Humans and the Environment: A Religious, Socio-Economic, and Educational Perspective

This topic submitted by Bryan Glosik, Justin Hendy, Willis Okech ( okechowm@muohio.edu ) on 4/23/05. [ Human Nature Team: Bryan Glosik, Justin Hendy, Willis Okech-Section: Cummins/Wolfe]

Human Nature Final Report
Cummins/Wolfe Section B
Justin Hendy, Bryan Glosik, Willis Okech

Humans and the Environment: A Religious, Socio-Economic, and Educational Perspective

Introduction:
Historically, whenever humans and animals are brought into the same context humans have been known to separate themselves as superior over animals (Williams, 1959). Thus the present relationship that exists between humans and the wilderness can be linked to a historical background. This relationship could be innate, or it could be from the myriad of human cultures. Humanity has long been defined by its cultures (Clark, 2002; Gibson, 2002). Therefore we believe that we can understand this fundamental question by looking at the history of humanity and seeing its links to present day cultures as relates to the wilderness. We will look at culture mainly from religious, education levels, and social and economic class perspectives.

One simple basis to separate ourselves is from the common belief that humans are not animals. Humans therefore believe that they are not animals and in this separation from animals humans claim dominance over the animal kingdom. Sociobiologists and primatologists on the other hand think otherwise. Humankind is closely related to apes; as humans share close to 98% of our genes with those of apes (Wilson 1975). Socio-evolutionary biologists might take this revelation to infer that human beingsÕ relations with nature may be out of innate characters (Wright, 1994). However, even though evolutionary linkages to apes may lead to the conclusion that humans are just another ape, the majority of humans wonÕt believe it. Instead they place humans as being above apes and apes as being just another lowly animal. The theory of evolution and any other linking of human beings to apes or animals has readily been challenged and denied by most religions (Gibson 2002). Human beings have generally connected animals with the wilderness. The bible gives the story of the first humans, Adam and Eve, and how they were removed from the Garden of Eden, harmony with nature, upon sin and cast into the wilderness, where humans must dominate nature. Thus from this we can infer that for most Judeo-Christian believers, the wilderness was a place associated with sin, danger, loneliness and even death (Coleman 2004). Humans have always been perceived as next to God from most religious perspectives, a spiritual belief that influenced human cultures. (Lovejoy 1933) writes "men are galvanized by ideas and act as vehicles for them."

From theological beliefs as early as the fourteenth century Europe, humans are known to have subscribed to the doctrine of the Great Chain of Being. The Great Chain of Being justified a hierarchical order of all things in the Universe; with "spirit" defining what rank or order a species was. With a spiritually based religion, humans naturally were next to God, and all other things that were spiritless such as animals were lower ranked (Lovejoy, 1933). In some societies in India, class distinctions were associated with the different ranks that religion had ranked various animals (Smith, 1991); higher ranked in society were linked to the highest ranked animals.

With religion intricately linked and somehow defining most cultures, it may be difficult to separate social and economic aspects of cultures from religion. A look at indigenous non-religious cultures compared to that of the Euro-American immigrants in North America in association with nature, could be insightful into understanding if indeed our relationships with nature are indeed innate or cultural (Cronon 2003). Do these social and economic aspects of indigenous cultures versus Euro-American immigrant cultures differ greatly? How do these cultures compare in contemporary times? A look at some case studies of indigenous communities show most of them living harmoniously with nature as opposed to their European counterparts who based their relationship on a market economy that believed on maximizing most gains from natural resources (Cronon, 2003).

In addition since culture is very malleable, we will look into modern day perspectives of culture as regards socio-economic class and how their relationships with the wilderness differ with class. This will give another perspective to judge if humansÕ relationship with nature is innate or whether it is from some other forces. Past research has shown that social class, economic class, as well as gender, can indeed influence our relationship with the environment (Van Liere, 1980).

With culture playing a major influence on the relationship between man and the wilderness, we assert that human culture, influenced by historical backgrounds, rather than innate human qualities are the root cause of environmental degradation. We assert too that a majority of Miami students will subscribe to the perception that humans are superior to animals and thus may see it there right to subdue nature for their selfish gains. We believe too that education, and class, in addition to religion will determine how Miami students react towards nature and hypothesis that social and economic class will show a correlation to the wilderness (Van Liere, 1980).

