聞思筆記

Deep Ecology Environmental Worldview

Deep ecology calls for us to think more deeply about our obligations toward both human and nonhuman life.

Another earth-centered environmental worldview is the deep ecology worldview. It consists of eight premises developed in 1972 by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, in conjunction with philosopher George Sessions and sociologist Bill Devall. First, each nonhuman form of life on the earth has inherent value, independent of its value to humans. Second, the fundamental interdependence and diversity of life-forms contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.

Third, humans have no right to reduce this interdependence and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. Fourth, present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is worsening rapidly. Fifth, because of the damage caused by this interference, it would be better for humans, and much better for nonhumans, if there were a substantial decrease in the human population.

Sixth, basic economic and technological policies must therefore be changed. Seventh, the predominant ideology must change such that measurements of the quality of life focus on the overall health of the environment and all living things, rather than on the material wealth of human individuals and societies. Eighth, those who subscribe to these points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. Question: Explain why you agree or disagree with each of these eight premises.

Naess also described some lifestyle guidelines compatible with the basic beliefs of deep ecology. They include appreciating all forms of life, consuming less, emphasizing satisfaction of vital needs rather than wants, working to improve the standard of living for the world’s poor, taking steps to eliminate injustice toward fellow humans or other species, and acting nonviolently.

Deep ecology is not an eco-religion, nor is it antireligious or antihuman, as some of its critics have claimed. It is a set of beliefs that would have us think more deeply about the inherent value of all life on the earth and about our obligations toward all life.

Ecofeminist Environmental worldview

Women should be given the same rights that men have and be treated as equal partners in our joint quest to develop more environmentally sustainable and socially just societies.

French writer Francoise d’Eaubonne coined the term ecofeminism in 1974. It includes a spectrum of views on dominated societies (patriarchies). Most eco-feminists agree that we need a life-centered or earth-centered environmental worldview. However, they believe a main cause of our environmental problems is not just human-centeredness, but specifically male-centeredness (androcentrism).

Many eco-feminists argue that the rise of male-dominated societies and environmental worldviews since the advent of agriculture, when land and water became important resources to protect (mostly by males), is primarily responsible for our violence against nature and for the oppression of women and minorities as well. To such eco-feminists, our shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural and industrial societies changed our view of nature from that of a nurturing mother to that of a foe to be conquered.

Eco-feminists note that women earn less than 10% of all wages, own less than 1% of all property, and in most societies have far fewer rights than men. Some eco-feminists suggest that oppression by men has driven women closer to nature and made them more compassionate and nurturing. As oppressed members of society, they argue, many women have more experience in dealing with interpersonal conflicts, bringing people together, acting as caregivers, and identifying emotionally with injustice, pain, and suffering.

To these analysts, women with such qualities are in a better position to help lead as we struggle to develop more environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. Such societies would be based on cooperation, rather than confrontation and domination, and on finding win-win solutions to our environmental and human problems instead of win-lose solutions often associated with our current male-dominated societies.

Eco-feminists argue that women should be treated as equal partners with men. They do not want to be given token roles or co-opted into the male power game. They want to work with men to bake an entirely new economic and environmental pie. They hope to heal the rift between humans and nature and end oppression based on sex, race, class, age, and cultural and religious beliefs.

Eco-feminists are not alone in calling for us to encourage the rise of life-centered people who emphasize the best human characteristics: gentleness, caring, compassion, nonviolence, cooperation, and love.

Shifts in Environmental Values and Worldviews: Some Encouraging Trends

Global and national polls reveal a shift toward the stewardship, environmental wisdom, and deep ecology worldviews.

Polls indicate a cultural shift toward the stewardship, environmental wisdom, and deep ecology worldviews. Here are some examples:

1. A 2000 World Values Survey found that 76% of the respondents (85% in the U.S. and 96% in Japan) said that human beings should “coexist with nature,” and only 9% said we should “master nature.”

2. A 2002 global survey found that 52% of the respondents and 74% of those in the United States and other leading industrial countries agreed that “protecting the environment should be given priority over economic growth and creating jobs.”

3. A 2002 national survey in the United States found that Americans strongly agreed that humans (1) should adapt to nature rather than modify it to suit them (76%), (2) have moral duties and obligations to plant and other animal species (87%), and (3) have moral duties and obligations to nonliving nature such as air, water, and rocks (80%). And 90% of Americans responding to this poll believed that nature has value within itself regardless of any value humans place on it.

