In his book, Ecological Literacy, David Orr asks the question, What is eduaction for? If one refers to recent polls conducted by Harris and Gallup and others, the public's respons to this question is: to get a degree to get a good job. Most Americans "continue to see a college degree as the passport to 'the good life' in this country (McClenney 3)." If this perception reigns, then we're forced to ask a second question, What is the good life? Is it the endless accumulation of goods? And if it is, how long can we sustain the transformation of raw materials into manufactured good? According to Orr, if we expect everyone on earth to enjoy the "average" American lifestyle, we are "two planets short (Orr lecture)." If Orr's prediction is correct, the expectation of global comfort is irrational and education toward this end is misguided and naive.
But perhaps education has nobler goals. Some believe that education is designed for "teaching people how to think. But think about what (EL 142)?" If knowledge is a means to human well-being, does it not follow that this well being should be sustained rather than transitory? What kind of knowledge will sustain the greatest well-being for mankind over time? In other words, "from the perspective of human survival, what is worth knowing (EL143)?"
Orr believes that knowledge that promotes survival requires "knowing
and perceiving that are integrative" or holistic. Such holistic thinking
demands that the field of education no longer ignore the ecological perspective.
It demands a recognition of "place" and our relation to it that
is lacking in most curricula. It requires an understanding of our local,
national, and global "places" and how we can sustain them for
the longest haul. This kind of knowledge involves of a variety of disciplines
and perspectives that can work in concert for common sustainable goals.
It is grounded in values that respect spirirual and intuitive forms of knowing
as well as rational knowledge.