Our research question is to understand how education, class, and religion affect how people view nature. Our specific predictions are that the major religions, Judeo-Christian, and others promote a degrading viewpoint toward nature through an endorsing of a superiority of humans over animals. Cultures with lower literacy rates will show more degrading environmental practices. As for Americans, people with more environmental education will have a more sustainable environmental viewpoint toward nature. Lower class people who rely upon the products of nature more directly will be more degrading toward nature.

Methods.
The research part of our study focused on answering the question of, ÔWhy do humans view themselves as superior to nature and animals?
We focused our study on two basis of data synthesis: Past research from different authors, and surveys randomly given to Miami students. The survey was used to add an experimental aspect to the study. Total surveys handed out were one hundred and five. The survey represented random quantitative data collection that would show unbiased responses from Miami students on the correlation of class, religion, and education on the environment. Since we expected the majority of Miami students to be from a Christian background we avoided the biased question on whether they were aware that in the bible God gave humans the right to dominate nature (American Bible Society, Genesis 1:28).

The survey was broken down into six sections of questions each trying to get at a different aspect of the research question. The first three questions of the survey tried to get at the background religious beliefs of the individual. The next two questions tried to show if the individual views himself/herself as equal to or superior to nature and animals. This question better helped to understand how connected the individual feels towards nature or if instead they feel distanced from nature. The question after that gave a basic understanding of the environmental education the individual had received. The next two questions focused on getting a better understanding of how in tune with nature the individual seemed to be. The next question gave us a basic understanding of the socio-economic class of the individual and his/her family. The last question would show how willing the individual is to support an environmental cause.

Results from the survey were then tabulated in graphs and tables. These results were then analyzedÑusing the JMP Stats ProgramÑand compared to the research part of our study. This comparison would help us understand Miami studentsÕ viewpoints on the issue of religion, class, and education and whether these would show correlations with environmental views. In addition to analyzing the comparisons between past research and our survey, we would also analyze how these results compared with two main aspects of human nature with the arguments of several authors on human nature; whether humans act the way they do towards nature from an innate attitude or whether humans act they way they do out of cultural reasons.
Note: Survey sample included in the appendix section.

Results and Figures

Note: (JMP Statistical Program Figures in Appendix)

The data taken from the survey that was given to Miami University students was analyzed to find any significant differences between the various factors. In order to determine if the results were significant or not an each pair student t-test will be used. The obtained p-value will be based against an alpha value of .05. This means that if the p-value found for a pair is below .05 the data is found to be significant. Figure 1 shows how each of the religions was represented in our sample.

Figure 1. Shows the distribution of individuals sorted into each religion. Christian is the dominant religion amongst our sample while the others are poorly represented.

Comparing how well each religion is represented in our sample from figure 1 to figure 2 which shows how dominate each religion is worldwide shows how our sample doesnÕt match up with the world religion percentages.

Figure 2. Shows the proportion of individuals who practice each religion worldwide. Christianity is the most practiced followed closely by Islam, Nonreligious, and Hinduism.

Correlations between the religion practiced by the individual and various environmental factors were analyzed first. When looking at religion and how often people said their place of worship participated in environmental education or actively helped the environment the only significant differences found were between Atheist and Jewish (P = .034), Agnostic and Jewish (P = .040), and other and Jewish (P = .046). The Jewish religion was shown to practice environmentally themes activities significantly than atheists, agnostics, and other. All other religions had no significant difference between them. The religions in order from least active environmentally to most are: Atheist, agnostic, other, Christian, Buddhist, None, and Jewish. Table 1 shows the order of each religion regarding this question. Table 1 shows the Jewish religion as practicing the most environmentally themed activities through their place of worship.

