Group Three Handout

Wendell Berry- “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front”
"Mad Farmer" is one of the more well-known poems by Wendell Berry, and it offers a searing criticism of the capitalist, market driven culture that the majority of Americans find themselves mired in. The first few lines seem almost to be commands from a higher power; they have a vaguely militaristic ring to them. “When they want you to buy something/they will call you. When they want you/ to die for profit they will let you know” (505). The beginning lines of the poem also evoke the way people have become so plugged into a system that they blindly follow a prescription for life based on fear of neighbors and death and failure in general, which can be remedied with increased consumption of material goods and adherence to a policy of “quick profit, annual raise, vacation with pay” (505).
Berry’s solution to the mind numbing effects of this sort of systematized life? Be radical, in radical ways. Do things “…that won’t compute. / Love the Lord. /Love the world. /Work for nothing” (505). Simple advice, and yet also difficult to practice. Some critics struggle with the reference to God, but it seems that Berry is simply professing the importance of being able to practice love in unexpected ways and places that are not limited to one method or faith. His use of the word “Lord” can be read as a symbol for the traits, goodness and tolerance and compassion, which often go along with religious faiths. Perhaps professing love for the Lord is simply the context that he finds most easy to understand.
The rest of the poem offers a multitude of solutions and ways to bypass the system that are not based upon personal gain and economic return, but instead place emphasis on the intelligence of universal systems that govern the natural world, a set of perfectly balanced cause and effects that humans have altered to the point of near disaster. He says, “Put your faith in the two inches of humus/that will build under the trees/every thousand years” (506). Trust in nature, and treat the land and those around you with respect, and all will be well. At the end of the poem Berry comes back to the very political idea of there being a set of external controls that are in place to govern what we think and how we act. He suggests we lay false trails to keep those who would practice manipulation at bay.
As soon as the generals and politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection (506).



Wendell Berry- “Preserving Wildness”
In this essay Wendell Berry is seeking to answer the question, how do we come to terms with the fact that humans are not divisible from nature? How do we as citizens, connected to the natural world in a multitude of ways, rebuild and maintain the bonds that exist between humans and nature? These bonds, though quite frayed and broken, still maintain a fierce potency that is not to be ignored.
The first way that Berry addresses this issue is by discussing the way the nature/human divide has become a heated, polarized debate with no middle ground to speak of. There are really only two sides to choose from, and both are extreme. One the one side are the people“. . . entirely in favor of nature; they assume there is no. . .difference between the human estate and the estate of nature”(516/17). People who fall into this belief category, which pulls much from the deep ecology theories, tend to think that all living beings, be they plant or animal, have a right to life, and are strongly skeptical of the idea of stewardship, the responsible use and management of nature. On the other side of this debate are “. . .the nature conquerors, who have no patience with an old fashioned outdoor farm, let alone a wilderness”(517). These people follow a more cornucopia driven theory, based around the idea that technology will solve any problems that arise. “These people divide all reality into parts: human good, which they define as profit, comfort and security; and everything else, which they understand as a stockpile of ‘natural resources’. . .which will sooner or later be transformed into human good”(517).
With these two sides wildly opposed to each other Berry proposes that there is actually a middle ground, and that this is precisely where the main problems are to be found. He outlines seven principles that “. . .state plainly the assumptions that define [the middle ground]”(517). While too lengthy to reproduce here, the seven principles are testament to the dilemma mentioned earlier, that humans are different from, but not separate from nature.
The main difference between humans and nature is culture. Berry says that “. . .humans must be made what they are-that is, in the extent to which they are artifacts of their culture” (520). What does he mean by artifacts of culture? He means that the lessons humans must learn in order to be fully human are above and beyond anything that other animals must engage in, and thus to become “. . .fully human is a task that requires many years. . .and this long effort of humanity is necessary . . .because of our power”(521). It is precisely this immense power that makes humans so dangerous and wonderful, endowed with the ability to create and destroy at massive scales, it is now more than ever imperative that humans develop a clear understanding of and commitment to culture. Berry makes the not absurd claim that without culture humans become “. . . monsters-indiscriminate and insatiable killers and destroyers. We differ from other creatures, partly, in our susceptibility to monstrosity” (521). In the combined reclamation of nature and culture Berry sees a way for humanity to achieve a harmony and balance between“. . .the domestic and the wild” (521).
