Purity vs. efficacy

'Nature for nature's sake' has limited appeal

Posted by David Roberts at 12:06 PM on 27 Mar 2007

Read more about: politics | environmental movement

Stephanie's post on Dave Foreman's rant raises a subject that's been hashed over on this site many times. But we've got some new readers around, so I'm going to hash it over some more.

Here's how I see it.

If you really love "nature for nature's sake," you'll want to do or say whatever it takes to protect what's left of nature. Your goal will be to find the most effective strategy and message to convince your fellow human beings to join you in working to protect nature.
Most people do not love nature for nature's sake, at least insofar as that means prioritizing the protection of wild spaces over the welfare of their fellow human beings. Most people, whether or not they admit it, value animals more than "nature," people more than animals, fellow members of their tribe (country, team, etc.) more than "people," and friends and family more than members of their tribe. This basic structure -- widening (and weakening) circles of concern -- is built into our biology. We evolved to value those closest to us, for obvious reasons. That's the reality.

Thus:

The most effective strategy/message for protecting nature will not have "nature for nature's sake" -- a notion that intrinsically appeals to a tiny minority -- at its center. It will instead find areas where protecting nature overlaps with other human goals. It will focus on answering human needs and human desires in a way that goes lightly on nature. That will enable the largest possible coalition.

Thus:

Focusing on "nature for nature's sake," and insisting that all other environmentalists do the same, is about building a movement that is aesthetically appealing to those involved rather than maximally effective. It's about moral purity and superiority. It is vanity.

That's my reaction to rants like Foreman's. He wants to build an order of monks, distinguished by their ability to suppress their natural affinity to others of their species. He and his followers can transcend the pedestrian concern others have for "people" and instead focus their refined sensibilities entirely on Nature.

Foreman's order of monks will be pure, and in some sense admirable, but it will also be self-limiting and ultimately irrelevant. It won't get the work done.

He can have it. I won't begrudge his choice. But neither will I listen to his priestly scolding or join him in irrelevancy. I'd rather focus on getting the work done.

For story: Purity vs. efficacy
15 Comments | Post a Comment

sing it!

by GreenEngineer at 12:28 PM on 27 Mar 2007

Couldn't agree more.

Very, very well said.

by John McGrath at 1:20 PM on 27 Mar 2007

Thank you for the post.

Thank you for the post.

Most of the people who care about nature for nature's sake are already doing what they can. And this is clearly not be enough.

"Environmentalists" have to find ways to make preservation of the biosphere appealing to the other 99.9% of humanity. Preserving nature for nature's sake is great, but most of us are probably here because our ancestors placed a priority on self-preservation above all else.

It is not as if there aren't enough selfish reasons for preserving the natural world. The book I just finished reading--Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity is Money in the Bank, by Andrew Beattie, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Christine Turnbull--clearly shows this. (It also shows, indirectly, why permitting global climate change would likely be more expensive than preventing it.) Why do some environmentalists have to make the whole process more difficult by not allowing us to tap into the instinct for self-preservation?

The desire for "pure" motives will get us all killed if it becomes the foundation of environmentalism.

This is not intended as a condemnation of those who want to adopt the life-style of an eco-monk. I would encourage them to set an example for everyone else to follow. Show us a better way, but don't be surprised if there are few takers.

by wiscidea at 2:05 PM on 27 Mar 2007

People for Peoples sake

Nature has always takes care of her own, however if we don't quit tree hugging and start people hugging the animals will have it all back to themselves again. Animals can drink water we can't and breathe air we can't, need I say more? The prosperous countries throw out enough food to feed the hungry of this World and we the people should be ashamed. The countries of the northern hemisphere turn our backs on the third world countries whose people go hungry and sleep cold in conditions that most of us could not cope with. So don't beat the drums about nature until you've taken care of your fellow man. Spaceman out.

