"From a 'Sociology of Nature' to Environmental Sociology: Beyond Social Construction"
Graham Woodgate and Michael Redclift provide some theoretical starting points for constructing a social science approach to environmental issues.
Graham Woodgate and Michael Redclift provide some theoretical starting points for constructing a social science approach to environmental issues.
Robin Attfield refutes the neo-Malthusian paradigm put forward by Holmes Rolston, arguing that authentic development will seldom conflict with nature conservation.
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Examining the concepts of “security” and “sustainability” Michael Redclift argues that, although the importance of the environment has been increasingly acknowledged since the 1970s, there has been a failure to incorporate other discourses surrounding “nature.”
Many philosophers consider favoritism toward humans in the context of moral choice to be a prejudice. While several terms are used for it, this article suggests that only the term “speciesism” be used. It attempts conceptual clarification with regard to other terms like “humanistic ethics” or “non-speciesist humanism.”
Peter Lucas argues that even though it is widely acknowledged that social theorists can make an important contribution to our understanding of environmental risk, there is however a danger that the current ascendancy of social theory will encourage a tendency to assimilate issues around environmental risk to those at stake in entrenched debates between realist and constructivist social theorists.
This paper compares the heuristic potential of three metaphorical paired concepts used in the relevant literature to characterise global relationships between the anthroposphere and the ecosphere.
In this paper Roger Fjellstrom argues that there is a lack of coherence between his ethical ideology and his actual ethical theory.
In this article, Magnus Bostrom analyses the role of envrionmental organisations since the early 1960s.
In this article, Baylor L. Johnson argues that in a tragedy of the commons there is no reasonable expectation that individual, voluntary action will succeed.