4. A 2002 global poll found that 67-72% of the respondents believe that water pollution, rain forest destruction, natural resource depletion, air pollution, ozone layer depletion, and species loss were “very serious problems.” And 56% classified climate change as a “very serious problem.”

RESEARCH FRONTIER Public opinion research on environmental values

The key is to convert these value shifts into individual and collective actions that implement these environmental beliefs at the individual, local, national, and global levels.

HOW WOULD YOU VOTE? Which one of the following comes closest to your environmental world view: planetary management, stewardship, environmental wisdom, deep ecology, ecofeminist? Cast your vote online at academic.cengage.com/biology/miller.

Are We Facing Ecological Collapse?

Using images of economic or ecological collapse can deter us from preventing or slowing environmental degradation.

The planetary management, stewardship, and environmental wisdom worldviews differ over whether there are physical and biological limits to economic growth, beyond which ecological and economic collapse are limits to population and economic growth has been going on since Thomas Malthus published his book The Principles of Political Economy in 1836.

In 2000, conservation biologist Carlos Davidson proposed a way to bridge the gap between differing worldviews and to help motivate the political changes needed to halt or slow the spread of environmental degradation. Davidson disagrees with the view of some economists that technology will allow continuing economic growth of essentially any type without causing serious environmental damage. He also disagrees with the view that continuing economic growth based on consuming and degrading natural capital will lead to ecological and economic crashes.

Instead of crashes, Davidson suggests the metaphor of a gradually unraveling tapestry to describe the effects of environmental degradation. He asks us to think of nature as a diverse tapestry—an incredible variety of species, biomes, aquatic systems, and ecosystems. The tapestry is losing threads, more in some areas than in others, and is even torn in some places, but it is unlikely to fall apart. However, he believes that degradation in parts of the earth’s ecological tapestry is occurring and is likely to increase because of problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss. He argues that this must be prevented or slowed by using the pollution prevention and precautionary principles.

Davidson believes that using metaphors for catastrophe such as “ecological collapse” and “going over a cliff” can hinder these efforts. He argues that repeated predictions of catastrophe, like those of the boy who cried wolf, will be heard at first, but later ignored. As a result, people will lose motivation to prevent more tears in nature’s tapestry or to look more deeply at the causes of the damage. Question: What is your view on this issue? Explain.

HOW WOULD YOU VOTE? Do you believe there are physical and biological limits to human economic growth? Cast your vote online at academic.cengage.com/biology/miller.

＊   LIVING MORE SUSTAINABLY

Environmental Literacy: A Key to Change

Environmental literate citizens and leaders are needed to build more environmentally sustainable and socially just societies.

Learning how to live more sustainably requires a foundation of environmental education. Here are some key goals of environmental education or environmental literacy:

1. Develop respect or reverence for all life.

2. Understand as much as we can about how the earth works and sustains itself (Figure 1-16, p. 24), and use such knowledge to guide our lives, communities, and societies.

3. See the big picture by looking for connections within the biosphere and between our actions and the biosphere and culture sphere (Figure 1-2, p. 7).

4. Understand the relationships between the economy and the earth’s natural support systems (Figure 24-4, p. 573) and the role of economics in making the transition to more sustainable economies (Figure24-15, p. 587) and societies. We need economists and business leaders such as Ray Anderson (Individuals Matter, p. 583) and Yvon Chouinard (p. 589) who can think like ecologists.

5. Use critical thinking skills (p. 3) to become seekers of environmental wisdom instead of overfilled vessels of environmental information.

6. Understand and evaluate one’s environmental worldview and continue this as a lifelong process.

7. Learn how to evaluate the beneficial and harmful environmental consequences to the earth of our choices of lifestyle and profession, today and in the future.

8. Foster a desire to make the world a better place and act on this desire.

Specifically, an environmentally literate person should have a basic comprehension of the following:

1. Concepts such as environmental sustainability, natural capital, exponential growth, carrying capacity, and risk analysis.

2. Environmental history to help keep us from repeating past mistakes.

3. The two laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter.

4. Basic principles of ecology, such as food webs, nutrient cycling, biodiversity, ecological succession, and population dynamics.

