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while accepting certain trade-offs, but the idea that we could improve on natural systems seemed like backwards or out-of-date thinking.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.

Reverence is Not Enough! A Book Review of Rene Dubos's A God Within

One of the most rewarding and challenging parts of environmental education is discussing the relationship of humans with nature.  For example, I teach about green building design, the regional history of land development and conservation, and trade-offs in land use.  These topics generate the hardest questions, like: Why should we care?  What is our purpose?  What should we be doing?   Do we have to choose between nature and humanity?

When children and adults look to me for help in understanding these questions, it reminds me that environmental education is a big responsibility.  I don't take it lightly, and do my best to share thoughts that are constructive and consider economic, cultural, and ecological factors. 

I often define conservation in a simple and general way.  I explain conservation as thinking win-win: understanding what nature needs, what people need, and finding a way to do both.  I also remind the listener that humans depend on nature, so protecting nature isn't an option, but a necessity for us.

I want to build on this definition and develop a richer, more robust, philosophy of conservation.  I recently read a book that tries to do just that.  The author presents a hopeful and inspiring philosophy I will incorporate into my own.

The book is Rene Dubos's A God Within: A positive philosophy for a more complete fulfillment of human potentials.

Dubos's book is a mix of science, history, and philosophy, explaining how human culture can develop in a way that is both positive to the human spirit and to the Earth.  

Dubos wrote the book in 1972, and it is interesting to note how science books for the public have changed since then.  Dubos's audience is assumed to be well educated.  He references Greek myths, uses quotes from a legion of writers, and drops in his native French here and there.  These elements may date his style, but the power of his ideas and writing remain fresh.  

Dubos's illustrates his philosophy most clearly in this passage: 

"Climate, geology, topography determine what forms of life can prosper in a given place, and these living forms in turn alter the surface and the atmosphere of the earth.  Each particular place is the continuously evolving expression of a highly complex set of forces-inanimate and living-which become integrated into an organic whole.  Man is one of these forces, and probably the most influential; his interventions can be creative and lastingly successful if the changes he introduces are compatible with the intrinsic attributes of the natural system he tries to shape. The reason we are now desecrating nature is not because we use it to our ends, but because we commonly manipulate it without respect for the spirit of place."

His philosophy goes like this: First, he is referring to the “spirit” or “nature of a place (which is what the book’s title refers to).  He believes people should recognize the nature of the landscapes they live in, as well as the nature of their own biology, and use this knowledge when making choices that effect the physical and social landscapes.  If culture, technology, city planning, and government use the spirit of place and people as a guide, the result will be a healthy planet and happy people.

Dubos says some of the same things one would expect a conservationist today to say.

He reminds me of E.O. Wilson with lines like, "The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution."

He reminds me of Jared Diamond when he points out how collapsed civilizations have brought about their own downfall through poor stewardship of the land.  Dubos says, "Unwise management of nature or of technology can destroy civilization in any climate and land, under any political system."

He pushes for the protection of wilderness: "... the progressive loss of wilderness decreases biological diversity.  This is turn renders ecological systems less stable and less likely to remain suitable for a variety of species, including man.  Conservation of natural systems is the best guarantee against irrevocable loss of diversity and the simplest way to minimize ecological disasters."

And he doesn't shy away from debunking the myth that humans always lived in harmony with the land until recent times: "All over the globe and at all times in the past, men have pillaged nature and disturbed the ecological equilibrium, usually out of ignorance, but also because they have always been more concerned with immediate advantages than with long range goals.  Moreover, they could not foresee that they were preparing for ecological disasters, nor did they have a real choice of alternatives.  If men are more destructive now than they were in the past, it is because there are more of them and because they have at their command more powerful means of destruction…"

You might get the impression from these passages we should see humans as bad for the Earth. I know this is something I struggle with myself.  How do we reconcile loving our species or believing in the goodness of our species, while seeing the damage we have done, and continue to do, to our planet and the organisms living here?  Dubos doesn't think that way, and that is why his book is so interesting. 

Dubos sees humans as an integral part of nature: "Physical geography and human history were thus always intermingled.  This was justified since man is both the creator and the creature of his environment; wherever there is human life, it is impossible to dissociate nature from man."

