THE HUMAN NATURAL WORLD RELATIONSHIP

The Human Natural World Relationship

25

bear on the Australian Government. Legislation was introduced by the Australian

Government for two percent renewable energy production by 2010. Accountability was

called for by business as globalisation protests were held around the world. Legislation was

passed in the Financial Services Reform Bill in Australia for full disclosure by fund managers

of social and environmental issues when investing client funds. A focus on strengthening

sustainability through education was suggested by the United Nations General Assembly to

be enacted between 2005 and 2014.

By 2006, the focus on the environment and climate change was firmly in the public arena.

One of the first government officials to address climate change was the Governor of

California, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger, with sweeping controls to stem carbon emissions.

The documentary featuring Al Gore called “An Inconvenient Truth” explained the disastrous

consequences of government and business inaction on the environment (Guggenheim 2006).

At the same time, the Stern Report was released, which set out a comprehensive report on the

economic ramifications of climate change (Stern, 2006). The effects on Australia were

explained in a consultancy report for the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change

(CSIRO, Preston & Jones, 2006). It was at this time that the sudden death of well-known

Australian activist and conservationist, Steve Irwin was mourned around the world.

Unseasonable and extreme weather conditions that brought floods, droughts and other natural

disasters had the effect of mobilising communities. Political inaction was documented in two

Australian publications “High and Dry” (Pearce, 2007) and “Scorcher” (Hamilton, 2007).

Consequently, in 2007 walks against global warming were held around the world. These

walks called for immediate government action to address climate change and were influential

in the change of government in Australia in 2007. The incumbent government declared that

they would address climate change and ratify the Kyoto agreement to reduce carbon

emissions.

The Human Natural World Relationship

26

Human Natural World Relationship Summary

The environmental timeline assists in demonstrating that the Human Natural World

Relationship has existed in many forms throughout history. It also has shown that

government action to address environmental issues is unlikely until there is a groundswell of

public pressure for change. The timeline has also confirmed that community involvement in

addressing conservation issues is not a new concept. The concern for nature was expressed in

all sectors of society, from academics, artists, writers, philosophers, clergy and men and

women in the community.

2.3.2 Timeline: Theorists and Philosophers

How humans perceive the natural environment is diverse and varied and a range of theories

and philosophies have been included to demonstrate this. Perceptions about nature include

scientific, theoretical and philosophical approaches adopted by individuals and groups

concerned about the environment and about addressing environmental problems.

Park (2004) believed that views concerning the environment are due in part to individual

human experiences that shape fundamental human values, and that the different views and

perspectives about the essence and purpose of nature have contributed in part to the

environmental crisis. While some view nature as an object, others consider nature to be an

intrinsic part of self. Park (2004) summarised views about nature as; a provider of valuable

resources; a temple for spiritual enlightenment, a source of uncertainty and risk; an

inspiration and source of insight; and an organism. Views about nature consisted primarily of

presumptions that encompass environmental, evolutionary, or creational thought or a

combination of these. Although views about nature differ, it was evident in the literature that

all the groups cited in this section are allied in their concern for the environment, and most

agree that a multidiscipline approach to conservation was necessary to address current

conservation issues.

The Human Natural World Relationship

27

The Scientific Community

A summary by Mebratu (1998) proposes that scientists such as economists, ecologists and

sociologists working to solve the environmental dilemma, recognise the benefits of a

combined reductionism and holistic approach to address environmental problems.

Disciplines that embrace this approach include social ecology which has a holistic focus;

deep ecology, an ecological focus; and environmental economics, an economic focus

(Mebratu, 1998). An interdisciplinary approach between the social and natural sciences

recognise that humans are dependant on the natural world, and that the neglect of nature, or

humans or their economic or social needs may have contributed to environmental crises.

Additionally, a change in attitude and behaviour towards the environment will be ineffective

unless the institutional, intellectual and physical structures within societies allow human and

environmental needs to be recognised (Mebratu 1998; Redclift & Benton, 1994). This

statement called for governments and decision makers to show responsible leadership in

research and development and to incorporate strategies within policies that support

sustainable practices and encourage changes in societal attitudes and behaviour towards the

environment.

