東京外大2003 大問Ⅱ

We human beings of the developed societies have once more been expelled from a garden ― the man-made garden of Euro-American humanism and its ideas about human superiority, uniqueness, and dominance. We have been thrown back into that other garden with all the other animals, insects, and plants, where we can no longer be sure we are so privileged. The walls between "nature" and "culture" begin to crumble as we enter a post-industrial era. Darwinian insights force occidental people, often unwillingly, to acknowledge their literal kinship with the natural world.


Environmentalists and ecological scientists are still in the process of reevaluating how to think about, how to create policy with, nature. The professional resource managers of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have been driven, partly by people of conscience among them, into rethinking their old views regarding land use. (1) [               ]


In the more intellectual world of ecological and social theory, people agree less often. Nature writing, environmental history, and ecological philosophy have become subjects of study related to human beings and activities. There are, however, still a few otherwise humane historians and philosophers who still assume that the natural world is primarily a warehouse of materials for humans. That is what the Occident has said and thought for a couple of thousand years.


Right now there are two sets of ideas circling about each other. One group, which we could call the "Savers," places value on the extensive preservation of wilderness areas and argues for the importance of the original condition of nature. This view has been tied to the idea that the mature condition of the ecological environment is a stable and diverse state technically called "perfect balance." (2) [             ] . They can be called the "Users." The "Savers'" view is attributed to the Sierra Club* and other leading national organizations, to various "radical environmentalists," and to many environmental thinkers and writers. The "Users'" view, which has a few supporters in the biological sciences, has already become a favorite of the World Bank and those developers who are vexed by the problems associated with legislation that requires protection for creatures whose time and space are running out. It has been quickly taken up by the industry-sponsored "Wise Use" movement.


Different as they are, both groups reflect the useful view of nature that has long been a mainstay of occidental thought. The "Savers'" idea of freezing some parts of nature into a permanent picture of "uninhabited wilderness" is also to treat nature like an object, kept in a golden cage. (3)[                  ].


   The "Users" on the local level would claim to speak for communities and workers whose dilemma is real enough, but a little research discloses industry funding. (4)[                ].


Theoreticians and critics have recently ventured into nature politics. Many of them have sided with the "Users" ― they like to argue that nature is part of history, that human beings are part of nature, that there is little in the natural world that has not already been altered by humans, that in any case our idea of "nature" is a projection of our social condition and that there is no  sense in trying to preserve an imaginary wilderness. (5) [              ]. These positions still fail to come to grips with the question of how to deal with the pain and distress of real beings, plants and animals, as real as suffering humanity―and how to preserve natural variety. The need to protect natural diversity may be economically difficult and socially controversial, but there are strong scientific and practical arguments in support of it, and it is for many of us a profound ethical issue.



ア.However, to say that the natural world is subject to continual change, that nature is shaped by history, or that our idea of reality is an illusion is not new


イ.On the global scale, their supporters line up with huge forces of governments and corporations, and threaten further destruction of local communities and their natural environment


ウ.This is a time when scientists, self-taught ecologists from the communities, land management agency experts, and a new breed of ecologically aware workers and farmers are beginning to get together


エ.The other position holds that nature is constantly changing, that humans have altered things to the point where there is no "natural condition" left, that there is no reason to value "perfect balance" over any other state of nature, and that human beings are not only part of nature but that they are also dominant over nature and should keep on using and changing it


オ.Some preservationists have been insensitive to the problems of native peoples whose home grounds were turned into protected wildlife preserves or parks, or to the difficulties of workers and farmers who lose jobs as land use policies change