Here's an interesting discussion of the two branches of environmentalism. The romantics see it as a spiritual crisis which could be solved by most people living in caves again; the rationalists see despoiling the environment as simply a physical problem that doesn't need spirituality in response.
Hari makes an interesting point:
I'm with the rationalists. And yet this division—which seems so plain and irreconcilable to me—keeps being muddied by the contributors to this collection. Wes Jackson offers the most romantic fantasy of the book—but he is a distinguished scientist. Al Gore offers the most lucid popular summary of hard climate science we have—and then attributes the disaster, in an unexplained leap of logic, to a "spiritual crisis." Almost all the rational accounts here let romantic tropes seep into their writing as rousing quasi-religious end lines. Why? It feels as though the rationalists don't have enough confidence in their own intellectual tradition to inspire and rouse people. It's an old Enlightenment fear: Are we too irrational and poorly evolved a species to respond to neat reason?I would say that opposition to nuclear being a substantial part of the response to greenhouse gases is largely based on the romantic view, yet typically it will be dressed up by Greens with facts and figures (talking about the long half life of isotopes, for example) to give it a more rationalist sheen.
The same is probably true for opposition to geo-engineering ideas, although they are all so novel in concept that there is plenty of room for debate by the rationalists as to whether the cure will be worse than the disease.
I guess the thing the romantics have on their side is that nearly any urban dweller (with the exception of people like Woody Allen, I guess) likes at least some connection with nature, whether it be by having a garden with birds, or just visits to a nice beach or national park every now and then. Still, going wholeheartedly into the clutch of romanticism is bad for humanity overall. (The ultra romantics don't want us here at all!)
When it comes to the environment I don't think people can even agree what to disagree upon.
ReplyDeleteI remember once-upon-an-internet-time reading commenters on Tim Blair's blog lambasting the Australian Greens for not remembering that 'man is a part of nature'. Then later I turned to the writing of some greens and found them criticising right-wingers for exactly the same thing.
And it probably all depends on what you mean by 'man is a part of nature'. Does it mean that we should return to primitive ways of life, or does it mean that our primitive and natural urges should be suppressed, and that we should strive to escape from nature? Or something else entirely?
Yeah, it is a bit fuzzy. In that article I linked to, I think he quotes someone who makes the point:
ReplyDelete"Human beings are part of nature, not some alien species—so "the cities of human beings are as natural … as are the colonies of prairie dogs or the beds of oysters." "
As I find prairie dogs very cute, I like the comparison. But Hari makes the important point in the next paragraph:
"The area with the lowest carbon emissions per person in the United States is not rural Alabama or icy Alaska. It is New York City, with its mass transit system and easy walking. If we are to deal with global warming, there need to be more densely populated cities and far fewer tree-lined suburbs."
Yet, part of the appeal of the tree-lined suburbs is that they feel much closer to nature than living in a high rise apartment in the city.
Hari (and other rationalists) are therefore arguing that the romantic view is actually harmful to practical ways to help the environment. Which I agree with, except I want to stay living in the suburbs thank you very much:)
"The romantics see it as a spiritual crisis which could be solved by most people living in caves again." I'm not aware that anyone ever wanted that, including the 19th c. romantic poets and essayists in England.
ReplyDeleteNature is a humanizing thing for a lot of people, so eradicating it has both physical and spiritual consequences. I don't see any need to divide people with an interest in saving what's finally our own habitat.