Between Wilderness and Garden
Thinking people everywhere are right to identify humanities widespread failure to look after the place of wild things in our world. Men have taken over the territory of others without thinking of anybody but themsleves - let alone the wild things that might also have their home there.
Is the problem then just the West's alone ( we seem to be the most critical of what has happened in both spaces ). Western critics have been the first to notice and the first to retreat from the idea of dominion because the job has not been done well . But i do not accept that to dismiss humanities engagement in restoring/maintaining a balance between wild place and cultivated space is right either .We can and should often be up against each other as true neighbours. We should be agreeing to some sort of fence, not ignoring the need for one. We no longer need more land to feed ourselves ( did we ever?). The very failure of human beings to both see and to care for this issue of reasonable territory is complex, but only human beings can really improve the situation - and they can do a lot to do that .
As always , how we define our terms is critical to developing a discussion that takes us somewhere. There are probably many ways to define the above 2 terms, and the places in between .
Because the Biblical tradition sets the scene for the West so strongly , I am going to try to limit myself to 2 commonly used terms in there ( lots of variation even so for eg "when is a wilderness a wasteland ") I am also just interested here in relation to the place question . I am assumming therefore that the major issue is not size or content, but that the right space should exist for each .( first base only but its a good start!) The reason I am doing that is because the place/space question it seems to me is the critical foundation for maintaining and improving our respect for the world around us.
While the content of these terms varies across the natural land systems of the world ( and there is much to be said for defining them in that context whether grasslands , tundra , Mediterranean Tropical , temperate woodland or forest ) I think the argumnets from the historic Mediterranean experince apply across the board in many ways .
Lets' assume ( whether its right of not) that humans have enough intelligence to innately know that full exploitation of their environment is counter productive . Why then do some individual and cultures go close to doing just that?
There is an argument that men taking over the territory of others is in recognition that they have infact reached /passed a level of unsustainable occupation in the territory they currently occupy . I am here to challenge that both as a very poor response and excuse, and as an unsustainable answer . Whatever reality is in the imperative argument , its a desperate one and not the only one . Acceptance of space limits is a important skill for retaining and developing resilience and prosperity in all areas of life .
Fortunately for us now in 2011, the above argument looks shallow . The earth can feed itself and Japan wouldn't have gained much by occupying the territory they sought to control in WW2. Somehow the earth works best when understood as an ecosystem of separate organisms with their own spaces than as a large organisation with a large territory.
We can't evidently do justice to these complex matters here, except for me to say that no modern human community should assume that it can't both feed itself and look after the wild spaces in its neighbourhood . Respect for space is critical and effective and governments need to reinforce this small scale approach and not undermine it as they sometimes do .( trade and energy resource concerns add to but do not justify ignoring the constraints of governments with their first obligation to the rural/ food production sector)
The intellectual excuses used to undermine our respect for each other's spaces are the subject of another blog .
Is the problem then just the West's alone ( we seem to be the most critical of what has happened in both spaces ). Western critics have been the first to notice and the first to retreat from the idea of dominion because the job has not been done well . But i do not accept that to dismiss humanities engagement in restoring/maintaining a balance between wild place and cultivated space is right either .We can and should often be up against each other as true neighbours. We should be agreeing to some sort of fence, not ignoring the need for one. We no longer need more land to feed ourselves ( did we ever?). The very failure of human beings to both see and to care for this issue of reasonable territory is complex, but only human beings can really improve the situation - and they can do a lot to do that .
As always , how we define our terms is critical to developing a discussion that takes us somewhere. There are probably many ways to define the above 2 terms, and the places in between .
Because the Biblical tradition sets the scene for the West so strongly , I am going to try to limit myself to 2 commonly used terms in there ( lots of variation even so for eg "when is a wilderness a wasteland ") I am also just interested here in relation to the place question . I am assumming therefore that the major issue is not size or content, but that the right space should exist for each .( first base only but its a good start!) The reason I am doing that is because the place/space question it seems to me is the critical foundation for maintaining and improving our respect for the world around us.
While the content of these terms varies across the natural land systems of the world ( and there is much to be said for defining them in that context whether grasslands , tundra , Mediterranean Tropical , temperate woodland or forest ) I think the argumnets from the historic Mediterranean experince apply across the board in many ways .
Lets' assume ( whether its right of not) that humans have enough intelligence to innately know that full exploitation of their environment is counter productive . Why then do some individual and cultures go close to doing just that?
There is an argument that men taking over the territory of others is in recognition that they have infact reached /passed a level of unsustainable occupation in the territory they currently occupy . I am here to challenge that both as a very poor response and excuse, and as an unsustainable answer . Whatever reality is in the imperative argument , its a desperate one and not the only one . Acceptance of space limits is a important skill for retaining and developing resilience and prosperity in all areas of life .
Fortunately for us now in 2011, the above argument looks shallow . The earth can feed itself and Japan wouldn't have gained much by occupying the territory they sought to control in WW2. Somehow the earth works best when understood as an ecosystem of separate organisms with their own spaces than as a large organisation with a large territory.
We can't evidently do justice to these complex matters here, except for me to say that no modern human community should assume that it can't both feed itself and look after the wild spaces in its neighbourhood . Respect for space is critical and effective and governments need to reinforce this small scale approach and not undermine it as they sometimes do .( trade and energy resource concerns add to but do not justify ignoring the constraints of governments with their first obligation to the rural/ food production sector)
The intellectual excuses used to undermine our respect for each other's spaces are the subject of another blog .
I don't know of many cultures that haven't trashed their environment. The tribal people trashed small areas and moved on. Modern nation states of whatever political kind have done the same.
ReplyDeleteI think people need to be able to see a difference if they are to find their action engaging. Though Easter Island I think shows us that even this is not enough - the people could obviously see the trees disappearing but they still kept doing it.
Fair comment Evan. My point to many though is that WE have no excuse not to act in many many cases. The Easter islanders couldn't see disaster coming where as we should - detailed scientific knowledge and observer status.
ReplyDeleteThere is a tipping point in all cultures where those who see the danger ( observers)can't stop those perpetuating it( participants eg treeclearers and gardeners and those who identify with them ) . What's very serious for the truth,genuine retained resilience the reduction of denial is when observers no longer hold political sway ( thats today ) In the last decade my job as a trained observer was taken off me and given to participants .( trained scientists lost their jobs to landcare coordinators ) This of course is nothing new in historical terms but the depth of this stupidity and the political drivers for it have yet to be acknowledged by virtually any political party . Await your feedback.