5. Human population dynamics.

6. Ways to sustain biodiversity.

7. Sustainable agriculture and forestry.

8. Soil conservation.

9. Sustainable water use.

10. Nonrenewable mineral resources.

11. Nonrenewable and renewable energy resources.

12. Climate change and ozone depletion.

13. Pollution prevention and waste reduction.

14. Sustainable cities.

15. Environmentally sustainable economic and political systems.

16. Environmental worldviews and ethics.

    According to environmental educator Mitchell Thomashow, four basic questions should be at the heart of environmental literacy. First, where do the things I consume come from? Second, what do I know about the place where I live? Third, how am I connected to the earth and other living things? Fourth, what is my purpose and responsibility as a human being? How each of us answers these questions determines our ecological identity.

THINKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY How would you answer the four questions just listed?

    In addition to environmentally literate political leaders, there is an urgent need for an environmentally literate media. The world faces an unprecedented need to raise public awareness and understanding about the gravity of mobilizing a global response to bringing about major cultural change in a short time.

    Figure 26-6 summarizes guidelines and strategies that have been discussed throughout this book for achieving more environmentally sustainable societies.

Learning from the Earth

In addition to formal learning, we need to learn by experiencing nature directly.

Formal environmental education is important, but is it enough? Many analysts say no and urge us to take time to escape the cultural and technological body armor we use to insulate ourselves from nature and to experience nature directly.

    They suggest we kindle a sense of awe, wonder, mystery, excitement, and humility by standing under the stars, sitting in a forest, or taking in the majesty and power of an ocean.

    We might pick up a handful of soil and try to sense the teeming microscopic life within it that keeps us alive. We might look at a tree, mountain, rock, or bee and try to sense how they are a part of us and we are a part of them as interdependent participants in the earth’s life-sustaining recycling processes.

    Many psychologists believe that, consciously or unconsciously, we spend much of our lives searching for roots: something to anchor us in a bewildering and frightening sea of change. As philosopher Simone Weil observed, “To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.”

“Solutions:

Developing Environmentally Sustainable Societies.

1. Guidelines:

(1) Learn from and copy nature.

(2) Do not degrade or deplete the earth’s natural capital, and live off the natural income it provides.

(3) Take no more than we need.

(4) Do not reduce biodiversity.

(5) Try not to harm life, air, water, soil.

(6) Do not change the world’s climate.

(7) Do not overshoot the earth’s carrying capacity.

(8) Help maintain the earth’s capacity for self-repair.

(9) Repair past ecological damage.

(10) Leave the world in as good as shape as—or better than—we found it.

2. Strategies:

(1) Sustain biodiversity.

(2) Eliminate poverty.

(3) Develop eco-economies.

(4) Build sustainable.

(5) Do not use renewable resources faster than nature can replace them.

(6) Use sustainable agriculture.

(7) Depend more on locally available renewable energy from the sun, wind, flowing water, and sustainable biomass.

(8) Emphasize pollution and waste reduction.

(9) Do not waste matter and energy resources.

(10) Recycle, reuse, and compost 60-80% of matter resources.

(11) Maintain a human population size such that needs are met without threatening life-support systems.

(12) Emphasize ecological restoration.”

Figure 26-6 Solutions: guidelines and strategies for achieving more sustainable societies. QUESTIONS: Which three guidelines and which three strategies do you think are the most important? Which of these guidelines and strategies do you follow in your life and lifestyle?

    Earth-focused philosophers say that to be rooted, each of us needs to find a sense of place: a stream, a mountain, a yard, a neighborhood lot, or any piece of the earth we feel at one with as a place we know, experience emotionally, and love. When we become part of a place, it becomes a part of us. Then we are driven to defend it from harm and to help heal its wounds.

    This might lead us to recognize that the healing of the earth and the healing of the human spirit are one and the same. We might discover and tap into what Aldo Leopold calls “the green fire that burns in our hearts” and use this as a force for respecting and working with the earth and with one another.

深層生態學環境世界觀

    深層生態學要求我們更深刻地思考我們對人類和非人類生命的義務。

    深層生態學是一個以地球為中心的環境世界觀。它包括由挪威哲學家阿恩·奈斯與哲學家喬治·賽森和社會學家比爾·戴佛開發於1972年的8個前提。首先，生活在地球上的每一個非人類生命其有內在且獨立於人類的價值。第二，基本上相互依存的生命形式與多樣性有助於人類和非人類生活在地球上且蓬勃發展。

    第三，人類無權減少這種相互依賴性和多樣性，除了滿足基本需求。第四，目前對世界非人類生命的人為干擾過大，且形勢正在迅速惡化。第五，在能夠顯著降低人類汙染的前提下，這種人為干擾所造成的損害，將會對人類和非人類生命更好。

