Having immersed myself in conservation-minded environmental writers as of late, an abundance of similarities between some of the more prominent conservationists of our time has inspired the following thoughts. The three books I would recommend reading are John Muir (his essay on Hetch Hetchy and My First Summer in the Sierra are referenced here), Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac and E.O. Wilson's Creation.
Muir, Leopold and Wilson, all writing about 50 years apart from each other, reached similar solutions to furthering the conservation movement. However, it must be recognized that the difference in decades has an impact on their method of raising a national environmental ethic. For instance, Muir wanted to pave roads through Hetch Hetchy, acknowledging that the more people witness the national park, the more likely they would feel a need to keep and fund it. However, all had one idea in common: we really must feel the wilderness to fully understand why it must be saved.
Muir, like Leopold and Wilson, understood that people needed to see, touch and experience to understand the need for wilderness. Sitting at a desk or never leaving city boundaries for the entirety of one's life will leave little opportunity to understand the importance of conservation.
In Muir's time, there was no idea of the value of untouched, wild lands, hence the installation of roads and hotels in our national parks. Anything that ensures safety from the savage wild- comfort in the wilderness that otherwise does not provide "easy comfort"- would actually benefit Muir's Sierra, and more specifically, Yosemite because of an increase in visitors. Obviously he did not foresee the incredible influx of outdoor recreation and the impact it would ultimately have on our national parks. However, his goal has been realized more than for which we give him credit. The amount of people retreating to the outdoor areas for reprieve from city life has increased - largely due to the industry of outdoor recreation and the comforts it sells. Regardless, city slickers come in droves and find reason to preserve natural lands for the purpose of having a place untouched.
Aldo Leopold, writing in the late 1940s, also recognized the importance of education via wilderness experience. By the '40s, an idea of conservation had been blooming, and, although not always spot-on by today's ideals, was beginning to influence the observation of the human impact on wilderness- that perhaps wilderness does not exist solely for the purpose of man.
Leopold promotes a movement of back-to-basics ethics. Go-light hunting (without gadgets and excessive bullets), low-impact farming and forestry are the topics he ponders. He holds himself to a more rigid standard- one of citizen scientist and observer. He lived on a farm but doesn't farm, thus does not change the landscape, yet he hunts, fells trees and bands birds in an effort to be in touch with his land. He holds the view that education and observation is what will save the little untouched wilderness we have left. Inspiring people with the wilderness out their doorsteps will not only further the study of the world around us- it will also encourage those citizens to realize the delicate details of the biological world: how every soil, bug, bird, tree and mammal has a purpose. Upon this enlightenment, perhaps citizens will reform their impacts.
Leopold calls for a conservation ethic. He asks sportsmen to reconsider their idea of "trophy hunting" and what prize they are getting from fishing out of a stocked pond with a fishing guide to tell them which flies to use and where to locate fish. He also pins the government agencies and their management practices, along with the farmers and ranchers who complain about government intervention for the purpose of conservation, but refuse to make changes to benefit the environment on their own. He illustrates how man historically creates his own demise by lacking foresight and exhausting resources in the quest for immediate human need. No land can go back to being untouched after man has had his way. So much of conservation ends up being retroactive which, unless we change our ways, will no longer serve a purpose because there will be nothing left to save.
Much like E.O. Wilson, Leopold mourns the loss of habitats and the havoc wreaked, consequences of man's actions. Prairies, deserts, forests, Grizzlies, big horn sheep, birds and healthy soil have been, mostly unintentionally, changed because of our thoughtlessness (and lack of education concerning impacts). A little too late we are left to step back and observe the damage with hands tied; damage the directly effects us. The smart ones will say "let us not allow this to happen again." The rest, not learning from history, move on to degrade the next available resource with no thought to an inevitable end.
A similar method is used by E.O. Wilson in his plea to religious leaders. He identifies that an ethic, common to all, is needed to save our few untouched places and save a world that we need, but that doesn't particularly need us. Wilson builds on the ideas of both Muir and Leopold in pointing out the necessity of a wilderness education for the public to better understand what a great, valuable resource we have in leaving wilderness areas untouched. He identifies the need for civilian scientists, just as Leopold, and proposes the idea of large and small-scale "bioblitzs," where people go out in designated areas or regions (one was even held in Central Park) to identify as many species as possible in a set amount of time (usually a week or a weekend). What a spectacular way to get people to observe and help catalog, while experiencing and learning about entire ecosystems in their own backyards.
While this is a great idea, it does not happen on a large enough scale to take place of a more "formal" conservation education. Schools should take part in educating the young- getting them out of the classroom to experience wilderness while learning.
However, Wilson has reached a conclusion that even this will not be enough, and proposes that it is time the spiritual leaders, with their extreme influence over large congregations, support a conservation ethic.
In general, this has not been a priority in the different churches, as most religions preach that time on earth is short, and soon this gross, terrible earth will be left for the beauty of heaven. Therefore, nothing that happens to Earth matters once dead. Wilson pleas for a change so that man does not run himself out of planetary resources by destroying one ecosystem after another with reckless abandon.
How about caring for all living things, not just the human race? How about finding the beauty in all of God's creatures - and recognizing their place in this vast planet that we share? Where in the Bible does it say we shall destroy the creation of God? How about responsible foresight in our land uses, recognizing that we are not the only generation who will be on this earth.
It's time for everyone to tap into what Muir had, even before an established 'ethic.'
The mountains can be a sanctuary.
It is possible to feel close to a higher being while far away from road and building.
There is divine beauty in interactions between soil and insect, trees and birds.
There is a place for wilderness, untouched and simply observed, in our souls.
There is room in there for awe, fear, joy, and the unknown.
If one can tap into this emotion, can experience the burst of the wilderness in one's innermost being, perhaps it will be possible to save these places as we do other temples of worship. Hold them sacred and care for them for generations to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment