« Half-full or Half-empty? | Main | Skullduggery »
Attitudes to Nature
In light of my recent road trip through some of the spectacular National Parks on/around the "Grand Circle" of the Colorado Plateau - Zion, Bryce, Canyonlands, Arches, Grand Canyon - a friend wrote to rib me:
'Good thing those environmentalists saved our canyons, eh? (had to take the shot, man. Had to. Couldn't help it ...)'
I wrote back, in part,
'Ha! Actually - as I do in my "About Me" section - I'd draw a sharp distinction between conservationism and "environmentalism," the evil step-sibling.
Not to say that I agree with conservationists on every particular, by any stretch (or that they agree with each other much of the time), but to my mind their ethos is more honest and pure: they usually realize that they're pursuing an aesthetic end, rather than a employing the rhetoric of the rapture/armageddon, etc. E.g., sticking John Wesley Powell in the "environmentalist" camp is a Procrustean exercise - [but] no violence is done to his legacy (good and bad) by calling him a "conservationist," surely.'
I'm foolish, but not foolish enough to try to write off a whole mode
of thought - "environmentalism" - with an alleged silver-bullet
explanation. But I do think it's characteristic of a lot of
environmentalist discourse to commit tacit category shifts, where the
question is asked in the category of something like "systematic
causality" and ends up being answered by morphing into an aesthetic
discussion. As I said to my pal, I think that conservationism is more
honest about its concerns and motivations - it doesn't view "Nature"
(which, if we buy in at all to a Darwinian view, is the ultimate domain
of upheaval, cataclysmic change, etc.) in some simplistic steady-state
fashion (sensitive mechanism). Lovelock's Gaia, for example, is not so
easily thrown off-kilter.
I mean, we want our wild lands to be preserved in their wildness because they're staggeringly beautiful, right? That's enough reason for me.
December 1, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834205dc953ef00e55032c0988834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Attitudes to Nature:
Comments
Actually, I think the motives for environmentalism aren't uniform.
Morality is one -- it is about an attitude towards nature that is, frankly, about nature as we've seen it for the past 5,000 years -- overall, it's been "bery bery gooood " for homo sapiens. That type of thing does tend to get elevated to a cult like status.
Unfortunately, environmentalists haven't seized the economic reasons for environmentalism -- vide Virginia Postrel, the aesthetic isn't accidental to our capitalist system, but plays an essential value enhancing role. Which translates into property values that can be radically deteriorated by pollution. Which translates, for a Marx inclined guy like me, to having third parties bear the costs of production without sharing in the profits. You can see the slippery slope I'm sledding down -- right towards social welfare economics!
But would you expect anything different from me, Paul?
Posted by: roger at Dec 2, 2004 7:34:55 AM
Well, the slope might incline to statism - egads! - or rather to more clearly defined, aggressively enforced rights of property in land, waterways, etc.
It's interesting how a corollary (of what you mention) functions, in terms of property values: we live astride an "open space" - land set aside by the county as a no-go for development, ever. An "unearned" subsidy to those of us fortunate enough to live here?!
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 2, 2004 8:58:57 AM
The conservative view of conservation, best expressed by Wendell Berry, is based on good old fashioned cleaning up after yourself and ensuring a valuable legacy for your descendants.
The quality of life to be found in near pristine areas is subjective, as is the process by which dollar value for the land adjacent is determined. Both are nevertheless very real.
Posted by: Harry at Dec 10, 2004 6:33:29 AM
Harry: well said. And welcome.
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 10, 2004 10:39:39 PM
that's pretty broad brush to paint all "enivormentalists" with, no?
"conservationism" is an important piece to a sustainable living construct but it doesn't address the causality between human actions and their surroundings. basing your conservationist philosophy on aesthics leaves a gaping hole for pollutants that can't be seen and therefore do not impact aethetics but cause considerable harm regardless.
i agree however that many in the enivormentalist column have a tendency to exaggerate their rhetoric with dystopian fantasies, but you should not dismiss sound enviormental impact research merely because a few crackpots are running around like chicken little.
Posted by: cereal breath at Dec 14, 2004 1:44:29 PM
Cereal, yes it would be quite a broad brush - that's why I wrote:
"I'm foolish, but not foolish enough to try to write off a whole mode of thought - "environmentalism" - with an alleged silver-bullet explanation. But I do think it's characteristic of a lot of environmentalist discourse to commit tacit category shifts ..." [emphasis added]!!!!
Agreed about pollution having relevance to matters of health/safety - although another objection to pollution surely is that it's dismal and ugly. Anyhow, preserving, say, Canyonlands has little to do with warding off pollution.
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 14, 2004 10:06:22 PM
i'm just not convinced aethetics is the stronest argument for regulating certain aspects of the enviorment. sure you could stretch the argument to cover tumors caused by airborne pollutants by claiming, "tumors are hideously ugly cell formations and therefore offend my aesthetic sensiblities." this seems disingenuous however as the original argument rested on the preservation of the aesthetics of the object (it's beautiful), in and of itself. we no longer utilize asbestos in houses, not because it wasn't aesthetically pleasing but because it made people severely ill.
aesthetics is an important component. hypothetically, it could be argued that paving over part of the grand canyon to build a casino would have a significant boost to the local economy. it is essentially wasted space afterall. now the impacts enviormentally would probably minimal. this is when the aesthetic argument can be appealed to. but if somebody wanted to store radioactive waste underground in the lot next to you, appealing to the aesthetic argument would be weak (the "tumors are ugly argument"). it would be necessary to appeal to the "causality" (man impacts nature, consequently nature impacts man) or the "enviormentalists" argument to make the strongest case in my estimation.
perhaps a new catagory like "armageddon enviormentalist" could be applied to apocalyptic branch of enviormental thought. this would retain the integrity of sound "enviormentalist" arguments for regulation without the troublesome guilt by association one often encounters in these debates.
Posted by: cereal breath at Dec 15, 2004 1:42:34 PM
Cereal,
We're agreed that there's a core of concern for health/safety, etc. in (rational) environmentalism, which can't be assimilated, without remainder, to aesthetics. My hobbyhorse is that a good deal of "environmentalist" discourse isn't clear as to what category it's arguing in. Good pt. about the Grand Canyon - and I like your term for the green fanatic.
Posted by: Paul Craddick at Dec 17, 2004 11:47:09 PM