Environmental and Evolutionary Theorists

While there was cooperation between the social and natural sciences, environmental and

evolutionary theorists and philosophers in the natural sciences traditionally hold opposite

views (Penn, 2003). Environmental theorists and philosophers in general do not accept

evolutionary origins, and are more likely to support a creationalist view. Penn explained that

environmentalists “oppose the materialism of science and reductionism, and frequently

embrace a mystical or religious view” (Penn, 2003, p. 5). Wilson (1998) believed that

understanding the evolution of human behaviour was necessary in order to address

environmental problems, which can only be achieved through the integration of these two

areas of science.

The Human Natural World Relationship

28

The assimilation of evolutionary theory into the social sciences has already demonstrated its

value in addressing conservation problems through the emergence of disciplines such as

socio-biology, behavioural ecology and evolutionary psychology (Barrett, Dunbar & Lycett

2002; Betzig, 1997; Smith & Winterhalder, 1992). In addition, there is, ecological economics

(Constanza, 1991), ecological psychology (Keepin, 1991; Pilisuk, 2001; Sundstrom et al.,

1996; Winter 1996; Yunt, 2001) and environmental psychology (Fridgen, 1984; Gardner &

Stern, 1996; Gruenewald, 2004; Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Kuhn, 2001; Kyle et al., 2004b;

Pilisuk, 2001; Roszak, Gomes & Kanner, 1995; Stringer, 1984; Vlek, 2000; Zelezny &

Schultz, 2000). Other areas such as ethology, which is the study of animal behaviour, and

sociology and their offspring disciplines of human behavioural ecology and evolutionary

psychology are recognised for their contribution to understanding human behaviour and

bringing the areas of social and biological sciences closer together (Alcock, 2001; Penn,

2003, p. 272). For the purpose of this thesis, these disciplines illustrated the advantages and

scope of multidiscipline research in understanding the human-environment interaction, as

summarised in Figure 3.

The Human Natural World Relationship

29

Figure 3: Natural and social sciences with regard to humans and the environment

Within the natural sciences, the integration of evolutionary perspectives into environment

sciences can assist in understanding humans and their ability to address environmental

concerns. To address ecological problems, Penn (2003) and Alvard (2003) believe that

evolutionary insight about human behaviour has much to offer the environment debate, as it

may help to explain ecologically destructive behaviour. This understanding can assist in

developing both environment policy and education initiatives, to address anti environmental

behaviour. To illustrate this, Penn (2003, p. 255) considers that “man’s capacity for

environmental destruction is not confined to Western Culture”, or to modern societies (Smith

& Wishnie, 2000), although this concept was central to environmental philosophies such as

deep ecology (Sessions, 1995) and Ecofeminism (Merchant, 1980). This view is supported

Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, Environmental Economics

Ecological Psychology Evolutionary Psychology Environmental Psychology Human Behavioural Ecology Socio-Biology Behavioural Ecology Ecological Economics

NATURAL SCIENCES

SOCIAL SCIENCES

Reductionism Holistic Approach

Interdisciplinary Approach

PSYCHOLOGY Evolutionary Psychology Social Psychology

ANTHROPOLOGY Cultural Anthropology Biological Anthropology * Human Behavioural Ecology * Human Evolution

GEOGRAPHY Environmental Geography Human Geography * Cultural Geography Feminist Geography * Social Geography Behavioural Geography

SOCIOLOGY Environmental Sociology Feminist Sociology Human Ecology

BIOLOGY Evolutionary Biology Ecology * Human Ecology

EARTH SCIENCES Geography * Human Geography Behavioural Geography Place Attachment

* Environmental Geography Environmental Management

systems i.e.. natural capitalism * Environmental Science Environmental Studies Environmental Ethics

The Human Natural World Relationship

30

through evidence that the low environmental impact of indigenous cultures is unrelated to the

belief in the sacredness of nature (Low, 1996; Penn, 2003) or to good conservation practices

(Lyman, 2004; Vickers, 1994). Minimal environmental impact is more likely due to the lack

of sophisticated technologies and the low population density that is present in indigenous

communities (Alvard, 1993; Stearman, 1994).

