Bio This and Bio That: Let's Talk!

"We, in contrast, must choose between biophobia and biophilia because science and technology have given us the power to destroy so completely as well as the knowledge to understand the consequences of doing so."

I would definitely agree with David W. Orr's statement as it relates to technology being the reason why many today are considered "biophobic". As technology and began to evolve more and more, nature and wildlife and the environment we reside in, became less and less important to society and more and more of a place to be industrialized. I would also agree that there will be consequences for the extremities of changes "biophobes" have made to the environment such as an increase in global warming, and and arise in polluted areas, and the technology that has evolved and continuously evolves will help continue to destroy the land which give those who are considered "biophiliac" little to no power in what happens to the environment we live in. Orr makes a statement that I agree with. He says "These changes are now so thoroughly ingrained in us that we can scarcely conceive of any other manner of thinking."(pp. 189) Which is partially correct, because once we become accustomed to the industrialized world, it could be a difficult transition from a tree user to becoming a tree "hugger." That's going to be a gradual process, but I know there are people who willing to fight for what they know consider is right. 

Science and technology!! www.icaseonline.net

"Biophobia sets into motion a vicious cycle that tends to cause people to act in such a way as to undermine this integrity, beauty, and harmony of nature, creating the very conditions that make the dislike of nature yet more probable."

I would have to disagree with this statement made by Orr, because individuals respond and act how they choose to respond and react. Anybody could be raised around nature and witness the beauty of it, but still choose to be apart of the more industrialized scenery. And vice versa, someone who has lived their life in the city could make the decision to be considered a "biophiliac" after making the choice to become a naturist. So I don't agree that a group of individuals can "cause" people to shift their perspective on nature. Yes, I believe individuals can be very influential but, at the end of the day people are going to make their own choices and decisions on their perspectives on nature. 

Technology In Nature
http://princessbellezenef.deviantart.com/art/Nature-Vs-Technology-471022587 

"Biophilia is a kind of philia or love but what kind?"

The three different types of love Orr was discussing about, was a bit if a blur to me because it can come out to be a one-sided argument, that he is for nature and doesn't explain both sides and gives the audience both perspectives, but instead he begins to tear down one rather then equally defend both sides. He's a bit biased in my belief. But who am I to come to conclusions about his views

Love? Eros? Agape?
www. drsheri.com

.