by Spaceman at 2:29 PM on 27 Mar 2007

love

I totally love nature for nature's sake. I do understand that it's important to point out the "value" of nature in human terms (though not in dollars and cents, sorry, I don't believe that's possible) and I want humans to survive. More than that, I want humans to thrive and reach our full potential as a unique strand in the whole. I do believe, however hopelessly or irrationally or unpractically, that it is important, essential even, that I as an individual make clear in what I put out there that nature for nature's sake is enough of a reason not to destroy, desecrate, degrade, whatever and I fully support the concept, as I understand it, of rewilding and creating wildlife corridors and bringing together whatever fragments we can of wild places with a goal of more wild places. We humans don't have to be hurt in any way by this, indeed we will be enriched and certainly the Earth will benefit, which will aid humans even more. It's a win/win situation. Preserving the wild is key, because, as my father used to say, "Once it's gone it's gone." And we've lost enough.

by SMLowry at 4:58 PM on 27 Mar 2007

rants and eco-monks

"Here's how I see it," as DR might put it:

Stephanie's post is much ado about nothing. Dave Foreman was not getting in anyone's way of doing good, however anyone saw fit to do good. Nay, it is Stephanie and the people who are piling on top of Foreman who are slowing things down.

As I wrote in her thread, I am not sure I am ready to subscribe to Foreman's newfangled terminology, but still, his basic anti-anthropocentric message cannot be repeated enough. And her suggestion that we've all "been there, done that," and now have moved on to something truly worthwhile, is both patronizing and false.

The style of this particular essay of Foreman's is in fact very understated. It is inaccurate, misleading, prejudicial and unfair to refer to it as a "rant." By contrast, the responses it elicited, God knows why, from first Stephanie, then some of her readers, then DR, look much more like "rants," truly so-called.

On eco-monks: So what is the problem with monks? The lifestyle is not for everybody; sure, we all know that, and have known it for a long time; this is a boring observation. Does it follow that nobody should be allowed to be a monk? Does that mean monks are not allowed to communicate with one another?

Look at the difficulty DR had in getting out that initial protasis:
<<
If you really love "nature for nature's sake," ...
>>

He coughed a bit there, didn't he. Really, he does not convince us that he knows what he is talking about.

But that is one of the things that eco-monks are good at: reminding us of what we love.

And that is fine, if DR is not on top of this; no one is requiring of him that he include this sort of subject among all the others that he knows very well.

But it is reasonable to request of Stephanie and DR that they back off, and let peaceful people such as Dave Foreman say and write what they want to say and write.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 4:59 PM on 27 Mar 2007

Did you reach...

the conclusion of my "rant"? You must have -- since you used the term "eco-monk" -- but did you read or simply jerk your knee?

I wrote...

"This is not intended as a condemnation of those who want to adopt the life-style of an eco-monk. I would encourage them to set an example for everyone else to follow. Show us a better way, but don't be surprised if there are few takers."

Monastic communities have gotten us through several dark periods of human history. And for that I am grateful. I'm just agreeing with the notion that "an order of monks, distinguished by their ability to suppress their natural affinity to others of their species" will not be a particularly productive means of preserving the biosphere at this time... unless they are going to preserve islands of biodiversity that can be tapped to repopulate Earth when we finally realize that we have truly mucked things up.

by wiscidea at 6:02 PM on 27 Mar 2007

who is jerking one's knee?

OK, WiscIdea, point taken, never mind your knee-jerk reaction to references to organized religion. Established, henceforth: You have no problem with the existence of eco-monks.

Therefore, presumably, you will let them live as they want to live, and not impose your own demands on what they should do for you.

Where, by the way, is that bizarre quote from, contained in your final sentence beginning "I'm just agreeing"?

We are all doing what we can to preserve the Biosphere. (Ugly word!) Whatever and whoever eco-monks are, they are surely doing it. Christian monks are definitely doing it, I have seen it.

So, be of good cheer. This is not an important issue.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:41 AM on 28 Mar 2007

caniscandida

The bizarre quote you are wondering about is from Dave's post! If you had read the entire post, you would have noticed he also wrote...

"Foreman's order of monks will be pure, and in some sense admirable..."

and

"He can have it. I won't begrudge his choice..."

I'm not sure why you launched your attack on him. His reference to monks was not even a significant element of the discussion.

