In my Environmental Lit. class, there was a concept that interested me the moment I heard about it early on in the semester, so much so that I couldn't help but make it the focus of the nature narrative I had to write. Simply put, it is the question of why we value nature, or the environment. We went through the reasons for valuing animals (such things as entertainment, companionship, work, education, etc.), and I think one could make the argument that we basically value the environment itself for the exact same reason: we can make it benefit us.
The real focus of the conversation was that, as a culture, we tend to go to the same places, the same landmarks, and take the same pictures, see the same views, and by extension, value the same things. We look at certain parts of nature because they are "scenic," or "beautiful." And once we find the best spots for such aesthetic pleasure, we make people pay to see them, thus commodifying nature. Of course, there's already the problem of commodifying beauty itself, which we've already done with art, but in this case we're commodifying beauty in something when beauty isn't the purpose behind it.
Nature doesn't try to be beautiful. Sure, there are certain species of plants and animals that do care about aesthetic...but only insofar as it affects their survival (either for mating, warding off predators, or attracting prey). Now, I'm sure there are some exceptions, but in general I think I am safe in assuming that plants and animals don't make art because it pleases them to look at it repeatedly and critique the art of others. That is simply a human phenomenon. And I don't mean to demean recreational art in any way. I love it too much to ever do that. But I think there's something wrong with our society when we look at nature and only think about how pretty it looks. When we only worry about saving the forests because they're a nice bit of scenery. When we save one endangered species only because it's cute. (And when some people think God must have made it, since it's so beautiful. You do realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye evolved on this planet, and so it's attuned to these sights...right?)
And I'm not a fan of intrinsic value. In fact, I think the very idea is bullshit. Unless we can find some objective standard out there that tells us the way things gain value, we have no reason to think that anything has value just for existing. For that matter, even if we had an objective standard, we would only be forced to question the validity of that standard, and the validity of its validation, ad infinitum. No, I'm not talking about nature having intrinsic value at all, since I don't think such value exists in anything.
What I am talking about, instead, is that this mindset--of only valuing nature for its beauty, or for the things it can give us, or the way it makes us feel, or the things we can do with it--is destructive. A point which is made very clearly in Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods, in which many planets have been inhabited and destroyed by the same headlong rush towards progress that disregards the needs of the environment. If we're going to live on this planet, we have to realize that nature isn't just a backdrop. We live in it, on it, and with it.
I don't think seeing nature as beautiful is bad in and of itself. What's bad is not realizing that there are more important aspects to it. Don't save the forests just because they're pretty; save them because they're an integral part of the environment. Save the endangered species because they're an integral part of the food chain and the ecosystem. We, also, are a part of the natural order of this planet. Too often we see ourselves as being above the rest of the natural world, apart from it. But that's not the case: we, too, are animals. Protect the Earth. Not because it's fun to look at, but because we are a part of it, and if it dies, so do we.
No comments:
Post a Comment