The natural world, once mysterious, feared, and certainly separate from the everyday activities of humans, now faces an inseparable connection with a civilization, growing so fast and consuming so many resources, that it can change the atmospheric processes. While the blossoms of spring will continue to bloom and the winter winds will continue to howl, this independence from man, that nature enjoyed for billions of years, now finds itself becoming extinct like the dinosaurs that roamed the planet millions of years before us. Author Bill McKibben explores this disappearance of nature's interdependence from humans, the root of its causes, how this loss affects us, and what the future of a managed world might look like in his thought-provoking book, The End of Nature.
In similar fashion to Rachel Carson's work Silent Spring, McKibben's book on the effects of climate change alters the way many people view their connection to nature and exposes how their lifestyles affect the earth's natural systems. While presenting the hard facts of the scientific community, McKibben eloquently depicts the human emotions not found in the charts that measure the rising carbon dioxide levels or the graphs that depict the earth's rising temperatures. This eloquence helps the author to ask the questions that many of us fear answering: “What does it mean to control creation on earth?”, “Does this control makes us Gods?”, “If we exist as God-like entities, then what of the existence of religion at all?”, but most importantly for our planet's happiness and well-being, “What happiness and well-being must we sacrifice for our planet to be healthy, and therefore for our children to be healthy?”.
For me, this last question strikes to the very core of our current beliefs and ways of life, thus the reason so many of us struggle to answer it. We thoroughly enjoy the freedom found in our cars, we take pride in the many material possessions accumulated over the years, and though we may not think about its consequences, we love purchasing just about anything we could imagine at our local chain supermarket or Wal-Mart. While we might complain about the rising cost of gasoline, most of us would rather fill-up the SUV than even think about riding our bike to work. The familiarity and ease of this lifestyle makes it hard to give up, even though we know the effects of our actions on the planet. McKibben describes this current trend as a “rut, a system of beliefs in which we are trapped.” (172) Unfortunately, this way of life, while seemingly making us happy, affects the happiness and harmony of the planet and its eco-systems. As removed as we seem to be from these natural processes, the time will come, possibly quite soon, when the results of our actions will affect these systems so profoundly that our own happiness may be sacrificed, which quite literally brings us to a crossroad of choices.
At this crossroads exist two distinct paths, from which human civilization must decide which one it should tread upon. Either path possesses its own set of consequences and its own set of hurdles to leap. One road allows us to continue our dependency on fossil fuels while the other offers clean, renewable energy. One path involves the continued disappearance of the rainforest, while the other asks us to appreciate the rainforest for its inherent beauty, rather than for its bounty of resources. One path reinforces our belief that material wealth brings us happiness, while the other counters with an idea that happiness should be found in nature or neighbors. However, the greatest difference in these paths may be found in how we view ourselves in relation to the natural world. McKibben sums up this difference quite simply, referring to our current perspective of our place in the world as “anthropocentric”, while recognizing that humanity and the planet could benefit by shifting towards a “biocentric” viewpoint.
In sharp contrast to the anthropocentric belief that man exists as the dominant species on the planet, the biocentric view postures humans as “just one species among many”. (172). For many of us living on planet earth, this notion shakes the very foundation of our relationship to nature. As McKibben notes, even the Bible alludes to a dominance and control over nature and its creatures: “Fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”, the story of Genesis says. (74) By taking such passages at face value, one could conclude God allows, perhaps even demands, that man cut down the forests of the world and harvest all of its bounty. But for many of us, especially those of us who may find God in nature more easily than in the chapel, this anthropocentric view towards the natural world conflicts directly with our idea of religion, as well as our ways of seeking spirituality. This conflict arises in another passage from the Bible by way of the Ten Commandments in the form of “Thou shalt do to thy neighbor, as thou would have done unto them”. If one man finds spiritual solace in the silence of the woods, then who should possess the right to clear-cut the same forest. Clearly, the anthropocentric viewpoint lacks the universal ability to harmonize the planet and its inhabitants.
So what then would it mean for the human civilization to shift towards a more biocentric view of themselves in relation to the earth and its inhabitants? What if we embraced the idea of just being one species among many? The particulars of driving less, if at all, growing our own food in our backyards, and harnessing renewable energy, come to mind. Yet, without a fundamental shift in our thinking, in terms of how much we consume and how little we relate to nature, all of the possible “greening” of our lifestyles may not solve the problem. We must get to the root this mess and it involves asking a question I posed earlier: “What must we sacrifice for the planet to be happy?”.
I believe in the possibility of a sustainable future, in which these sacrifices actually lead to finding more meaning in life's simple pleasures, where a chat with a neighbor becomes more enjoyable than an hour spent in front of the television, and where people can find more purpose in their lives instead of finding more ways of distracting themselves. The survival of our civilization calls for a deeper look into perhaps, the toughest question of all: “How many people can the planet support?”. The possibility exists that no matter how green our lifestyles come to be, how truly sustainable our industries and economies could become, that too many people live on the planet for the earth to sustain us. A statement of this magnitude challenges the fundamental beliefs of Western civilization, erodes the idea of spreading ourselves and our dominion over the earth, and undermines our long-held stance that the planet can provide infinitely for us. For me, asking these questions gives me a hope that we can hop out of this rut we find ourselves so happily, yet precariously riding along in. By questioning the very tenets of our ways of life, I believe we can find solutions to many of the world's problems, and not just global warming.
This time of great change, in our climate and in our consciousness, may feel extreme at times. As McKibben laments on the end of nature in his book, “I cannot imagine any change more extreme than the change from four billion years of nature to year one of artifice.” So as we stand at the crossroads of our destiny, and now, with the earth's destiny as well, we look at two seemingly impossible choices, but we can choose the right path.
McKibben, Bill. The End of Nature. New York: Random House, 1989.
No comments:
Post a Comment