The Metaphysical Implications of Ecology

"Ecology has made plain to us the fact that we are enfolded, involved, and engaged within the living, terrestrial, environment- i.e., implicated in and implied by it." According to Baird Callicott, we humans are taking in nature and nature is taking in us. This is due to the energy flow within the environment. Callicott dances around this idea and doesn't give us his realization until he describes his own self-discovery while standing beside the Mississippi river. Before his "self-discovery" near the end of his essay, it took a lot to put together the pieces he was leading the reader to. He of course often referred to many other philosophers or environmentalists who all tie in together with this idea that humans and nature are apart of another. Section two of his essay he brings forth the metaphysical implications of ecology through a foil. Why would it be necessary to use such a device? I like how he bases his argument off of the atom; the most basic unit of matter and what makes up everything on the planet. I never thought of an atom being mechanical and I don't quite follow why Callicott adds this to his essay? Maybe someone can help me understand the motive behind this statement. Plato's theory of forms was a new concept to me and I found myself agreeing with Plato and then Aristotle had to take it up a notch with his own theory. Who do you think has more of the right idea and why would Callicott put two opposing arguments in his essay? I'm not sure which one is supposed to be supporting it but I think he was going for Aristotle's. One more interesting food for thought idea was of course the food chain. I knew it was important but I didn't know that it was important enough to suggest that humans and animals are also connected in linear lines of energy that happen to cross each other. And this also brings up the concept of karma. Do you think that's a little of a stretch? I find it believably but Callicott could just be throwing us through a loop like all great philosophers. His essay ends on a personal note to his audience. The river's pain was his pain. It would sound absurd if he began his essay with this notion but he waited until the last moment to throw in his personal experience. I believe it puts emphasis on the crisis in this new day and age, and that young people need to take action. Trash flowing down the Mississippi River is not okay. It isn't healthy for it nor is it healthy for us. Thanks for reading! I've never done anything like this so I hope this was okay!

Getting Along With Nature:

First and foremost, there is a distinction/idea that must become prevalent within any discussion of environmental philosophy or ethics. This idea, stated specifically by Berry, reads as such:

"Pure Nature, anyhow, is not good for humans to live, and humans do not want to live in it...It is equally true that a condition that is purely human is not good for people to live in..."

Thus, we have a necessary dichotomy between the natural world and the human world that exist both separately but, as Berry argues, co-dependent from each other. We live, quite happily, in a position of one foot in nature and the other within the techno-sphere. It then becomes apparent that we, as humans, hold a conscious responsibility to "get along with nature".

According to Berry, this is not only the correct thing to do but it is necessary thing to do. Necessary in the sense that we as humans have achieved a point/stance where nature not only surrounds us but has become an integral part of living as a sentient being. As Berry so aptly states, "people cannot live apart of nature. And yet, people cannot live in nature without changing it". This idea is not so similar to the idea that humans come from nature and have always existed within nature and therefore become malevolent to the nature around them through their destructive tendencies. Instead, the idea of nature has become a source of inspiration, positivism, and hopefulness within the human psych. The result is a psychiatric need for a source of virgin nature that comes to represent both escape and something that is wonderful and exists outside the realm of human perception. We need nature for this purpose. It stands as a shining beacon within our psych that the techno-sphere has not over-enveloped our consistent call back to pure nature and that there exists a place of primeval essence and origin.

Thus, it is necessary, at a our core, to get along with nature. Recently, however, a new phenomenon has seemed to have emerged within the natural world in that nature is getting along with us. Berry makes a reference to the book The Desert Smells Like Rain and explains that there are instances where nature is left to it's own devices and, because of its consistent connection within the human realm, begins to drastically decrease. This, at least for me, prompts a few questions/concerns...

If we are at the point where nature has now become dependent upon our actions, do we now have dominion/authority in deciding its fate within our world?

Additionally, if we hold such a symbiotic/co-dependent relationship with nature, is it proper for nature to rely on us? Would it be morally/ethically better to insure that nature becomes an independent entity (non-dependent on our actions) or is it just a repercussion of human nature that nature must "learn" to cope with us to insure its own survival?

