Top post DFXK.
I'm often surprised by eco people who try to play both side of the field. To some how be part of nature but also rise above natural with hollow moralising about our position.
Man is the product of evolution and the very process of evolution kills. Millions of species have been wiped out by animals better able to survive. Much of the eco crowd base their moralising on this false belief that there is a balance in nature. Natural is at best in a state of punctuated equilibrium with many forces shaping the environment and the creatures in it.
Because Social justice is a human construct it is up to individuals to interrupt. AS for a individuals impact on the “natural” environment that is a personnel choice as well. As DFXK say its is the people of the bush that tend to have a practical sense of stewardship mainly because they better understand our position within it. I for my part have solar power, part native tress, revegetate salt damage soil and a few of things.

Many people, including myself, believe that direct experience of the chaotic design of wilderness, and a personal involvement in it, is an important factor in achieving a healthy social conscousness. - going bush or swimming in the sea etc. Living in the bush is the way god created us.

The link between ecology and social justice is not just a philosophical or ideological one (see my above post r.e. ideology). Embracing ecological sensibilities is about expanding human conscousness, not deepening an analysis. A simple understanding that humans are capable of is that everything is connected. But living within this connectedness is a different matter all together. What is it that allows a prison guard to torture a prisoner? - total disconnection from the perspective of the torturer, no empathy, love or concern for the prisoner. Similarly what enables an investor to invest in the uranium industry? - a total disconectedness from the reality of land and communities near uranium mines and nuclear power plants.

Both social justice and ecological healing require a greater connectedness to reality than our present supermarket/t.v. society allows. If we do not feel others pain, or do not see where our pollution goes, then we have no reason to change anything. When we begin to truly hear and see and feel reality, then we have an immediate motivation to protect our own sense of well being.

Social justice and living sustainably within the environment require a holistic consciousness shift.

Social justice people have allways seen the links between justice and the environment, way back in the 60's - 80's too. Today there are many Australians who are very concerned for the environment - everyone is affected by ecocide. But these greenies have too often not seen the links with social justice and perceived the crisis as one that affects their own self interest. Meanwhile poor people around the world are allready dying because of the ecological crises caused by our disconnected lifestyles.

BOAZ_David...........Where are you on this one?

Justice, love, hope, fairness, ... all beautiful words that mean so much or so little depending who are using them and to what end.

The greatest lesson we learnt from the 60s-80s, is to no longer trust our leaders for the outcome of our planet. Social justice is a people movement from the ground up not by a handful of global power players who by the stroke of one signature can change our destiny for ever.

God created man to enjoy and to be in charge of the earth, as a caretaker not in a landlord/ owner position, to manage and not subdue, to cultivate for sustenance and not abuse.

Greed – the result of selfishness – is the thrusting force that controls decision making processes. The losers are always the environment and the poor.

Co-dependency can only succeed if empirical moral guidelines are in place - not laws that can be broken - but ethical reasoning that does not contravene the delicate balance of God's creation.

Unfortunately, socio-ecology today is mostly in the hands of secular humanists who by relying on man-made values are trying to solve man-made problems in a God-made universe.

A holistic approach is required to deal with the complexity of our world ecology and justice. Not including the divine is to work with a blindfold through the scientific maze.

Excluding the creational (God intended) cause and effect of our actions will always bring injustice and pain.

Noel, I liked your article.
It seems that we are not willing to learn from history. Civilisations which have failed to live in a sustainble way and to care for the environment have ceased to exist.
Maybe we are going down this path but this time we are doing it on a global scale.

Coach, I know there is a word-limit, but you seem to be implying that all actions bring injustice and pain.
www.realjustice.org looks at ways of restoring relationship when hurt has been caused, such as by violence or neglect.

Determinism and essentialism are ideologies which lessen our awareness of human freedom, and confine our understanding of humanity to certain inherited or doomed essences. Two very readable philosophers, Isaiah Berlin (then Oxford Professor of Social and Political Theory) and Beata Polanowska-Sygulska (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Department of the Theory and Philosophy of Law) discuss such things in 'Unfinished Dialogue', a recently published edition of their letters.

Berlin notes that whilst humankind is subject to plural differences, there is a core human quality: “…I believe only that de facto there is sufficient common ground between men at most times and in most places – not, perhaps, always and everywhere – to make understanding and communication and explanation possible.” (p.56)

On page 54 Berlin defends his stance on individual efficacy: “…my unpopular opinion (is) that individuals make more difference to the twists and turns of human history than is commonly supposed by the system-builders…I am prepared to believe that men are to a large degree conditioned by the society into which they are born…by the habits, outlook, way of life, language, beliefs from which they can of course rebel but which nevertheless form and condition the means by which they do so and the set of their minds and emotions and hearts – nevertheless, this is not totally determined: at crucial moments, when conflicts arise within a society, particularly then, the impulse given freely by an individual acting through his won free will and not in some predictable fashion (which some psychologist or sociologist armed with sufficient data could have foretold) can send things spinning in an unforeseen and unforeseeable direction. If Alexander or Caesar had not lived, history would certainly have taken a different turn – this is true of a good many individuals, or perhaps groups of individuals…”