h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Didn't want to clutter up Edward's "Atheist Fundamentalism" thread with my gibberish, unless it turns out it's appropriate.

So, here's a thought I'd found in "Mind Invaders", Stewart Home, ed. (Serpent's Tail, 1997) It's the third section of an essay titled "Beyond Chaos, Beyond Coherence".

"The idea that wo/man is somehow separated from nature is typical of the lies and anti-dialectical inversions propagated by apologists for the imagination. Nature does not exist somewhere outside us; it is a social construction, the BIG LIE propagated by so-called 'creative' wo/men. For wo/men to build cities is as natural as birds building nests. If 'urban' environments are unnatural, then so are the lairs and burrows of other mammals. Bourgeois ideologists present our separation from "nature" as a "natural" fact that mirrors and explains all the social separations we suffer under capital."...

..."Ecologists equate change (which is inevitable) with destruction (a relative concept). Only a society fractured to its very core by capitalist social relations would allow concern about the "future" (the desire to be immortal) to dominate the present (life)."

This very concisely sums up my views on the subject of "nature", and what it in fact "natural". I wish I'd had it handy a few weeks ago when we were discussing this on Edward's forum!

I don't understand this.

I've been working on a nature reserve for two years; before the trust took it over it was ridden over every night by gangs of off-road bikers. We fenced off the site, got rid of the burnt out cars and began to restore the habitat; too late for the narrow-headed ant, once common, to survive its penultimate outpost in England. Since we took over, rare bird species such as Dartford warblers and declining yellowhammers and stonechats have populated the site; nightjars, a species increasing in number UK-wide, have doubled in population thanks to improving territories from neighbouring sites. We even found a sand lizard skin; unknown in the county apart from one site, and unthinkable two years ago. Our actions inhibited their survival.

It is inescapable that our actions seperate us from nature. The actions of thousands of volunteers in UK are helping to allow our natural heritage to continue. But one oil tanker going aground could wipe out the wildlife on the south west coast for decades, yet two years ago a boat with a plastic cargo ran aground because the captain caught his trousers on a gear stick and knocked himself out. No habitat, no fishing industry, no tourism; no Devon and Cornwall. I'm sorry, but in this part of the world, we're fighting for our 'future' lives because environmentalism is so low on the agenda. Down here, it's not 'bourgeois ideology'; if we don't connect, we've had it.

To clarify:

'Our actions [as a society] inhibited their survival.'

I do not see concern for the future as grasping at immortality, but rather caring enough that our children and their children inherit a livable planet.

I do think it is as fair to say "man of nature" as well as "man and nature."

I do not like some man made environments. I dislike being in rooms without windows for example.

One other point, I do think man is an animal, but we are at the top of the food chain, so to speak, and so falls the role of stewardship.

with interest and sets up a first aid station...



zdt

There is also the question of linguistic convenience. If I tell you I spent the weekend out enjoying nature, you can easily picture me hiking or puttering about in the garden or some such. But if I tell you I spent the weekend in nature, and I was in the middle of a casino, you have no appropriate mental picture at all. The casino may be as "natural" as anyplace else, but it does not serve the end of efficient communication to describe it that way.

It is unarguable that a tidy, bio-diverse nature reserve cleared of old shopping carts, mattresses, condoms, etc. etc. is 'a good thing'.

But let's ponder why 'the environment' (as 'nature' is called these days is so important to us. To me, there seem to be a bunch of interwoven threads in our thinking.

1) We are dependent on our global ecosystem. We are in danger of damaging our climate (= more Katrinas), stripping our oceans of a valuable food source and rendering vast areas of land unfit for agriculture. All true. But...what if (and I'm not saying it's true...just what if) we could develop the technology to cope? Spend real money, on a Dutch scale, on flood defences; Bioengineer faster-growing Tilapia (as Cuba is trying to do, farmed Tilapia being a vital 3rd world food source); ditto drought resistant rice and wheat. All these would give us a very different world. Would we mind?

2) But...we haven't a hope of doing all these things. We don't understand our complex eco-system well enough, and we're in danger of total environmental meltdown. Even with a few mitigations here and there, the human costs would be unnacceptable. Yes - this is a biggie. But not much to do with teeny, piffling nature reserves, no? And the wiping out of, say, bonobos, while sympomatic, is hardly the issue.

