How Is Steven Landsburg's Attitude Towards the Environment an Expression of His Cultural Beliefs and Values?

Introduction

Steve proposes that the counteractant to terrible religion is excellent science. The remedy to crystal gazing is the sound technique, the antitoxin to gullible creationism is developmental science, and the counteractant to guileless environmentalism is economics. Financial aspects are the art of contending inclinations (Landsburg, n.p). Environmentalism goes past science when it lifts issues of preference of the problems of profound quality. A proposition to clear a wilderness and set up a parking area is an event for strife between the individuals who are inclined towards the wilderness and the individuals who lean toward advantageous parking lot. In the following battle, each side endeavors to force its inclinations by controlling the political and monetary frameworks (Crawford,1449). Since one side must win and one side must lose, the fight is hard-battled and once in a while severe.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

How is Thich Nhat Hanh's attitude towards the environment an expression of his cultural beliefs and values? Thich Nhat Hanh has the mindset that the environment is an essential aspect of our lives. He goes on to state that, "I realize that in our past life we were trees, and even in this life we keep on being trees. Without trees, we can't have individuals, in this way trees and individuals between are. We are trees, and air shrubberies and mists," (Badiner, n.p). If the trees didn't survive, humanity wouldn't survive either (Kaza eta al., n.p). We become ill since we have devastated our condition, and we are in mental anguish since we are so far from our actual mother, Mother Nature.

In point form, compare the type of relationship with the environment expressed in Steven Landsburg's with that of Thich Nhat Hanh. The relationship with the environment expressed in Steven Landsburg's with that of Thich Nhat Hanh is entirely different in the sense that:

Landsburg thinks that preservationists - the ones I have met - have no genuine enthusiasm for keeping up the tree populace. I presume that they would prefer not to do that because their real concern is with the custom of reusing itself, not with its outcomes. The primary need to forfeit, and to propel others to forfeit, is a generally religious drive (Thomashow, n.p).

Hanh recommends we should embrace the trees and inhale with the trees that we find in our way (Batchelor et al., n.p). We can reuse our trash into blooms and change lethal waste dumps into sanctuaries of human care.

Is there any common ground between their approaches? There is no common ground between their plans. What accounts for their differences? Steven does not believe in preserving the environment and thinks we should make a profit out of it whereas Hanh recommends proper waste disposal measures amongst other things to protect the environment.

Work Cited

Crawford, Charles B., and Judith L. Anderson. "Sociobiology: An environmentalist discipline?" American Psychologist 44.12 (1989): 1449.

Badiner, Allan Hunt, ed. Dharma Gaia: A harvest of essays in Buddhism and ecology. Parallax Press, 1990.

Batchelor, Martine, and Kerry Brown. "Buddhism and ecology." (1992).

Landsburg, Steven E. "Why I am not an environmentalist: The science of economics versus the religion of ecology." (1993).

Kaza, Stephanie, and Kenneth Kraft, eds. Dharma rain: Sources of Buddhist environmentalism. Shambhala Publications, 2000.

Thomashow, Mitchell. Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Mit Press, 1996.