Towards the middle of the essay Berry addresses the idea of wildness and the fact that, to a great extent, those places that are wild, and which humans depend on for so much, are now, in fact, dependent on us for survival! “The awareness that we are slowly growing into now is that the earthly wildness that we are so completely dependent upon is at our mercy. The only thing we have to preserve nature with is culture; the only thing we have to preserve wildness with is domesticity” (522). William Cronin, in the introduction to “Uncommon Ground” touches on the idea of the folly of preserving wilderness for the sake of wilderness or for the romantic emotion it evokes. He says that wilderness is now “more a state of mind than a fact of nature” (Cronin 88) and until people are able to see wilderness/wildness as part of humanity and not a separate entity there will be no real progress made. Cronin quotes Berry in the introduction essay, and both authors seem quite sure that the economy and the value people place on goods will largely determine the way nature is preserved.
At present the economy does not support the production of fewer high quality products and instead pushes towards a homogenization of goods. This can be seen in the spread of industrial monoculture as well. The idea of conservation is virtually pointless until the real cost of things is taken into account. Berry calls this idea “a loving economy” and says that “. . .it would strive to place a proper value on all the materials of the world, in all their metamorphoses from soil to water, air and light to the finished goods of our towns and households. . .[and] the only effective motive for this would be a. . .love for local things, rising out of local knowledge and local allegiance”(523).
Lastly, Berry addresses the problem of population. He argues that the idea of the ‘population problem’ is dangerous because it enforces already prevalent divisions and essentially claims that some people are more worthy or deserving of life and resources than others. Rather than overpopulation Berry sees the problem as being technological; more people are gaining individual power and are thus becoming dangerous on a singular scale. This is in fact more concerning than population growth because, as Berry says, “. . . one person with a nuclear bomb and the will to use it is 100 percent too many” (528). The end solution is one of possible harmony, between nature, people and economy. With enough understanding of all the factors involved in the life of all organisms there can be a shift in the manner of thinking that has so derailed the way people relate to and understand the land.



Aldo Leopold- “The Land Ethic”
In this essay Leopold addresses the idea that there are two kinds of ethics, ecological and philosophical. He says. “an ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. These are two definitions of the same thing” (277). Ethics evolve from the necessity of systems to work together, either in the natural world or among individuals within groups.
While there is an ecological ethic, there is not one that deals with the land specifically. Land is considered to be individual property (usually) and because of this the way people relate to it usually has an economic undertone. If the idea of an ethic is carried over into relation with the land then people will feel more of a sense of community responsibility to care for natural areas, for the sake of the land’s health, and not entirely because it will give them an economic advantage.
One way that Leopold sees this happening is through farmers who take action to preserve their land, rotating crops, and eliminating erosion on hillsides. Unfortunately these kinds of actions are meaningless unless everyone in a community commits to conservation for the sake of the land and not for economic reasons. Wendell Berry, in his essay “The Making of a Marginal Farm” talks about this idea to some extent, and explains how he was able to save much of the hilly land on his farm through responsible conservation and respectful treatment. He views the land as a living organism with needs and rights, and acts accordingly. While he does not explicitly say so it is clear that the farming practices he employs are connected to Leopold’s idea of a land ethic.
However appealing these ideas are there can be no doubt that the essential building block for this idea is the understanding that land is not an inert object, but a living organism that is part of something Leopold calls the Land Pyramid. He describes the pyramid as an exchange of energies that occurs from land, plants, animals and people. This cycle stays in balance through losses and gains of energy, but humans have begun to exert their power and the cycles are becoming more extreme, more loss, smaller gains.
In the end the essential question Leopold is asking is, “Can the land adjust itself to the new order? Can the desired alterations be accomplished with less violence?”(289). History has shown us that the less extreme imposed changes are to the land the less time it will take for land to heal and for energies to replenish.

Lynn White- "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis"
Lynn White holds many of the same beliefs regarding land that Berry and Leopold put forth in their writings, but White approaches the concept of nature from a religious standpoint. He details the history of the plow and sees it as a catalyst for what will become a massive shift in the way humans regard their place in the natural world. He says, “Man’s relation to the soil was profoundly changed. Formerly man had been part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” (406). White feels that the spread of Christianity helped perpetuate the belief that humanity is separate from nature and that it was the very idea of dominion over nature that has led to irresponsible actions regarding land use.
