Andere Verkäufer auf Amazon
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer oder E-Mail-Adresse ein
Über „Link senden“ stimmen Sie den Amazon-Nutzungsbedingungen zu.
Sie stimmen zu, unter der oben angegebenen Mobiltelefonnummer über die Kindle App eine automatisierte Textnachricht von oder im Namen von Amazon zu erhalten. Ihre Zustimmung ist keine Bedingung für einen Kauf. Möglicherweise fallen Kosten für Nachrichten und Daten an.
Biophilia Hypothesis (Shearwater Book) Taschenbuch – Illustriert, 10. März 1995
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Edward O. Wilson is Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. Arguably the most important evolutionary biologist of his time, he has made seminal contributions to the study of evolution and ecology, created the field of sociobiology, and was one of the earliest voices to speak out about biodiversity loss.
Wilson is the author of two Pulitzer Prize winning books, On Human Nature and The Ants. He is also the author of many groundbreaking works, including Sociobiology, The Diversity of Life, The Future of Life, Consilience, Naturalist and In Search of Nature.
Wilson is the recipient of numerous prizes and awards, and is an active author of media articles and editorials. He was mentioned in the Economist as "one of the world's most distinguished scientists."
Before his death in 1996, Paul Shepard was Avery Professor of Human Ecology and Natural Philosophy at Pitzer College and the Claremont Graduate School. Among his books are The Others: How Animals Make Us Human (Island Press/ Shearwater Books, 1995) and Encounters with Nature, (Island Press/Shearwater Books, 1999).
- Herausgeber : Kogan Page; Reissue Edition (10. März 1995)
- Sprache : Englisch
- Taschenbuch : 496 Seiten
- ISBN-10 : 1559631473
- ISBN-13 : 978-1559631471
- Abmessungen : 15.24 x 3.3 x 22.86 cm
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 1,313,306 in Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Bücher)
Spitzenbewertung aus Deutschland
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
This book tries to equate affiliation with nature with the essence of a good life that has meaning. Granted, many aspects of human nature go into the make-up of our beings, including: the need to create, observe nature, have sex, accumulate and show off our amassed wealth, dominance over others, athleticism, gathering and enjoying food, AND competition with other human groups including warfare and genocide. Yes, along with a love of nature humans also have a blood lust that these authors all know exists but fail to address in this book. Another quasi-religious group of scientists could easily conjure up a new natural paradigm based on warfare (perhaps like the Spartans) and be equally content with a new culture based on love of animals but hatred of other humans (perhaps the genophilia hypothesis?).
"The biophilia hypothesis necessarily involves a number of challenging, indeed daunting, assertions. Among these is the suggestion that the human inclination to affiliate with life and lifelike process is: 1) Inherent (that is, biologically based); 2) Part of our species' evolutionary heritage; 3) Associated with human competitive advantage and genetic fitness; 4) Likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment; and 5) The self-interested basis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature, most especially the diversity of life." 
Assertions 1,2 and 3 I have no problem with, they are simple evolutionary statements. However I take strong issue with 4 and 5. Lets rephrase 4: "[T]he inclination to affiliate with life . . . is [l]ikely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment." Let us merely rephrase it to read, "The inclination for humans to commit genocide is likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment." I contend that genocide and group cohesiveness are in fact far more powerful emotions than our need of love for nature. And yet we have been able to subdue this emotion quite nicely by introducing incentives in cultures to forego blood-letting for other more valuable past times. Likewise, BioHyp may improve our urban environment by paying more attention to planting trees and providing for some bird sanctuaries, but I would contend that the average urban dweller is far more impacted by daily road rage than they are sensitive to the number of animals and fauna they observe on their journey to work. That is, hostility to other humans who may have offended me carry a much greater burden on my temperament than seeing a squirrel climb up the tree as I walk to my garage.
Assertion 5 above, in order to be true, must show that an extreme caring and conservation for nature, one that must reduce the average material wealth of humans while also reducing the number of humans, is of real benefit to humans: that is, it is a good in itself, to all humans! Does this hold for those who will not be born? For those who will die on the way to the emergency room because we have reverted back to bicycles or horse and buggies? Don't get me wrong. I am not an egalitarian that thinks "banning guns to save just one child is reason enough to give up our constitutional rights." Its just that no group or philosophy can make the above statement to simplistically and universally alter our national or humans agenda. They are calling for a ecological Jihad that is not warranted. Our culture cannot be cut from whole cloth based on such simplistic assertions. They are made up of a myriad of compromises and constraints that do not fall easily into any one fundamental of human nature as espoused in BioHyp.
Spitzenrezensionen aus anderen Ländern
Aside from this book, which I found enlightening, is the reality that in our world there are many actors who find this 'truth' a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it they must. Read this book, and share it with all those who you love. Peace.