Biophilia vs. Biophobia - A discussion on David W. Orr's excerpt

                                         (photo taken by me)

Quote 1: "A third possibility is that at some level of alertness and maturity, we respond with awe to the natural world independent of any instinctual conditioning"

I completely agree with this quote. I recently traveled to South Lake Tahoe with my girlfriend during the winter and I loved every bit of it. As soon as we started approaching the area we came across creeks that were absolutely beautiful. We stopped and got out of the car just to admire the beauty of the nature around us. Even while driving up the mountain we were completely in shock at how beautiful everything was. There was definitely an innate feeling of happiness as we admired the trees, plants, bays, and the lake. We also went snowmobiling up a mountain and had incredible scenery of all the trees and also got a great view of the lake. We even planned a return trip for the summer to enjoy the numerous trails and tours available to us because we enjoyed the experience so much.

Quote 2: "Fifth, we have it on good authority that love is patient..."

The author quotes the bible and then uses the bible's definition of love to connect nature and love. He then goes on to quote a theologian's proposed six dimensions of love. I don't agree with the fact that the author attempted to insert religion into his excerpt in order to prove a point. Additionally, the paragraph is completely useless and does not help move the author’s message forward. The paragraph should be taken out entirely or a different point should be devised in order for the author to back-up his beliefs about Biophillia.

Quote 3: "How long will it be until the genetic engineers or nanotechnologists release an AIDS-like virus?"

I'm not completely sure what point the author was attempting to make with this statement. Why would nanotechnologists and genetic engineers release an AIDS-like virus? Why would they be making viruses in the first place? One possibility could be to study their behavior but I'm sure there's ways to contain something so dangerous in the unlikely event that we would create an AIDS-like virus. Additionally, why is the author bashing genetics and nanotechnology? These are two fields that could potentially cure most fatal diseases and help extend our lives. Furthermore, how are genetic engineering and nanotechnology harming the environment? The statement was very misplaced and I'm not sure what point the author was attempting to illustrate.