3) Subtly different to 1...local econonomies are dependent on their environment. Yes, Devon and Cornwall depend on fishing and tourism. Oil spills would cause hardship. Similarly...parts of France are famed for their wine, and they are starting to worry about the impact of climate change (their grapes' sugar content would produce wines too alcoholic to gain an Appellation...why, they's be like South American wines! Quel Horreur!). OK...fine...but environments and economies change. The Scottish Highland was once based on subsistence farming. Then the people were moved off (to found Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and replaced by sheep. What if, in future, it were to become a major wine-producing region? Even without climate change, for purely economic reasons, the UK agriculture (and landscape) have been undergoing much diversfication Should we be wary of short-termism in our environmental concerns?

4) Nature is nice. Trees and grasses and flowers and shit are lovely to look at. Some people (but not me) prefer to live in the country partly for this reason. Myself, I'm a city boy. I think that trees and parks are an essential part of the city environment: they have their place in the rich, urban tapestry. But that's *all*, isn't it? Preserving urban nature reserves is akin to having a vase of flowers in your home.

5) Nature is important...because it is. i.e. we have a duty to the hedgehogs and sand-lizards and fritillaries and bonobos to maintain their lineage. Hmmm. Not sure if I'm in a position to comment on this one. Any takers?

I'm not sure if I'm going anywhere with this. I've no axe to grind - just putting in my two penn'orth to the debate... But I'd be interested to hear about what *precisely* is meant by 'to connect with nature'? Is it really anything more profound than sitting by a sunny riverbank, sipping a glass of chilled (organic!) Chablis? Or hippy malarkey in teepees? Or huntin' and shootin' and fishin'? Or youth hostelling?



A tangent I'd meant to post on anyway: There was a recent story in my neighbourhood paper about a park which I visit sometimes. In this park is a boating lake. It used to be used for toy yachts and rowing boats. But then it became polluted and overrun with rats. Public use was deemed dangerous because of the risk of Lime's disease. However...it has now been cleaned up. The rats have been poisoned. Lovely reeds and irises have been planted. Of course, it looks very different to its Victorian heyday - but very pleasant. The reason it was in the news is that a long-established model boat club have not been allowed to hold their annual display there, in case of disturbance to wildlife. Do the club have a right to complain that their natural environment has been degraded?

>5) Nature is important...because it is. i.e. we have a duty to the hedgehogs and sand-lizards and fritillaries and bonobos to maintain their lineage. Hmmm. Not sure if I'm in a position to comment on this one. Any takers?<

But see, I *agree* with this!

I've long been a supporter of environmental agencies such as World Wildlife Fund. But there are those who feel that "nature" (in the environmental, or global ecosystem) should be preserved at the expense of humanity. I disagree with that.

When I saw this quote, it reminded me of a discussion Edward and I were having where someone else added the comment that urban humans are somehow "removed" from their "natural" environment. My point was simply that humans are by their very nature city builders and city dwellers, and that while living Green (to any degree) is admirable, and protecting the global ecosystem is necessary, to imply that humanity or "nature" or anything else is inherently "divine" or "interconnected" in any way other than the physical is not only delusional, but counterproductive toward their goal.

>I do not see concern for the future as grasping at immortality, but rather caring enough that our children and their children inherit a livable planet.<

This I can agree with as well. Though truth be told, once we're gone, will it really matter? Isn't the future, the future generations' problem? Did past generations worry about *us*?

Sorry for the multiposts- but I think I had a better idea how to articulate my ideas while in the shower...

For example, we can all clearly see how the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the air we breathe and driving global temperatures up. I am a huge supporter of switching to ethanol-based fuels. To some degree, I am also in favor of wind and water power.

I don't drive a car, personally, and my partner really only uses his for work and visiting the family. But it would be unrealistic to expect that (a)everyone is going to give up their cars, (b)the big oil companies are going to sit back and watch their investments ruined by a switch to ethanol fuels, or (c)society is going to develop "backwards" to a point where urban dwellers ride horses and carriages.

For the eco-terrorists to blow up entire lots of SUVs is counterproductive. Using violence to get one's point across only makes the opponent more inclined to stick to their guns.

The hippy-dippy "but you're killing the great spirit" approach is counterproductive because very few people want to listen to your message when they think you're out of your gourd, or at best eating the wrong kind of 'shrooms on your pizza.

The idea of saving the world for future generations has *some* merit, but I'm willing to bet a whole lot of people couldn't care less about future generations. Especially when they're living paycheck to paycheck on a salary that threatens to starve *this* generation. See my point?

