Biophilia vs. Biophobia

Upon reading Orr's passage, I found myself to strongly agree with him when he states, "The manifestation of biophobia, explicit in the urge to control nature, has led to a world in which it is becoming easier to be biophobic." (Orr, 190) This is very prevalent when one considers the influx of technology in the past years, especially with my own generation. We are growing up in a time where it's almost necessary to have a cellphone within your proximity, watch TV regularly, and be more conscientious of material belongings that will set you apart (or higher) from the rest. With this, there has been a lack of focus on nature and our surroundings because everyone is becoming more materialistic. Orr also mentioned, "... it is possible for us to be inconsistent, hypocritical, and ignorant of what we do" (Orr 193), Therefore, Orr truly recognized that it is easier to become biophobic because we are surrounded with so many distractions.  

The only way some people are enjoying the beauty of nature; through a computer screen

http://juliewight.com/computer-screen-wallpaper-3/ 

"...we will have no choice but to manage nature, even though it will be done badly...Beyond some level of scale and complexity, the effects of technology used in a world we cannot fully comprehend, are simply unknowable. When the genetic engineers and the nanotechnologists finally cause damage to the earth comparable to that done by the chemists who invented and so casually and carelessly deployed chlorofluorocarbons, they too will plead for forgiveness on the grounds that they did not know what they were doing" (Orr, 201-202).

Predicting that our world will only degrade from here is first, not keeping a positive attitude and second, poor judgement based on, presumably, negligence. Yes, society does seem to lack an interest in nature and all the wonders it possesses, but this does not stand true for most of the world. We all may not be hugging trees as much as Orr would probably like us to, but we do appreciate it. For example, with more nature and cultural based organizations "sprouting" up, it is more likely that generations will get involved in helping their world, whether it's through Girl Scouts, Habitat for Humanity, or even WildEarth Guardians. There are plenty of opportunities for us to still be connected with nature, providing that when it is future generations responsibility to manage nature, they can have experience and the exposure needed.

Coming from a science and technology background I find it hard to agree with Orr that technologists do not understand the repercussions these technological advances will have on nature. We do know our impacts! It's those within the business industries that seem to be more greedy when it comes down to having more technology for all age groups, as it lures them to stay inside. It seems to be quite ironic that there are some technological simulations that give the audience the feel that they are outside, when in reality they could just as easily go outside! 

Nature being cultivated in the lab

http://articles2day.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi 

From my personal experiences during my college career in Bioengineering, when we are going through the process of manufacturing our own products, whether it be medical devices, prosthetics, machinery, etc., we always include the part of 'Design for the Environment'. While initially we all grumbled about completing this portion, it really does show the differences one can make on the environment. We mostly look into alternative fuel sources, ways to limit radiation and chemical exposure, and even using recyclable materials. While Orr may state that chemists carelessly continue on with their jobs and engineers unknowingly cause damage to the earth, this proves that the earths' best interest is always considered, from my point of view.

To some: Technology controlling the world. To others: technology carefully taking care of the world
http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/et/

"Biophobia is not OK because it is the foundation for a politics of domination and exploitation. For our politics to work as they now do, a large number of people must not like any nature that cannot be repackaged and sold back to them" (Orr, 192). Upon initial reading of this phrase, I was very confused on the relationship Orr sees between nature and politics. Where does he see that exploitation comes into play with nature from those that are not 'one with nature'. Puzzled, I thought more on the word exploitation and found that it could mean treating someone unfairly. Perhaps he feels that with biophobia comes the actions of not only having a disinterest in nature, but also abusing it. Maybe by showing disinterest and not taking care of the earth, we would be classified as biophobic even without strong opinions towards nature. Orr then went on to say, "They must be ecologically illiterate and ecologically incompetent" (Orr, 192). I can try to gather from this that Orr scorns every biophobic individual and presumably thinks that they have no knowledge of ecology. From the entire reading, this theme does appear to be very prevalent, so it emphasizes the awareness society should have of nature.