In contrast, Nesse and Berridge (in Coon, 2001) deem that evolving modern environments,

have contributed to the disconnection of people to the natural world. This disconnection has

resulted in not only behavioural and medical conditions, but also in a disregard for the

environment where future environmental impacts are ignored, to take advantage of short-term

interests. Penn (2003, p. 284) refers to this situation as “discounting the future”. Wilson

(1998) believes that rectifying the situation requires an understanding of the evolutionary

process in order to comprehend why people behave in this manner.

Other theories and philosophies that revolve around the Human Natural World Relationship

concept are listed in chronological order and are shown in Table 3. They are the Noble

Savage Concept, Theory of Natural Selection, Social Ecology, Tragedy of the Commons,

GAIA Hypothesis, Deep Ecology, Sustainability, Ecofeminism, Animal Rights,

Bioregionalism, Eco-Socialism, Biophilia Hypothesis, Ecopsychology, Ecotheology and

Natural Capitalism. Protected area managers and communities will most likely subscribe to

one or more of these views, and therefore it is useful to have an understanding of concepts,

The Human Natural World Relationship

31

Table 3: Views, Concepts and Theories concerning the Human-Environment Interaction Human-environment Theories/Philosophers

Relationship to Nature Place Attachment Environmental Ethic

Environmental Crisis Cause Solution

1755 Noble Savage Concept (Rousseau, 1755)

Humans in their natural state see value in nature (place dependence & place identity)

Ecocentric

Humans corrupted by civilisation

Reconnect to nature to value & respect resource

1858 Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin, 1858)

Nature as part of human self (place identity) & Nature as object (place dependence)

Ecocentric Anthropocentric

Nature as object Reconnect to nature to value & respect resource

1962 Social Ecology (Bookchin, 1962)

Humans as part of nature but possessing a second nature, a human nature and free will (place dependence)

Ecocentric Anthropocentric

Domination and exploitation of nature

Involve people in environment solutions

1968 Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

Anthropocentric Population increase and accelerated consumption

Recognition of human impact, to develop sustainable systems

1969 GAIA Hypothesis (in Lovelock, 1979)

Humans as part of a self regulating organism place dependence)

Ecocentric Viewing the earth as an infinite resource

Reconnect to nature & human intelligence as earth physician

1972 Deep Ecology (Naess, 1972)

Interconnectedness of humans and non-humans. Human spiritual & physical wellbeing linked to wellbeing of planet (place identity)

Ecocentric Domination and exploitation of nature

Address human relationship with nature; reconnect to nature to respect resource

1972 Sustainability (Strong, 1972)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

Anthropocentric Expansionism

Political leadership

1974 Ecofeminism (D'Eaubonne, 1974)

Interconnectedness of humans and non humans (place dependence) Advocate a reconnection with nature (place identity)

Biocentric Androcentrism & authoritarian social and environmental practices

Reconnect to nature & restructure social hierarchy

1975 Animal Rights (Singer, 1975)

Animals have absolute rights. Respect for humans and non humans (place identity)

Sentient Linked to the oppression of rights of humans and non human

Reconnect to nature & respect humans & non humans

1977 Bioregionalism (Berg & Dasmann, 1977)

Recognises humans as part of nature. Must reconnect with their place in nature, for human wellbeing (place identity)

Biocentric Anthropocentric

Domination and exploitation of nature

Discover sense of place in nature to value resource

1979 Eco-Socialism (Morris, 1979b)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

Anthropocentric Capitalism Control to live within the natural limits of nature

1984 Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)

Humans evolved deeply interconnected with nature. Aversion to nature (Biophobia) due to modern societies (place identity).