How does human (and therefore predominantly 'urban') society continue to progress alongside the global ecosystem without destroying it?

>>>5) Nature is important...because it is. i.e. we have a duty to the hedgehogs and sand-lizards and fritillaries and bonobos to maintain their lineage. Hmmm. Not sure if I'm in a position to comment on this one. Any takers?<

>>But see, I *agree* with this!

Explain further, please.

I will never see a Dodo. That's a shame. I'd like there to be bonobos around for my grandchildren. But...This just selfish self-interest. All these creatures are cool. And it would also be cool if there were one or two disosaurs still around, say on some South American volcanic plateau.

Another topical example: On the island of Canna, there is a population of mice which are genetically different to those in Mainland Scotland. Money is being spent to preserve them. Now...how much per mouse would *you* spend on this? The current sum is approx £10,000 per timrous beastie. Worth it? Dunno. Maybe.

Of course you make excellent points- individual desires to see particular species- or any one specie- preserved *are* to a large degree selfish self-interest.

Self-interest isn't always bad. I know folks who give to charity simply for the tax write-off. Otherwise, they'd toss their old clothes in the rag bag. But it still helps people who need clothes. So, a selfish self-interest *in and of itself*, isn't a bad thing.

It's a trade-off sometimes between two extremes, and I think that perhaps the best solution is a compromise. How to do that, I don't know.

True that the Dodo's extinction doesn't directly effect me... or *seem* to. But it does bother me sometimes that the Dodo no longer exists. I guess I feel a kind of sense of responsibility toward animals because they are helpless to take countermeasures against humanity's "progress". If someone encroached upon my apartment for lack of housing, I can see his point. But I'm still going to do what I can to prevent him doing so. Lizards and mice can't do much in that regard, can they?

Didn't mean to get onto an argument about wildlife preservation. I was just excited to read, a few days later, that someone else didn't see urban life as humanity being "removed" from nature, but an important part of nature.

Oh...not an argument...a debate.

Bringing it back on topic...is the argument for preserving bonobos and sand lizards the same as that for preserving (say) the French Quarter of New Orleans? i.e., they are things that are nice to have. So an attachment to sand lizards doesn't depend on a 'connection to nature'?

In my opinion, to answer your last question, yes. A "connection to nature" and is not a prerequisite to an attachment to, concern for, or a desire to preserve, sand lizards or spotty owls or other species. Any more than a "connection to Michelangelo" is necessary in order to appreciate art and wish to preserve it. Aren't some things worth preserving just because of their beauty?

Not to mention that I do realize that sand lizards might eat insects which in turn would eat our crops if we were to dessimate the lizard population... it's a fine balance, and I wish to see it maintained, but not for fluffy "spiritual" reasons but rather more selfish and pragmatic ones.

I think, though, that the most important point- and the one I was hoping to emphasize, since I wasn't able to a couple of weeks ago- is this:

"If 'urban' environments are unnatural, then so are the lairs and burrows of other mammals. Bourgeois ideologists present our separation from "nature" as a "natural" fact that mirrors and explains all the social separations we suffer under capital..."

I took this to mean that the idea that social issues, poverty, "urban angst", etc., are often attributed by some groups of people to humanity's "becoming too far removed from nature", as if to imply that urban environments are somehow "unnatural", undesirable or unhealthy. My opinion has always been that humans are as much meant to dwell in urban environments as beavers are to dwell in dams, birds to dwell in nests, and so forth. What is desirable is to find a way for all of these different kinds of environments to coexist without encroaching on each other.

I am beginning to think that this is not possible, though.

A slight sidetrack...maybe.

Something I don't understand: People in both town and country are f---ed over by capitalism. Yet urban politics is to the left and rural to the right.

For example, in the UK, the rural poor are in a dreadful situation: unaffordable housing; sub-standard public services; traditional agricultural jobs diappeared due to undercutting by sub-minimum wage payers (who bus in the urban poor, often foreign refugees and illegals). Yet what political movement has emerged? The Countryside Alliance. And what's their big issue? Foxhunting.

Makes no sense to me, either, though the usual explanation here in the US is that an overwhelming majority of the rural population is both very religious and undereducated. The very religious, and the undereducated, tend to lean to the right. I guess I can see why in the case of the religious, but I'm not entirely sure why this is so prevalent amongst poorly educated rural folk.

Poorly educated urban folk seem to tend towards the left. Though urban religious people do often lean to the right...