Cambios a nivel de sus relaciones

Western ideas of nature are commonly held to originate in Greco-Roman thought, these ideas in turn resting on older systems of thought of the cultures of the ancient Near East. Glacken (1967) argues that the Sumerian belief in an ordered cosmos, created and maintained by beings who each had responsibility for a particular part of the cosmos could be the basis of ideas of a divinely planned earth, and a divinity which is inseparable from the order of nature. In the Greek understanding of nature the creation of gods was represented within various natural phenomena, but there was no creation myth (White 1967), and no single universal understanding of nature (Lloyd 1992, Glacken 1967), although as Glacken (1967) remarks, there was a definite maturing of belief during the Hellenistic period which is important for subsequent conceptualisations of nature.

There was an assumption of man being p^rt of nature “Where other cultures and religions may so stress the gap between humans and animals that ‘animals’ do not include ‘humans’, the pre-Christian Greeks generally assumed co-membership in a common genus” (Lloyd 1992:11). Aristotelian thought defined nature as that which has an inner source of movement and rest, and suggests that plants and animals exist for humans, to be investigated by them, but without reference to the control and manipulation of nature. The character of nature’s reality was contested in every respect, nature was for some what was there, “for others nature was itself permeated with values, and a resource for moral philosophy, while for yet others it was rather a covert source of moralizing w h^e the category of the natural was used to legitimate a point of view specific to the interests of son;e particular group” (Lloyd 1992:21). The multiplicity of views and theories of nature reflect the cultural variety of Greek society, and the range of debate and metaphysical argument.

By the death of Aristotle in 322 EC many ideas concerning man’s relationship to nature were established: that there was a hidden divine force; a balanced and

harmonious plan; a creator/craftsman behind the order of the world; and the richness of the natural world was for man’s use. It is the idea of balance and harmony in the natural world that is the source of modem environmental beliefs, if indeed a direct line can be traced through from the Gredc conception to the modam as Glacken (1967) suggests. But this idea negates or certainly reduces other cultural influences on modem environmental thinking even in the most obvious form, for example the North American Indian beliefs mixed with Quaker ideals that gave rise to the early philosophy of Greenpeace.

Christianity saw the gradual demise of animist beliefs and the replacement of these gods with the Christian saints, although as Thomas (1971) points out, in England the pagan, animist beliefs continued in some areas, in particular amongst the rural poor, until the 18th century. The Greek legacy continued via the texts and traditions at first not fully comprehended or accepted by the Christian church, for example, books on astronomy. Most Christian beliefs and attitudes to nature were based on Genesis and the hexameral writings, and diverging opinions were usually met with charges of heresy or witchcraft. In regarding the Christian church, the difference in outlook between the Eastem church and the Westem church must be noted. In the Eastem church a contemplative approach was taken towards the Christian doctrine and there was no parallel rise of science in the East; the Westem church doctrines, along with many other influences, give rise to scientific inquiry.

The Christian view of nature has two essentially different interpretations, that of dominion over the earth, or stewardship of it (Genesis 1:28 "and God said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”. Genesis 2:15 “And the Lord God took the man, and put him

into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keq) it”). There was a refusal to accept or encourage differing interpretations of the Bible except by initiated scholars (this is a possible source for the scientific tradition, of expertise with the analogy of scientists as priesthood). White (1967) sees the writings of St Francis of Assisi as being a revolutionary change in attitude to nature and as a rebellion against anthropocentric attitudes, instituting a ‘democracy of all God’s creatures’ (White 1947 quoted in Glacken 1967). St Francis’ teaching maintains the hierarchy of nature, but nature does not exist for the use of man. White interprets these teachings as the

humanisation of other life (Glacken 1967),

Mediaeval cosmology saw the world at the centre of the cosmos, Man being within a hierarchy, “below the spheres and stars and inferior to the angels but still the highest being composed of the four elements” (Glacken 1967 :223). This view was based on Aquinas’ conjunction of Aristotelian ideas of purpose in nature used for the good of man, closely integrated with the Judeo-Christian teachings of God being both the planner and creator (Pepper 1996, Atkinson 1991). Within this order man assumed a pre-ordained place in a balanced and harmonious hierarchy of nature, with dominion over, and stewardship of God’s creation. It is the idea of man being created in the image of God, with stewardship/dominion over, and possession of the earth, that is fundamental to the relationship of man and nature in Westem thought. Man alone had this status, unlike pagan belief in which all living things were imbued with a likeness to deities (Glacken 1967:152).

