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while accepting certain trade-offs, but the idea that we could improve on natural systems seemed like backwards or out-of-date thinking.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