Biophilia vs. Biophobia

    As defined by David W. Orr in Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, biophobia is when one has a severe aversion to nature (Orr, 1994 p.186). A perfect example of this was used in the book written by Orr pertaining to Woody Allan, the most stereotypical New Yorker who views city life with great reverence and passion and any other form of living as alien and detrimental to the true human spirit. Orr goes on to further explain biophobia as a negative reaction to nature, with various levels of severity, worsened by television, air conditioning, and other man-made distractions that separate man from true human existence (Orr, 1994 p.187). Biophilia, as defined by Orr, is a condition that is contrary to biophobia. This reaction to nature is more open and welcoming; an urge to exist in other aspects of life and surroundings. This attitude towards nature is seen as progressive and a sign of a strong mental and physical health.

Photo provided by Ken Yeul on Flickr Sept. 15, 2009

    "We recognize these as the result of deformed childhoods that create unloving and often violent adults. Biophobia in all of its forms similarly shrinks the range of experiences and joys in life in the same way that the inability to achieve close and loving relationships limits a human life (Orr, 1994 p.191)." With the manner in which children are being raised on video games, television shows, movies, social media, gym memberships, and restaurants its no wonder that concern for the outside word, for the environment, is at serious risk. Without people, particularly young people, enjoying nature and the outdoors the idea that one day it all might be lost would not be a particularly great concern for those who spend most of their lives indoors. This is why it is crucial that people need to enjoy the outdoors just as much, if not more, than the air-conditioned, wifi hotspots that are so much more frequented. To ward off global devastation people must first find a love for global activities that connect them closer to the environment. Camping, hiking, site seeing, sun bathing, picnics, outdoor sports, going for a walk once in while are all activities that could bring people closer to biophilia and further away from biophobia.

Photo provided by Mobile Gaming Revolution on Flickr May 28, 2011

    "But is it possible for us to be neutral or “objective” toward life and nature? I do not think so (Orr, 1994 p.193)." This point is actually inaccurate and too hard-line to offer logical thought. Many, if not most, people are neutral about the environment, and that is not such a bad thing, considering the alternative. People who are considered neutral are perhaps those care about the environment, but also care about feeding their families and are too busy working two jobs to be active about saving their natural surroundings. They are neutral because they are too busy just trying to survive, and people have every right to be neutral. People who are neutral are not the problem, it is the people who are willingly polluting the oceans and rivers, cutting down acres upon acres of forests, overflowing landfills, and burning resources without a care in the world, almost in spite of the environmentally conscious who are the problem. Orr used physicians as an example of why people cannot be neutral. He asked if people would like those whose job it is to save their life to be neutral about life and death. This is entirely inaccurate. It is true physicians all want to save lives, but they are in no way passionate or overemotional about death. If they were each life lost would devastate them and force them out of their profession. Physicians must be neutral about life and death or it would lead them to a life of despair.

Photo provided by Marcia Valenzuela on Flickr Sept. 7, 2006

    "I do not know whether it is possible to love the planet or not, but I do know that it is possible to love the places we can see, touch, smell, and experience (Orr, 1994 p.205)." This quote is actually quite head scratching and muddies any real thoughts I had about this chapter of the book. At the beginning of the chapter Orr spoke of people of prehistoric times who worshiped the environment is which they lived. Now Orr states he does truly know if anyone can love the planet. Of course people can love the planet, right? Even if we, as people, do not touch, smell, see, or experience natures, as Orr puts it, we can still "love" nature. I have never touched, smelled, heard, saw, or experienced the Amazon rain forest, but were it to be completely destroyed I would be incredibly hurt and distraught. Isn't this the idea of biophilia? This left me confused to say the least.


Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect.
         Washington, DC: Island Press.