White says very clearly that science has much implication in this, and that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one”(410). He puts forth the teachings of “. . .the greatest radical in Christian history. . .”(411) St. Francis of Assisi as a solution, or at least another way, to proceed. St. Francis believed in the rights of all creatures and was able to converse with animals of all shapes and sizes. He believed that nature and animal life had a right to exist without undue tampering or control. St. Francis was considered a rebel in his time and his teachings could be utilized as the world faces often overwhelming challenges in the form of global climate change, and all its repercussions.



"Touching the Earth" – Gloria Jean Watkins (bell hooks)
Hooks’ article immediately shows a strong connection with nature. There is an ongoing feeling of love and appreciation for one’s surroundings and a point where embracing what the Earth has to offer shows to be a continuous theme. Hooks shows different races maintaining a sense of togetherness, both shown learning from one another: “Sharing the reverence for the earth, black and red people helped one another remember that, despite the white man’s ways, the land belonged to everyone.” As this sense of “unity and harmony” continues throughout her article, Hooks proves that both races gain a sense of connection with land. The sheer, romanticized importance is described:
“We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man—all belong to the same family.”
Hooks does a wonderful job showing how dedicated people are in regard to their love for the land, describing it as a crucial element where connection is key. However, as Hooks continues, she shows that upon moving north, the so called rootedness that once was with African Americans is now in a lot of ways, non-existent. Upon the shift northward into a more modern-based lifestyle, Hooks shows the disconnect where African Americans felt lost: “Of course, they found that life in the north had its own perverse hardship, that racism was just as virulent there, that it was much harder for black people to become landowners.” Basically, African Americans had to start over from scratch. As barriers such as landownership as well as just settling became more of an issue, the idea of the “great migration” generated a further displacement. Hooks offers a relatable example: “…one of the ‘displaced’ black folks in Morrison’s novel, Miss Pauline, loses her capacity to experience the sensual world around her when she leaves southern soil to live in a northern city.” As the discouragement of not being able to gain a sense of clarity became more difficult, Hooks’ tone shifts somewhat dramatically where there appears to suddenly be a more revelation in which re-self-discovery is established.
Hooks offers a more positive turnaround with a very optimistic tone where that despite undergoing a situation that’s not necessarily ideal, these races (African Americans) looked past and did their best to adjust: “Even in my small New York City apartment I can pause to listen to birds sing, find a tree and watch it.” She continues: “…I have found that I can do it—that many gardens will grow, that I feel connected to my ancestors when I can put a meal on the table of food I grew.” Hooks shows that they’re making-do with what they have, and the littlest form of connection seems to matter the most.
On an ending note, it appears that Hooks’ piece seems to target specifically to an African American audience. Despite that, however, it could/can hold merit in regard to any other oppressed people that may have felt in some form or another, a point of disconnect. For example: Hooks states towards the beginning of her article how Native Americans struggled too. So with this, Hooks succeeds in presenting valiant information that can valuable to any group of people.

What Is Education For? –David Orr
“The truth is that many things on which your future health and prosperity depend are in dire jeopardy: climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity.”
David Orr is an environmental educator, and the founder of the Meadowcreek Project (an environmental education center), and he currently works at Oberlin College in Ohio. As the quotation above shows that there needs to be more of a focus in these areas, Orr suggests that it’s quite possible that the people in charge of the climate’s stability and the natural systems may not necessarily be the best for the job. Orr succeeds in scaring his audience with the cold, hard facts: “We will lose 116 square miles of rainforest, or about an acre a second… We will lose 40 to 100 species, and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100… And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere…” Orr seems to offer a different perspective where the people in charge of these disasters are not typically what you would consider to be a person who is “ignorant,” rather these people are higher up in an educational sense. They hold degrees, PhDs, MBAs, etc. Orr does gives them that, however, he states that: “My point is simply that education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. More of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. This is not an argument for ignorance, but rather than the worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival…”
As Orr continues, he suggests six ways of thought to help better understand the dilemma. He talks about how “ignorance is a solvable problem,” but states that it is clearly not. It’s something that cannot escape the human condition. Secondly, he continues by stating that technology will manage the planet. Although this proposal sounds ideal, Orr states that “…the complexity of Earth and its life systems can never be safely managed.” With that said, it is suggested that we need to “reshape ourselves” so we as a society can make these changes instead of relying on other means which in a lot of ways aren’t working to begin with. Thirdly, Orr states that important, more crucial knowledge is being lost in the mix where “overemphasis” in certain areas aren’t necessarily as crucial as other areas that indeed need more direct focus.
