| This thesis identifies a major paradigm in environmental philosophy. According to many environmental philosophers, the root of our ecological problems is our Modernist world view. Modernity has created a dangerous dualism between humanity and nature. This dualism both encourages a destructive, anthropocentric attitude, and portrays nature as passive, mechanistic, and suitable for domination. Many of these philosophers, most notably deep ecologists, think that the solution to our ecological problems lies in recovering the wild, true aspect of nature and replacing the Modernist world view with an ecological world view. I call this paradigm "the Recovery Project.".;I propose a new starting point for environmental philosophy---an idea I call "artifactual anthropocentrism." This version of anthropocentrism accounts for the phenomenon of unintended consequences, which is neglected by standard versions of anthropocentrism and the Recovery Project. I then examine the ecological problems associated with our urban environment. Through a discussion of urbanization and traditional agricultural methods, I explain the difference between domesticating and socializing natural entities and the problems associated with these processes. Continuing the focus on the relationship between humans and artifacts, I conclude that environmental philosophy may be able to address these problems by reorienting itself as a philosophy of technique.;I reject this paradigm on the basis that it contains too many problematic premises, notably the idea that nature is ontologically independent. I use contemporary theories in philosophical anthropology to criticize the Recovery Project's realist thesis and their argument that Modernity is responsible for our ecological crisis. This criticism reveals the essential relationship between humanity and artifacts. Although I formulate a constructivist position, it is not the social constructivist thesis critiqued by many environmental philosophers. |
