Place (Nonhuman/Human)
What world do we want, and what would be the place of nonhumans vs. humans?
The Place theme combines the Aesthetics, Ecosystems, Ethics, Future, and Nature axes, which point toward the ways we understand, and value, nonhumans and humans. Together, they suggest the place of nonhumans and humans in this world, who has priority, and whether our vision of place is possible in future. The challenges of making this world a livable place for humans and nonhumans suggest the creative tension inherent in the Place theme.
Two Poles
Place (Nonhuman Pole)
Place (Human Pole)
This pole approaches the place of nonhumans and humans in our world as one in which nonhumans were here first. Bringing together the wild pole of Aesthetics, the biocentric pole of Ethics, the static pole of Ecosystems, the crisis view of Future, and the pure pole of Nature, the nonhuman pole sets aside and prioritizes the natural world, is not particularly impressed with human accomplishments, needs, and impacts, and is not hopeful given the slim likelihood of these views prevailing in future. There can be a place in this world for humans, but only if it does not interfere with nonhuman flourishing, which is the necessary foundation for nonhuman place. One possible online example: Half-Earth Project.
Human accomplishments and well-being define for this pole the relative place of nonhumans and humans in our world. Building on the crafted Aesthetics pole, the anthropocentric Ethics pole, the dynamic pole of Ecosystems, the possibility view of Future, and the hybrid Nature pole, the human pole sees this world as a good place for humans to flourish, a place where change happens and can happen for the good in future. It prioritizes human needs, and accepts—even celebrates—human transformations of the nonhuman world. One possible online example: Seeds of a Good Anthropocene.
Wild Pole |
Aesthetics |
Crafted Pole |
Nature is most beautiful when left to flourish on its own, without human interference. |
|
People can craft beautiful things, such as gardens and parks, that look better than nature alone. |
Stable Pole |
Ecosystems |
Dynamic Pole |
Earth’s ecosystems tend toward stability and balance among the animals and plants that comprise them. |
|
Earth’s ecosystems actually tend less toward equilibrium and stability, and more toward dynamism and change. |
Biocentric Pole |
Ethics |
Anthropocentric Pole |
Nonhuman species and habitats are valuable whether or not they serve important human needs. |
|
We should protect nature when such actions provide resources or other value to human lives, not just for its own sake. |
Crisis Pole |
Future |
Possibility Pole |
It is hard to imagine a way out of severe environmental crisis in future. |
|
There are many opportunities for us to solve environmental problems in future; crisis is not inevitable. |
Pure Pole |
Nature |
Hybrid Pole |
Nature knows best; people should get out of the way and let natural processes flourish. |
|
Humans can at times actually improve upon natural systems by careful and thoughtful management. |
Survey Results
The histogram above displays a weighted mean of this theme’s related axes, for surveys from fall 2018 to now. Responses toward the left of this chart lean toward the left pole of this theme; those toward the right favor the right pole. What is the overall distribution of responses? What does this say about participants in the EcoTypes survey, and their take on this theme? How do your results compare?
The correlation table above compares responses to statements for axes related to this theme. Values near 0 mean little association; values above |0.2| and |0.4| are formatted to imply stronger association. (Positive values mean the axis poles line up as above.) Which axes seem to have a strong empirical association? Do you find any surprises in the strong, weak, or negligible associations summarized above?
Leave a Reply