The fourth myth Orr states is that society can reestablish the higher education that we have lost. In a lot of ways this seems to be a great idea: making a valiant effort to put forth real determination and drive to alter the more negative aspects. Orr states that this process becomes difficult: “For example, we routinely produce economists who lack the most rudimentary knowledge of ecology.” He continues by saying that “We add the price of the sale of a bushel of wheat to GNP while forgetting to subtract the three bushels of topsoil lost in its production. As a result of incomplete education, we’ve fooled ourselves into thinking that we are much richer than we are.”
The fifth myth meshes nicely with the fourth in the sense that it deals with education. Orr disagrees that a good education will give a person success: “The plain fact is that the planet does not need more “successful” people. But it does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, and lovers of every shape and form. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane.” The concept seems simple enough where if these ideas were applied, things could easily turn around for the better. Orr seems to suggest that if society can accept the fact that some people aren’t the best for their jobs, it will be more beneficial to put someone in charge who will actually embrace the problems and hopefully change them in the best way possible.
Lastly, Orr states that “our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement.” We’re portrayed as a wonderfully modern and developed country. Sadly with that attitude, Orr suggest that we’re also guilty of “cultural arrogance” as well. We seems to create an idea that our ideas and motives are flawless, and that’s how problems start to arise. Orr seems to suggest that we’re far from it: “Our culture does not nourish that which is best or noblest in human spirit. It does not cultivate vision, imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring, or compassion. Increasingly in the late 20th Century, the economic-technocratic-statist worldview has become a monstrous destroyer of what is loving and life-affirming in the human soul.”
Orr’s conclusion offers alternative ways of thought in regard to education. He first suggest that “all education is environmental education.” He gives an example: “…that physics and ecology have nothing to do with the economy. That just happens to be dead wrong.” Orr proposes the idea that these smaller examples are indeed imbedded in education as a whole, and that needs to be taken into consideration. He continues to say that: “For the most part we labor under a confusion of ends and means, thinking that the goal of education is to stuff all kinds of facts, techniques, methods, and information into the student’s mind…” This idea doesn’t allow a more hands on experience, rather, the process of learning is memorization, memorization, and more memorization. Continuing, Orr stresses that a more “real world” experience of learning will ideally be more beneficial. Upon suggesting alternative ways of positive change, Orr points out what can be done in regard to making these ideas more of a reality.
Orr states that a campus-wide awareness is a good start. Here, one can begin to suggest alternative ways of thought where questioning education can start to take shape. He continues to talk about more hands on experience opposed to simply sitting in a classroom. Orr concludes by listing a number of educational tools that every student should know upon graduating. A few being:
-The laws of thermodynamics
-Least-cost, end-use analysis
-Limits of technology
-Environmental ethics
With this mindset, Orr suggests that people who should not be in charge of certain areas dealing with the well-being of Earth, it’s hoped that by looking closer at the bigger problems, these negative issues will slowly being diminished. Orr ends his article by quoting Aldo Leopold: “If education does not teach us these things, then what is education for?”

David Abram –" The Ecology of Magic"
Abram offers a different way of thought. In his piece, The Ecology of Magic, the basis reveals more of a spiritual/magical way of learning. His purpose is “…to honor and value our direct sensory experience: the tastes and smells in the air, the feel of the wind as it caresses the skin, the feel of the ground under our feet as we walk upon it.”
One interesting example that Abram presents comes towards the end of his piece. He shows a give-and-take-type example which involves the human world and the nature world. Upon staying with a “balian,” (a magic practitioner), Abram explains what he witnesses: “The second time that I saw the array of tiny rice platters, I asked my hostess what they were for. Patiently, she explained to me that they were offerings for the household spirits.” Upon letting the information sink in, Abram recalls that he sees the rice grains start to move: “Only when I knelt down to look more closely did I notice a line of tiny black ants winding the dirt to the offering.” The logic behind this bizarre instance starts to make sense to Abram. The area where the house resided was highly populated with ants—instead of having to deal with infestations where ants could initially overrun the house, the given rice platters were strategically placed in the corners of the house. This was a purposely, repeated process in which there would be a boundary of sorts between the human world and the nature part.