Biocentric Separation from nature Reconnect to nature to value resource

1992 Ecopsychology (in Roszak, 1979)

Nature is part of self. Sense of place is beneficial to human wellbeing. Separation can lead to suffering for both the environment and humans (place identity)

Ecocentric

Separation from nature Reconnect to nature through psycho- emotional bonding in order to value resource

1996 Ecotheology (Berry, 1996; 1999)

Humans and non-humans as a single integrated community. Mutual benefits coming from reverence for nature (place dependence and place identity)

Ecocentric Anthropocentric

Separation from nature through industrialisation & religious teachings

Reverence for non- humans and to live within natural limits

1999 Natural Capitalism (Hawkins, Lovins & Lovins, 1999)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

Anthropocentric Politics has precedent over implementing sustainable systems

Develop green systems & political leadership

The Human Natural World Relationship

32

which may influence these views. The theories and philosophies listed in Table 3 may

provide insight into place attachment and environmental ethics, which are subtle but evident

and have been included in this chapter to reflect the relationship between people and their

environment. However, place attachment and environmental ethics are discussed in detail in

Chapters Three and Four.

The reader is reminded that the Human Natural World Relationship refers to the combined

concepts of place attachment and environmental ethics. Place attachment refers to the

functional or emotional attachment to places. Environmental ethics refers to a pro ecological

or anti ecological orientation and to intrinsic, instrumental and non-use nature values. In this

research the combination of ecological orientation and nature values result in either an

anthropocentric, or ecocentric view of the natural world.

Noble Savage Concept (1755)

In 1755, during the time of the romantic writers in France, an essay by Jean-Jacques

Rousseau first called for an ‘Anthropological Science of Man’ (Cranston, 1993, p. 1).

Rousseau contended that man was good by nature, a noble savage when in the state of nature,

but can be corrupted by civilisation and society (Redford, 1991). The noble savage concept

perceives the Human Natural World Relationship as humans being part of nature. According

to Low (1996), Dryden used the term Noble Savage in 1672 in his work ‘The Conquest of

Granada’, although Rousseau is credited with authorship of the concept (Ellingson, 2001).

Opponents of the Noble Savage concept such as Fairchild (1961) continued to argue about

Rousseau’s involvement, suggesting that the concept is a myth. Conservationists and

anthropologists in advancement of Rousseau’s work have redefined the term Noble Savage

into the Ecological Noble Savage (Alvard, 1993)

Theory of Natural Selection (1858)

In 1858, evolutionists Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace first presented their ideas on

natural selection at the Linnaean Society in London (Darwin, 1858). The following year

The Human Natural World Relationship

33

Darwin published his work titled ‘Origin of the Species’. The Theory of Natural Selection

explains the human-environment interaction as humans and animals evolving from natural

selection (Darwin, 2001). The theory had an immense impact on perceptions of the Human

Natural World Relationship and consequently on religious creational thought as it implied

that humans were part of nature. This view was evident in early letters sent to Charles

Kingsley (Huxley, 1863). The Darwinian view refers to nature both as an object and as part

of self. When nature is referred to as an object, it represented human domination of the

natural world, which is aligned with an anthropocentric view. When nature was portrayed as

part of the self, it was perceived as possessing human qualities to be cherished and preserved

at any cost, a perspective that is more aligned with an ecocentric view (Purser, Park &

Montuori, 1995).

Social Ecology (1962)

The ideals of Social Ecology were present in the writings of Murray Bookchin in 1962.

Bookchin, an anarchist and naturalist, maintained that the essence of social ecology involved

people in environmental solutions (Bookchin, 1990). Metzner (1999) describes social

ecology as one of four radical and revolutionary movements that challenged the industrialised

worldview, habits and value systems. It shifted the focus from legislation to the domination

and exploitation of nature, as did the other three movements, Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism

and Bioregionalism (Metzner, 1999).

