Comments on: The future is blossoming

By: http://10ztalk.com/blogs/entry/Details-Of-Car-Rental-Italy

http://10ztalk.com/blogs/entry/Details-Of-Car-Rental-Italy — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:57:03 +0000

Have you ever thought about publishing an ebook or guest authoring on other websites?
I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would love to
have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would enjoy your work.
If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.

By: Christine

Christine — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:58:32 +0000

Yes. Environmental law makes this distinction. The discussion of flooding is an interesting example of how the two viewpoints can be useful in analysing a problem. For example, the natural flood and weather cycles, geology and geography (eco-centric) and human adaptations urban development, infrastructure development and management and urban design (anthro-centric).

In this way of thinking the theory of man being made in the image of God is not essential. However, wisdom suggests not discounting the importance of spiritual insights: ‘we do not know what we do not know’.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 04:10:34 +0000

In reply to Christine.

That is a good distinction between ‘eco-centric’ and ‘anthro-centric’ – but which law, or type of law, makes this distinction?
One of the strengths of the distinction is the word ‘centric’. An action (eg a biodiversity policy) can be taken for eco-centric reasons though it may also benefit humans.
But the underlying problem is un-resolvable: for science, man is part of nature. You need a theory about man being made ‘in the image of god’ if we are to be separate from nature and to ‘have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’. [Genesis 1:28]

By: Christine

Christine — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:32:48 +0000

In law the distinction in viewpoints is made by the terms ‘eco-centric’ and ‘anthro-centric’.

Wiki describes the difficulty with word useage quite well:

“Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention.”

The same distinction exists in ‘anthro-centric’ sciences such as medicine where a distinction is made between what is natural and artificial.

How do garden designers discuss this difference between the garden proper (the design) and garden users (the client/public etc)? Undoubtably, artificial materials also are used within gardens as well as the materials of nature?

The question of – where to humans come from and who are we – is easier to answer within the span of a life (birth to death), however before and after death is a much bigger question!

The Dalai Lama recently described re-incarnation as being like “changing ones clothes”.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:36:24 +0000

I love stained glass and this is a fine example. But the phrase ‘inspired by nature and natural forms’ is problematic, particularly for garden designers who work with ‘the materials of nature’. One could argue that everything is ‘natural’ and there is no other source of inspiration. Or one could say that ‘nature’ means ‘not-man-made’ but this would be to separate man from nature. And if humans are not ‘natural’, then where do they come from – and who are we?