Dubos sees man's intervention with nature as a good thing when done right.  He praises some cultures for practicing sustainable farming and states that many places in Western Europe demonstrate a harmony between humans and nature.  

He thinks of humans as a sculptor who sees the figure hidden in the marble, and sets it free.  He explains: "Instead of imposing our will on nature for the sake of exploitation, we should attempt to discover the qualities inherent in each particular place so as to foster their development."

He recognizes this attitude may be difficult for many conservationists to accept.  Defending it, he says: "If properly conceived, however, anthropocentrism is an attitude very different from the crude belief that man is the only value to be considered in managing the world and that the rest of nature can be thoughtlessly sacrificed to his welfare and whims.  An enlightened anthropocentrism acknowledges that, in the long run, the world’s good always coincides with man’s own most meaningful good."

What is difficult for me in Dubos's philosophy is that he sometimes seems to be arguing that humans can improve upon the Earth.  That notion is a difficult one for me to support.  I wonder, “Does he really thinks that, or if he is just trying to point out that humans can be better stewards?”  I'm really not sure.  I may read more of his books to get a better sense. This notion matters to me philosophically, but it may not be important in a practical sense, because Dubos's main point is right: We are part of nature and we need to focus on what role we want to play.

I'll finish by letting Dubos speak for himself: "Francis of Assisi’s loving and contemplative reverence in the face of nature survives today in the awareness of man’s kinship to all other living things and in the conservation movement.  But reverence is not enough, because man has never been a passive witness of nature.  He changes the environment by his very presence and his only options in his dealings with the earth are to be destructive or constructive.  To be creative man must relate to nature with his senses as much as with knowledge.  He must read the book of external nature and the book of his own nature, to discern the common patterns and harmonies."

Here is a short biography of Rene Dubos. (here) 
Here is his New York Times obituary. (here)  

Nano Days! Informal Nano Science Education

Here is a video of me on Syracuse's Bridge Street morning show from 2012!

SAVE THE CREATION! A Book Review of E.O. Wilson's The Creation

Exploring the relationship between science and religion is inevitable for the curious student evaluating their spiritual beliefs.  At least it always has been for me.  In college I minored in Medieval and Renaissance Studies.  Right from my first class on the subject, I was hooked.  It was amazing to hear about the ways in which institutions, ideas, and practices we have today were shaped by our ancestors.  One area that always got my attention was how people tried to answer questions like: Who am I? Where am I? Why do things happen the way they do? What is my purpose? How do we find the answers?

We've always been trying to resolve these questions, and our answers determine much about how we interact with nature.  Today, Christianity and science are two such authorities many rely on for answers. Most Christians are able to reconcile faith and science in their lives, but some find them incompatible.  These choices can lead to distrust of those who've taken the opposite view, or simply to a lack of communication.  This is problematic for environmental stewardship.  The problems facing life on Earth require unity and the combined strength of all our communities working together.

It is in recognizing Christianity's potential as an ally in conservation, E.O. Wilson published The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth.

E.O. Wilson

E.O. Wilson is one of the most influential biologists and science communicators alive today.  To learn more about him and his ideas, check out the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation (here), his wikepedia page (here), or PBS's interactive webpage that reviews twelve of his books (here).  Wilson was a pioneer in chemical ecology and sociobiology.  He was a founder of the Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org) and coined the term biophilia, which I'll simplify as the idea that humans are hardwired to love other living things.  (Music fans should check out Bjork's Biophilia project here.)

The Book

E.O. Wilson's The Creation

The Creation is a non-fiction popular science book of about 200 pages, written as a series of letters addressed to a Southern Baptist pastor.  It is a plea to evangelical Christians to find common ground with secular humanists to work toward the conservation of the Earth's biodiversity.  This is a short book, but is packed with information.  I recommend taking notes or reading it twice.  For those worried you won't be able to follow a science themed book, or that ecology is boring, you are in for a pleasant surprise.  Wilson is a fantastic writer and storyteller.  A tour with him through the science of ecology and a look at humanity's relationship with the biosphere is a real pleasure.  This is not a simple read, but Wilson has done a great job of making complex concepts understandable.

