Edwarda Goldsmitha krytyka nowożytnego paradygmatu postępu naukowo-technicznego

Anita Ganowicz-Bączyk

doi:10.21697/seb.2017.15.3.04

Published: 2017-09-30

Vol. 15 No. 3 (2017)

Edward Goldsmith’s Criticism of the Modern Paradigm of the Scientific and Technological Progress

Anita Ganowicz-Bączyk

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2017.15.3.04

Abstract

Environmental ethics finds many of its proponents among philosophizing naturalists. An interesting attitude is presented by Edward Goldsmith, who built biospheric ethics based on the Gaia Hypothesis by James Lovelock. Goldsmith criticizes the Modern scientific paradigm. He perceives it as false and critical-creative for the relation of the humankind with ecosphere. Behind that paradigm states specific ways of understanding progress and particular ontological, axiological, and ethical assumptions (ex. social Darwinism and ethical utilitarianism). Goldsmith calls ethics which covers those convictions technosphere ethics. He submits assumptions of this ethical attitude for criticism and opposes it to biospheric ethics. According to the author, ethics that creates favorable conditions for achieving Gaia’s goals was natural for primitive human societies. These ethics required humans to keep a cosmic order – that is the well-being of individuals as well as the whole community. It assumed to follow an appropriate Way, which depends on respecting definite duties and behavior, especially in the field of rituals and religious life. Therefore, as Goldsmith convinces, one can protect effectively the exospheric order only in a religious way. In his opinion, does not exist more immoral venture than progress, which systematically leads to the replacement of the biosphere by the technosphere. The progress based on the technics leads inevitably to destruction. If we want to survive as a species – we need to return to biospheric ethics.

Keywords:

environmental ethics, ecocentrism, holism, biosphere, human, Edward Goldsmith, Gaia Hypothesis

Download files

pdf (Język Polski)

Citation rules

Ganowicz-Bączyk, A. (2017). Edward Goldsmith’s Criticism of the Modern Paradigm of the Scientific and Technological Progress. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae, 15(3), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2017.15.3.04

Cited by / Share

References

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and the Social Sciences” 16, 95-100.
Google Scholar

Bentham J., 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Clarendon Press, Oxford (wydanie polskie: Bentham J., 1958, Wprowadzenie do zasad moralności i prawodawstwa, tłum. Bogdan Nawroczyński, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240
Google Scholar

Bertalanffy L. von, 1984, Ogólna teoria systemów.
Google Scholar

Bonenberg M. M., 1992, Etyka środowiskowa. Założenia i kierunki, Wydawnictwo UJ, Kraków.
Google Scholar

Crist E. i H. B. Rinker, 2010, One Grand Organic Whole, in: Crist E. i Rinker H. B. (ed.), “Gaia in Turmoil. Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis”, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 3-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7845.001.0001
Google Scholar

Dawkins R., 1996, Samolubny gen, tłum. M. Skoneczny, Prószyński i S-ka, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Diamond J., 1996, Trzeci szympans, tłum. J. Weiner, PIW, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Dunbar R., 2014, Nowa historia ewolucji człowieka, tłum. B. Kucharczyk, Copernicus Center Press, Kraków.
Google Scholar

Goldsmith E., 1992, The Way: An Ecological Worldview, Rider Books, London.
Google Scholar

Goldsmith E., Ecology – a bridge, http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/737/ecology-a-bridge, data dostępu: 7.6.2013.
Google Scholar

Goldsmith E., Ecology is a faith, < http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1084/>, data dostępu: 07.06.2013.
Google Scholar

Goldsmith E., The Way – a synthesis, http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/937/the-way-a-synthesis,data dostępu: 7.6.2013.
Google Scholar

Goldsmith E., Towards a Biospheric Ethics, http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/26/ towards-a-biospheric-ethic, data dostępu: 7.6.2013.
Google Scholar

Kirchner J. W., 2002, The Gaia Hypothesis: Fact, Theory, and Wishful Thinking, “Climatic Change” Vol. 52, 391–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014237331082
Google Scholar

Lorenz K., 1972, Tak zwane zło, tłum. A. Tauszyńska, PIW, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Lovelock J., 2003, Gaja. Nowe spojrzenie na życie na Ziemi, tłum. M. Ryszkiewicz, Prószyński i S-ka, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Mill J. S., 1863, Utilitarianism, Son, and Bourn, London (wydanie polskie: Mill J. S., 2005, Utylitaryzm, tłum. M. Ossowska, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa).
Google Scholar

Monod J., 1979, Przypadek i konieczność, tłum. J. Bukowski, Biblioteka Głosu, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Næss A., 1973, The Shallow and the Deep, long– –range ecology movement. A summary, “Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and the Social Sciences” 16, 95-100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682
Google Scholar

Podstawy, rozwój, zastosowania, tłum. E. Woydyłło- Woźniak, PWN, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Sadowski R.F., 2016, The Concept of «Nobilis Barbarus » in the Light of Contemporary Ecological Challenges, “Problems of Sustainable Development” Vol. 11, No 1, 23-30.
Google Scholar

Smith A., 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London (wydanie polskie: Smith A., 2007, Badania nad naturą i przyczynami bogactwa narodów. Tom 1 i Tom 2, tłum. S. Wolff, O. Einfeld, Z. Sadowski, A. Prejbisz, B. Jasińska, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00043218
Google Scholar

Waal de F., 2016, Bonobo i ateista. W poszukiwaniu humanizmu wśród naczelnych, tłum. K. Kornas, Copernicus Center Press, Kraków.
Google Scholar

Wilson E. O., 1999, Różnorodność życia, tłum. J. Weiner, PIW, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Wilson E.O., 2000, Socjobiologia, tłum. Mariusz Siemiński, Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Poznań.
Google Scholar

Wilson E.O., 2002, Konsiliencja. Jedność wiedzy, tłum. J. Mikos, Zysk i S-ka, Warszawa.
Google Scholar