Environmental philosophy after the end of nature

Title:
Environmental philosophy after the end of nature
Authors:
Vogel, Steven
Citation:
“Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002).
Publisher:
Environmental Ethics
DATE ISSUED:
2002
PERMANENT LINK:
http://hdl.handle.net/2374.DEN/5012; http://hdl.handle.net/2374
Type:
Article
Language:
en_US
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.
ISSN:
01634275
Appears in Collections:
Faculty Publications

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVogel, Stevenen
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-02T16:51:27Zen
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-18T21:05:42Z-
dc.date.available2013-01-02T16:51:27Zen
dc.date.available2013-12-18T21:05:42Z-
dc.date.created2002en
dc.date.issued2002en
dc.identifier.citation“Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002).en_US
dc.identifier.issn01634275en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2374.DEN/5012en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2374-
dc.descriptionI 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.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEnvironmental Ethicsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofFaculty Publicationsen_US
dc.titleEnvironmental philosophy after the end of natureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.institutionDenison Universityen_US
dc.date.digitized2013-01-02en
dc.contributor.repositoryDenison Resource Commonsen_US
All Items in The Five Colleges of Ohio Digital Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.