The Wooing of Earth

In my last post, I reviewed Rene Dubos's 1972 book on conservation, titled "The God Within."  It helped me think about our relationship to the Earth and what things we should consider as we develop our cities, homes, and lands.  There were some really great passages about the importance of protecting wildlands and how humans need to stay true to the spirit of a place and to our own social and biological needs.  I thought all of this was great, but I was conflicted about Dubos's philosophy, because he also seemed to say that humans could improve on nature. This idea grated against all the other lessons I'd learned.  As an environmental educator, I teach people about ways we can reduce our environmental footprint and how agriculture can be sustainable while accepting certain trade-offs, but the idea that we could improve on natural systems seemed like backwards or out-of-date thinking.  It seemed too close to the attitude of "domination" or "humans know best" that have caused us so many problems.  I had to read more of his work and figure out what he was really trying to say.

This inner tension and curiosity led me to spend this week reading another one of Rene Dubos's books, this one written in 1980, titled "The Wooing of the Earth."  It turns out that Dubus really does believe people are good for the planet, or at least that we sometimes are and should try to always be.  His anthropocentric philosophy is challenging to current trends in environmental thinking, but he demonstrates the credibility needed to be taken seriously.  After all, he isn't challenging the science related to conservation, but only the way we interpret its findings and envision ourselves.  He cares about the health of the Earth's biosphere and has no problem pointing out the many times humans have messed things up, and yet he sees humans as a positive force.

Rene Dubos "The Wooing of Earth"

In "The God Within" he points out how our use of the land should relate to the nature of the land, and that we should use it in a way that is good for our spirit.  In "The Wooing of the Earth" Dubus shows what these ideas mean in the real world and does a good job of demonstrating that we might actually already agree with him, even if we didn't realize it.

In "The Wooing of the Earth," the point I found most interesting was this: humans can not only bring out the potential in nature, but we already have done so in many places and don't always realize it.  He shows that often the places we think are naturally beautiful or important ecologically, are actually artificial landscapes.  He uses examples from Europe, Asia, and North America, and reminds us that humans have been altering landscapes for tens of thousands of years.  Long before historic times, we had already vastly altered the land, usually through fire or agriculture.  In historic times we've continued to change the landscape through a variety of practices, including irrigation, landscaping, mining, and spreading exotic species.  

One of the challenges I've experienced with the general public is convincing them that much of what they think of as "country" or "nature" is often an altered landscape dominated by exotic species.  Even after spending a couple hours giving an ecotour of a cattle ranch - which includes explaining the ways humans have shaped the land - tour participants still remark how beautiful the unsullied landscape is.  I agree with them that the landscape is beautiful, and I want them to appreciate its conservation value, but it isn't "unsullied." I don't want to depress or overwhelm them, but it is important to know about the places we live, work, and visit, and how they got that way.

When I look at the "improved pastures" on the Florida ranches I see important sites for conservation, but I also see human altered landscapes.  I imagine what these prairies were like a hundred years ago, before they were ditched and planted with bahia grass.  Were the highly endangered Florida Grasshopper Sparrows once there, hiding their nests among the native grasses?  And I imagine the prairie 15,000 years ago, populated by mammoth and giant ground sloths before they went extinct, most likely at the hands of Florida's first humans.  It is important to me that we don't forget these things.

So what if Dubos is right?  What if we've already inherited a world in which ecology cannot be disentangled from human influence?  His answer is to embrace it.  He says humans are part of "a continuous evolutionary process of creation." Our relationship to the Earth can by symbiotic, moving forward together through time while transforming and supporting each other. We are animals with intelligence and foresight, which gives us responsibility to accept this role and manage the best we can.  That includes keeping some wild areas wild, while developing others to suit our needs and the needs of nature.

His argument is a more sophisticated version of "Humans are part of nature, so whatever we do is natural."  I'm not a big fan of this outlook, because it can relieve responsibility for our actions, but admittedly that is not what Dubos is suggesting.

In the end, I am back to where I was in the beginning: not quite sure what to think about Dubos' philosophy.  I have to say, that is really okay with me.  After two of his books, I feel I understand his philosophy much better, and I'm excited to compare it to the other authors I read.  I've been seriously trying to develop my own thoughts on conservation for a few years now, and very much enjoying the journey.

If you've read this far through this post, I thank you.  Writing these book reviews are primarily a way for me to process my thoughts, but I also hope they are helpful to others.  If you want to share your thoughts on this book, or on the topics I addressed, please leave a comment.