This paper addresses the relationship between humans and nature as it relates to the ability of human societies to solve large-scale environmental problems. We assert that humans are not unique in their relationship with nature; all species have the ability to externalize their being into the world thus creating environmental problems. We also argue that human consciousness and rationality do not provide ready answers to these problems. Unless we better understand the pretheoretical and pragmatic nature of human consciousness, rational/scientific attempts (...) to deal with large-scale environmental problems will fail. We use a framework derived from Schutzian phenomenology to explain how human consciousness both provides the motivation for creating environmental problems and also impedes any real solutions. Thus, we explore a dialectic of human consciousness that has profound implications for discussions about the ability of humans to solve environmental problems. (shrink)

In Norway, the production andconsumption of organic food is still small-scale. Research on attitudes towards organic farming in Norway has shown that most consumers find conventionally produced food to be “good enough.” The level of industrialization of agriculture and the existence of food scandals in a country will affect consumer demand for organically produced foods. Norway is an interesting case because of its small-scale agriculture, few problems with food-borne diseases, and low market share for organic food. Similarities between groups of (...) consumers and producers of food, organic and conventional, when it comes to attitudes concerning environment, use of gene technology, and animal welfare have implications for understanding market conditions for organically produced food. The results of our study indicate that organic farmers and organic consumers in Norway have common attitudes towards environmental questions and animal welfare in Norwegian agriculture. Conventional farmers have a higher degree of agreement with the way agriculture is carried out today. Unlike organic farmers and consumers, conventional farmers do not see major environmental problems and problems with animal welfare in today's farming system. But like the organic farmers and consumers, and to a stronger degree than conventional consumers, conventional farmers renounce gene technology as a solution to environmental problems in agriculture. These results are discussed in relation to their importance for the market situation for organically produced foods. (shrink)

I argue for the centrality of the concepts of biophysical and human nature in science-and-religion studies, consider five different metaphors, or “visions,” of nature, and explore possibilities and challenges in reconciling them. These visions include (a) evolutionary nature, built on the powerful explanatory framework of evolutionary theory; (b) emergent nature, arising from recent research in complex systems and self-organization; (c) malleable nature, indicating both the recombinant potential of biotechnology and the postmodern challenge to a fixed ontology; (d) nature as sacred, (...) a diffuse popular concept fundamental to cultural analysis; and (e) nature as culture, an admission of epistemological constructivism. These multiple visions suggest the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, in which each man made the classic mistake of part-whole substitution in believing that what he grasped (the tail, for example) represented the elephant as a whole. Indeed, given the inescapability of metaphor, we may have to admit that the ultimate truth about the “elephant” (nature, or the reality toward which science and religion point) is a mystery, and the best we can hope for is to confess the limitations of any particular vision. (shrink)

What role do nonhuman animals play in the construction of medical knowledge? Animal researchers typically claim that their use has been essential to progress – but just how have animals fitted into the development of biomedicine? In this article, I trace how nonhuman animals, and their body parts, have become incorporated into laboratory processes and places. They have long been designed to fit into scientific procedures – now increasingly so through genetic design. Animals and procedures are closely connected – animals (...) in science are disassembled and reassembled in various ways. Indeed, biomedical knowledge can be said to rest on a large pile of animal bodies and body parts. The process of producing animal body parts to order has implications for how we conceptualize the body (human or nonhuman), which I discuss in the final section. (shrink)