I really enjoyed Wilson's The Creation.  It taught me new things about nature and made me think about the big questions.  Even so, I want to point out that there is a problem with the book related to its premise. Wilson is trying to engage with evangelical Christians, but he doesn't seem to have involved any while composing the book, and he seems unaware of the green movement within Christianity.  For example, the Evangelical Environmental Network (www.creationcare.org), which began in 1993, sees Creation Care as the responsibility of its members.   Wilson doesn't mention this, or the work of many churches in helping the poor throughout the world, which is directly related to environmental justice.  His "letters" feel one-sided.  This is a problem for a book that is trying to inspire collaboration.  Some religious readers have felt left out, or that Wilson's reflections on science and religion are off base (here and here).  The book has also gotten positive attention.  Amazon.com calls it "The book that launched a movement," and Wilson has said he has gotten a positive response from the religious community.  I do give him credit for sticking with the subjects he is an expert in, and not pretending to be a theologian, but my opinion is that the book would have been stronger if he had taken out the attempts at religious dialogue.

As an Environmental Educator, this book didn't give me any direction into how to build relationships with faith communities. If you are looking for a place to start when considering connections between environmental education and faith, here are three resources I recently discovered:

1. Gregory E. Hitzhusen's paper Religion and Environmental Education: Building on Common Ground (here).

2. A Guide to Greening Presbyterian Churches (here)

3. Jessica Crowe's paper: Transforming Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours through Eco-spirituality and Religion (here)

Noteworthy Ideas and Quotes in Wilson's The Creation

Wilson has earned his reputation  The Creation is full of important ideas and great quotes.  Here are a few.

The main factors contributing to loss of biodiversity: 
HIPPO
H= habitat loss
I= invasive species
P= pollution
P= overpopulation
O=overharvesting


Earth and the Biosphere
"Here is my point: Earth provides a self-regulating bubble that sustains us indefinitely without any thought or contrivance on our own.  This protective shield is the biosphere, the totality of all life, creator of all air, cleanser of all water, manager of all soil, but itself a fragile membrane that barely clings to the face of the planet.  Upon its delicate health we depend for every moment of our lives.  Humanity, as Darwin observed at the close of The Descent of Man, bears the indelible stamp of our lowly origin from preexisting life forms.  But even if you cannot agree with that statement for reasons of faith, surely you must grant that we belong in the biosphere, we were born here as a species, we are closely suited to its exacting conditions-and not all conditions, either, but just those in a few of the climatic regimes that exist upon some of the land."

Nature, Complexity, and Humans
"Living nature is nothing more than the commonality of organisms in the wild state and the physical and chemical equilibrium their species generate through interaction with one another.  But it is also nothing less than that commonality and equilibrium.  The power of living Nature lies in sustainability through complexity.  Destabilize it by degrading it to a simpler state, as we seem bent on doing, and the result could be catastrophic.  The organisms most affected are likely to be the largest and most complex, including human beings."

The Highest Goal
"Save the Creation, save all of it!  No lesser goal is defensible.  However biodiversity arose, it was not put on this planet to be erased by any one species.  This is not the time, nor will there ever be a time, when circumstance justifies destroying Earth’s natural heritage."

Blog Name Change

Hello everyone out there in the blogosphere!

The Life and Times of a Science Museum Educator is now called Discovering Nature: Thoughts from an Environmental Educator.

I started this blog a few years ago, while working at a family science museum in Syracuse, NY.  I posted about the programs I was running, books I was reading, and things that were happening at the museum.  After five years at the MOST (www.most.org) I moved to Highlands County, Florida and started working as the Education Coordinator at Archbold Biological Station (www.archbold-station.org) in January 2013.  It has been almost two years now, and I have really fallen in love with Environmental Education.  It seems that each day I am learning something new.  The blog hadn't been updated in a couple years, so I decided to revise it and give it new purpose.  I don't have a plan of how often I will post.  My thinking is that this blog will be a way to help myself process the new things I'm learning about ecology, conservation, and education.  I hope that it will also be helpful for other lifelong learners.