Before this, Abram talks about the magical experience in relation to how one relates with the human world/nature world and how he perceives it: “Magic, then, in its perhaps most primordial sense, is the experience of existing in a world made up of multiple intelligences, the intuition that every form one perceives—from the swallow swooping overheard to the fly on a blade of grass, and indeed the blade of grass itself—is an experiencing form, an entity with its own predilections and sensations, albeit sensations that are very different form our own.” What Abram seems to be getting at is that a person’s relationship with the nonhuman world seems to be overlooked in a lot of ways. Here, it’s suggested that one take a closer look, and really embrace how nature and human life feed off of one another. This acknowledgment can show more appreciation to one’s surroundings.
As Abram incorporates the idea of the magician within the text, there seems to be a point where instead of placing themselves within a community, they do the opposite where they are shown in more of a natural setting: “…such magicians rarely dwell at the heart of their village; rather, their dwellings are commonly at the spatial periphery of the community or, more often, out beyond the edges of the village—amid the rice fields, or in a forest, or a wild cluster of boulders.” Here, Abram shows a nice contrast. It’s not nature making its way into the human world, but the opposite. This shows a nice meshing where the human world can embrace the natural world rather than the other way around.



Gary Snyder- “Smoky the Bear Sutra”
Snyder's poem Smokey the Bear Sutra brings the spiritual world into the our own material world in a cry to deep ecology. Smokey the Bear in this poem becomes the physical manifestation of "the Great Sun Buddha". His purpose is to protect not only the environment, but also those working to protect the environment as well. Smokey the Bear is a human creation who very much symbolizes people's desire to protect the natural world. Placing him as "the Great Sun Buddha" grants Smokey an energy above the human world. The poem uses this energy as a source able to be tapped by humans for the betterment of society. The mantra provided by the poem allows people to tap into this energy, much like conjuring a muse, to aid them in their own individual roles as protectors of the environment.
How does granting Smokey the spiritual identity of "the Great Sun Buddha" aid in the poem's purpose?
Gary Snyder- “Covers the Ground”
Covers the Ground describes the human footprint over the once vast natural lands. The quote near the end of the poem gives the lines "400 miles, your foot would press / a hundred flowers at every step" describing how the lands once were (479). Every part of this land now appears to have been trampled over by humans. The poem describes the land as now orchards. This may seem like nature at first thought, especially with the descriptions of the almond blossoms and the beehives, but the poem also details the destruction caused by even the orchards. Every part of the orchard is controlled by human forces. The walnut is "irrigated, pruned and trimmed" showing the marks of human control over nature (478). To harvest the orchards also requires lots of machinery and people, who must live someplace, drive to places, and consume goods. Even by creating an orchard, we have covered each part of this land with the human footprint destroying the wilderness.

Alan Durning “The Dubious Rewards of Consumption”
Humanity has become a confused bunch. The drive for material wealth has grown into an insatiable appetite for more and more. People have become convinced that having more of the things they want will make them happier. The problem is that more is never enough and there is always more than "more". People have come to the conclusion that everything valuable must have a value. As the piece describes even "leisure time becomes too valuable to "waste" in idleness" (780). People are constantly striving to gain more material to make them happy, and they don't recognize that it doesn't make them happy in the first place. The parts of life that once made living enjoyable have been forgotten in the consumption driven society. Durning notes Argyle's determinants of happiness as "satisfaction with family life, especially marriage, followed by satisfaction with work, leisure time to develop talents, and friendships," (774). Each of these things takes a back seat to consumption. Marriage is often on a material basis, work is more often chosen for pay then for enjoyment, and leisure has become driven by consumption, and time has become too valuable to spend with friends without gain. One may enjoy playing the guitar, for example, but instead of simply enjoying time spent playing guitar, one may spend time working in order to buy a more expensive guitar. In this case his or her talents would not have grown providing any sense of satisfaction and the new guitar would only provide satisfaction until he or she saw an even nicer one that he or she desired.
How can people shift their idea that more is better?
How can the real cost of things, as discussed by Berry and others, be implemented into the way people live and consume?