Table 1. Shows the mean value for each religion concerning the question of whether or not their place of worship practices environmental education or any programs to actively promote environmental health. The lower the value the more active their place of worship is concerning the environment.
Religion Mean
Atheist 9.0000
Agnostic 8.2222
Other 8.1000
Christian 7.2979
Buddhist 6.0000
None 6.0000
Jewish 5.9000

Looking at the religion of the individual and whether or not they consider them a part of nature showed or not it was found that their was a significant difference between Jewish and other (P = .006), Jewish and Agnostic (P = .017), and Christian and other (P = .048). Both Jewish and Christian religions consider themselves to be significantly more a part of nature compared with other. The Jewish religion is also significantly less a part of nature compared with agnostics. No significant difference was found between the other religions. The religions in order of individuals who consider themselves the least a part of nature to the most are: Jewish, Christian, None, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, and Other. This order is shown in table 2. Table 2 shows the Jewish, Christian, and none religions as having the lowest feeling of being a part with nature while the other, atheist, and agnostic have the highest feeling of being a part with nature.
Table 2. Shows the order of religions from those that consider them least a part of nature with a higher value to those that consider them most a part of nature with a lower value.
Religion Mean
Jewish 3.5455
Christian 2.7021
None 2.7000
Buddhist 2.5000
Agnostic 2.0000
Atheist 2.0000
Other 1.7333

Analyzing the different religions against whether or not they believe God grants them superiority over nature showed a significant difference was found between the Jewish religion and Agnostic (P = .0005), Atheist (P = .027), other (P = .006), and individuals with none as their religions (P = .041). The Jewish religion was shown to have significantly higher agreement that God grants them superiority over nature. The Christian religion also had a significantly higher agreement that God grants them superiority over nature compared against other (P = .010) and agnostics (P = .0003). Refer to table 3 to see the order of agreement with this idea. Table 3 shows that the Jewish and Christian religions have the highest agreement with the idea of God granting them superiority over nature, while the Agnostic, Atheist, and Buddhist religions show the least agreement with this statement.
Table 3. Shows the order of religions from those that agree that God grants humans dominance over nature with the lower values to those that agree less that God grants humans dominance over nature with the higher values. It can be noted the both Christian and Jewish religions show the highest agreement with this statement.
Religion Mean
Agnostic 9.5000
Atheist 9.2500
Buddhist 9.0000
Other 8.8000
None 8.3000
Christian 6.9787
Jewish 6.1818

Individuals of the Christian religion show a significantly higher agreement to the idea that humans are superior to animals compared against other (P = .049) and agnostics (P = .042). Refer to table 4 to see the order of agreement with this idea. Table 4 shows Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist religions agreeing the most while agnostic, other, and atheist agree the least.
Table 4. Shows the religions in order from those who agree most with the statement humans are superior to animals, lower values, to those religions that disagree with this statement, higher values. It can be noted that Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish religions show the most agreement to the idea of human superiority over animals.
Religion Mean
Agnostic 7.8750
Other 7.8667
Atheist 7.0000
None 6.7000
Jewish 6.6364
Christian 6.1064
Buddhist 3.5000

Concerning religion and how often they attend parks, it is shown that other significantly visited more parks last year compared with atheist (P = .037). Table 5 shows the order of religions as to how often individuals among each religion, visited parks last year. Table 5 shows the Buddhist and other religions to have visited parks more often last year while atheist visited parks the least last year.
Table 5. Shows that different religions in order of those that visited parks more last year, higher number, to those that visited parks less last year, lower number.

Religion Mean
Buddhist 7.5000
Other 7.4667
Christian 6.5106
Agnostic 6.3125
Jewish 5.5455
None 5.1000
Atheist 3.5000

Concerning how well they understand environmental policy, and how much environmental schooling they received did not show anything of significant interest. This lack of difference or similarity is shown in tables 6 and 7.
Table 6. Shows the lack of significant difference between the different religions regarding how well the individuals understand environmental policies.
Religion Mean
(Policy)
None 6.9000
Agnostic 6.1875
Jewish 6.0909
Other 6.0667
Buddhist 5.5000
Christian 5.1064
Atheist 4.0000

Table 7. Shows the lack of significant difference between the different religions and how much the individualÕs environmental education has taken.
Religion Mean (Education)
Christian 4.4255
None 4.4000
Atheist 4.2500
Agnostic 3.7500
Jewish 3.6364
Other 3.6000
Buddhist 3.0000

Turning away from religion and focusing on how different economic classes are represented in the various environmental fields. When analyzing the different economic classes the data showed a significant difference between the upper and middle class where the middle class significantly viewed them as more a part of nature compared to the upper class (P = .003) and the upper middle class (P = .011). Table 8 shows the differences between the economic classes and how they view themselves as a part of nature or not. No significant difference was found concerning the upper middle class compared to the upper class.

