On subject of the environment, the Western society is torn between two
lines of thought. One is the unconditional growth of the civilization,
whatever the consequences for the planet and for the future
generations. The other is a reaction against it: a return-to-the-roots
hippie environmentalism that seeks to destroy the civilization and
return to natural existence.
Right now, the two work together in what I consider the worst possible
manner. The first group engages in reckless plunder, while the second
group, being powerless to stop the plunder, instead attacks the good
things that come from the civilization and the good things that
civilization can achieve. Instead of keeping the first group from
driving millions of species into extinction, it instead plays upon the
culturally endemic fear of thought, innovation and human intelligence
to fan hysterias about scientific advances, whether they consist of
genetically modified corn or cloning or stem-cell research or the Human
Genome Project.
I believe that both are doing grave wrong. Nature contains tremendous
variety and richness, and to drive millions of species into extinction
in a shortsighted pursuit of profit is to destroy what is irreplaceable
to pay for temporary enrichment of the enterprise at the price of
permanent destruction of riches the enterprise cannot possibly replace.
Like suicide, it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem; and if
it continues unchecked, the result will indeed be a permanent planetary
suicide.
However, to stand in the way of research that can lead to more
sustainable farming, cures for genetic illnesses, cures for paralysis
and cancer, and synthesis of bacteria that can break down plastics and
styrofoams with which the civilization has been poisoning the planet,
is to do a still graver wrong: To deny humanity the tools it's been
given to solve the problems that it has created, to make its life (and
the life of the planet) rich and sustainable, and to create a
civilization that is an improvement on nature and not a degradation.
The atavistic types shout about the scientific experimentation that
seeks to create new life-forms or resurrect ones that people have
driven into extinction. They did not shout when people used DDT and
Agent Orange to poison everything around them, nor when people created
enough nuclear weapons to kill the world seven times over, nor when
Amazonian ranchers kill thousands of species of plants and animals
every year. Why this grating, atavistic hypocrisy? Why is it OK to
destroy but not to create, to pillage nature and not to improve on
nature, to murder but not to heal and resurrect? It is my belief that
this comes from the same place as the saying that "beauty is only
skin-deep, but ugliness goes down to the bone" and that "to err is
human" - from the cultural notion that evil in human beings is to be
expected but good is to be suspected; that destructiveness, violence,
stupidity and short-sightedness is a necessary part of the human makeup
but thought, innovation and inspiration is not. It comes, I believe,
from the fact that most people have never been taught to think
creatively and inventively, and they can identify with ugliness and
destructiveness in the human nature - the ugliness and destructiveness
which they've known since taking their first breath - but cannot rise
to embrace the human ability to understand, to envision, to create and
to solve.
In dividing the human beings into the "leavers" who live as part of
nature and "takers" who live in the face of nature, Daniel Quinn
separated the two aspects of human being: A being that lives in nature
and follows the laws of nature and a being that shapes and creates out
of its will, intelligence and self-awareness. I believe that both the
leavers and the takers are a necessary part of the human makeup, and
that the beneficial outcome comes neither from return-to-the-soil
atavism nor from turning the world into a giant strip mall. I believe
that there is good in the leaver mentality and there is good in the
taker mentality, and that the two need to work together in an
integrative synthesis - in a synergy - that makes the best of both.
The good done in service of leaver mentality comes most starkly in form
of Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan activist who risked her life many times to
plant millions of trees in her country - an action that allowed Kenya
to escape the fate of Haiti and other countries that had ignorantly
driven their forests into extinction to pay for slash-and-burn farming
and in so doing condemned themselves to sickness and poverty. To
resurrect rainforest where it has been pillaged - to bring back natural
richness to places in which it once has existed - is a prudent,
inspired and ethical project that will preserve Planet Earth for future
generations and for the life to come. The Reagan official who said, "If
you've seen one tree, you've seen them all" can be answered quite
simply, "If you've seen one Republican, you've seen them all." And to
say out of that consideration that it is right to kill off thousands of
species of trees, many containing useful medicinal qualities, is as
damnable as to say that one should kill off all Republicans.
The good done in service of the taker mentality comes from innovators:
From people who've created cars, airplanes, computers, spaceships,
Internet, representative democracy, antibiotics and masterpieces such
as the Sistine Chapel and the Empire State Building. It comes from
people who use the unique inventive capacity in the human being to
produce work that beautifies the world and improves people's lives. It
comes from anyone who's ever had an original idea, anyone who's ever
contributed something intelligent and creative, anyone who produced
something good that has not existed before. Humanity has all it needs,
not only to survive long-term, but also to manifest all the good things
that live in the mind and psyche. To create a civilization that's an
improvement on nature and not a degradation.
What am I proposing then? I propose taking the best of the Leaver
mentality and the best of the Taker mentality and making them work
together in an integrative synthesis. I propose preserving the planet
for the future and repeating the feat of Wangari Maathai all over the
world; and I propose using the human ingenuity to create a beautiful
civilization - a civilization that builds upon nature, that improves
upon nature, and that draws from the endless well of human ingenuity
and intelligence to make our world the richest, most happy, most
beautiful world it can be. It is to produce masterpieces - masterpieces
artistic, scientific, medical, social and technological - that use the
best in the human mind to create the best possible civilization. And,
in synergy with the nature as it is kept from being mindlessly
plundered, arrive at a planet that has the best of nature and the best
of civilization, with nature in all its richness and color remaining
alive and humanity building on top of it a civilization equal to all
the richness, color and inspiration that has been imparted mankind.
.
|
