I. In 1987, the Alternative Nobel Prize, awarded "for vision and work contributing to making life more whole, healing our planet and uplifting humanity", was given to the women of the Chipko movement. Organized by the will to protect forests being threatened in India in the early 1970s, the village women that made up Chipko put their lives on the line for the earth. That same year, the Nobel Prize for economics was given to Robert Solow of MIT for his startling theory that, "the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe" [1]. The contrast of these two awards and their recipients illustrates the core issue of ecofeminism : a schism exists between the way the natural world is viewed by the male dominated, technologically oriented societies of the West and the communities of conscientious women around the world. Ecofeminism seeks to repair this schism by redefining relationships between men and women, humans and nature. Though ecofeminism approaches ecological concerns with varying degrees of radicalism and conservatism, there is a unanimous awareness of our planet's deteriorating health and the failure of current scientific and social methods to repair it. Ecofeminism is poised, as a movement, between the camps of science and feminism, one which emphasizes a metaphorical understanding of the world and the other which emphasizes knowledge based on fact. It furthermore stands to bridge the gap between the two 'cultures' of thought by questioning and providing alternatives to the current Western modes of dealing with nature. Ecofeminism seeks to incorporate alternate views of nature and women into the development policies, economic goals, and technological suggestions of documents such as the Brundtland Commission. Development in third world countries and the environmental and social implications that go along with the process poses a significant set of challenges to ecofeminism.

II. The possibility exists within the ecofeminist movement, of addressing ecological problems in a way that satisfies science's obsession with fact as well as feminism's hunger for social justice. Ecological problems arise from the destructive interplay of social institutions, such as the economy, politics, technology and population pressure, with nature. Science tends to be more familiar with the processes and resources that exists within nature. These resources are then valued within the framework of social institutions such as the economy, international markets, and technological progress. Feminism, on the other hand, addresses social issues and their effect on women, often using the metaphor of male domination. Within the many branches of ecofeminism there is a balance between viewing the world purely in terms of observed fact or as a metaphor. Through the lens of ecofeminism, both scientific and feminist issues can be brought to bear on issues in world development. Considering the power of the western world in international politics and policy, the potential for ecofeminism to balance the influence of science and technology with the socially sensitive perspective of feminism may be of extreme significance.

The public, after all, tends to be mangled between the opposing perspectives of science and feminism, fact and metaphor, technology and politics. If ecofeminism stands to bridge the gap between the two, it may also provide a third perspective through which the public can assess environmental issues. This perspective includes elements of science and the issue of world development but is particularly female sensitive. Ecofeminism, however, is not without its own opposing forces; within the general movement are the two distinct entities of liberal ecofeminism and cultural ecofeminism. Liberal ecofeminists feel that women are excluded, through their education and career opportunities, from the political, scientific, and social reforms necessary to curb environmental degradation [2]. Cultural ecofeminists are associated with the anti-science and anti-technology approach that emphasizes the connection of women to nature through the revival of ancient rituals and goddess worship [3]. Critical to cultural ecofeminism is the distinction between genders and their connection to the earth; women are more connected to nature than men. The emphasis on the feminine is a result of the perceived oppression of women and nature by science. Although the feminine is stressed in ecofeminism, it ultimately seeks science, technology, and policy that is not gendered.

A holistic view of nature and humans is appealing, especially in the face of current environmental degradation. Ecofeminism has not replaced the paradigm of patriarchal science in spite of this appeal. Martin Lewis points to several weaknesses in the radical ecology movement, of which ecofeminism is a branch, in his bookGreen Delusions[4]. Among the most provocative criticisms covered is the suggestion that radical environmentalism, including ecofeminism, threatens environmental protection and preservation by potentially alienating the public and protesting technology and reforms that are beneficial [5]. Cultural ecofeminism is specifically targeted as threatening the future contributions of women to environmental reform by spurning science. If women are no longer involved in science and technology, patriarchy will be perpetuated [6]. By identifying modern science and technology as the enemy of the environment and, in extreme arguments, women, ecofeminism makes solutions to environmental problem difficult.

The suggestions made by ecoradicals that society focus on interconnectedness are criticized by Lewis as "unreasonable" and based on "outdated ideas and enthusiasm and questionable scholarship" [7]. A vision of humans beings existing within nature in harmony is impossible given our sheer numbers. Instead, he suggests, humans should increase their distance from nature to maintain the availability of resources to non-human species [8]. He points to the advantages of urbanization verses increasing human connections with the earth. Urbanization has three core benefits, according to Lewis: there is a shift away from utilitarian environmental outlooks, ecological movements in the third world are centered in cities, and urbanization is associated with decreasing fertility [9]. These factors address current pit-falls in environmental resuscitation by generating widespread support, potentially controlling the population explosion in third world countries, and leaving nature to its own devices. The only feasible approach to this theory of urbanization is through responsible technology which would make humans less dependent on natural resources and the cities they habitate less toxic. Technology is advocated by observations like, "The woman who cooks in an earthen pot over an open fire uses perhaps eight times more energy than a neighbor with a gas stove and aluminum pans"[10] but it's important to remember the energy input required to build that stove and the resources used to make the aluminum pans.

