Christianity, Power and Nature
Agrarianism as a philosophical concept points out that true reason for the current situation on the planet, including poor quality food, air polluted with harmful emissions and diseases lies in the existing world view. First of all, the cult of material gains is one of the technocratic civilization priorities, and spiritual and moral principles are replaced with animal instincts. Lack of morals – that is the root of the problem. Our irresponsible and immoral attitude to our foremother – nature at all levels, from the household to the government, ultimately boomerangs on humanity itself and can become the trigger of its death, i.e its biological degeneration.
Walbert (2008) takes an accent on claiming that new agrarianism is about more than agriculture. “It is about a search for sustainable community, sustainable culture, sustainable life – Agriculture, which is simply the production of food and fiber for human use by natural means, depends more closely on natural processes than any other human endeavor” (Walber, 2008).
The man broke the overall balance of the treatment of substances in nature. Created over the past three years, most industrial production, technologies and inventions aimed at unilateral consumption and devastation, are destructive to the planet. In its activities, the modern man alienated itself from nature, and got the feeling that he had conquered it and became the king of Nature.
Human intelligence has created a new technocratic world, dominating nature, the world populated by monstrous production and inventions so that its large-scale technocratic activities began to change the human environment by means of complex feedbacks. In response, the nature began to influence the man actively, aiming at his weakest points. First of all, it is the health. People became sick more often, altered natural immunity and in the future may become mutants. Scientific studies clearly show that the most dangerous to human health and therefore the nature are applied chemicals used in agricultural production and mining and burning of natural hydrocarbons as fuel for motor vehicles, and energy and heat for businesses, which are the attributes of modern technocratic civilization.
The main objectives of such an organization could be:
– world-wide environmental monitoring for all types of pollutants;
– making recommendations to heads of states and governments to clear adverse environmental impacts;
– the introduction of international environmental norms and standards;
– the search, the support and the implementation of the newest global economic technologies that have universal significance;
– the detection of dangerous anthropogenic sources of environmental pollution;
– the elimination of natural hazards and emergencies;
– the establishment of international system of environmental education;
– the development of alternative energy sources;
– the development of technologies to address any type of contamination.
Agrarianism as a political movement is characterized by the recognition of the particular social and economic role of the rural population in an industrial society; appeal to the traditions of rural life and work ethics, based on the cult of family labor and the principle of the protection of private property in land (including cost-effective while fine); broad introduction of agricultural production and marketing of effective forms of cooperation within the organization; the development of the system of agricultural education and science, home education and rural leisure activities, etc. And most importantly, agrarianism upholds the policy of state support for agriculture by developing legislation (agricultural, labor, social, etc.) and the redistribution of the national income in favor of it.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Carlson (2008) states that “agrarianism rests on a culture defined by marriage, a long-term covenant of mutual care” (p. 14).
Most often these are young people between 25 and 35 years, those who have already tried something in their life, have formed the world, have got some primary experience, but, on the other hand, are still sufficiently active and are on the lookout and ready to change their lives for the sake of beautiful ideas, have flexible accordance with knowledge and a bit of stereotyping, etc.
Taylor (2001) gives the following example: “approximately 500 activists attend a typical Earth First! wilderness rendezvous. By radical environmental standards the Rainbow Family is huge, drawing thousands to its annual ‘love-in’ style summer festival, usually held at remote, forested sites” (p.184). Evaluating disadvantages of agrarianism, our attention should be paid to Walbert works. He underlines that “new agrarians’ admirable humanism and their embrace of a well-settled landscape are occasionally qualified by a yearning for population control” (Walbert, 2008).
In comparison, deep ecology looks like a philosophical concept according to which the preservation and development of life on Earth is possible only after the full consideration of the needs of all life and a harmonious relationship with inanimate nature. Deep ecology arises in the context of finding the ways out of the ecological crisis. It exists in a number of approaches such as the concept of sustainable development, nootropic sphere concept, but at the same time, it focuses on human evolution, the transition to a new evolutionary stadium through the transformation of consciousness.
Gottlieb (2004) admits that deep ecology consignments not always identifies itself with something new. Сontradicting deep ecology and agrarianism in his new expressions, it would be important to say that deep ecology thoughts are mostly based on the assertion that, along with the humanity, all nature has the same right to life and prosperity. Deep ecology is called “deep” as it sets deeper philosophical questions about the actions of people in the country. The narrower science “ecology”, which is a part of biology; tries to avoid anthropocentrism of environmental science, aimed at preserving the environment solely to the benefit of man. Deep ecology is looking for a more holistic view of the world and proves that the individual parts of the ecosystem (including humans) cannot operate separately from the entire system.