conclusion of nature

conclusion of nature

The thread that I have traced in this book situates the protection of species in a long history of masculinist attempts to control the reproductive capacity of other animals.²²⁵ Whether other species are preserved as the source of "game," symbols of the frontier, representatives of a lineage, "living drama," or an "intergenerational narrative," the focus of protection is on the fertility of nature, not the individual beings that nature generates.

Ecofeminists can not only deepen the questions posed in nature ethics, they can broaden the scope of concern. The holists in this study typify a common neglect of care within nature theories for the treatment of animals living in captivity. The suffering of the other–than–human animals who are subjected to experiments in laboratories or raised for food seemingly falls outside the purview of "nature." However, as the animal advocacy movement reminds us, nature is not only that which is perceived as the "wild"; nature is also inside laboratories, factory farms, fur ranches, and the many other places where other–than–human animals are subjected to manipulation and abuse. If we truly care about the natural world, then these beings should also be the focus of our concern.

Ecofeminists can add still another dimension to the scope of nature ethics. Nature consists not only of the external entities that surround us; it also resides within our own psycho–social natures and identities. Although definitive answers may always elude us, it is important to explore the relevance of gender identity as a major contributor to nature abuse. While it would be foolish to argue that destructive attitudes toward nature can be attributed entirely to the influence of masculine identity, I have argued that it is equally misguided to ignore its contribution.