Ecophilosophy in Modern East Asia: The Case of Hansalim in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to examining the relevance of ecophilosophy for sustainable development, especially in the modern East Asian context. It is framed as a response to environmental historian Mark Elvin’s claim that allegedly eco-friendly philosophical and spiritual traditions like Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism had no effect in preventing environmental degradation in the long history of preindustrial China, and also that given this historical precedent, ecophilosophy – or any type of ideology as such – is likely to have no relevance in the efforts toward sustainable development now under way worldwide. The article argues the necessity of examining Asian countries that are farther along in industrialization than China, and which have witnessed the emergence of powerful ecophilosophy-based movements as a reaction to industrialization and its unfortunate side-effects. In particular, the article focuses on the remarkable case of the Hansalim movement in South Korea, which has represented arguably the most comprehensive attempt yet at formulating an ecophilosophy based on the East Asian traditions which is relevant and practical for today’s world. While Hansalim’s achievements as the operator of the world’s largest community-based organic food cooperative have recently begun to gain recognition abroad, this article focuses on the ecophilosophy underlying the movement – for which food has been but a symbol – and analyzes it to be rich in implications, especially concerning the social pillar of sustainable development, localism, and the role of ecophilosophy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".