The Human Natural World Relationship aspect of Social Ecology perceives humanity as part

of Nature (referred to as first nature), but in possession of a second nature (human nature)

which brings free will into evolutionary behaviour (Humphrey, 2000), allowing the creative,

thinking aspect of humanity to be realised. The recognition of the impact of man’s human

nature on the environment must be understood if ecological problems are to be addressed

(Biehl 1998; Bookchin, 1990). Bookchin’s concerns about changes in the environment and

the subsequent implications for human health were highlighted in ‘Our Synthetic

Environment’ (Bookchin, 1962). The publication, which preceded Rachael Carson’s ‘Silent

Spring’, had a substantial influence upon the green movement (Vanek, 2000).

The Human Natural World Relationship

34

Another aspect of social ecology is the recognition that domination of other humans has

shifted to human domination of nature (Biehl & Bookchin, 1995). Bookchin believes that the

ecological crisis must be addressed through “a humanistic ethical framework between

humans and the rest of nature, as only an ethical responsibility can yield the sense of concern

for other species that is necessary for humans to engage in ecological enlightened ways”

(Humphrey, 2000, p. 249). Bookchin does not support an ecocentric or anthropocentric

worldview (Humphrey, 2000), and is a critic of Deep Ecology, which he proclaims does not

recognise human interests in discussions about the environment (Biehl & Bookchin, 1995).

Debate continued between the proponents of social ecology and deep ecology and that

according to Bookchin, has the ability to destroy some groups through their differences of

conscience and direction (Bookchin, 2004). Although deep ecology is discussed later in this

chapter, there are fundamental differences between social ecology and deep ecology. Both

groups have similar value systems, concerning the natural world, and although they agree that

humans are part of the natural world; views about place attachment, environmental ethics and

how to solve environmental problems vary as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: A Summary of Social Ecology and Deep Ecology Views

SOCIAL ECOLOGY

DEEP ECOLOGY

Shift world focus from legislating the environment

to focus on world recognition of the domination and exploitation of nature

Value Systems

Wellbeing of humanity inexplicitly linked to the wellbeing of the natural world

Humans as part of nature (place identity)

Place Attachment Humans as part of nature but

possessing a second nature, a human nature and free will (place dependence)

Humans identifies with natural world through spiritual, religious connection; humans as part of nature (place identity)

Environmental Ethics

Humanistic ethical view

Ecocentric view

Environment Discussion

Recognise human interests in discussions; understand impact of mans second nature (human nature) on environment

Human self-realisation, interconnectiveness of all things. Does not recognise human interests in discussions; does not recognise mans second nature

Environment Solution

Involve people in environment solutions

Address human relationship with nature through reconnecting people with nature

The Human Natural World Relationship

35

Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons thesis portrays man as dominating the natural

world, which represents an anthropocentric worldview. His work outlines the concept that

the earth has finite resources, yet human nature in its endless pursuit of wealth and

consumerism eventually will lead to the collapse of the natural resource base that sustains

life. The ultimate pursuit of wealth and consumerism will result in the ultimate tragedy for

societies that depend on these precious resources (Elliott, 1997; Hardin, 1968). In addition,

Hardin (1968) explains that each individual’s behaviour may appear to have an insignificant

impact on resources, however when this behaviour is multiplied, this collective behaviour

will affect the environment in either a positive or a negative way. Population increase and

accelerated consumption lie at the base of the problem (Hardin, 1968). Common resources

are referred to as “commons” and Hardin draws attention to the fact that humans have

developed systems that in time will destroy the ecosystems of the earth (Burke, 2001). Low

(2004) believes that self-interest and short-term gain is inherent in our evolutionary past, and

inhibits our capacity for successful conservation outcomes.

With globalisation being a force behind economic development, advances through

technology, industrialisation and urbanisation have hastened the damage to ecosystems.

Ecological destruction from greenhouse gases, radioactive waste, chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) and human made toxins cannot always be easily observed because they are outside

human sensory perceptions (Burke, 2001). Furthermore, despite technological advances,

humanity still has limited scientific ability to fully understand the complex biophysical and

social causes of environmental damage (Dunlap & Catton, 1994).

