Geobiocoenological landscape typology, which is used in landscape planning in the Czech Republic,... more Geobiocoenological landscape typology, which is used in landscape planning in the Czech Republic, includes vegetation zonation of the landscape. Vegetation zones are determined by climatic conditions. Changes in climatic conditions will probably be manifested in the shift of vegetation zones in the landscape. Mathematical geobiocoenological model of vegetation zonation of the landscape is based on the general ecological relationship between the current vegetation zonation and present climatic conditions and the assumption that this general relationship will be maintained in the future. The paper presents the application of the model using the example of the prediction of changes in climatic conditions for the Norway spruce (the first-generation of the model) and grapevine (the second-generation of the model) in the Czech Republic. In the case of the Norway spruce example, the model shows that the predicted changes in climatic conditions will prevent the cultivation of the spruce in ...
Development Environment and Foresight, Apr 22, 2015
One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean fo... more One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean for contemporary western man? What does it mean for biologists and for environmentalists? Many environmental philosophers have contributed to these topics (e.g. Merchant, 1990, Plumwood, 1993), nevertheless the question has remained painfully unsolved until recent times. This paper provides the author´s brief interpretation of the crucial moments in modern philosophy concerning our understanding of nature and what nature means for today's biologists and the consequences for environmentalism and the conservation of nature. The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself. Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge. Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.
One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean fo... more One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean for contemporary western man? What does it mean for biologists and for environmentalists? Many environmental philosophers have contributed to these topics (e.g. Merchant, 1990, Plumwood, 1993), nevertheless the question has remained painfully unsolved until recent times. This paper provides the author´s brief interpretation of the crucial moments in modern philosophy concerning our understanding of nature and what nature means for today’s biologists and the consequences for environmentalism and the conservation of nature. The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself. Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge. Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.
„Lomborgovské laděné projekty typu ‚racionalizujme přírodní zdroje a kapitálové možnosti‘, státní... more „Lomborgovské laděné projekty typu ‚racionalizujme přírodní zdroje a kapitálové možnosti‘, státní byrokracií realizované projekty typu ‚třiďme odpad – snižme emise – vyperme řeky – ukliďme svět‘ či projekty ‚zelených nadšenců‘ typu ‚postavme ekocentra, naučné stezky a rekvalifikujme společnost na ekologicky gramotnou‘ jsou jistě nezbytným a ve vztahu k nevnímavému davu jediným možným řešením, jak tento dav (ve smyslu Aristotelova pojetí bios apolaustikos) domestikovat tak, abychom se vyhnuli závažným socioekonomickým a politickým důsledkům. Nesmíme však ekologický problém redukovat pouze na tyto ‚praktické‘ a v podstatě kosmetické problémy, a tak jej zaplácnout ze zeleného konce.“
The use of scientific knowledge for environmental arguments can be problematic. The existence of ... more The use of scientific knowledge for environmental arguments can be problematic. The existence of environmental problems does not follow directly from scientific knowledge. Science is not the best instrument for solving some environmental problems. Environmentalists should devise their own methodology and ontology that would provide nature with its own unique constitution.
Geobiocoenological landscape typology, which is used in landscape planning in the Czech Republic,... more Geobiocoenological landscape typology, which is used in landscape planning in the Czech Republic, includes vegetation zonation of the landscape. Vegetation zones are determined by climatic conditions. Changes in climatic conditions will probably be manifested in the shift of vegetation zones in the landscape. Mathematical geobiocoenological model of vegetation zonation of the landscape is based on the general ecological relationship between the current vegetation zonation and present climatic conditions and the assumption that this general relationship will be maintained in the future. The paper presents the application of the model using the example of the prediction of changes in climatic conditions for the Norway spruce (the first-generation of the model) and grapevine (the second-generation of the model) in the Czech Republic. In the case of the Norway spruce example, the model shows that the predicted changes in climatic conditions will prevent the cultivation of the spruce in ...
Development Environment and Foresight, Apr 22, 2015
One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean fo... more One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean for contemporary western man? What does it mean for biologists and for environmentalists? Many environmental philosophers have contributed to these topics (e.g. Merchant, 1990, Plumwood, 1993), nevertheless the question has remained painfully unsolved until recent times. This paper provides the author´s brief interpretation of the crucial moments in modern philosophy concerning our understanding of nature and what nature means for today's biologists and the consequences for environmentalism and the conservation of nature. The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself. Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge. Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.
One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean fo... more One of the main areas of concern for environmentalists is nature. But what does it really mean for contemporary western man? What does it mean for biologists and for environmentalists? Many environmental philosophers have contributed to these topics (e.g. Merchant, 1990, Plumwood, 1993), nevertheless the question has remained painfully unsolved until recent times. This paper provides the author´s brief interpretation of the crucial moments in modern philosophy concerning our understanding of nature and what nature means for today’s biologists and the consequences for environmentalism and the conservation of nature. The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself. Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge. Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.
„Lomborgovské laděné projekty typu ‚racionalizujme přírodní zdroje a kapitálové možnosti‘, státní... more „Lomborgovské laděné projekty typu ‚racionalizujme přírodní zdroje a kapitálové možnosti‘, státní byrokracií realizované projekty typu ‚třiďme odpad – snižme emise – vyperme řeky – ukliďme svět‘ či projekty ‚zelených nadšenců‘ typu ‚postavme ekocentra, naučné stezky a rekvalifikujme společnost na ekologicky gramotnou‘ jsou jistě nezbytným a ve vztahu k nevnímavému davu jediným možným řešením, jak tento dav (ve smyslu Aristotelova pojetí bios apolaustikos) domestikovat tak, abychom se vyhnuli závažným socioekonomickým a politickým důsledkům. Nesmíme však ekologický problém redukovat pouze na tyto ‚praktické‘ a v podstatě kosmetické problémy, a tak jej zaplácnout ze zeleného konce.“
The use of scientific knowledge for environmental arguments can be problematic. The existence of ... more The use of scientific knowledge for environmental arguments can be problematic. The existence of environmental problems does not follow directly from scientific knowledge. Science is not the best instrument for solving some environmental problems. Environmentalists should devise their own methodology and ontology that would provide nature with its own unique constitution.
Uploads
Papers by Tomas Danek
The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself.
Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge.
Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.
The author assumes that, despite massive developments in modern science and many impressive breakthroughs, we are in principle still locked into a mechanistic model of the universe, as created by Galilei, Descartes and Newton. It has fundamental consequences for biology, for our understanding of nature and also for environmentalism. What are environmentalists protecting? Some inert matter controlled by mechanical natural laws? If not, what is alive in the environment that they are fighting for? In terms of recent evolutionary thinking, there is ultimately nothing to protect. Nature has no value in itself.
Recent environmentalism has just taken over scientific knowledge and for this reason it suffers from the fundamental and inherent contradiction that in many ways it is trying to protect nature from the various consequences of the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world, but to understand and resolve those consequences environmentalists use our knowledge of biology, which is ultimately based on the mathematical-mechanistic view of the world. So quite possibly their work is contributing to the problem, and at the same time it is also becoming epistemologically dependent on natural science, which brings this knowledge.
Until environmentalists do not bring their own concept of reality, which would at least try to offer the original explanation of nature as living and valuable, there is little chance of real improvement in recent environmental problems.