I’m certainly not an cultural anthropologist, but I imagine the concept of ‘park’ or ‘protected area’ – an area deliberately set aside to be free of human ‘interference’ for its own safety – would have been completely foreign and nonsensical to the majority of human societies that have existed to date.
It seems the need for protected areas is the result of at least two things:
- A worldview that has a concept of ‘nature’ and sees humans as somehow distinct from it, and
- An economic system that can’t sustainably co-exist with ‘nature’
Regarding #1, I’m sure there has been much ink spilled to examine and explain how this worldview came about – I recall reading something by Alfred North Whitehead many years ago that placed the blame, and not without merit, at the feet of a certain understanding of Christian theology. In any case, as a biologist, ecologist, and (at least in some sense) a Christian, a distinction between nature and humans makes no sense to me – evolution, ecology, and (my) theology all agree that humans are, in fact, very much a part of ‘nature’/’creation’. However, this rational belief is at odds with what I’ve ingested and been bathed in for my entire life so I live with a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.
I am intrigued by worldviews that don’t see humans as separate from ‘nature’, or don’t have a concept of nature at all (can the concept of ‘nature’ exist if humans are not outside of it?).
Is #1 a pre-condition for the development of #2? (insert your potty humor here). Could an economic system that can’t sustainably co-exist with ‘nature’ – an economic system that seems likely to result in the mutually assured destruction of both nature (as we often conceive of it) and (thus) the economy – have arisen without seeing ourselves as separate from everything else? Modern economic systems view the world as a resource, a commodity – raw material for us to mine and harvest and manipulate as desired, something we are outside of and thus can (and should) manage and administer.
I am intrigued by economic systems that arise from worldviews where humans are firmly placed within ‘nature’, where there isn’t a separation between the two. Here I think of Robin Wall Kimmerer’s ecologically-inspired musings on reciprocity (see her recent book The Serviceberry – a short and insightful read that gives language to some amorphous notions that have been lurking in my head).
Wouldn’t it be great if we had worldviews and the accompanying economic systems that enabled us to live our lives within ‘nature’, rather than having to set aside ‘nature’ to protect it from ourselves? I believe there are worldviews and economic systems, both past and present, ancient and new, that can guide us in the directions we need to go.
Some paths that may prove useful include worldviews of Indigenous cultures that have lived within ecosystems for millenia (ie: they’ve lived sustainably); economic and technological ideas like biomimetics and circular economies; the language and ideals of the solar punk movement; and, for the Christians out there, exploring the array of voices that both challenge readings of the Bible that contribute to the view of humans being outside of ‘nature’, and illuminate threads of Scripture that suggest a more integrated view of humans and creation.
Where else should we be looking/going?
Leave a Reply