GAIA Hypothesis (1969)

GAIA, an ancient Greek name for Mother Earth, is referred to as an animistic concept

(Dunbar, 2000), while the term Earth Mother is used by indigenous communities around the

globe (Spowers 2000). British scientists, James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis proposed the

GAIA Hypothesis in the 1960s (Wall, 1994) and subsequently Lovelock published their

The Human Natural World Relationship

36

ideas, which proposed that the planet and biosphere is one integrated self-regulating organism

(Lovelock, 1979). Although indigenous communities already held this view, it was the first

time that the hypothesis was put forward as a western scientific model (Spowers, 2000).

Debate continues among scientists of the relevance of GAIA. Those working in the area of

physics and biology and familiar with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Newton and

Descartes’ Reductionism, Mechanistic Paradigm, and Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

are challenged by the hypothesis (Spowers, 2000). The hypothesis regards the earth as a self-

regulating organism (Dunbar, 2000; Lovelock, 1979); nevertheless, GAIA aims to be

consistent with the evolutionary view of organisms and environments as closely linked to the

same process (Lenton, 1998). GAIA as a collective organism is difficult to accept by many

scientists, “however in its modest form the suggestion that we share the planet as our home

with all creatures and have the capacity by our intelligence to act as physician is worth

pursuing” (Tudge, 1998, p. 37).

The important contribution of the GAIA Hypothesis to the environment lies in the shift from

viewing the planet as an infinite resource to seeing it as a living organism, a whole system in

interaction and affected by other organisms, and in turn, changing its environment (Lovelock,

1979). An analysis by Tudge (1998) refers to homeostasis, which is the ability for self-

correction. This is an attribute of GAIA, and, like all organisms, if stresses are too great, the

homeostasis will fail and the organism will become sick. The human-environment

interaction, within the GAIA concept, accommodates humans, as part of this living organism.

This opens up the prospect of reconnecting with the earth through the body, mind and spirit,

as reflected in indigenous cultures through their songs, chants and prayers (Dunbar, 2000).

Deep Ecology (1972)

During the 1970s, Norwegian philosopher and founder of Deep Ecology, Arne Naess, called

for a complete revision of the way that people interacted with the planet (Naess, 1972).

However many deep ecologists believe that “Aldo Leopold expressed the ecological

worldview succinctly in his famous Land Ethic published in the Sand Country Almanac in

The Human Natural World Relationship

37

1948” (Taylor & Zimmerman, 2005, p. 1). Leopold’s worldview exposed a world, which

afforded intrinsic value to each creature operating within a complex natural system. The

topic of worldview and nature values will be addressed in detail in Chapter Three. According

to Zimmerman (in Atkisson, 1989), deep ecology seeks to address human relationships with

the natural world, by questioning humans’ place in nature. This is examined through both

scientific insight into the interconnectedness of all things and through human self-realisation,

which is identifying with the natural world, its trees and animals (Zimmerman, 1998).

Most deep ecologists have a view of nature that is “ecocentric which means that they have

ecosystem centered values” (Taylor & Zimmerman, 2005, p. 2) while others believe in a

spiritual or religious connection to the earth (Penn, 2003), an aspect aligned with

Ecotheology (Taylor & Zimmerman, 2005). The ecocentric view held by deep ecologists has

caused criticism from social ecologists such as Bookchin, who believes that the view does not

consider human nature (Biehl & Bookchin, 1995). However, both deep ecologists and social

ecologists agree that the wellbeing of humanity is inexplicitly linked to the wellbeing of the

natural world (Ungar, 2002).

Sustainability (1972)

Sustainable development was put forward in the mid sixties in proposals to assist less

developed countries (DuBose, Frost, Chamaeau & Vanegas, 1995). An article was published

in the Ecologist in 1972, titled ‘The Blueprint for Survival’, which proposed the concepts of

Sustainability and Sustainable Development as an alternative to expansionism (Sutton,

Cazalet & Grey, 2001). The concept was further defined in a report released in 1987 by the

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) titled ‘Our Common

Future’, which marked a political turning point in policies and environmental discourse

(Mebratu, 1998). The definition of sustainability and sustainable development stated

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs” (Bruntland 1987, p. 43). The term has been used

excessively and together with various definitions of sustainability and sustainable

The Human Natural World Relationship

38

development has lead to sanitation of its true meaning resulting in a cheapening of the term

(Mebratu, 1998). The concept of sustainability in connection to the Human Natural World

Relationship infers an anthropocentric worldview, with the realisation that humans are reliant

on nature for their wellbeing.

