Environmental philosophy after the end of nature
- Environmental philosophy after the end of nature
- “Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002).
- Environmental Ethics
- DATE ISSUED:
- PERMANENT LINK:
- http://hdl.handle.net/2374.DEN/5012; http://hdl.handle.net/2374
Full metadata record
|dc.identifier.citation||“Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002).||en_US|
|dc.description||I call for "postnaturalism" in environmental philosophy-for an environmental philosophy that no longer employs the concept of nature. First, the term is too ambiguous and philosophically dangerous and, second, McKibben and others who argue that nature has already ended are probably right-except that perhaps nature has always already ended. Poststructuralism, environmental history, and recent science studies all point in the same direction: the world we inhabit is always already one transformed by human practices. Environmental questions are social and political ones, to be answered by us and not by nature. Many will worry that this conclusion leads to environmentally pernicious consequences, and to problems of relativism and idealism, but I argue that it does not. Practices are real, not ideal, and not all practices are equal: those that acknowledge human responsibility for transforming the world are preferable to those that don't. Environmental harm results when we do not recognize our own responsibility for the world our practices create.||en_US|
|dc.title||Environmental philosophy after the end of nature||en_US|
|dc.contributor.repository||Denison Resource Commons||en_US|
All Items in The Five Colleges of Ohio Digital Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.