III. The criticisms posed by authors like Lewis take our current economy, scientific approach, and technological advances for granted. The western world from which these originate is unequivocally the economic and political leader of the international community but is also, according to cultural ecofeminist critics, a patriarchal system whose tenants of domination and exploitation affect every aspect of society, especially women. Science is targeted, in particular, for its propagation of the ideology of asymmetry between men and women, women being the 'other' [11]. The patriarchal system opposed by ecofeminists is seen as system based on scientific, technologic, and economic premises that define women and nature as passive, fragmented within itself, separate from man, and as inferior and in need of domination by man [12]. This definition of women and nature has its roots in the scientific 'knowledge' of theorists such as Francis Bacon in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Dichotomies between man and women that already existed were strengthened by the mastery and domination images created by Bacon [13]. Vocabulary alluding to rape and torture mark Bacon's explanation of nature and mechanisms of science. For example, Bacon claims that inventions of science don't, "merely exert a gentle guidance over nature's course; they have the power to conquer and subdue her, to shake her foundations"[14]. Such imagery , as interpreted by ecofeminists and feminists alike, turns science into a source of violence and aggression against women and nature. When science is perceived as aggressive and dominating towards the environment and its 'feminine' qualities the technology born out of its experiments and inventions is too.

In response to this scientific system and its contributions to society, ecofeminism proposes alternative view of development, technology, and ecology. By and large ecofeminism focuses on women and communities which bear the brunt of development's shortcomings [15]. The values of peasant women, who maintain local ecosystems by using their resources to provide for their families, are guidelines for many of the suggestions made by ecofeminists. In her bookFertile Ground, Irene Diamond emphasizes the values of peasant women in India such as "generosity, the repair that often comes with the simple passage of time, local self-reliance, and the power of community solidarity and mutual aid" to define their "politics of renewal"[16]. This is contrasted to modern western ecology which compartmentalizes agriculture, forests, water, animals and humans. Fundamentally, ecofeminism supports science, that is an understanding of the natural world and its processes, but a version of science that is more female friendly and less surgical in its approach to nature. In contrast to the compartmentalized vision of nature in western science which is convenient for a technologically and economically motivated society, ecofeminism seeks a more holistic ecology.

Western ecology and policy is criticized for imposing its concepts of 'knowledge', which do not include an interconnected view of nature and humans, on other cultures in the form of environmental policy and economic pressure. Both criticisms have particular bearing on the Bruntland Commission , which described, in 1987, environmental degradation, poverty, population pressure, the military arms race and war as the issues needing immediate attention. Development, according to the commission which was written amidst the New Cold War and re-emerging East West conflict, had to address the goals of peace, economic and social development, and environmental degradation simultaneously [17]. The term 'sustainable development' was later used to describe the commission's insistence that development could occur with little or no environmental cost. Though sustainable development's goals are noble, its suggested implementation falls back into the European and male centric ideologies criticized by ecofeminists. With this issue in mind, the commission's analysis of economic and social development are the most relevant examples of the discrepancy between ecofeminism's emphasis on interconnectedness and western scientific emphasis on economic growth and use of technology to solve environmental problems in issues of world development.

IV. Both social and economic development in the Brundtland Commission are seen as dependent on an international market. The commission identifies the general issues of 'large populations', 'poverty and shifting agriculture' as the source of environmental problems [18]. As the first page of the commission states:

We see the possibility for a new era of economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and expand our environmental resource base. And we believe such growth to be absolutely essential to relieve the great poverty that is deepening in much of the developing world... In this, our cultural and spiritual heritages can reinforce our economic interests and survival imperatives. [19]

Further attention is given in the Commission to the necessity of technology to accelerate growth and alleviate poverty outlined in its opening page. The implication is that by expanding the economy and thereby making technological advances like agrochemicals more accessible, responsible use of natural resources and environmental sensitivity will be easier. The commission stresses that the implementation of technology and speed of growth must be controlled. Still, it begins to look as though 'sustainable development' really means sustainable industrial development:

Industry is central to the economies of modern societies and an indispensable motor of growth... Many essential human needs can be met only through goods and services produced by industry. The production of food requires increasing amounts of agrochemicals and machinery. [22]

The Brundtland Commission attempts to draw economic, environmental, and development issues into a positive policy for the future. Its flaws are in taking for granted western values of economy and technology which are also male centered. If, as the Commission states, "environmentally benign activities contribute a smaller portion to national income than do environmentally malignant ones"[25], what is the benefit of encouraging such widespread contributions to the economy? Secondly, if industrialized nations are consuming such a vast amount of the earth's resources (one quarter of the world's population consumes fifteen times as much paper as the rest) [26], why strive to industrialize more nations? Most criticism of environmental and economic policy proposed in pieces like the Brundtland Commission center around it western-centric visioning and its insistence on science as the solution for problems that science has created. They also exclude from consideration the impact of increased technology on women's lives.

V. These criticisms hearken back to the issues raised by ecofeminists about science and its male bias. The West is not only the economic leader of the world but also the leading initiator of environmental reform. Ecofeminism stands to challenge western scientists and policy makers to reevaluate the assumptions they make when initiating ways to curb environmental degradation. Consistent critiques of the western-centric suggestions made in documents like the Brundtland commission prevent policy makers from falling back on the familiar and self-serving mechanisms of industry, economy, and technology to 'save' the environment and third world countries. The ability to bring social concerns to bear on the economic, political, and scientific issues of environmentalism on behalf of women and indigenous cultures without rejecting all forms of 'scientific' knowledge makes ecofeminism a promising interpreter. Within the movement, scientific and technological information (and their effects on environmental policy) may meet the social issues of feminism to produce dynamic possibilities for environmental solutions.