After a brief hiatus for the midterm exam, we're back this week with another timely discussion on the natural world. Over the next few weeks the focus of our class will shift towards biodiversity and environmental ethics. In light of this, we will be answering two key questions:
1. What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
2. Is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
These are heavy questions and it is unlikely any two people will have exactly the same answers to them. If you find yourself intrigued, click "comments" to join in the discussion!
Quote of the week:
"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect."
- Chief Seattle, 1855
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Throughout my life I’ve had many encounters with the non-human world, and each has been different and fairly unique. Trying to choose just one to pinpoint as particularly significant is like trying to find a grain of dust in a room full of sneezing people. Instead, I look to an experience I have once every few weeks – a trip to the National Zoo.
ReplyDeleteThis might not seem at first like an encounter with the non-human world. The zoo is, by definition, a highly artificial environment. However when I go and see the wide array of animals – large, small, vertebrates, invertebrates, terrestrial and marine – I cannot help but wonder what the natural environments are like that led to their evolution and development. For the most part, not a single animal at the zoo can commonly be found in an urban environment like DC. They are just too highly specialized to those far-away environments where they are from. Thus we put them in concrete, glass, and steel habitats and try to study and conserve them there. Yet no matter how natural those habitats are made to look, they will never rival the original environment, untouched by human hands.
Then I think about my two pet rats. Similar to the animals in the zoo, they live in an entirely artificial environment – a cage in my apartment. However unlike the exotic zoo animals they can also commonly be found in an urban environment sans domestication. Rats are very adaptable to human-dominated environments, nearly ubiquitous. Not surprisingly the most common reaction to informing people I keep them as pets is, “eeew, aren’t those vermin?” The difference between the rats and the tigers, gorillas, and gigantic fish at the zoo is then obvious.
Does one deserve to be saved more than the other? Does one deserve the expensive conservation and breeding programs more than the other? They are, in my opinion, equally fascinating and complex animals. However, the difference is still obvious. Rats will never need a conservation plan. The day that Rattus norvegicus finds it difficult to inhabit this planet is a dire day for the world indeed.
This segues into the large question of whether it’s worth it to “save nature” as a whole. This isn’t just animals, of course, but organisms of all kingdoms – plants, fungi, and even the smallest bacterium. Entire ecosystems find it difficult to adapt to human environments. Even if a species finds itself adaptable to the human world, it runs the risk of being innately useful as a resource for humans. Then it will likely be overexploited no matter how well it adapts.
Of course, the issue is with the vast majority of species that just don’t adapt to human encroachment very well at all. These are worth saving, of course, to the extent that we have the ability to save them. In an ideal world we would have infinite resources that could be applied to preserving as much biodiversity and genetic variance as possible. There would be international systems in place to safely preserve wide swathes of land and keep them free from human influence. Sadly, there is likely no spot left on the planet that is completely free from human influence, and the resources that can be applied to conservation are very finite.
Should big, cute, furry animals like pandas and elephants take precedence over smaller, less attractive creatures or other organisms that have less public appeal but a better chance of survival? I believe so. Rather than pouring resources into saving, say, the panda, which has little chance for survival beyond a political and national symbol, we should save more essential organisms. Sadly, the panda will likely become extinct in all but zoos no matter what. Its demise is inevitable; it is only a matter of when, not if. Yet the demise of the panda will not seriously harm any given ecosystem, and in the grand scheme of things might be an acceptable casualty.
ReplyDeleteOf course, these creatures do serve a purpose. Greenpeace is surely able to solicit many more dollars when it guilts people by showing images of polar bears. Even Al Gore used this tactic in An Inconvenient Truth. Again, however, their survival is unlikely as little more than symbols. Saving essential organisms – basic organisms such the brook trout – on which entire ecosystems depend should be our priority. In this way the natural world can be saved, at least to the extent to which it can coexist with a worldwide human presence.
I saw a film this past week that chronicled the history of the Sierra Club, and particularly the influence of David Brower. Brower began as a man who merely enjoyed the outdoors as a means of recreation. Yet his appreciation grew to the point where he was a driving force behind the creation of many of the major national parks and conservation laws in this country. The argument behind these monumental efforts was that these incredible, wholly natural areas that he enjoyed should be available for future generations. Later, he would comment that many of the actions we take now should be based on a poll of the next 20,000 generations.
This is an important philosophy. Maybe my descendents, hundreds of years from now, will be forced to read about polar bears and pandas as I now read about the dodo. However it is important that they have brook trout, as without these they may not have a forest at all. No matter how much we want to deny it, without the forest we cannot have the urban metropolises that sustain our society. If we want to ensure that in hundreds of years we will even have descendants at all, we must be diligent about saving the natural world, but saving the most essential parts. Our resources are finite, and if we don’t save the most basic parts there will be nothing left to save.