    第六，基本的經濟和技術政策必須改變。第七，我們的思想必須改變，應將生活的重點放在對環境的整體健康素質的測量和世間萬物之上，而不是單純追求人類個體和社會的物質財富。第八，那些得知這些觀點的人，將有直接或間接的義務去設法落實各項改革措施。問題與討論：你同意這八個前提嗎？請解釋為什麼。

    奈斯也進一步說明了深層生態學的基本信念所兼容的一些生活習慣與指導方針。包括欣賞各種形式的生命、更少無謂的消耗、強調生命需要的滿足，努力改善生活而不只停在意識中的期望，並設定世界貧困人口的標準、採取措施以消除對人類同胞或其他物種不公正，以及非暴力地行動。

    深層生態學是不是一種生態的信仰，也不如它的一些批評者所聲稱的反宗教或反人類。這是一種觀點，讓我們更深刻地思考在地球的所有生命，以及我們對所有生命的義務與內在價值的信仰。

生態女性主義的環境世界觀

    在我們共同尋求發展、環境的永續，以及公正的社會時，應該給予婦女擁有跟男性一樣的權利，並將女性視為平等的夥伴。

    法國作家弗朗索瓦·德奧奔在1974年創造了生態女性主義一詞，它包括女性意見佔主導地位的社會頻譜（父權社會下）。大多數生態女權主義者認為，我們需要一個生活中心或以地球為中心的環境世界觀。然而，他們認為我們的環境問題的主要原因並不只是人類為中心，而是專門以男性為中心（男性中心主義）。

    許多生態女權主義者認為，男性佔主導地位的社會和環境世界觀，因為農業的出現，所以土地和水資源成為重要的資源保障（主要由男性來爭取），這些行為可以是對自然的暴力抵抗和透過壓迫婦女及少數族裔來索取等等。生態女權主義者認為，歷史演進從狩獵採集到農工業社會改變了人類對自然的觀念，從將自然視為一個養育我們的母親，到看成是一個被征服的敵人。

    生態女權主義者指出，婦女收入的總工資的不到10％，擁有全部產權的不到1％，而在大多數社會中擁有的權利比男性還要少很多。一些生態女性主義者認為，壓迫男性能使女性更接近大自然，使女性更加富有同情心和生育能力。做為被社會的壓迫一員，生態女權主義者認為，很多女性處理了人際衝突、將人們凝聚在一起、充當照顧者，並在非正義、痛苦和苦難的情感識別上擁有更多的經驗。

    這些分析家認為，婦女這樣的素質是一個更好的角度，可幫助我們努力開發更具環境持久力和公正的社會。這樣的社會將奠基於合作，而不是對抗和統治，並在環境和人類的問題間，尋找雙贏的解決方案，而不經常採取目前男性主義社會所使用的自私的解決方案。

    生態女權主義者認為女性應該被視為與男子平等的合作夥伴。她們不希望成為被給予令牌的角色或增選進入公權力的遊戲。他們希望與男性一起創造一個全新的經濟與環境的榮景。她們希望治癒人與自然之間的裂痕，並結束基於性別、種族、階級、年齡、文化和宗教信仰的壓迫。

    生態女權主義者群起呼籲我們以生活為中心，並鼓勵與強調人類最好的特點已經崛起：溫柔、關懷、同情、非暴力、合作和愛。

環境價值觀和世界觀的轉變：一些令人鼓舞的趨勢

全球和全國民調顯示在領導方式、環保智慧和深層生態學世界觀的轉變。

民意調查表明在領導方式、環保智慧和深層生態學世界觀上的文化轉變。下面是一些例子：

1. 2000年世界價值觀調查發現，受訪者（美國85％，日本96％）中76％的人認為人類應該“與自然共存”，只有9％的人表示要“主宰自然。”

2. 2002年的全球調查發現，52％的受訪者，並在美國和其他主要工業國家的74％的人認為“保護環境，應優先於經濟增長和創造就業機會。”

3. 2002年的美國全國調查發現，美國人非常同意人類（1）應順應自然，而不是對其進行修改，以滿足自己（76％），（2）對植物和其他動物物種有道義責任和義務，（87％），以及（3）對無生命的性質，如空氣，水和岩石，有道義責任和義務（80％）。 90％的美國人響應這一調查，認為自然有內在、本身的價值，人類不應將其他任何價值置於其上。

