"A reservation or national park of the only other species (...) should be quickly secured" - John Muir's appeal is notably up to date, and yet it is published almost 100 years ago. We still deal with problems that were partly detected a certain time ago. And, being confronted with Muir's plea, I have the feeling that we did not make so much progress in the last century. There are some changes and a rising awareness of the environment and the importance and responsibility to save "it" - and thus our existence, too (this sounds dramatically, but in some sense it is). But we are still at the very beginning of this progress.
Muir speaks about deeds done out of ignorance and unbelief. From a 21-century-perspective, I cannot fully agree. A lot of things were indeed unknown (e.g. the importance of the rainforest for the hydrological circle or the amount of CO2) but others were not. There is a difference between ignorance/nescience and willful ignorance, when knowledge is denied. And I feel that a lot of (not only) today's actions have been/are done out of willful ignorance. We (Western educated civilization) know, for example, that cheap prices for groceries must have a catch. But a lot of us (I know, this is a generalization) keep on buying groceries at Walmart.
Contrary, there is also real ignorance. And Muir's observation/ appraisal should encourage us to diminish environmental ignorance. However, I have a real issue with his thought that the trees are Christ-figures who merciful forgive the poor sinners: "Forgive them; they know not what they do." The trees are shown as martyrs, patiently enduring human behavior. Does Muir want to show us that nature is patient, will forgive men's deeds, and that we get a second chance? My problem is not that the trees are presented as forgiving, but that men are shown as almost innocent beings who cannot be called to account. And I do not think that this is the case. I cannot really explain where exactly my unease comes from, it is more a vague feeling. But it is there. I'll try to figure this out.
A last point: It is interesting how ambiguously Muir presents the trees. They are almost godlike, mighty, "standing in perfect strength and beauty." However, their strength is relative because "any fool can destroy trees" as the trees cannot protect themselves. So they are weak, too. But it is exactly this combination of conflicting attributes which reminds me of our (men's in general) special position in the environment. We have the power to destroy so we have the duty to deal with this destructive force, limit it and ourselves in order not to take advantage of other's weakness and thus destroy everyone and everything around us.
Muir speaks about deeds done out of ignorance and unbelief. From a 21-century-perspective, I cannot fully agree. A lot of things were indeed unknown (e.g. the importance of the rainforest for the hydrological circle or the amount of CO2) but others were not. There is a difference between ignorance/nescience and willful ignorance, when knowledge is denied. And I feel that a lot of (not only) today's actions have been/are done out of willful ignorance. We (Western educated civilization) know, for example, that cheap prices for groceries must have a catch. But a lot of us (I know, this is a generalization) keep on buying groceries at Walmart.
Contrary, there is also real ignorance. And Muir's observation/ appraisal should encourage us to diminish environmental ignorance. However, I have a real issue with his thought that the trees are Christ-figures who merciful forgive the poor sinners: "Forgive them; they know not what they do." The trees are shown as martyrs, patiently enduring human behavior. Does Muir want to show us that nature is patient, will forgive men's deeds, and that we get a second chance? My problem is not that the trees are presented as forgiving, but that men are shown as almost innocent beings who cannot be called to account. And I do not think that this is the case. I cannot really explain where exactly my unease comes from, it is more a vague feeling. But it is there. I'll try to figure this out.
A last point: It is interesting how ambiguously Muir presents the trees. They are almost godlike, mighty, "standing in perfect strength and beauty." However, their strength is relative because "any fool can destroy trees" as the trees cannot protect themselves. So they are weak, too. But it is exactly this combination of conflicting attributes which reminds me of our (men's in general) special position in the environment. We have the power to destroy so we have the duty to deal with this destructive force, limit it and ourselves in order not to take advantage of other's weakness and thus destroy everyone and everything around us.
No comments:
Post a Comment