I once caught one THIS BIG!
Hypothesis:
It is our hypothesis that individuals who self identify themselves as biophiliacs will have experienced the natural world directly within the last six months and point to at least 5 of the 8 typologies created by Steven Kellert. It is also our hypothesis that those who self identify as biophiliacs will hold values of conservation/preservation and consider themselves environmentalists.
Correlations can also be made as to the rational status of the individual based on their answering of the final questions in the survey. It is our belief that those who find mechanistic functioning in the universe will self identify as biophiliacs (consistent with systems theory and evolutionary theory). It is the belief of the researchers that nature itself has no value aside from that ascribed by human beings, in other words, the value found in nature is socially constructed and perpetuated through institutions of religion and public/private education with an emphasis on science.
Background and Relevance of Research:
Though we personally believe that "natural" forces are indifferent to human actions (flood, fire, tornado), these forces have always been within the scope of human understanding that these events may have symbolic value (a punishment or reward of God).
Rationality and science since the 17th century have worked against this mysticism to promote a mechanistic understanding of the forces of nature, saying in effect, "No, that scary storm was not a punishment from God. That was a low pressure system that built itself into cyclonic force due to certain specifiable conditions." At one time in human history it was religion and mysticism that promoted man's connection with nature, with polytheistic interpretations of natural forces and gods morphing into animalian shape. Stories and explanation of this sort provided a solid base for respect and reverence for the natural world and respect for the gods.
With the rise of monotheism and its spread in the West and Middle East, religion and mysticism struck a separation between man and his natural world. Man was given dominion over plants and animals and since this time, religion in conjunction with widespread agriculture and industrialization, have served to further split man and his natural world. Man then turns from brother of nature to dominator of nature, or even more possibly from that which is dominated by nature to that which dominates nature. The idea of nature itself is a many folded entity. In this context it is comprised of not only the plants and animals here in the physical world, but all phenomena relating to interactions which take place in the physical world independently of human volition or intervention. There is of course a long historical relationship which ties scientific research to religion, much of the early scientific work was performed in monasteries, which not only helped to make a profession and enterprise of men, but also raised the status of the work from mere empirical statements to those which are of explaining the mind of God. As time progressed, however, religion and science found much conflict with the likes of eachother. Rigidity and curiousity could not coexist in a progressive fashion. From Galileo and a heliocentric universe to Darwin and his claim of evolutionary origination of species, to Pasteur's experiments with spontaneous generation, science and religion now find a deep gap separating their enterprises. Oddly enough, science, which has showed man his most efficient means of augmenting and manipulating nature, of dominating nature, is showing man that he is inextricably connected to the world which he thinks he has such dominion over. Nature shows man that when he changes nature, he changes himself.
While biophilia hardly seems like a novel and original concept to researchers, it may have an institutional value in that it instills and promotes values which show reverence and respect for the sustainability and prosperity of natural systems. There are many rational justifications for biophilic behavior: the natural world is our food source (humans can't live on plastic), it is our base of pharmaceutical knowledge, it controls waste and chemical cycling, and maintains air and water quality through its systems. Through our surveys and research our project will try to delineate both religious (irrational) and scientific (rational) motives for biophilic behavior.
Typology Of Biophilia Values (Kellert, pg.59)
Utilitarian: Practical and material exploitation of nature;
Function: Physical survival
Naturalistic: Satifaction from direct experience with nature;
Function: curiousity, outdoor skills. Mental/physical development
Ecologistic: Scientific systematic study of function, structure, and relationships;
Function: knowledge, understanding, observational skills
Aestetic: Beauty of nature;
Function: inspiration, harmony, peace
Humanistic: emotional attachment, "love?" for nature;
Function: group bonding, companionship
Moralistic: Strong affinity, spiritual reverence, ethical concern for nature;
Function: order and meaning in life, kinship and affiliational ties
Dominionistic: Mastery, control, and dominance of nature;
Function: mechanical skills, ability to subdue
Negativistic: Fear, aversion, alienation from nature;
Function: security, protection, safety
Survey
1) What is your gender?