A long comment in response to Ben's post on Berry's "Preserving Wildness:"

As the title states, this is written in response to Ben's post below on Wendell Berry's "Preserving Wildness." In it, he raises two related questions I to which I wish to respond:

"What were your general reactions to Berry's claims about necessity (p 148)? What kind of variables should be considered when asking the question 'what is necessary for the best human life'?"

As my response was rather long (it relates to some other things I've been working on, so I fleshed it out perhaps more than was necessary), I'm opting to publish it as a full post. If this causes any problems, I can easily relegate it to the comments section. To the point:

     The word necessity in relation to discussion of animals and our environment tends to evince a utilitarian sort of thinking. By asking “what is necessary for an animal to live?” we ask what an animal needs, and such needs are often quickly subordinated underneath those we perceive (correctly or not) as our own. Necessity enters the conversation as a technical term used towards utilitarian-technological ends. All animals need food and water, and a sort of stretched notion of shelter (a place to live and roam); all animals need a sort of community (even the solitary ones, elsewise the species would go extinct pretty quickly). This is what is necessary for an animal to survive, in the meagre, brute sense of the word, and by this definition of what is necessary, the cows on factory farms arguably have what they need. Up, of course, to the point where they are killed, processes, and packaged. Their needs are provided or, and so our ours. This kind of thinking is what Berry calls "technological heroism," but his use of the word necessity allows us to pose different questions regarding our interactions with animals and our environment.

     Berry links the notion of what is necessary to an organism to what it is like to be that organism, though he phrases this in slightly different terms. What is necessary for an owl is determined by what it is like for an owl to exist in and perceive the world as an owl-centric place. Any given owl has his or her own subjectivity. In calling attention to this, Berry changes the kinds of questions we ask to determine what’s best for us: instead of asking simply what is necessary for an animal to live or survive, we must ask what is necessary for each creature to do “on its own behalf” and in its “own domus, or home” in order to live. The animal is wrapped up in his or her own intentional responses to his or her environment. While our perspective must be privileged (elsewise we set ourselves up for own diminishment, if not destruction), we still must, in order to preserve the wildness and wilderness that are themselves necessary for human life, be mindful of other animals’ needs, which are met through active doings and which are particular to the place where they live.

     But can we know what it’s like to live as an owl?[1] The project of stewardship (and of conservation, for that matter) depends on our ability to adequately answer this. Considering how Berry accurately, I think, embeds us within nature, our capability (or lack thereof) to know what is necessary for any number of animals complicates our attempts to conserve and cultivate the wild environments we need in order for us to live the best human life possible. Berry encourages us to phrase questions of necessity for humans and other animals in a manner that disrupts a primarily technological ideology, forcing us to view animals as having their own perspectives and dependencies upon the environment which we share. But Berry unfortunately does not give us a full account of how we might balance our own considerations with those of our animal counterparts, or even a an account of how we might come to know their perspectives, both of which will be needed if we are to develop an ethical system.

---

[1] I’m pretty taken (though not unreservedly) by an essay by Thomas Nagel, titled “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, part of which argues (to put it briefly and in broad terms) that the internal mental states of other animals are utterly inaccessible to us, and that we cannot know what it is like to be another animal. To illustrate this point: imagine perceiving the world through echolocation.

Preserving Wilderness, Wendell Berry

“To use or not to use nature is not a choice that is available to us; we can live only at the expense of other lives. Our choice has rather to do with how and how much to use” (139).

Wendell Berry, Home Economics. (Berkeley: Counterpoint, 1987).

Wendell Berry begins his reflection on the discussion of human's relationship with nature by noting that the conversation is rather polarized. After describing the general viewpoints of the technocrat and the nature romantic, Berry claims that both polarized viewpoints are missing "the real location of the problem" (138), which he thinks is in the middle ground. After providing a list of the assumptions that define his position, Berry goes on to suggest a reevaluation of the nature/artifice distinction and then reflects upon how this reevaluation influences our thoughts about economic systems, material goods, humanity's self-centered view, and the issue of population size. 

 In an effort to avoid mere summarizing, I will provide a few questions concerning some of the major topics or themes I found most interesting in "Preserving Wilderness".

