Week 2

So far in this class, if I am being perfectly honest, I have yet to be strongly convicted of my treatment of earth or to unveil in myself a newly discovered appreciation for the world in which I live through writings such as Wendell Berry's extensive, poetic admiration of the natural world in Andy Catlett: Early Travels.  Am I just too closed-minded in my approach to the texts?  Maybe.  Perhaps, rather, my previous biases of how mankind ought to preserve the earth (as outlined in my previous post) are being reinforced by the authors who argue that man's current treatment of the earth is not inherently destructive.

I should rephrase that.  Yes, humans have most decidedly caused destruction to the world.  One look into the muggy Kankakee River can prove that.  However, one can consider a fair amount of the damage mankind has caused earth almost "necessary evil."

I understand that I am walking on thin ice here.  Hang with me.

First off, I understand that surely there are instances where humans have inflicted meaningless, mindless harm on the world in which we live.  Again, one look into the muggy Kankakee River can prove that.  Steven Bouma-Prediger, in his For the Beauty of the Earth, offers a number of observable problems with the world that humans have caused, such as acid rain, loss of biodiversity, and deforestation, to name a few.  However, if one examines the widely debated phenomenon of air pollution, for example, one will find that there are many benefits to counter the drawbacks, and, frankly, people who argue for the treatment and prevention of air pollution often mind only the drawbacks and overlook the benefits.  For instance, Wendell Berry, in his Andy Catlett: Early Travels, reminisces about the days of horses and mules before the abundance of machines, speaking affectionately of those times and wishing the world had not changed so abruptly.  Obviously, machines, such as cars, tractors, and combines have released a dangerous amount of unwanted gases into the atmosphere, but do the costs really outweigh the benefits?  In what kind of a society would we live if we still relied on horsepower to perform daily tasks?  Surely, it is possible that the consequences of the overuse of machines has ultimately been worth it.  The air pollution has been a "necessary evil" to allow mankind to make advances in agriculture, travel, and countless other areas of life.

Let me offer a couple disclaimers before I proceed.  Firstly, I am not implying that I support the continuation of pollution simply for the sake of various human endeavors.  We do not need to release an abundance of dangerous gases into the atmosphere, especially if there is a safer alternative.  As explained in my previous post, I do believe that there are problems with the current condition of the earth, and those problems need to be addressed.  Secondly, I am not advocating that mankind does not need to change some of its ways.  We have caused problems, but if there is one thing man knows how to do, it is how to solve problems.  After all, we find ourselves in this current ecological predicament because we solved problems.  The Industrial Revolution, the major turning point for a large amount of pollution in the world, was a solution to a number of problems in the industrial world.  Now that we have discovered a number of problems that our solution has created, we are earnestly searching for more solutions.  Likely, those solutions will cause other problems, and the cycle will continue.  That is how advancement takes place.  The moment humans stop having problems to fix, they cease to advance and, in essence, cease to be human.

All I mean to say is that a great deal of pain humans have inflicted on their home planet has not been in bad taste and should not be automatically ruled as unjust, heartless crime.  Ayn Rand, in The Anti-Industrial Revolution, almost mocks those who overly advocate for the preservation of the earth because of their fixation on the inanimate and disregard of human life.  Of course, Rand's article was more a response to the hippies, who were really just looking for policies to protest, generally speaking.  His argument may have been a bit different had he been exposed to the data available to us today regarding the condition of the earth.  Regardless, there is some logic to his position.  Those who obsess over the preservation of the earth have the tendency to pay no mind to the condition of the human race; however, likewise, those who concern themselves with the advancement of the human race often disregard the condition of the earth.  Ergo, maybe there must always be a "necessary evil."  In extreme terms, maybe we can only preserve the earth while destroying mankind, and maybe we can only preserve mankind while destroying the earth.

Perhaps, then, ecological debates should not center around minimizing destruction but rather on maximizing construction.  Then, it is a matter of priorities.  Which is more important: taking care of the earth or taking care of the human race?  That, however, is another discussion for another day.