Peace.

by wiscidea at 5:20 AM on 28 Mar 2007

DR: son of the south

Born and raised in a zone where nature has been banned, in favor of chemical agriculture and human development.

Nature weeded out. That is where the child was taught and the adult cleaves to that teaching.

No amount of re-education will change that. The chubby dood hates nature. In nature he would have to use his muscles. Too much work.

He uses his brain to get out of pickin' tabaccy and cotton. Oh laaawdy, jesus save me from common labor. Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 5:56 AM on 28 Mar 2007

As I wade knee deep through a yellow fog

of petals, pollen, seed pod bombs, furry critters, spider-industrial-complexes, and am just generally skeet-skeet-skeeted upon by nature, I must say that like most Southern attempts at censorship and prohibition, the south's ban on nature has failed.

Someone call the Once-ler, and the Orkin Man!!!

by Mmimika at 3:20 PM on 28 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Sadly, I am

Sadly, I am still on the utilitarian side of things.

Or more specifically energy + materials
Versus Biology.

However natural areas themselves have utilitarian aspects to them.

For instance, our National Parks.
Or the fact that 25% of our medicine comes from natural sources.
Marshlands are natural protections against storms
The rain
The air
The oceans
The atmosphere
etc

Way I see it,

A natural system that humans benefit from is just as important as manmade infrastructure.

And in most cases, cheaper than the alternative in the longrun.

Furthermore, energy and materials effeciency is always a good thing, and goes a long way to raising our standard of living.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:46 PM on 28 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Even

Even animals have a utilitarian aspects to them.

For instance, people just like watching tigers and pandas.

Not because they care about their own wellfare

But because their personal enjoyment from experiencing them.

Kind of why you have hunter organizations like Ducks Unlimited promoting vernal pools.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:49 PM on 28 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Nature for nature's sake works...

People react very clearly to arguments about nature for nature's sake. I realize this is counter to what passes for conventional wisdom these days, but it's just true.

One need not go back to Brower's New York Times ad that helped kill the Grand Canyon dam. Fights over wildlife habitat are themselves arguments about nature for nature's sake ... a particular species of plant or animal is worth saving, even if it provides us no tangible (economic) benefit.

Here, in Michigan, a considerable groundswell of popular opposition has sprung up against a proposed nickel mine in our Upper Peninsula, where unemployment runs high and where sustained mining could mean good paying jobs.

What has prompted this opposition? Because people like the river the way it is. That is, the mine is opposed because people think the nearby river and plains area have value the way they are.

This is hardly the kind of thing that is headed for irrelevance.

by ebaerren at 6:01 PM on 28 Mar 2007

"Ode" to a Monk

Caniscandida,

I realize this is not a true "ode", but I wanted to use the word to lend this some solemnity. Given earlier remarks regarding religion, I believe I owe it to you to share the following observation.

I was just tending my Medicago sativa plants. (We cross our transgenic plants with a robust cultivar in order to save the introduced trait in a "plant" that can be stored for future use -- a seed.) As I was tidying up the plants and enjoying the aroma of the flowers, I thought about how much of my life is built on a foundation laid by an Augustinian priest and scientist, Gregor Johann Mendel. There I was, looking at flowers and seed pods very similar to the pea flowers and seed pods Mendel studied over a century ago.

The biotechnology industry emerged from the work of a monk and we should all think about this for a moment. There is so much pressure to produce marketable items today. Very little respect for basic research. Very little interest -- as far as our economy is concerned -- in saving nature for nature's sake.

But the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, our progress in agriculture, progress in medicine, and other important industries emerged from work done not for profit, but simply to understand Creation. Only a monk could have had the time in the 1800s to conduct Mendel's experiments. Only a monk could have engaged in such "useless" activity.

So...

Gregor Johann Mendel, thank you for being a monk; your dedication to science provided innumerable people with longer and better lives.

And all others who have and will choose to walk the path of monasticism, thank you for your contributions to preserving human civilization through numerous dark ages, past, present, and future.

by wiscidea at 2:15 PM on 30 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.