» » The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book)

Free eBook The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) download

by Stephen R. Kellert,Edward O. Wilson,Scott McVay,Aaron Katcher,Cecilia McCarthy,Gregory Wilkins,Roger Ulrich,Paul Shepard,Sara St. Antoine,Jared Diamond,Gordon Orians,Richard Nelson,Madhav Gadgil,Lynn Margulis,Elizabeth Lawrence

Free eBook The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) download ISBN: 1559631473
Author: Stephen R. Kellert,Edward O. Wilson,Scott McVay,Aaron Katcher,Cecilia McCarthy,Gregory Wilkins,Roger Ulrich,Paul Shepard,Sara St. Antoine,Jared Diamond,Gordon Orians,Richard Nelson,Madhav Gadgil,Lynn Margulis,Elizabeth Lawrence
Publisher: Shearwater; Reissue edition (March 1, 1995)
Language: English
Pages: 496
Category: Other
Subcategory: Humanities
Size MP3: 1567 mb
Size FLAC: 1570 mb
Rating: 4.4
Format: rtf azw txt lit


Similar books to The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) Before his death in 1996, Paul Shepard was Avery Professor of Human Ecology and Natural Philosophy at Pitzer College and the Claremont.

Similar books to The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book). Before his death in 1996, Paul Shepard was Avery Professor of Human Ecology and Natural Philosophy at Pitzer College and the Claremont Graduate School.

In his landmark book Biophilia, he examined how our tendency to focus on. .Before his death in 1996, Paul Shepard was Avery Professor of Human Ecology and Natural Philosophy at Pitzer College and th.

In his landmark book Biophilia, he examined how our tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes might be a biologically based need, integral to our development as individuals and as a species. That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers. The Biophilia Hypothesis brings together the views of some of the most creative scientists of our time, each attempting to amplify and refine the concept of biophilia. Start reading The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) on your Kindle in under a minute.

Start reading The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) on your Kindle .

Start reading The Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) on your Kindle in under a minute. This hypothesis is important not because it can start a new religion or redeem the world, but because it balances more pessimistic views of human nature with the idea that we have a natural psychological connection to our fellow creatures. This in turn implies that we harm our own psyches to the extent we push other beings out of existence.

The Biophilia Hypothesis - Stephen R. Kellert. Part Two of the book, Affect and Aesthetics, includes essays by Roger Ulrich, Judith Heerwagen and Gordon Orians, and Aaron Katcher and Gregory Wilkins. Each chapter addresses processes associated with the natural environment that condition human emotional, cognitive, and aesthetic development. THE BIOPHILIA HYPOTHESIS boldly asserts the existence of a biologically based, inherent human need to affiliate with life and lifelike processes (Wilson 1984).

The Biophilia Hypothesis. Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson, author of The Diversity of Life and winner of two Pulitzer prizes, to describe what he believes is our innate affinity for the natural world. by Stephen R. Kellert · Edward O. Wilson · Scott McVay · Aaron Katcher · Cecilia McCarthy · Gregory Wilkins · Roger Ulrich · Paul Shepard · Sara St. Antoine · Jared Diamond · Gordon Orians · Richard Nelson · Madhav Gadgil · Lynn Margulis · Elizabeth Lawrence. In his landmark book Biophilia, he examined how our tendency

The Biophilia Hypothesis book.

The Biophilia Hypothesis book. Biophilia is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson, author. Details (if other): Cancel. Thanks for telling us about the problem. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Scott McVay (Contributor). Aaron Katcher (Contributor). Cecilia McCarthy (Contributor).

Madhav Gadgil,(Contributor),Lynn Margulis,(Contributor),Elizabeth Lawrence . Book Description That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers

Madhav Gadgil,(Contributor),Lynn Margulis,(Contributor),Elizabeth Lawrence,(Contributor). Publisher : Island Press. "Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson to describe what he believes is humanity's innate affinity for the natural world. The Biophilia Hypothesis" brings together the views of some of the most creative scientists of our time, each attempting to amplify and refine the concept of biophilia.

Stephen R. Kellert, Edward O. Wilson . In his landmark book Biophilia, he examined how our tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes might be a biologically based need, integral to our development as individuals and as a species.

Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson to describe what he believes is humanity's innate affinity for . That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers

Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Stephen R. Island Press, 1993 - Nature - 484 pages. That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers

Coupon
User reviews
Inabel
Exexcellent book good delivery
Nikojas
Provides a wide range of thoughtful , carefully researched perspectives on a very important topic in contemporary science and philosophy.
FRAY
Required fir school
Error parents
This book contains writings and research from several fields, their experts trying to confirm the hypothesis that human beings are naturally drawn to various manifestations of the natural world ("biophilia"). This hypothesis is important not because it can start a new religion or redeem the world, but because it balances more pessimistic views of human nature with the idea that we have a natural psychological connection to our fellow creatures. This in turn implies that we harm our own psyches to the extent we push other beings out of existence.

