This paper explores Darwin's 14,000 plus letters and suggests that in spite of the enormous amount of published material on Darwin and his work, there remains much untapped information in his correspondence. A quantitative analysis of his correspondence, reveals that many of Darwin's most important sources and projects have not been researched. I provide examples in two of his correspondents, William B. Tegetmeier and John Scott, who were extremely important to Darwin's work in domestic animal breeding and plant hybrid studies, respectively. In addition, Darwin's work on seed viability and distribution are discussed to illustrate both the extent of his correspondence network and the complexity of his many sub-projects. The appendices suggest avenues for the further research of Darwin's correspondence by correlating the amount of correspondence with the amount of published material on the correspondents.

Power point presentation on the Digital Commons made as part of the spring faculty workshops.

Andrew Feenberg, a philosopher of technology, argues for a democratic rationalization of technology, whereby subjugated actors intervene in the design process to achieve their interests. He claims that environmentalism represents one of the greatest opportunities for this kind of intervention. His suggestion seems viable; most if not all of the current environmental problems stem from maladaptive technologies. Transforming these technologies is therefore imperative if we are to move toward more sustainable societies. Feenberg, however, does not address the details of his proposal or offer more than a few brief examples of what he is advocating. I use Feenberg’s Critical Theory of technology to analyze and assess various environmentalisms. Along the way I expose the deficiencies of his theory and attempt build on his work. One problem, however, is that environmentalism is by no means a homogonous entity; rather, it is composed of numerous strands with their own unique histories, aims, and strategies. I argue that of the various environmentalisms grassroots environmental justice resonates most with Feenberg’s theory. To illustrate, I present a case study of the toxics movement that emerged out of the Love Canal incident. I conclude by showing how grassroots environmental justice could enhance their effectiveness by employing the suggested Critical Theory of technology.

Book review.

Not available.

William Cronon’s Changes in the Land presaged a radical turn in environmental thought. His seminal work dramatically reconstructed our view of pre-colonial New England. He dismissed entirely the received history that portrayed pre-colonial America as an uninhabited pristine wilderness. In the process he gave Native Americans agency, and forever blurred the line between humans and nature. Since Changes it has become impossible to realistically think about humans as distinct from the “environment.”

Largely because of the Internet and the new economy, technology has become the buzzword of our culture. But what is it, and how does it affect our lives? More importantly, can we control and shape it, or does it control us? In short, can we make technology more democratic? Using the work of Andrew Feenberg, one of the most important and original figures in the field of philosophy of technology, as a foundation, the contributors to this volume explore these important questions and Feenberg responds.

In this paper I argue that the goal of “democratizing technology” (as espoused by Feenberg, Winner, Sclove and others) must be linked to some kind of overarching norm or objective. That by itself, the apparently worthwhile aim of democratizing technological design is nebulous. [Is it the case that democratizing technology will necessarily lead to an overall improvement in the built environment? Obviously, this question raises a host of additional questions: How does one define “improvement”? Or, better for whom? And, who gets to decide these questions?] Although some democratic norms have been suggested, I will argue that the concept of “sustainability” offers the most viable meta-goal. The concept, however, must be redeemed from corporate capitalism who has co-opted it to justify virtually any kind development. Instead, a sound definition of “sustainability” should include democratically agreed on norms that any person interested in sustaining life on earth could agree to. And that, accepting this, democratizing technology would then serve to further this overarching goal.

Critique of Andrew Feenberg's Critical Theory of Technology.

Many Western environmental activist groups and theorists have sounded the call for the Earth's salvation from the "global environmental crisis." What is lacking, however, is some reflection on the ramifications of framing the problem globally, and on the justifications for particular solutions. This paper examines the "ecomessiah" (saviors of the Earth) phenomenon to investigate the impacts of these types of programs. Specifically, we examine the "global environmental ethic" proposed by J. Baird Callicott. His program, presented as an inclusive system that incorporates non-Western belief systems, trades heavily on Western science as an authority and a justification. We contend that his ethic, while well-intentioned, rests on assumptions and uses of science that subvert both non-Western ideologies and non-Western interests rather than revere them. Consequently, the inherent flaws undermine the feel-good one-world rhetoric that he espouses.

Critique of J. Baird Callicott's attempt to formaluate a "global" environmental ethic.