion
The fight to save nature has been disheartened, become technical and scientific, serving a professional discipline which misses the point. People actually want to make this world a better place. Conservation programs alone are not sufficient. While funders want to see the immediate outcome of every penny spent, it takes generations over centuries for profound change to occur. Future generations need to become more aware of nature for nature to find a place in people’s inner values.
The future of our society depends on mutual interests, acting on behalf of the community, and taking care of commons. Currently selfishness perseveres; interests lie in one’s own profits. The environment, economy, and the financial system are so disconnected from nature that sustainability is unattainable without the collapse of at least one of them. The assumption that this ignorant, false civilization will go on forever is dubious. As the collapse of the current civilization is inevitable, raising a new generation with the awareness of nature will influence the reconstruction of a new civilization. There is hope in the collapse of the financial system, but the most difficult task is to successfully plant a seed of nature awareness in the new generation. How can the generation that will reconstruct civilization be inspired not to rebuild the former system? What can be the message society will respond to? Individuals will not realize what the benefits are in spending time in nature. There needs to be an awareness of nature greater than the enormous force of massive corporations like Monsanto, BASF, Nestle, etc. We can start by better understanding this crisis on a more individual basis instead of a global one. We are so adhered to the current system because we are afraid of change. In nature, destruction is natural and necessary for continuity. The further we try to stick to a way of living that is destructive to us, our being, and this planet, the more severe the effects of the collapse will be later on. Courage and sacrifice are needed for this world to change.
“Today we need to reverse the steps in our evolving role in nature, in a sense completing the circle to bring wholeness to our approach. Today’s materialists still see their priority as making money by exploiting nature, or what might crudely be called rape and profit. The more highly evolved people of today have become respecters of nature, acknowledging the importance of natural resources and our dependence on them, and admiring the beauties and wonders of nature, but they still have an environmental perspective with nature as something outside of themselves. Only if we can combine a scientific understanding of the complex systems of which we are a part, with an awareness of the significance of our relationship to nature as something integral to our being and essential to our spiritual development, will we finally overcome the damaging misunderstanding of our separation from nature and accept our wholeness which can also become holiness” (Dahl).
Suggestions for future gatherings
Several suggestions were made for the next Triglav Circle meeting. Different perspectives on these issues are needed; all the attendees during this years meeting came from the same cultural background. The perspective of various religions or philosophies would shed different light on the discussions. Also continually different sources of knowledge in the field of science, economy (as the reality of society), psychology, the arts (as the beauty which resonates and makes you feel nature), philosophy (as the symbolic meaning of united living, the meaning of life), and spirituality (for inspirational sources, religious writings) would stimulate next years discussion. Law is vital to decision making and should be incorporated in next year’s gathering. The opinion of environmental lawyers, educators, and youths would be appreciated. We need to deliberate more on ways society needs to be transformed and discuss why politics in industrialized countries have an aversion to the word nature.
References
Baudot, Jacques. Remarques sur les Nations-Unies et l’environnement. 2014.
Collette, Jean Michel. Introduction to Intervention. 2014
Dahl, Arthur. Collection of Ideas on Harmony with Nature for Tour de Table and presentation.2014.
Dommen, Edouard. Mieux vaut se renseigner. 2014.
Roch, Philippe. Les cinq dimensions de l’arbre. 2014.
Smith, Oliver. Value and Values: Triglav Gathering. 2014.
Stryker, J Dirck. What’s happening at the Bottom of the Pyramid. 2014.
SundbergBaudot, Barbara. Nature and the Global Political Culture. 2014.
[1]Philippe Descola has become one of the most important anthropologists working today, and his book Beyond Nature and Culture has been a major influence in European intellectual life since its French publication in 2005. As desbribed in a University of Chicago Press release : «… At its heart is a question central to both anthropology and philosophy: what is the relationship between nature and culture? Culture—as a collective human making, of art, language, and so forth—is often seen as essentially different from nature, which is portrayed as a collective of the nonhuman world, of plants, animals, geology, and natural forces. Descola shows this essential difference to be, however, not only a specifically Western notion, but also a very recent one. Drawing on ethnographic examples from around the world and theoretical understandings from cognitive science, structural analysis, and phenomenology, he formulates a sophisticated new framework, the “four ontologies”— animism, totemism, naturalism, and analogism—to account for all the ways we relate ourselves to nature. By thinking beyond nature and culture as a simple dichotomy, Descola offers nothing short of a fundamental reformulation by which anthropologists and philosopher scan see the world afresh.
[2]« Empêtrée dans une quantité d’abstractions, notre attention est hypnotisée par une foule de technologies façonnées par la main de l’homme qui ne nous offrent jamais qu’un reflet de nous-mêmes; il est donc bien trop facile d’oublier notre héritage charnel ancré dans une matrice de sensations et de sensibilités au-delà de l’humain. Nos corps se sont formés à travers une délicate réciprocité avec les multiples textures, sons et formes d’une Terre animée; nos yeux ont évolué en interaction subtile avec d’autres yeux, comme nos oreilles sont, par leur structure même, en accord avec le hurlement des loups et l’appel des oies. Se fermer à ces autres voix, continuer par notre mode de vie à condamner ces autres sensibilités au néant de l’extinction, c’est dérober à nos propres sens leur intégrité et à notre esprit sa cohérence. Nous ne sommes humains qu’à travers un contact bienveillant avec ce qui n’est pas humain. C’est seulement à travers cette réciprocité avec l’Autre que nous commençons à nous guérir nous-mêmes. »