Don't expect any end-stage science from this book. The editors make it clear up front that these are tentative, exploratory, and sometimes speculative investigations. The amount of biophilia research funding remains quite small compared to environmental research on how to market things or brainwash customers. The studies herein go up to the 1990s, so it's time for another collection.

A chapter that puzzled me was written by Dorion Sagan and Lynn Margulis to argue that appeals to save the planet are grandiose. Granted; Joanna Macy has been making the point for decades that we are PART of the planet, not sitting high above it. At best we can participate in its self-healing from what humans have done to it. But the authors go beyond this to normalize what we have done to it, even suggesting that we could be making way for the next evolutionary experiment of Gaia. I hate to use the hard word "misanthropic," but dismissing global warming and mass extinctions with the suggestion that "the decline in species diversity may be balanced by an increase in technological diversity" is astounding. It is quite a contrast to the growing numbers of people who feel the pain of those disappearances and declines with agonizing urgency and sorrow. I'm concerned that it also supports the very passivity and hopelessness that deprive the public sphere of so much pro-environmental energy directed toward appreciating and encouraging Earth's self-healing complexity: a very different idealism from the heroic posture of the world-shaper.
რฉςh
This was recommended by a scientist-science teacher-friend and I was simply blown away by the implications. If this theory is correct, then it explains the human descent into madness brought on by increased development without thought.
Dddasuk
In Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectual's Abuse of Science, postmodernists are taken to task for distorting physics and math through poetic license that says nothing and means nothing. Edward O. Wilson likewise has criticized postmodernists for their attacks on science and Western knowledge, and now we have the evolutionists stooping to the same distortions of logic and clear thinking in pursuit of personal agendas to resurrect a new religion of nature. In the book The Biophilia Hypothesis (henceforth BioHyp) we can clearly delineate between the evolutionary observations of our past and what it should mean to us today. This book merges evolutionary knowledge of our environment for survival, with an ethic of deep ecology that is as befuddling and lacking in coherence as anything I have previously seen written by those who claim to be on the side of neo-Darwinist empiricism. But we should all recognize that it is easy, even for true empiricists, to slip into quasi-religious cults even while appearing to embrace the principles of science. Since this book does not have any coherence, aside from making some rather bland connection between how humans interact with nature which I accept but fail to see as profound, I will take a few of the most egregiously inept statements in the book to pull the rug out from under their proposed paradigm.
This book tries to equate affiliation with nature with the essence of a good life that has meaning. Granted, many aspects of human nature go into the make-up of our beings, including: the need to create, observe nature, have sex, accumulate and show off our amassed wealth, dominance over others, athleticism, gathering and enjoying food, AND competition with other human groups including warfare and genocide. Yes, along with a love of nature humans also have a blood lust that these authors all know exists but fail to address in this book. Another quasi-religious group of scientists could easily conjure up a new natural paradigm based on warfare (perhaps like the Spartans) and be equally content with a new culture based on love of animals but hatred of other humans (perhaps the genophilia hypothesis?).
"The biophilia hypothesis necessarily involves a number of challenging, indeed daunting, assertions. Among these is the suggestion that the human inclination to affiliate with life and lifelike process is: 1) Inherent (that is, biologically based); 2) Part of our species' evolutionary heritage; 3) Associated with human competitive advantage and genetic fitness; 4) Likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment; and 5) The self-interested basis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature, most especially the diversity of life." [20]
Assertions 1,2 and 3 I have no problem with, they are simple evolutionary statements. However I take strong issue with 4 and 5. Lets rephrase 4: "[T]he inclination to affiliate with life . . . is [l]ikely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment." Let us merely rephrase it to read, "The inclination for humans to commit genocide is likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment." I contend that genocide and group cohesiveness are in fact far more powerful emotions than our need of love for nature. And yet we have been able to subdue this emotion quite nicely by introducing incentives in cultures to forego blood-letting for other more valuable past times. Likewise, BioHyp may improve our urban environment by paying more attention to planting trees and providing for some bird sanctuaries, but I would contend that the average urban dweller is far more impacted by daily road rage than they are sensitive to the number of animals and fauna they observe on their journey to work. That is, hostility to other humans who may have offended me carry a much greater burden on my temperament than seeing a squirrel climb up the tree as I walk to my garage.
Assertion 5 above, in order to be true, must show that an extreme caring and conservation for nature, one that must reduce the average material wealth of humans while also reducing the number of humans, is of real benefit to humans: that is, it is a good in itself, to all humans! Does this hold for those who will not be born? For those who will die on the way to the emergency room because we have reverted back to bicycles or horse and buggies? Don't get me wrong. I am not an egalitarian that thinks "banning guns to save just one child is reason enough to give up our constitutional rights." Its just that no group or philosophy can make the above statement to simplistically and universally alter our national or humans agenda. They are calling for a ecological Jihad that is not warranted. Our culture cannot be cut from whole cloth based on such simplistic assertions. They are made up of a myriad of compromises and constraints that do not fall easily into any one fundamental of human nature as espoused in BioHyp.