Passmore (1980) views the exploitation of nature as the legacy of the Greco- Christian separation of man from nature. Passmore (1980:19-20) argues that

Christianity encouraged a view of nature as a resource, from which developed the idea that man’s relationship to it was not governed by moral principles, and Passmore continues this argument suggesting that science in the 17th century was the means by which man’s dominion over nature would bp assured. White (1967) takes a similar

position but argues that the roots of the exploitative relationship of man to nature lie in the Judeo-Christian legacy of the 8th to 12th centuries, which White (1967) equates with origins of science, and with the combination of science and technology in the

19th century, which brought about the largest changes to nature. White’s ideas have been criticised for failing to establish causal connections, and for being

technologically determinist (Pepper 1984:46). Glacken (1967) partially agrees with White’s position, arguing that the birth of modem science may date from the Church’s opposition to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world. “From synthesis to separation. There was a progressive attempt to disengage what belonged to faith from what could be known by reason....Never again, after 1277, shall we see quite the same confidence in reason’s ability to know that which was a matter of belief” (Leff 1962 quoted in Glacken 1967). Glacken (1967) argues that the idea of man as controller of nature developed between the 15th and 17th centuries, and it is in the thought of this period, not in the Biblical idea of dominion over nature that “there begins a unique formulation of Westem thought” (Glacken 1967:168). Lovejoy (1974) interprets the physico-theological position as one that assumed mans exploitation of nature and that this carried through into science. Christianity possibly offered an opportunity for these ideas to flourish (Merton 1970) but the religious argument for the exploitation of nature is not conclusive, nor is the evidence for an exploitative attitude towards nature at this time.

During the Mediaeval period land clearance, forestry, agriculture, drainage and quarrying were all practised, but there is little clear evidence for an aggressively exploitative attitude to nature by the predominantly rural population (Atkinson

1991:129). The Roman exploitation of nature was far greater than that of mediaeval Christianity (Thomas 1983), and it must be remembered that other non-Christian people exploited nature in the name of religion (Thomas 1971, Passmore 1980). The principles of practical labour, following the teaching of St Benedict, the

development of the monasteries had the greatest impact on the relationship of man to nature (Glacken 1967:308-9).

The idea of man as the modifier of the earth, assisting both God and man in the improvement of the earth and the finishing of God’s plan, develops fiom the Greek and Roman idea of a design of the earth. Once adopted by Christianity, this gives rise to the idea of the gathering of proof of God’s design from the world. It was in the monasteries that the contemplation of man’s relationship to nature took place; the idea of man’s dominion over nature emphasised man’s creative and technical control over nature, and, as steward of God’s creation, experiment and study would lead to a greater understanding of God’s creation and would glorify God (Glacken 1967:168). In the later Middle Ages the study of nature achieved a degree of independence, although still within the teachings of Christianity. But even by the twelfth century there was a growing interest in the processes of nature, and studies being carried out that could be said to represent the beginnings of science (Lindbergl990).

The study of nature was seen as a way of interpreting God’s will, the

accompanying metaphor being of nature as a book, as a Bible, to reveal God’s work. The symbolism of nature could be read as the Bible could be read “The whole visible world is like a book written by the finger of God. It is created by divine power, and all human beings are figures placed in it, not to show the free-will of man, but as a revelation and visible sign, by divine will, of God’s invisible wisdom” (Biese 1905 quoted in Mills 1972 :240). The metaphor of a book and the ‘doctrine of signatures’ had relevance to the educated and wealthy, to the monasteries and to the universities, serving to reinforce a social hierarchy dominated by religion. Mediaeval conceptions differ in part because of the relative status of groups in society, especially in terms of education. The Christian view of nature would be a view primarily held by the literate and the clergy, the majority of people still held pagan, animist views. Yet it

was at this time that the manuscripts from the ancient Persian and Chaldean scientists were beginning to be translated into Latin.

The use of metaphors demonstrates the anthropocentrism of Mediaeval cosmology (Pepper 1996:129), an anthropocentrism based in theological teaching. Cosgrove (1990) argues that pre-scientific forms of representation, such as the use of metaphor and image, contradict the dualism of the Modernist worldview, being a force that tends to unity; and that post modernism shares this unifying use of symbolism and metaphor. But, although the pre-scientific Christian view of nature is often seen as an holistic view with God as the creator, the Christian view set God and the soul of man apart from the rest of nature (Atkinson 1991). It is this dualistic conception at the root of Christianity, inherited from more ancient religions, which is, along with ideas of the domination and modification of nature, critical to the development of science.