Table 8. Shows the middle class as having a greater connect with being a part of nature, lower value, while the upper class has a lesser connect with being a part of nature, higher value.
Economic Class Mean
Upper Class 3.7500
Upper Middle Class 2.7679
Middle Class 1.9268

The different economic classes didnÕt show any significant differences on any of the other questions. Analyzing the different economic classes against all other environmental questions showed no significant difference was found amongst the groups as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Shows the lack of difference among the different classes and the other environmental questions.
Economic Class Mean (God Grants) Mean (Human Superiority) Mean (Policies) Mean (How Often Visited Parks)
Upper Class 7.0000 5.6250 5.5000 6.1250
Upper Middle Class 7.8750 6.8571 5.9107 6.5536
Middle Class 7.8293 6.7561 5.3171 5.9512

Moving on to analyzing differences amongst individuals who have taken different amounts of environmentally themed classes at school. The only factor that was significantly different amongst the amount of environmental classes taken by the individual was when it came to make donations towards environmental groups. Donations were significantly more likely to be made by individuals who had taken a higher amount of environmentally themed classes (P = .02). Table 10 shows the significant difference people with more environmental education donating more money to environmental causes while people with less environmental education donating less money to environmental causes.
Table 10. Shows the significant difference between individuals who donate to environmental causes and those who donÕt. Those that do are found to have undergone significantly more environmental education than those that donÕt donate as much.
Mean
Yes 4.9655
No 3.7500

Discussion.
On the broader picture on whether human beingsÕ attitudes towards the environment are innate or cultural, our results failed to reject the null hypothesis that there was any significant difference between the various religious, educational, or economic classes from the surveys. It thus could be that any differences could have been by chance alone. However it is imperative that we look at some of these results to try and ascertain where similarities or differences may have occurred.

Looking at the results from the surveys to see the correlation between religion and environmental perspectives, our results did not clearly support our predictions of a correlation between religious practices and human perspectives to the environment. Overall as regards religion, results showed that there was no significant difference between the religious practices of Miami students.

In general results showed that of the ten possible religious options handed out, only seven of these applied to the one hundred and five students surveyed. These were: Christianity, Judaism (Jewish), Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Other, and None. Of the students surveyed none practiced Hinduism, Islam, or Indigenous.

On the question as to how often places of worship talked about humans and the environment, the monotheist based religions: Jewish, Christianity, and BuddhistÑin that orderÑtalked about the environment more that the polytheist practitioners: None, Atheist, Other, and Agnostic, see table 1. Our take on this is that it is more likely that the monotheist religions congregated more often and also in large numbers compared to the other practices and therefore have more opportunity for their place of worship to actively practice environmentally related things. Current world standings show that monotheist religious practices dominate non-religious practices; monotheist religions account who often congregate on a regular basis account for over 80% of world religions (Figure 2).

On the same issue of places of worship mentioning the environment Christianity that accounts for roughly 33% of world religions, showed a more divisive response. From the survey of Miami students, Christianity was behind the Jewish religion but ahead of Atheist (Table 1). Christianity showed a mean of (7.3), compared to a low mean of (5.9), and a high of (9.0) for Atheist. This could be explained by the dualistic approaches to the environment that the myriad of Christian religious practices teach to their flocks; historically some religious teachings seemed to have a negative teaching towards nature while others tried to preach a positive influence. In his Joseph Smith, who was one of the founders of the Latter Day Saints faith, tried to urge his followers to "loose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race so that the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the suckling child can play with the serpent in safety" (Coleman, 2004). Other interpretations of the bibleÑGenesis 1:28Ñcould have justified humansÕ dominance over the environment hence would not be inclined to worry about the state of the environment (American Bible Society, 1994)

