Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands.Â This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it.Â I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment.Â I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital.Â This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world.Â It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naÃ¯ve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony.Â The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
I met a guy last night who had grown up here in Sonoma County but had been enticed to move to Amarillo, Texas by economic incentives for his business (by the government). Very smart guy, not a religious bigot at all, and good company. Late in our conversation, however, he worried abut the fact that Islam was “not a religion,” and wanted to impose “Shariah Law” on the rest of us. Muslims in general were a suspicious lot that meant us no good.
All the vicious right wing Christian hate points pulled together in a package and believed by a man to all evidence good hearted, decent, and honest. Unlike those who he believed.
I told him that this was false, that most Muslims were like most other people and that while there were a few vicious nutcases, the same could easily be said for Christians and, if we ever became numerous enough, there would be hideous Pagans as well even if as a religion Pagans have a far better record of tolerance than the monopolistic monotheisms.
I wrote down the title of a book that had taught me a lot about Islam (and slightly messed up the title, Reza Aslan’s No god but God. The bigots of course will not read it because facts to them are like kryptonite to Superman. But hopefully he will because he was not obviously allergic to truth and logic.
But he did say coming back to visit Sonoma County was like visiting a different planet compared to Amarillo.
This is what happens when corporate and right wing forces control the media, combined with Ronald Reagan’s greatest blow against the US, eliminating the fairness doctrine from the radio so that hate filled gasbags and the stations that support them could dominate the airwaves across large portions of our country almost as thoroughly as state propaganda pervades Iran.
Right wing liars claimed, and still claim, the doctrine prevented discussion of controversial issues. Actually no, it prevented one sided monopolization of how controversial issues were discussed by those with lots of money and a dislike of free speech and an informed citizenry.