4. 2002年全球性調查發現，受訪者67-72％的人認為水污染、熱帶雨林的破壞、自然資源枯竭、大氣污染、臭氧層消耗和物種喪失是“非常嚴重的問題。”而56％認為氣候轉變是一個“非常嚴重的問題。”

研究前沿 對環境價值的民意調查

關鍵是將這些值的變化實現在個人、地方、國家和全球各級擁有這些環境信念的個人和集體行動。

你會支持誰？ 下列哪一個最接近你的環境的世界觀：行星管理、領導、環保智慧、深層生態學、生態女性主義？請上網投票academic.cengage.com/biology/miller。

我們正在面臨生態崩潰嗎？

    對經濟或生態崩潰的想像可以從預防或減緩我們對環境所造成的惡化。

    行星管理、領導和環保智慧在探討物理和生物是否限制經濟增長的世界觀上有所不同，托馬斯·馬爾薩斯在1836年發表了有關經濟原則的政治著作後，對於生態和經濟的崩潰限制人口和經濟的增長才有了統一的說法。

    西元2000年時，保護生物學家卡洛斯·戴維森提出了一個方法來彌合不同的世界觀之間的差距，並幫助激勵所需要的政治變化來停止或減緩環境惡化的擴散。戴維森不同意一些經濟學家認為技術將繼續帶來任何型式的總體經濟增長，而不會造成嚴重環境破壞的觀點。他也不同意奠基於浪費上所帶來的經濟持續增長和有辱人格地取用自然資本，因為這些將導致生態和經濟崩潰。

    相對於崩潰，戴維森提出了一個對掛毯逐步抽絲剝繭的比喻來形容環境惡化的影響。他要求我們去思考大自然作為一個多元化的掛毯，一個令人難以置信的不同的物種、生物群落、水生系統和生態系統群落。掛毯是對失去歷程的比喻，更在一些地區比在其他地方更破碎，但它不太可能土崩瓦解。不過，他認為，在降低地球的生態掛毯部分的同時，會發生且有可能增加一些問題，如氣候變化和生物多樣性喪失。他認為，這些問題必須被阻止，或者使用污染防治和預防原則來放緩惡化速度。

    戴維森認為，使用災難的隱喻，如“生態崩潰”和“越過懸崖”可能會阻礙這些努力。他認為，災難預言的反覆，像那些放羊的孩子一樣，起初會被重視，但後來被忽略。這樣一來，人們就會失去動力去防止自然掛毯落淚或者是去探討更深入的損壞原因。問題與討論：您如何看待這個問題？請解釋之。

你會支持誰？你相信人類的經濟增長上有物理和生物的限制嗎？請上網投票academic.cengage.com/biology/miller。

＊更加永續地生活

環境素養：改變的關鍵

    有環境素養的公民和領導人需要建立更具環境永續性和公正的社會。

    學習如何更加永續地生活需要有基礎的環境教育。這裡有環境教育或環境素養的一些關鍵目標如下：

1.尊重或敬畏一切生命。

2. 盡可能更多地了解，地球是如何運作和維持自身循環的（圖1-16，第24頁），因為我們可以利用這些知識來指導我們的生活、社區和社會。

3.請參見生物圈和我們的行動，以及生物圈和文化領域之間連接的大畫面（圖1-2，第7頁）。

4.了解經濟、地球自然的支持系統（圖24-4，第573頁）、成為更可持續的經濟體在經濟學上的過渡（Figure24-15，第587頁）和社會中的各種作用之間的關係。我們需要經濟學家和商業領袖，如雷·安德森（人物，第583頁）和伊馮·喬伊納德（第589）等等有生態學家視野的人。