Walt Whitman -This Compost and Songs of the Redwood
The two pieces by Whitman presented in our textbook, “This Compost” and “Songs of the Redwood,” seem to be written by people proscribing to entirely different ecological disciplines. Both of them are very descriptive of nature’s personality, personifying the trees and the land, but this technique is used differently in each piece. The first, “This Compost,” comes off as being anti-human in a way because he talks about how we are essentially a poison to the Earth. He speaks about the cyclical nature of the relationship and how everything begins and ends with the planet. He brings humans down to the same level as all organic things on the planet, referring to men as “foul meat.” With our foul meat, we are poisoning the planet but in turn, it is purified and made into something completely new; some new life, something that is once again beautiful and pure. I view both of the pieces from a social ecology point of view because of his talk about how much we affect the health and livelihood of the planet by the way we are living our lives. There is a strange air of sexuality present in the poem as well as he talks about his sexual relationship with the forest. “I withdrew from the still woods I loved,” and “That it is safe to allow it to lick my naked body all over with its tongues,” are both examples of his interesting relationship with the land. I really like his ideas about how the planet takes things that were once bad and turns them into something new. I guess pollution wasn’t much of a problem at the time of his writing this, which would definitely affect his thoughts in this area.
For how much he talks about how pure nature is and how much we, as humans, contribute to its demise, his second piece, “Song of the Redwood,” spins a seemingly opposed viewpoint to his previous work. It is a poem about the felling of the ancient redwood forests in California, a place that people are now trying to protect. The importance of our relationship and its symbiotic nature are even more prevalent in these texts, a good portion of which is written from the perspective of the redwood trees themselves. It’s funny in a way because he is talking about the beauty of all these trees being felled, and speaking of their history with one another and how they are happy they get to contribute to the birth of this new nation. He gives feelings to the trees, rocks and land, saying that they have the capacity for the same emotions as humans. The poem makes it seem as if the “crackling blows of axes sounding musically” is appealing to the trees, that they enjoy being destroyed. His view of the destruction of pristine wilderness for the sake of man makes sense for the time it was written. It was the beginning of a new, optimistic nation and he couldn’t know everything that the future would hold. He always presumed that we would live in harmony with nature, shown by saying things like “The new society at last, proportionate to nature,” and “the fields of Nature long prepared and fallow, the silent, cyclic chemistry.”
David Brower “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions”
David Brower’s article consist of a set of instructions detailing what
the earth is made of, the resources, and essential parts and how we can attempt to conserve and protect it. The format of “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” is similar to the instructions that come with a new car or toy. The decision on the author’s part to write the essay in this way is interesting and can be read as a mockery of the consumptive culture we live in. “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” is broken down into three main categories, and some of the main categories have sub-categories that give more detail about their section. The essay lists the main features that alloe for life on Earth, water, air, land, and then goes on to offer details as to how each secion is maintaining or struggling. The sub-section titled Emergency Repairs offers up some gallows humor by saying ". . .it is best to request the Manufacturer's assistance[if problems arise](best obtained through prayer" (557).
Throughout this essay there are statements that seem satirical but are laden with heavily serious undertones. At the very beginning of the article, there is a Warning sign that states “loss or even temporary misplacement of these instructions may result in calamity” (555). We know that if the instructions were lost the world would not fall into calamity or be destroyed, however the truth embedded in the essay, reagarding the sickness of the panet, cannot be ignored or discredited. “The Third Planet: Operating Instructions” can be read as a direct reply Buckminster Fuller’s essay “Spaceship Earth”. In Spaceship Earth”, Fuller states that “I think it’s very significant that there is no instruction book for successfully operating our ship” (466). Perhaps in response to this Brower felt the need to write his own planetary instructions. Partly humorous and partly serious, they are still significant in their critique of the way people mindlessly assume that all will proceed as planned, regardless of the increased inputs and outputs of harmful substances that we continue to create.
Calvin DeWitt “Inspirations for Sustaining Life on Earth”
Dewitt presents three principles that he derived from ancient Hebrew text that have been used to help in negotiating international treaties on biodiversity. These three principles are Earthkeeping, Fruitfulness, and Sabbath. DeWitt argues that these principles are only in Judaism and Christianity, but in reality, they can be found in all religions and human societies.
