Walking Alone (Together) In a World of Wounds

Aldo Leopold, an environmentalist and wildlife management advocate, suggested that the  consequence of an "ecological education" is one will live alone in a world of wounds.  This, I read in a book about the current environmental "crisis," and America's role in responding to the changing global environment. Let me add that my placement of the word "crisis" in quotation is to suggest that the definition of crisis usually implies, a decisive point of change wherein a specific action must be taken in order to avert disaster. And there is something about the ambivalence expressed by the current and previous administrations, I include the Clinton and Bush the First administrations in that group-that doesn't seem to resonate with the impeding doom that this book, Red Sky at Morning (see right), suggests with alarming rhetoric and bass drum like consistency. Ignorance to a crisis does not invalidate the crisis' reality, I realize, but it all seems a bit surreal to me-headlong into disaster we are in rapt attention as to the incarceration status of Paris Hilton. It betrays a negligence which cannot easily be rectified.

      Mr. Leopold was probably exclusively referring to an education about the environment. But by "ecological education" I will take more broadly to mean, the type of education which grows in multiple directions, disciplines, and manners, and where these various trajectories of learning all intertwine and develop an 'ecology of consciousness'. The reason I use this definition because it seems more in-line with the type of education we will need to have in order to recognize and act on the coming "crisis." It isn't enough to be aware of the science, or the politics, or the economics of the situation. In order to feel the genuine impact of such a climatic realignment as predicted by some scientists, requires an 'ecology of consciousness', which recognizes and can evaluate from various points of contact what is at stake. A univocal education breeds a narrowness of vision, insufficient to adequately deal with the problems facing our planet. It is too easy to get caught up the facts and figures, climate data, oil prices, and financial statements which leads us to miss the "bigger" picture. However, it is equally seductive to become a hyper-idealist, head up in the sky, lamenting the loss of this species, the destruction of this lake, engaging in saccharine discourse about a bright summer's day, flagellation about what future generations will think of us and how we will be judged. There are important, difficult decisions that will have to take into account not only the environmental impact, but the current geo-political situation at work today.

     Some might protest that the concern with issues akin to inflation, infrastructure, political expediency,the dictates of the free market when our planet is on the brink, is unfounded. Indeed, some demand that our operating principle be that all other concerns are secondary to the impeding environmental crisis. Is your heart so pure, is your will so strong, to believe that such a principle can operate in the harsh realities of nation-state politics. Such a lofty ideal should be counted among such other pipe dreams as: the brotherhood of men and women and the eradication of illness. We are not citizens of the world, because citizenship has its privileges which are applied or at least paid for while we are thrown "free of charge" into worldhood.  Countries have competing interests, individuals and the state have competing interests, corporations have competing interests. Good, bad or indifferent,  in that competition the environment, social justice, and peace lie in the balance.

     Those who have developed an ecology of consciousness can more effectively deal with these problems in a world where moral imperatives unencumbered by pesky realities do not exist. However, it is as Leopold suggests a very lonely road. There are too many that fall by the wayside, too many that do not appreciate one subtlety or another and must be dragged along, those brave few who walk among the ruins are forced to pick up the pieces, because they know no one else will.

    Leopold despite being a life-long hunter and fisherman, or perhaps because he was those things, believed strongly that humanity has a deep desire to be with nature, a kinship if you will. Throughout most of human history, nature has been a force outside of human control, an entity, a being whose plans or goals were not amenable to our wishes or desires. James Frazer, Edward Tylor,  and other early examiners of 'primitive' cultures offered that the primary motivation for the development of religion was an attempt to mediate, or negotiate with nature. I think one of the most significant obstacles in convincing people that we must be the progenitors of action when it comes to resolving environmental issues is the deeply inculcated, historically reified belief that nature is a force that is to be conceived outside the realm of humanity, lying in opposition to humanity to some degree. The supernatural acts as an intercessor between the natural and the anthropological. Now, if environmentalists are correct-this conception of our relationship to nature has to be fundamentally altered and reconsidered. Now we must conceive of nature as a force that we are capable of manipulating, and more to the point, have already manipulated in potentially disastrous ways. To realign our thoughts in this way in light of such eco-events as Hurricane Katrina, the bird-flu, El Nino, Lovebugs (this is a very annoying and car-besmirching Florida issue) is understandably difficult, nigh impossible perhaps.  It is also the case, at least in terms of global warming, that there are arguments, some good, some not so good, that this is not an accurate picture of our relationship with nature. A number of books recently published by some conservative authors, who contend that despite the verifiability of the warming of the globe, that its cause is not anthropologically traceable, and other explanations such as: climatic cycles, stellar influence, God's wrath (seriously), must be taken into account. Of course, it is hard to trust these sources as their funding comes from places that initially sought to mythologize the global warming situation from the beginning, and now in the light of overwhelming data, must now backtrack to this next line of defense against the eco-alarmists. Though, I take those sources that spell out doom and gloom when it comes to the environment with a B-I-G B-U-S-I-N-E-S-S or A-M-E-R-I-C-A with an equally hard to swallow grain of salt; it seems less and less likely that the current ecological situation can be purely chalked up to normal climatic cycles, or stellar gases- as to God's wrath I cannot speak to, but the way we have been acting lately, I wouldn't be surprised if God was a bit miffed. Again, the whole debate is shrouded in so much political and cultural posturing that is so thick, so impenetrable as to render intelligent discussion as little more than emotivist ejaculations for one side or the other, like a Celtic-Ranger football game or the debate regarding a meta-ethical theory based on a Humean non-cognitivist program (those can be bloodily brutal, and the football games can get rough too).

     To invoke a Rortian-type query, requiescat in pace: Why is conservation something that must be argued to, why can we not for the sake of solidarity and care take it on principle that the Earth should be taken care of, not in lieu of or the negligent omission of the current economic, socio-political realities that will affect any proposed solution, but that without argument we begin from the premise that there is something good ipso facto about conservation. How we get there is a decidedly different story, I imagine but if the sky is falling then foolhardiness in the face of destruction is equally as dangerous as unreflectively swallowing the hysterical claims of all Chicken Littles that come before us.

    On a decidedly separate note, enduring a world full of wounds, and by wounds I mean not only the ones we inflict on the planet, but the ones that individuals inflict on others is a phenomenon which pleads for companionship. One item I have come to realize that the benefit of walking the wounded world with someone you care about, can be its own Salvific Doloris. A precious suffering born out of our conditional existence. As we float on from distraction to distraction painfully aware of our vulgar being, it is comforting to know that born from a biological desire to copulate that the possibility for transcendence is available. Though most of us choose to ignore that deep responsibility and opt for the instant gratification; that for those who feel deeply it is possible occasionally to step fully into that which makes us human versus simply abounding in that which makes us animals.