Berry's Assumptions

In assumptions 1 and 2, Berry talks of nature as having a tolerance towards our existence as a species and that it is "somewhat hospitable". Should we be concerned that Berry describes nature as having some kind of awareness of our existence? Would this encourage more anthropomorphic views of nature, such as the military viewpoints in McPhee or the idea of Mother Nature? 

Is Berry correct in thinking that it is impossible for humans to intend exclusively their own good? (Assumption 5)

What might be motivating Berry's emphasis on local practice in the same assumption?

Other topics

What were your general reactions to Berry's claims about necessity (p 148)? What kind of variables should be considered when asking the question "what is necessary for the best human life"?

If Berry is correct in his claim that humans must be made by culture (p. 141), what might a society that practices this "double recovery" have as characteristics?

Berry proposes a redefining of materialism, one in which we value quality and durability over cost of production. Is it even conceivable for this kind of economic value system to exist in an open and free market?

The Trouble With Wilderness: William Cronon

The main argument in Cronon's article is that wilderness is "quite profoundly a human creation-- indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures" rather than a "pristine sanctuary." This idea conflicts directly with what many Americans view as wilderness.

As Cronon lays out his argument, he addresses the frontier myth. He basically states that the immigrants who came from Europe to America for the first time experienced a climate shock. Coming from the densely populated land of Europe to the vast open spaces of the Americas, the Easterners “shed the trappings of civilization and thereby gained an energy, an independence and creativity.” This sensation that overcame the Easterners embodied itself within the wild landscape of America, thereby imposing this idea to represent what is viewed as nature or wilderness. As civilization began to take hold in the Americas, the preservation of this feeling was highly sought after. Due to its association with the idea of the American mentality, landscapes were preserved and labeled as “wilderness.”

Cronon explains that this is a fundamental flaw in which many base their view of wilderness upon. Cronon argues that not only were the places that we consider “wilderness” (National Parks) once inhabited by Native Americans, but also that this view of wilderness is completely fabricated by humans. What we chose to preserve and how we chose to preserve it directly reflects the values of our society. All of the National Parks that are uninhabited by humans are in fact not a preservation of what was there originally, but a showcase of what our culture has deemed to represent freedom.

Therefore, we base the idea of our roots within an incorrect representation of wilderness. People see nature as an entity separate from us. To many, nature is what we drive to see or stay a weekend at the Grand Canyon in order to observe. Instead of recognizing our impact within nature and incorporating ourselves into the equation, we separate ourselves from it. This thereby causes a lack of self-awareness in terms of environmental issues.

Cronon asserts the fact that we must rethink the way we view wilderness and realize that we are a major part of it. It is only when we accept our place in nature that we can make great strides towards sustainability. We must be aware of what resources we use and assess whether or not we can keep using them.

While some could look at Cronon's thesis with considerable alarm, accusing him of lending intellectual support to the corporate project of taking over the nation's wilderness and selling out to developmental interests, it does not seem that this is his objective. Cronon does not condemn the idea of a national park. In fact, he even states that it is a good way for many people to grasp the wonder of life and provide “proof that ours is not the only presence in the universe.” Cronon does condemn the notion that these National Parks represent the society’s view of nature. We cannot truly care for something that we are completely separated from.

After reading this article, a couple questions came to mind: Have we already gone too far? The world population has grown massively in the recent century and globally we are already consuming more than we can produce per year. Is it possible to fully incorporate ourselves within nature? There seems to be a gray line between the biosphere and the technosphere and we have been walking on it for quite some time. While it is evident that we are moving away from the biosphere and more into the technosphere, is there a way we could balance the two without hurting progress? Do we even want to balance? Should we just accept our impending progression towards the technosphere and try to compensate?

How to Construe Nature

In this article, King attempts to answer the question, “does Nature have moral value?” To start this search of the moral value of Nature, King begins by referencing the fact that there has to be an understanding of what “Nature” actually means, and we as humans can not create a definition without conceptualizing Nature into human terms. However, this definition changes based on the matrices that each individual person is a part of. Three examples of this are illustrated in the Puritans, which viewed Nature as the “grim and forbidding domain of Satan,” the Romantics, which created an aesthetic value of Nature, and contemporary society, where the moral value of Nature must compete with its economic value. Our diagnosis of the moral value that Nature possesses is strongly influenced by the human environment that we are subjected to. Furthermore, through examples King shows that each natural object’s moral value depends on the properties it possesses.

