In today's reading I was first reminded of this distinction in McKibben's opening anecdote regarding the forest and chain saw, when he says that going into nature has been changed by humans because we now lose the feeling of being in "another, separate, timeless, wild sphere". I think the term wild first really was brought to my attention here and remained with me through the rest of the reading, as McKibben argues for the end of nature, while using nature and wild interchangeably.
You may be reading this and saying to yourself, "well duh, the two words are in actuality synonyms, of course you can use wild and nature interchangeably", and I think in normal everyday conversation, this is true, however, in this class, as well as in other philosophy classes, definitions are immensely important. Nature, pertaining to this argument (the environment) has many meanings that are applicable; 1.the nature, or essence of a being, i.e. human nature 2. nature being everything other than man, as I have already described (in my opinion more aptly) as the wild (usually confined to the earthly planes) 3. nature as in everything that was created by and in the universe.
So when I am reading a paper like this, or listening in class to everyone talk, and I see the word nature being flung about devoid of a definite and decisive meaning, I must admit to wondering what the true subject of each particular usage of "nature" is. So here in this blog post, I will offer my own idea as to how we can maybe clear the murky water surrounding this issue, and I am excited to hear back what you all think and feel about my ideas.
I think that I would like to reserve the raw name of "nature" to the open (third) definition above, stating that nature is all that is. We all take part in nature every day just through existence. Next I would like to further classify the "wild" nature which I have already talked a little about. I think that our discussion about personifying "nature" (although I would like to say wild rather than our over abused term nature) is actually quite helpful, and I would like to posit that what we mistakenly call acts of nature and the like, are in truth the nature (in the first definitions sense; essence) of the wild. So then just as humans have human nature, so too does the wild have wild nature. Now this brings us to the point where we must ask, well wait, does this mean that human nature is fundamentally different than wild nature, and I would argue no.
But how then can we justify our human societies, and structures, many of which are destructive; how can we justify them in the larger scale of nature, surely they are artificial, yes? Well to this question I pose a similar question back to you all; is the ant hill unnatural? I believe that we would all answer no, it is not unnatural. However if I asked whether it was artificial or not there may controversy in regards to answering such a question. My point with this is, perhaps it is within human nature to build artificial structures, much as it is within the ant's nature to build their own artificial living structures. If that is the case then are the structures we build any less natural than the natural anthill?
With all of this in mind, I find the argument that "nature is dying" because of our alterations to be a bit absurd. Perhaps wild's nature is becoming less prevalent in comparison to human nature which has risen to unbelievable heights, especially in the areas of controlling wild nature, but I don't imagine one nature is more natural than another nature. Instead I would argue that perhaps one nature is more directly corrosive and destructive to the other nature, that however does not disqualify human action and progress from being natural.
Sorry that this was so long guys, but I would love to hear back from you all. Even with it being this long, I know I have forgotten some points that I would have liked to enter into the post. So please respond and let me know what you think. Thanks.
Colin, I think you have addressed a very important inconsistency in our class that I had noticed as well. It is easy to use nature in several different ways. I tend to agree with you that we-as animals-are very much a part of nature. From the E-coli in my intestinal tract, to the Mariana Trench, it is all nature; however, I tend to agree with Mckibben that human beings have taken up an unnatural position in the hierarchy of natural bodies. When I say unnatural, I simply mean circumstances that would not have been possible before the creation of civilization. It is not natural for human beings to destroy mountains for coal. It is not natural for human beings to blow a hole in the O-zone layer. It is not natural for human beings to dictate the trajectory of a lava flow. Due to the scientific advancements of the last century and a half, human beings have discovered ways to disrupt--often inadvertently-- the momentum of the natural world. Whether out of malice or negligence, it does not matter, the reality is we are part of the total mass that makes up the natural world, and it is in our best interest to maintain, and try to restore, the earth to the conditions that it would have been in had we never realized the potential of coal, or natural gas. Although, according to Mckibben, that is no longer an option. We have tainted this Earth for good. I fear he may be right.
ReplyDeleteTim, (I think that you are Tim?)
ReplyDeleteI understand your position, and until recently I completely agreed with you, however now I wonder if this is not a naive thought, derived from our fundamental belief that humans are, or were, originally good for the earth. I think we take for granted this sort of biblical idea that we are the shepherds of the earth and thus we are naturally (natural in the original sense of the word [haha and original meaning primary]) good in our relationship to the earth and its nature. I have begun to wonder whether there might be a much more terrifying, sinister story to our race, that in fact it is natural for us to destructively alter the world. What if that is indeed part of our very nature, the nature of change, prone towards destruction? I am reluctant to whole-heartedly believe this pessimistic view, but I do think that it is something to be considered. Wolf nature towards rabbits are destructive.... maybe human nature towards earth and wild nature is equally destructive at its core.
There are some things Mckibben said that I liked and others that I thought were completely lame. He's a bit bold to say that a child today "will never know a natural summer" or that a single streetlamp can ruin "the feeling of the night" (61). How depressing a thought is this, one that I don't really buy. He even says so himself: "the wonder of nature does not depend on its freshness" (55). You may think its irrelevant, but I don't see a forest in nature as completely tainted or ruined just because I see a house on the border of it or a deer-stand perched up in a tree. I suppose its circumstantial, but I would still view the woods as "wild."
ReplyDeleteHere's something else: perhaps human nature is natural, but human society is not, since industrial society can be so harmful. Then again, was it our human nature that forced society (Colin's anthill) to be so destructive? Page 64 got me thinking about this a bit.
Colin, you compare the construction of an anthill to some of the constructions made by human beings. I agree that the naturalness or unnaturalness (whatever that means) of the activity is not connected to the level of destruction caused. Volcanoes and earthquakes are often extremely destructive and I don't think anyone would classify them as 'unnatural'.
ReplyDelete