5.用批判性思維能力（第3頁）成為環保智慧者，而不只是滿載環境信息的船隻。

6.了解和評估一個人的環境世界觀，並繼續以此為終生的過程。

7.從今以後，了解如何對地球產生有益或有害的環境後果，並藉此選擇我們的生活方式和專業。

8.培養使世界變得更美好的願望，並實踐它。

    具體而言，有環境素養的人應該具備以下的基本理解：

1.具有概念如環境可持續性，自然資本，指數增長，承載能力和風險分析。

2.學習環境的歷史，用以幫助阻止我們重蹈覆轍。

3.了解熱力學的兩個定律和物質不滅定律。

4.了解生態學的基本原則，如食物鏈，營養循環，生物多樣性，生態演替和種群動態。

5.人類種群動態。

6.使用方法來維持生物多樣性。

7.進行可持續性的農業和林業。

8.土壤保持。

9.水資源的永續利用。

10.不可再生的礦產資源。

11.不可再生和可再生能源資源。

12.氣候變化和臭氧消耗。

13.防止污染和減少浪費。

14.永續發展的城市。

15.環境永續的經濟和政治制度。

16.環境世界觀和道德。

    據環保教育者米切爾·湯馬修，四個基本問題是環境素養的核心。首先，我的消耗來自哪些東西？其次，我知道我住的地方在哪裡嗎？第三，我是怎麼理解地球和其他生物的連結的？第四，什麼是我作為一個人的目的和責任？我們的生態特徵取決於我們每個人如何回答這些問題。

環境素養的思考 你會如何回答剛剛提出的四個問題？

    除了具有環境素養的政治領袖，我們還迫切地需要具有環境素養的媒體。世界正面臨著一個前所未有的需求，用來提高公眾的意識和了解有關動員群眾在短時間內所能帶來的全球重大文化變革的影響力。

    圖26-6總結了在本書已討論的，實現社會環境永續發展的指導方針和戰略。

向地球學習

    除了正規的學習，我們需要透過直接體驗自然來學習。

    正式的環境教育是很重要的，但事實上現今社會施行的是否足夠？許多分析家表示「沒有」，並敦促我們跳脫文化與科技武裝的隔離，並直接去體驗自然。

    他們建議我們點燃敬畏、驚奇、神秘、興奮和謙卑的心態站在星空下、坐在森林，或親臨海洋的威嚴和力量。

    我們不妨抓起一把泥土，並嘗試欣賞其中我們賴以為生的、既豐饒又細膩的生命。我們不妨試著觀察一棵樹、一座山、一塊石頭或者一隻蜜蜂，並嘗試感覺如何成為我們的一部分，同時我們也是它們的一部分，一同作為維持地球生命循環過程中，相互依存的參與者。

    許多心理學家認為，我們不論是自覺或不自覺地，都花了很多的時間尋找根源：有東西將我們在如同大海般撲朔迷離而可怕的變化中錨定。正如哲學家西蒙娜·薇依的觀察，“向下紮根，也許是人類靈魂的最重要和最需要的認可。”

＂解決方案：

發展永續的社會環境。

1.指導原則：

（1）從自然中學習和複製。

（2）不降低或耗盡地球的自然資本，並在自然所能提供的收入中生活。

（3）不索取超過我們所需要的事物。

（4）不扼殺生物多樣性。

（5）盡量不傷害生命、空氣、水、土壤。

（6）不要改變全球氣候。

（7）不要超出地球的環境負載力。

（8）幫助維持地球自我修復的能力，。

（9）修復過去的生態破壞。

（10）為這個世界留下美麗，保持甚至優於我們發現它時的樣貌。

2.策略：

（1）維持生物多樣性。

（2）消除貧困。

（3）發展生態經濟。

（4）建立永續事業。

（5）不要使用可再生資源比自然恢復的速度還快。

（6）進行永續農業。

（7）更多地依靠當地現有的可再生能源，如太陽、風、流水、可再生的生物。

（8）強調污染的傷害並減少浪費。

（9）不要浪費物質和能量資源。

（10）把60％-80％的物質資源拿來回收、再利用與施肥。

（11）保持一定的人口規模，使得需求得到滿足，且不會威脅到生命支持系統。

（12）強調生態恢復。“

圖26-6解決方案：指導原則和戰略可實現更永續的社會。問題與討論：哪三個指導原則或哪三個戰略是你認為是最重要的？在這些指導方針和戰略中，哪些是你願意在你的生活或生活方式中跟進的？

    關心地球的哲學家說，我們要向下紮根，每個人都需要找到對一個地方的感覺：一個溪流、山、院子、很多鄰居，或者在地球上任何一塊我們熟知，且可以體驗情感和愛的地方。當我們成為一個地方的一部分，它也會成為我們的一部分。然後，我們將被驅動著不去傷害且捍衛它，並幫助它治愈傷口。

    這可能使我們認識到，地球的癒合和人類精神的癒合是來自同一個源頭。我們可能會發現並挖掘到如利奧波德所說的“綠色的火炎，在我們心中燃燒”，並以此為動力地尊重，並與地球相互合作。