On the two issues that tied on more to our hypotheses: of whether God granted humans dominance over nature, and that humans are superior to animals, both results supported our predictions that religion had an influence on the way humans viewed nature. Both the Jewish and Christian religions showed the lowest mean compared to other religions of 6.18 and 6.97 respectively (Table 3). In addition the monotheist religions that were represented by the Miami students supported the rationale that religions supported the issue that humans are superior to animals. The Buddhist religion with a mean of 3.5 was followed by Christianity at 6.14 and Jewish at 6.63 respectively. This could be because most of these religions could have subscribed to the doctrine of the "Great Chain of being" (Lovejoy, 1933) as well as explicitly encouraging dominance over the environment by some of these religions; in particular Judeo-Christian religions which stated that God made humans in his image and hence ranked humans next to him, in addition to encouraging them to dominate all other beings in the world (American Bible Society, 1994). In addition religious teachings, which molded most of the cultures of Europe and the immigrants to the North American continent, also associated the wilderness with evil. The "howling wilderness" was therefore a place that needed to be tamed or pacified since it stood in the way of progress and civilization; a major part of the socio-economic aspect of early to late 1800Õs in Europe and America (Williams, 1959).

However as other research has shown, some Indigenous religious practices often tended to drive the followers to dominate and subdue nature. Thus it could translate that for indigenous and other polytheist religions since there was no dominant God, each could have interpreted nature in different ways (Falk, 1973).
Results to show a correlation between human beingsÕ socio-economic class and the environment, did not support our predictions that those from the lower class would act differently towards the environment that those from a middle or upper class economic classes. This could be because the survey was directed at Miami students most of whom came from relatively equal economic backgrounds. This went against earlier research which concluded that economic class affected the way the individual perceived the environment. In her article, Wilderness and Kingship in Ancient South Asia, Falk (1973) asserts that establishment of kingdoms, correlated with subduing and dominating the wilderness (Falk, 1973). Therefore in the authorÕs study, socio-economic status in society affected oneÕs relation with the environment.

Our predictions regarding different environmental education levels treating nature different were not supported. Historically indigenous communities which were regarded to be less educated from a Euro-centric perspective lived in harmony with nature. However it was down to the individual groupÕs social and economic aspects that determined their relations with nature. This was true of the perspectives of Native American communities verses the Euro-Americans in earlier American history (Cronon et al, 2003; Friedman, 1996).

Results to show how often, if at all, Miami students or their families donated to organizations that raise and advocate environmental issue, supported our predictions that contemporary attitudes tied to culture have influenced human relations with nature irrespective of religious, or socio-economic class. It could also be due to the fact that various forces: religious and scientific have been combining forces to try and promote environmental awareness irrespective of oneÕs religious or political affiliation (Dolins, 1999: Norgaard, 2002). In contemporary times myths and folklore do not mean as much of significance as they used to historically.

In most of the developed countries for example, a shift from rural farming to a more urban setting has disconnected the people from direct conflicts with predators for example. Therefore they may view with contempt the few farmers who may feel a direct loss from predation of their livestock, and side with environmental groups promoting preservation and conservation of nature (Coleman, 2004).

We would like to mention that there could have been sources of error that could have skewed our results. It could have been insightful to get a larger sample and also focus on balancing out the responses from equal religious, intellectual, and economic perspectives. For example Christianity was the prevalent religion (33% of world faiths) yet other world religions such as Islam are fast growing if not equally powerful (Table 2), yet we had no Muslims who answered our surveys. Other sources of error could have been the lack of age diversity since most Miami undergraduate college students who we based our survey were teenagers (18 to 22 years). On the subject of education and how many environmentally themed classes affected the individualsÕ actions on the environment we would encourage future research to try and research on if there were any significant differences between Western students and main campus students. This is because a course such as Natural Systems which is a requirement of all Western students could have influenced the random responses we got.

In conclusion our results showed that it was culture rather than innate characters that determined human relations with the environment. We base this assertion on the definition of culture which ideally encompasses the three variables of human nature that the study looked at. Mary Clark (2002), in her book In Search of Human Nature defines culture from three primary perspectives: material culture, which would compare with the economic aspects of humans in the world; ideological such as religion, folklore, myths; and thirdly socially which looked at political and kinship aspects of culture (Clark, 2002). Our predictions regarding economic classes treating nature differently were not supported. Our predictions regarding different environmental education levels treating nature different were not supported. Our predictions that mono-theistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism would treat nature more poorly was supported in some questions, and no so much in others. It would therefore be the malleability of culture that supports our predictions (Coleman, 2004).