I grew up in a log cabin in the woods of Vermont and have discovered that spending time in places with little human involvement is pretty important to my happiness. Don't get me wrong, I love people. I even love cities but I need a natural environment fix from time to time. In my everyday life I have moments of connection when I take jogs in the woods. The word "woods" is being used a little lightly, I'm actually talking about the man-made trails of rock-creek park but when most of my day is spent indoors or walking on concrete, well rock creek park feels like the woods. My run jogs me out of the habitual stress of the day and instantly puts me in a better mood. It's not the running so much as the environment, running on a treadmill would not cut it.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of grandiose magical moments many of my most outstanding memories have taken place in Nepal. Nepal is in so many aspects magical. In large part because of its natural wonders aka the Himalayan mountains. Looking at the Himalayan mountain range is almost indescribable. They seem otherworldly and infused with spirituality. It doesn't matter how many times I seem them, they will always take my breath away.
In response to the question is "saving nature" worth attempting I believe the answer is twofold. My first response is yes, we should take immediate measures to help protect visibly endangered species. But, it is very important to realize that these small efforts are in no way a solution to the actual problems that humans create in the natural world. We need to focus on larger efforts to mitigate our impact on the planet. By doing so we will be "saving nature" in a more meaningful way.
I have had some amazing interactions with the non-human world. When I studied abroad in Australia last fall, I got to see elements of nature that most people go their entire lives without experiencing. I went scuba diving in the Great Barrier Reef. I got to see so many different species ranging from Giant Clams to Sea Turtles. I also got to go on a trip through the rainforest. I found it amazing how species that we consider to be intellectually inferior to humans could create and maintain systems in which to live in. During spring break, me and 6 friends rented and RV and road tripped throughout New Zealand's Southern island. My most memorable experience during our trip is when we went on a glacier walk. I took about 150 pitcures of the crystal blue ice, which of course, photos could not capture how incredible it was.
ReplyDeleteWe have to save nature. From the perspective of bioenvironmentalists and social greens, globalization is detrimental to nature. However, there are parallels between the concepts of globalization and saving nature. Market liberals and institutionalists advocate that globalization makes the world more productive and efficient. The world's interdependency makes caring about the state of foreign actors important to us. We help other nations with issues like development and natural disasters not only because it's the "right thing to do", but also because their stability and progress affects ours. Likewise, the human world and non-human world are interdependent. Actually, we are dependent on the non-human world. We need its resources to live. We need to fix or ameliorate the damage we have done to it.
ReplyDeleteMy interactions with nature, well I wish I had more as a child and timely enough, I just reprimanded my mother for not taking us camping as a family or rafting on a river in Colorado. Although, I have had a fair share of experiences with the non-human world over the past two years or so. Both experiences that take the cake come out of my trip to Guatemala last winter for an alternative break. The most thrilling was when I had to hike a mountain to reach the base Volcano Pacaya, which had erupted the day before. Yes, ERUPTED! But it's okay that is why we approached slowly from the base and didn't go up to high as my tour guide pointed out. Yet we went high enough for me to see lava still spilling down the side and then it would turn into rock and eventually ash. All things we had encountered on on path to the spot in which I encountered lava first hand. It was exhilarating and frightening knowing nature could explode at any point and I had a front row seat. And then separately as for the most enchanting I would say the coffee field I worked on at the coffee farm Santa Anita. Now it is not a farm like in the U.S. of flat, open land. This is hill, almost mountainous, forest like farms, filled with trees that grow the beans then dried to make coffee. We had our basket and just spread out , so I had a good spot for a while that allowed me to see an abundance of trees, nice and green with red beans on them. I could see where the land dipped, how the sun hit the trees and path formations over little streams. It was so beautiful and not to mention serene, because I was under my tree in the shade, alone, and could just take in the sights in silence and appreciation.
ReplyDeleteSo after that description I think we all know what I will say next, yup, screw nature. Just kidding =). SAVE IT! I think we should all be concerned that our planet is dying and becoming ugly. I mean honestly, considering the superficial nature of humans I would think they would want to be injected the environmental equivalence of botox into the planet to save it from aging. We need to develop a concern for nature because not only is it a useful calming scene and ascetic to the eye, it is humbling. It makes us realize there are other instances of things living and growing. We need to save nature in order to save ourselves, selfish I know, but isn't that our M.O.
I would have to say that the place that I experience exhilaration being in nature is at the beach. I definitely like lying out or playing sports during the hot sunny days, but quite honestly, I like it better in the evenings. The beach is usually pretty empty by that point, making the scene that much prettier and more enjoyable without the numerous umbrellas and loud chatter of the day-time crowds. The simultaneous tug of the winds, sound of the waves, and warmth of the sun-baked sand clears my mind and makes me instantly happy. Though it sounds cliché, the great expanse of the ocean helps me put things in my life into perspective; petty things don’t seem to matter as much any more and I feel much more at peace.
ReplyDeleteOf course, like the rest of our blog group (and environmentalists in general) I think that nature is worth saving. Not only for all the “wealth” that it provides us when used sustainably, but also simply for its intrinsic value. The impact of nature in its very existence affects us in more ways than we can even imagine. Aside from thinking about what life would be like without the trees and parks that we enjoy everyday, but those magical places we only visit infrequently, or the products we enjoy regularly that have natural components, or the natural systems that regulate the very “eco-systems” that we live in. So many things that we have grown accustomed too would change if we didn’t make the effort to save nature.