Ecofeminism (1974)

Francoise d'Eaubonne, a French feminist, was 94 years old when she introduced the term

Ecofeminism to explain a movement with distinct cultural and social concerns (Twine, 2001).

Ecofeminism related the domination of women to the domination of nature, sexism, racism

and other injustices (Manion, 2001). The ecofeminist view is one of interconnectedness

between humans and the natural world and is aligned with the concept of GAIA.

Ecofeminists discard the concept of a human-nature dualism, which is regarded as a

masculine term (Benson 2000, p. 128). Ecofeminists equate the term “humanity with

masculine and nature as inferior, and therefore they reject the term as it represents the

oppression of women and the degradation of nature” (p. 128). Another commonality

amongst feminists is not just anthropocentrism but also rather androcentrism, that is man

centeredness, which they believe has contributed to environmental consequences through

authoritarian practices both socially and environmentally (Atkisson, 1989).

Ecofeminism argues that “ecological survival is intrinsically linked with the liberation of

women” (Nash 1990, p. 178). Ecofeminist believe that patriarchy and the development of

hierarchical structures is the cause of a disconnection with nature, which has lead to the

environmental crisis (Atkisson, 1989). Zimmerman warns that getting rid of patriarchy may

not cure the problem as egalitarian social relationships will not guarantee that nature is

preserved (Atkisson, 1989).

Animal Rights (1975)

Peter Singer’s book “Animal Rights” legitimised the rights given to non-humans and in turn

disrupted the discussion about anthropocentrism (Atkisson, 1989). According to Wall

The Human Natural World Relationship

39

(1994), Deep Ecology and Animal Rights agree that animals have absolute rights. Support

for animal liberation is embedded in history from hunter-gatherers, who adored nature spirits,

to vegans and those who pursue ancient philosophies and eastern religions (Wall, 1994).

Some religions such as Buddhism have complete compassion for animals illustrated through

an ancient Buddhist legend, which determines that human selfless sacrifice to feed animals

will result in enlightenment (Conze, 1973). The Human Natural World Relationship is

evident through the interaction that some humans have with animals such as an interest in

wildlife tourism (Simmonds, 2005), zoos, wildlife sanctuaries, bird life and pets. The

calming effect of animals in relaxation therapies, relieving stress (Natt, 2003) and through

work with the ill and disabled (Bonifazi 1997; Intermountain Therapy Animals, 1992; Older,

1988) is well documented in the health sciences. These interactions with animals can be

anthropocentric, but display a compassionate approach.

Historically, Berry (2004) explains that the oppression of animals, both human and non-

human has occurred throughout societies and the link between human rights and

environmental protection and non-human (animal) rights are inexplicitly linked. Oppression

of non-humans is usually linked to capitalist outcomes, “such as the pharmaceutical industry,

meat industry, hunting, fur industry, entertainment such as zoos, circuses, dog and horse

racing”(p. 61). Human oppression of minority groups for exploitation and profit through

manufacturing, the sex trade and science experiments are also documented (Berry, 2004).

Leahy (1994) contributes the ‘early direction of animal rights to the works of Andrey Linzey,

Stephen Clark, Bernard Rollin, Mary Midgley, Tom Regan and Peter Singer” (p. 3).

However, Leahy and others do not agree with the direction the author’s work has taken, as

they believe that the work instills guilt in people who eat meat, go fishing or visit zoos

(Leahy, 1994).

Bioregionalism (1977)

The Ecologist published a work by Peter Berg and Raymond Dasmann called “Reinhabiting

California” (Berg & Dasmann, 1977). The work explained a new philosophy called