The Earthkeeping Principle says that we must take care of our planet. “human beings must take care of the garden, must take care of creation, must keep the Earth.” He believes that this message is widely accepted across cultures from around the world. He then dives into the bible to make this point clear by attempting to use one word to strengthen his argument. The text of Genesis 2:15 expects human beings to shamar it. “ May god, the Creator, keep you: with everything working right inside of you, everything working right psychologically, everything working right between you and all the people, and everything working right between you and the soil, and the air, and the land, and the rest of the creation- everything in the biosphere.” The Earthkeeping Principle is based off the word shamar. We must shamar the earth by working hard to keep it healthy and sustainable.
The Fruitfulness Principle states that we can enjoy the resources our planet has to offer, but we must not destroy the source of our resources. “What we can gain from the fruitfulness principle is that we may take from creation, we may take the fruit, but most not destroy the fruitfulness of earth’s living creatures.” According to the Fruitfulness Principle, the earth has plenty of resources such as fruits, vegetables, lumber, water and oil, which we can all use. However, we must make sure that we do not alter the ecosystems that reproduces resources. An excellent example Dewitt gives is from Ezekiel 34:18: “Is it not enough for you to feed in the good pasture, must you trample the rest your feet?” So we can drink the water that the Earth provides us, but by keeping the water pure as it was originally it will keep the ecosystem intact which will feed the rest of the animals and plants.
DeWitt’s final principle, the Sabbath Principle, states that we must let the land rest. He says that even God rests on Sunday’s, so the land should also rest. What he means is that if people are constantly fertilizing their land with harmful chemicals, always planting various plants on it, that the land will soon become unusable. DeWitt then talks about a farmer he met in Canada. The farmer said to Dewitt that he must give the land rest because needs it. “I give my land rest every two years because that is what it needs.” Ecologists, agriculturalist, and even scientists will say that the land must rest just like people do.
Towards the end of “Inspirations for Sustaining Life on Earth”, DeWitt presents an overarching principle that he calls Con-Service. He gets these terms from the Hebrew Scriptures. The closest translation he can find in modern speech is the idea of “stewardship.” This principle states that we must serve our land and it will serve us. The Con-Service principle is very close to Jesus’ golden rule, however it includes the land, along with humanity, as being deserving of respect and grateful treatment to ensure the continuing exchange of energy.
Kenneth Boulding- “Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”
Kenneth Boulding, an economist, takes an intriguing look at the present state of our planet through its production, consumption and polluting habits and then posits his idea of what the future is going to be like. What he goes on to describe sounds eerily similar to the plot of Disney’s Wall E, but he actually refers to as Spaceship Earth. It’s his idea that our current economy is a “Cowboy Economy,” with a devil-may-care attitude and in order to assure a better future, we must start thinking about a spaceman lifestyle. His viewpoint is one of an eco-Marxist, which isn’t surprising considering he is an economist and directly references him in the text. This paper calls for a change in lifestyle, because if we don’t care about the future and its problems, then do we even really care about the present and have the capacity to solve our current problems? He outlines the fact that our current societies goals and definition of success are going to have to change as they are currently tied to production and consumption, which in turn, is tied to depletion of resources and contributes to pollution. In order to succeed in the spaceship society, we must redefine our definition for what success is, as it is currently the output of goods. We’re going to have to stop consuming so much and focus our thoughts on conserving and doing the opposite of what we do now.
If we are to make the future work, we are going to have to start putting ourselves and the human race as more active players in the equation. Though in the end he presents the opposing point of view saying that “the needs of the then present will determine the solutions of the then present, and there is no use in giving ourselves ulcers by worry about problems that we really do not have to solve.” This seems to make the most sense to me and ties in with the notions of Marxist and social ecology. Some of his ideas are in opposition of these disciplines in that he isn’t sure if the spaceship earth will be able to fix itself. It doesn’t seem like so much of a solution as it does to an alternate to death. Living in a non-consumption based economy seems like it would be meaningless. How would you be able to judge one person from another, give class labels and make viable comedy. There’s nothing funny about conformity, it’s actually scary. A world full of no waste and priding ones self on their ability to live sustainably seems like a fruitless effort. It seems arrogant to say, but I like being able to know that I’m above certain people and I need a way to quantify that. One of the biggest problems he sees getting in the way of resolution is our ability to discount the inevitability of these or similar events. Its in our nature to shirk obligations and leave things till tomorrow, or think that someone else is going to take care of it.