Every act of speech or writing has assumptions behind it. In my wish to develop an environmental philosophical position, it’s only fair to declare these assumptions, in this case with a little biography. In early life I was drawn to left-wing politics, and was often found demonstrating outside South Africa House or at military bases, but it struck me that you can’t build a new world by shouting at what you don’t like, so I withdrew from this, and looked for a new frame.

I was drawn to Taoism, loving its acknowledgement of the natural world, and its seemingly accepting moral stance, but Taoism lacked explicit mention of something that had not disappeared from my thinking after leaving my Catholic childhood behind, that is God. Then I discovered Sufism, the mystical aspect of Islam, and that seemed to answer this for me, particularly when I came into the presence of a living teacher. The emphasis on personal awakening was there, and in the concept of tawhid, (“unity” / “oneness”), the idea that everything is one was also emphasised. But I wasn’t hearing anything practical about sorting out the mess we were in, as all the focus was on purifying the self. But what if a purified self could carry on polluting, perhaps without even knowing that that is what they were doing? I had looked at Permaculture over the years, and wondered whether that could fill the gap. I wanted to lessen my own impact on the Earth, but as a naturally cerebral individual I have also decided that I want to find the philosophical underpinnings of my approach. In permaculture it starts off with simple ideas: Earth care, people care, fair share.  Through recent exploration of permaculture podcasts I have also become aware of the Regenerative Agriculture movement.  Regen Ag, to use its inelegant abbreviation, gives us the idea that we can simultaneously restore nature, fix carbon and feed humans. It has also been gratifying to discover writers with an environmental spirituality, such as Thomas Berry and the poet-farmer Wendell Berry. Is there something about berries, I wonder?

There are lots of other ideas worthy of examination: the concept of wizards and prophets, Charles C. Mann’s phrase, is an interesting one. Wizards believe all problems have a technical fix, whereas prophets focus more on what is wrong, and that the answer is to turn away from technological civilisation. Paul Kingsnorth is an example of the latter, and his writing is interesting but I think there is a more positive path. Then there are those who reject the term “the environment” which puts a gap between humanity and nature, so they prefer the term “the natural world”. My current thinking suggests we should use “the creation” which seems to have a power, obviously to those who believe in God, but perhaps also to those who do not. Some say that indigenous cultures have the answer to our problems, especially those which do not make a strong separation between humans and other beings. I am not happy about this, because I think there is a distinction, now more than ever, between the power of humans and other beings. We may be the same in essence, and it may be that the same respect should be accorded to both, but surely humans have to take a special responsibility.

There may be good critiques of all these movements and opinions. I would like to hear them and use criticism to move towards a practical outlook for saving the natural world.

The aim is for this blog to begin to contain more references, so that I don’t say “some people say…” without saying who they are. But the fact is I haven’t been collecting references, and I wanted to get started with these ideas, so that will come further down the road.