1.) White
states we know little about what happened during ecological changes and it is possible for
us to overlook ecological values that could have improved human life (Netherlands
example). Is this possible? (1203)
2. First
thoughts on White’s claims:
-No
creature other than man has ever managed to foul its nest like man
-Past
not the answer to ecological problems
-Ecological
crisis product of democratic culture
3. In order
for White’s argument to work you must accept his claim that there was a Western
hunger for domination via science (1204). Does he do enough persuade you?
4.) Is it
modern agricultural technological that changed man's relationship with nature from being
one with nature to exploiters of nature?
Whitney
argues one person’s exploitation is another man’s stewardship and White’s
argument is too narrow (167).
5.) Does
White’s claim that most of modern society lives within the context of a Christian
world (1205) seem feasible?
Whitney
questions the fact that the contemporary Western world is still shaped by a Christian
value system (157). Which is more likely?
6.) Natural
Theology took on two different paths according to White. The symbolic system of the East
and the understand of God’s mind in the West. For White, this is where the connection
between science/technology and religion starts. Is the connection there?
7.) Thoughts
on the following rather controversial claims by White (1206):
-For
Christians a tree can be no more than a physical fact, nature is cannot be sacred.
-It
will take a new religion or a massive overhaul of the old to get us out of the ecological
crisis.
Whitney
contends this is assumes culture somehow exists outside of other factors in time.
8.) The
battle between White and Whitney is the role of Christianity in the formation labor and
technology that has created the ecological crisis. White thinks the blame squarely lies on
religion whilst Whitney thinks there is a connection as part of larger
reasoning.
Does either side have a case?