Next, King shifts from discussing where the definition of Nature comes from to how these views may lend support and sustainability to the environment as a whole. King discusses examples that, although they may be controversial, they recognize a cause and effect of our environmental degradation. Many people view Nature as a scientific aspect, as “nature as the site of merely physical relations and forces.” Viewing Nature this way justifies using it for our economic gains. Shifting this view to a view of Nature as “containing spirits, needs, interests, or rights” may turn Nature away from just raw materials to be used, but this is highly unlikely. Is there a happy medium that could be more feasible for people to understand yet gives Nature the moral value it deserves?

Nature is seen by many as external from the human-made environment, which feeds into Nature as raw material to be used for economic gain. Furthermore, only the aspects of Nature that are pleasing and have economic incentives attached are selected in our version of what we want Nature to be. How each individual sees Nature is manipulated by what others, like food producers, oil industries, government officials say it is. Is there hope that this can be changed for the future? Since there are so many different inputs of what Nature “is,” how can we even begin to determine the true meaning and value of Nature? King offers a few solutions to facilitate the movement of this environmental dilemma down the right path. By shifting the dominant mode of thinking away from Nature as a resource for economic sustainability to Nature as a healthy and sustainable environmental entity that can better human society, the environmental dilemmas we see in our present culture may begin to dissipate. Rather than humans dominating and dictating how Nature is used, Nature and humans may co-exist to better each other. We need to look deeper than “living in harmony with nature” to the underlying strategies that can achieve that.

Diamond Response

In his discussion of historical collapses of civilizations, Jared Diamond points out some of the key reasons for societal downfalls and how this can be applied today.  First, Diamond identifies five factors that are particularly important when considering the collapse of these civilizations. These factors are human inflicted damage to the environment, climate change, enemies, changes in trade, and societies responses to these shifts (409). Diamond demonstrates the role of these factors on various historical collapses. For instance, he brings up the example of the Mayans to show how problems are perpetuated when the people in power feel the effects of the problems the least and therefore ignore them past the point of no return. Additionally, he uses the example of Pitcairn and Henderson to demonstrate the vulnerability of people when they are dependent on trade. Both of these two factors are still very relevant today, perhaps even more so. In a globalized world, everyone is dependent on trade in even larger and more complex ways. Also, the ability of the rich and powerful to detach themselves from problems is greater and more widespread as it does not apply solely to a few elite rulers but rather to the entirety of the developed world at least to some extent.

            Diamond goes on to discuss the role of the environment in determining the fate of historic civilizations, both failed and successful. He provides examples for both societies who managed to survive in poorer environmental regions as well as societies that failed despite their placement in fertile regions. This shows that environmental conditions, though important, do not seal the fate of a group of people. More important are the ways in which people respond to their environments and the related challenges as well as their willingness to adapt. History shows that the environment provides resources that are capable of sustaining civilizations successfully but only when managed correctly. This seems an important note to make when considering the modern day struggle with how best to manage resources and how seriously to consider the environment.

            In terms of enemies as a factor, Diamond suggests that globalization has made everyone more vulnerable and protection almost impossible. Instead of typical military protection, he suggests that it is necessary to deal with the root problems of conflict. This would mean that all nations would see preventing conflict in any nation to be in their own self-interest. Therefore since environmental, population, and health issues and the resource struggles connected with them become a global security issue that everyone would see as worthwhile to address.

            Despite the complex and serious nature of Diamonds discussion he ends his article with hope. He points out that the problems he highlights are human made ones and therefore are within the means of humans to address. People are not helplessly fighting an unknown and unstoppable disaster but rather themselves. Additionally, humans today have the examples of the past to serve as warnings and guidance to the best course of action. Although comforting, this assumes that humans are not too late too save themselves and also that they are willing to do so. Can we really compare the relatively contained civilizations of the past to the much larger and interconnected global system of today? These historical collapses were brought about by factors that are very much in play today but now there are the added variables of technology and globalization both of which can be seen as both a blessing and a curse.  Has our use of technology in our damage to the environment made it impossible for us to repair without even more advanced technology? Has globalization made it too hard to find the political will that Diamond says will save us?