2) What is your age?
3) What is your profession or major in this university?
4) When was the last time you went hiking or camping?
Within the last month?
Within the last six months?
Within the last year?
Over a year?
I don't remember?
5) Do you have a religious affiliation?
Do you feel this influences your ideas about the value of nature?
6) Do you believe that biological conservation is important? If so, why?
7) Do you believe nature has value inherent in itself or is it given value purely based on human values (is it only valuable because humans say it is)?
8) Which of the 8 typologies do you identify with?
9) Are you familiar with the term "biophilia"
Would you consider yourself a biophiliac or biophobe?
10) How do you justify your feelings?
Do you believe them to be innate or socially constructed?
Do you feel that any institutions have shaped the values that you have regarding your interaction with the natural world?
11) Do you believe in supernatural or non-mechanistic causes in the universe?
12) Do you believe the universe is rational and can be rationally explained?
13) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
14) Are you a member of any organization which promotes conservation or preservation of the environment?
Methods:
Our experiment will consist mostly of 200 surveys which will be handed out to a diverse group of Miami University students (both Main Campus and Western students, male and female). All of our questions will be fed into StatView to provide a quantitative result of our survey. Other sources for the experiment will be from research found in other texts.
1) This demographic information will be used to look into the effects of gender on environemental views (are women more prone to values of conservation/preservation over men?).
2) Age was a variable we wanted to be able to take into account, since those who grew up before the "Green Movement" might respond differently to those who have grown up in a more environmentally friendly culture.
3) We asked for the person's profession or major since we believe that those trained in business would have been taught to see the world in terms of it's material value to humans. We also wanted to see if other majors affected people's views (i.e. Art majors might have higher preservation values than those in the Applied Sciences)
4) Asking when the last time they went hiking or camping was a way to determine how much time a person spent actually experiencing nature.
5) We asked people to state their religious affiliation to determine if there is a link between that religious view and their views on nature (is nature their's to control/possess, or are they a part of it?). We expect those with religions which depict nature as existing for the use of humans to have lower preservation values.
6) Asking people if they believe that biological conservation is important is simply a straight forward question to see their views on the value of nature and their reasons for its value (natural resource or sense of beauty).
7 & 10) Asking about the base for the value of nature was used to determine whether they think that society (religion or modern culture) creates the value or if it is innately human.
8) Question eight is to determine specifically what kind of value nature holds (more specific than pretty versus resource)
9) This question was to determine the level of knowledge of each person serveyed and to which "side of the biophilia coin" they subscribe to.
11 & 12) These questions are used to test their non-empirical, or non-rational value. That is, this questions tests whether or not a person believes in something that science does not measure or accept as real.
13) Asking someone if they consider themselves an environmentalist is another way to determine how highly they value nature as a whole.
14) Listing any wildlife associations that a person belonged to was just another way of measuring political involvement since all parties can participate in eco-politics.
Timeline:
Week 9: Orient ourselves to our literature, work on new research ideas and possibilities, adjust proposal with feedback and new information
Week 10 Pass out our quizzes
Week 11: Pass out the rest of our quizzes
Week 12: Analyze and order our data
Week 13: Begin entering into Statview
Week 14: Work on final paper, revise drafts
Week 15: Turn in final project!
Bibliography:
1) Berger, Peter L. and Luckman Thomas The Social Construction of Reality New York, NY: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc 1966.
2) Emerson, Ralph Waldo Essays on Art, Nature, and Spirtuality Mendocino, CA: Audio Scholar Inc. 1994.
3) Goldman, Michael "Why I Am Not An Environmentalist" PHL 205 Reader, Miami University 2000-2001.
4) Kellert, Stephen R. Kinship To Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997.
5) Kellert, Stephen and Wilson E. O. The Biophilia Hypothesis Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.
6) Quinn, Daniel Ishmael New York, NY: Bantam Books, Incorporated 1995.
7) Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1984.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or