|
|
Biophilia
by Lindsey Krecko
The Need for Nature
The world is currently facing a sustainability crisis; the continuation
of our daily lives is dependent on nonrenewable resources. Being
ecologically sustainable means that a society does not undermine the
resources on which its future prosperity depends. In other words, the
society must live off the interest, and not deplete its capital. Our
current situation is the antithesis of sustainability. We are
increasing our population, deforesting large tracts of land, creating
deserts, eroding tons of soil, eliminating species, and contributing to
global warming at an alarming rate.
David Orr says the sustainability crisis is a result of our urge to
dominate nature. Flaws in our education system are largely responsible
for promoting this urge. "Conventional education, by and large, has
been a celebration of all that is human to the exclusion of our
dependence on nature." It fails to teach ecological principles, and by
not teaching ecology, students are led to believe nature is not
important to history, politics or science. Additionally, our
educational system does not teach what it means to be a citizen in a
closed ecology on a planet with finite resources. The current system
promotes competition for success, which can be equated to whomever can
acquire the most resources. The idea of “every man for
himself” is not considerate to your neighbor, much less the
planet. Because the feedback between action and result is not rapid,
and because moral misgivings diminish with distance, the success of
industrialized nations comes at the expense of third world countries.
However, this state of mind is uncommon in our fast-paced,
industrialized society. Students are also trained to place a blind
reliance on science and technology, our government, and economics.
Faith in these concepts seems to mirror religious faith. However, there
are so many forces of nature that are beyond human control that it is
fallacious to think that we can solve every problem that arises with
technological advances. Any scientist knows that a constantly
increasing system is headed for inevitable self-destruction, no matter
what technological solutions are developed. Research perpetuates the
view that there is a technological fix for everything, and yet it is
still emphasized at many universities.
There is an important relationship between the learning and the place
where the learning is done, which has been ignored with modern
architecture. "The curriculum embedded in any building instructs as
fully as and as powerfully as any course taught in it. Most of my
classes, for example, were once taught in a building that I think
Descartes would have liked. It is a building with lots of squareness
and straight lines. There is nothing whatsoever that reflects its
locality in northeast Ohio in what had once been a vast forested
wetland.... It is intended to be functional, efficient, minimally
offensive, and little more. But what else does it teach?” Orr
says this style of building tells its users that locality, knowing
where you are, is unimportant. The building uses energy wastefully, and
so it tells its users that energy is cheap and abundant and can be
squandered without considering the ramifications. The students do not
learn about the materials used in its construction or the origin of
those materials (wells, mines, forests, and factories), nor do they
learn how the people from the area were affected by their extraction.
The end result is that we learn that being disconnected from nature is
normal.
Orr proclaims, "All education is environmental education." Students are
a part of the world, not apart from the world; this should be a
recurring theme in our education. Environmental basics should be
included with the reading, writing, and arithmetic. In addition,
"environmental issues are complex and cannot be studied through a
single subject area." The current approach is not interdisciplinary and
does not allow students to make academic connections or connections to
reality.
To reform education, Orr suggests reordering our priorities attune to
the idea that there are no boundaries between life and education. He
supports a strong emphasis on ecoliteracy in all classrooms. The
curriculum should be earth-centered and hands-on, with the emphasis on
educating people to live sustainably and in harmony with the
environment. All of this should be taught in a building which
exemplifies the principles learned in it, much like Orr’s
design at Oberlin College. Educators are the first step in broadening
their students’ views of health, harmony, balance, diversity,
peace, participation, and justice from the usual narrow-minded lesson
of human domination of nature. This is how the educational system can
play an important role in helping future generations understand how to
live in harmony with earth.
Orr calls our exploitation of nature a relatively recent evolutionary
wrong-turn. The relationship between humans and nature has been one of
harmony for the majority of the history of our species; the change
happened when we became more than just hunter-gatherers. Biophilia is a
term which describes our innate (or ancient) affinity for nature as
humans. According to the biophilia hypothesis, natural settings are
critical to our mental and physical well-being. Homo Sapiens as a
species relies on nature for more than just food and shelter. Our
biologically-based need to affiliate with nature is expressed as our
desire for “aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and even
spiritual meaning and satisfaction.”
There are many human behaviors which provide evidence for the Homo
Sapiens’ deep connection with nature. We use plants as a
source of communication. For example, we award flowers for special
occasions. We find baby animals cute, we feed birds, we admire the
strength and build of dogs and horses, and we domesticate animals as
pets. These are all indicative of the humanistic relationship with
nature. It has been found that people rate trees that are climbable and
have a broad, umbrella-like canopy as more attractive than trees
without these characteristics. It was also shown that people would
rather look at water, green vegetation, or flowers than built
structures of glass and concrete. This gives strong support to the idea
that our preferences are based on our evolutionary history, like
habitat.
The converse of biophilia is biophobia, which also has a genetic basis
in humans. For example, many people have a fear of snakes and spiders,
even though they have seldom dealt with them in their lifetime, and
even more seldom had negative experiences with them. However, more
threatening modern artifacts, like knives, guns, and automobiles rarely
elicit such a response. This is because snakes and spiders have been
present for a much longer period on the timeline of our species. It
makes evolutionary sense to fear them; if we did not have an innate
fear of things that threatened our survival, we would be much less
successful as a species.
As has been pointed out, higher education is very influential over the
course of a person’s life, and also for illuminating the
changes that we all must make to ensure a future for our species. This
is why the existence of the highly-accessible Natural Areas here at
Binghamton is so important. It fulfills the human need for green space
for students, faculty and staff alike. Whether it be through furthering
education or passive enjoyment, the Natural Areas are a fantastic
avenue for providing the physical and mental well-being mentioned in
the biophilia hypothesis and for instilling a respect for nature.
References
Stephen Kellert, The Value of Life
David Orr, Earth in Mind
David Orr, Ecological Literacy
David Orr, The Nature of Design
|
|
|
|
