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."
