The Biophilia Hypothesis (A Shearwater Book) [Paperback]

Stephen R. Kellert (Editor), Edward O. Wilson (Editor), Scott McVay (Contributor), Aaron Katcher (Contributor), Cecilia McCarthy (Contributor), Gregory Wilkins (Contributor), Roger Ulrich (Contributor), Paul Shepard (Contributor), Sara St. Antoine (Contributor), Jared Diamond (Contributor), Gordon Orians (Contributor), Richard Nelson (Contributor), Madhav Gadgil (Contributor), Lynn Margulis (Contributor), Elizabeth Lawrence (Contributor)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1559631473 | ISBN-13: 978-1559631471 | Publication Date: March 1, 1995 | Edition: 1

"Biophilia" is the term coined by Edward O. Wilson to describe what he believes is humanity's innate affinity for the natural world. In his landmark book "Biophilia," he examined how our tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes might be a biologically based need, integral to our development as individuals and as a species. That idea has caught the imagination of diverse thinkers."The Biophilia Hypothesis" brings together the views of some of the most creative scientists of our time, each attempting to amplify and refine the concept of biophilia. The variety of perspectives -- psychological, biological, cultural, symbolic, and aesthetic -- frame the theoretical issues by presenting empirical evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis. Numerous examples illustrate the idea that biophilia and its converse, biophobia, have a genetic component: fear, and even full-blown phobias of snakes and spiders are quick to develop with very little negative reinforcement, while more threatening modern artifacts -- knives, guns, automobiles -- rarely elicit such a response people find trees that are climbable and have a broad, umbrella-like canopy more attractive than trees without these characteristics people would rather look at water, green vegetation, or flowers than built structures of glass and concrete The biophilia hypothesis, if substantiated, provides a powerful argument for the conservation of biological diversity. More important, it implies serious consequences for our well-being as society becomes further estranged from the natural world. Relentless environmental destruction could have a significant impact on our quality of life, not just materially but psychologically and evenspiritually.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Why is it that most of us find baby animals irresistibly cute? Why do so many people fear even the sight of snakes? What prompts us to feed birds, to allow cats to roam around the house at will, to admire the lines of dogs and horses? Stephen Kellert and Edward Wilson, the prolific Harvard biologist, gather essays by various hands on these and other questions, and the result is a fascinating glimpse into our relations with other animals. Humans, Wilson writes, have an innate (or at least extremely ancient) connection to the natural world, and our continued divorce from it has led to the loss of not only "a vast intellectual legacy born of intimacy" with nature but also our very sanity. There is much to ponder in this timely book.

From Publishers Weekly

The editors draw together a collection of scholarly essays both supporting and refuting the biophilia concept, a term coined by Pulitzer Prize winner Wilson to describe humankind's innate affiliation with nature.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 496 pages
• Publisher: Island Press; 1 edition (March 1, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1559631473
• ISBN-13: 978-1559631471
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.9 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #971,816 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Difficult but important, July 4, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Biophilia Hypothesis (A Shearwater Book) (Paperback)

Human beings are deeply psychologically attached to nature and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be. Why are houseplants so popular? Why do so many children's books feature animals as main characters? Why do more Americans visit zoos than sporting events? Why are so many of us worried about rainforests we'll never see firsthand? Unlike the previous two reviewers, I hold that our ties with nature are deep and ancient. We can bury them under concrete but WE CAN'T CUT THEM. As a last word: most of the really happy people I know have a deep relationship with nature or something from nature, such as a pet.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars an able collection that needs updating, August 10, 2007

By 

Craig Chalquist, PhD, author of TERRAPSYCHOLO... (Bay Area, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Biophilia Hypothesis (A Shearwater Book) (Paperback)

This book contains writings and research from several fields, their experts trying to confirm the hypothesis that human beings are naturally drawn to various manifestations of the natural world ("biophilia"). This hypothesis is important not because it can start a new religion or redeem the world, but because it balances more pessimistic views of human nature with the idea that we have a natural psychological connection to our fellow creatures. This in turn implies that we harm our own psyches to the extent we push other beings out of existence.

Don't expect any end-stage science from this book. The editors make it clear up front that these are tentative, exploratory, and sometimes speculative investigations. The amount of biophilia research funding remains quite small compared to environmental research on how to market things or brainwash customers. The studies herein go up to the 1990s, so it's time for another collection.

A chapter that puzzled me was written by Dorion Sagan and Lynn Margulis to argue that appeals to save the planet are grandiose. Granted; Joanna Macy has been making the point for decades that we are PART of the planet, not sitting high above it. At best we can participate in its self-healing from what humans have done to it. But the authors go beyond this to normalize what we have done to it, even suggesting that we could be making way for the next evolutionary experiment of Gaia. I hate to use the hard word "misanthropic," but dismissing global warming and mass extinctions with the suggestion that "the decline in species diversity may be balanced by an increase in technological diversity" is astounding. It is quite a contrast to the growing numbers of people who feel the pain of those disappearances and declines with agonizing urgency and sorrow. I'm concerned that it also supports the very passivity and hopelessness that deprive the public sphere of so much pro-environmental energy directed toward appreciating and encouraging Earth's self-healing complexity: a very different idealism from the heroic posture of the world-shaper.

4 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Wonderful reading, October 3, 2001

By 

cb "cb" (encino, ca US) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Biophilia Hypothesis (Hardcover)

This was recommended by a scientist-science teacher-friend and I was simply blown away by the implications. If this theory is correct, then it explains the human descent into madness brought on by increased development without thought.