<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Environmental Ethics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://himsit.com/musings/environmental-ethics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://himsit.com</link>
	<description>Micah Herstand</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:46:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Our Biotic Home &#187; Himsit Concepts</title>
		<link>http://himsit.com/musings/environmental-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Our Biotic Home &#187; Himsit Concepts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 14:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://himsit.com/blog/?page_id=78#comment-24</guid>
		<description>[...] In Michael Nelson&#8217;s closing statements to his 2003 essay, The Great Wilderness Debate: An Overview, Nelson calls on the environmental community to move past bitter partisanship and find some sort of consensus on the term wilderness and all the connotations that come with it (Nelson, 206). To move forward, he argues, we must recognize that there is currently no defense for the wilderness idea that convinces those who are not already convinced. In this paper, I will set out to provide such a defense by arguing for an enlightened view of wilderness as a biotic home. I begin by conceding that the term wilderness does, in fact, evoke too many unhelpful images and ideas to contain a salvageable philosophic model for nature. However, I argue that we must protect and preserve our biotic home &#8211; an environment much like wilderness, except that it may, in certain circumstances, include humans as permanent residents. Finally, I will show that it is imperative that we understand ourselves before we attempt to understand our environment; this means that we need to understand whether our culture allows for a human-nature symbiosis or whether they must remain divided. (keep reading) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In Michael Nelson&#8217;s closing statements to his 2003 essay, The Great Wilderness Debate: An Overview, Nelson calls on the environmental community to move past bitter partisanship and find some sort of consensus on the term wilderness and all the connotations that come with it (Nelson, 206). To move forward, he argues, we must recognize that there is currently no defense for the wilderness idea that convinces those who are not already convinced. In this paper, I will set out to provide such a defense by arguing for an enlightened view of wilderness as a biotic home. I begin by conceding that the term wilderness does, in fact, evoke too many unhelpful images and ideas to contain a salvageable philosophic model for nature. However, I argue that we must protect and preserve our biotic home &#8211; an environment much like wilderness, except that it may, in certain circumstances, include humans as permanent residents. Finally, I will show that it is imperative that we understand ourselves before we attempt to understand our environment; this means that we need to understand whether our culture allows for a human-nature symbiosis or whether they must remain divided. (keep reading) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