Appendix.
The Environment and You

The purpose of this survey is to look at differences in religious beliefs, social-economic class, and education in the environmental field and to compare those differences to actual environmental practices and viewpoints.

What religion do you practice?

Christian Ð Muslim Ð Hindu Ð Jewish Ð Buddhist Ð Atheist Ð Agnostic - Indigenous Ð

Other Ð None, donÕt believe in a greater spiritual power

How often does your place of worship do something that is geared towards environmental education or actively helping the environment?

Very often Rarely to never
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

God grants humans dominance over nature.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Humans are superior to animals?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do you consider yourself a part of nature?

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How many environmentally themed classes have you taken in high school & college?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Last year, how often did you visit your local, state, and national parks?

How many visits
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

OVER
Do you consider yourself up to date on U.S. environmental policies?

Really up to date No idea
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Which of the following best describes your familyÕs economic status?

Poverty Level - Lower class Ð Middle class Ð Upper middle class Ð Upper class

Do you or your family belong to any environmental groups or do you donate money to environmental causes?

Yes No If ÔYesÕ please name the organization

Bibliography.
American Bible Society, Good News Bible, 2nd ed. Swindon, U.K: Harper Collins. 1994.

Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians Colonialists, and the Ecology of New England. Revised 1st Edition ed. New York: Hill and Wang, 2003.

Davis H. Shelton ed. Indigenous Views of Land and the Environment.
Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1993. 1225-108

Dolins, Francine L. Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animals Welfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1999. 1-20

Coleman, J.T. (2004). Vicious: Wolves and Men in America. Newhaven CT: Yale University Press.

Falk, Nancy E. "Wilderness and Kingship in Ancient South Asia." History of Religions 13.1 (1973): 1-15.

Friedman, Batya, and Peter H. Kahn. "Along the Rio Negro: Brazilian Children's

Guth, James L., Green, John C., Kellstedt Leyman A., Smidt, Corwin E. (1995) "Faith and the Environment: Religious Beliefs and attitudes on Environmental Policy." American Journal of Political Science, 39 (2), 356-382.

Hunter, Lori M., Toney, Michael B. (2005) "Religion and Attitudes Toward the Environment: A Comparison of Mormons and the General U.S. Population." The Social Science Journal, 42, 25-38.

Gibson, Kathleen R. "Customs and cultures in animals and humans: Neurobiological and evolutionary considerations." Anthropological Theory 2.3 (2002): 323-339.

Lovejoy, Authur O. The Great Chain of Being. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Norgaard, Richard B. (2002). "Can Science and Religion Better Save Nature Together?" Bioscience, 52 (9), 842-846.

Refinetti, R (1990). The Real Issue with Antivivisection controversy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(1), 122-123.

Smith, B.K (1991). Classifying Animals and Humans in Ancient India. Man New Series, 26(3), 527-548.

Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. "The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence." The Public Opinion Quarterly 44.2 (1980): 181-197.

Williams, George H. "The Wilderness and Paradise in the History of the Church." Church History 28.13 (1959): 3-24.

Wilson, E.O. (1975). "Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology" in Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Wright, Robert. (1994). The Moral Animal Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Website references.

Foley, Leanord. Saint Francis of Assisi: Who Was Saint Francis? 2005. http://www.americancatholic.org/features/francis/who_was.asp

Forum on Religion and Ecology. The Harvard University Center for the environment.

Four Environmental Viewpoints. Villanova College. 17 Feb. 2005
http://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/enviro/envch2s1.htm

Menashi, Steven. Humans, Animals, and the Human Animal. 17 Feb. 2005
http://www.policyreview.org/feb03/menashi.html

Stringer, Dr. Phil. Environism: The Environmental Movement as a Pagan Religion. 17 Feb.2005 http://usiap.org/viewpoints/culture/paganism/environism/paganreligion.html

For Further Info on this Topic, Check out this WWW Site: http://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/enviro/envch2s1.htm . Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu