Wessie, this is kind of where I started in environmental law. You might recall, well know of, Bill McKibben & the End of Nature? Was groundbreaking at the time. I think the theoretical/rhetorical frame you are using relies on just the imaginary you say is no longer available to us. And so I don't think this is the way forward, especially for somebody who thinks about aesthetics. But it's a really long conversation, I don't want to bore you with my own bibliography, and I'll try to find time to respond with more care. Those things said, it's a really good piece on its terms (I read it Unherd, too, and meant to congratulate you on that), so bravo and keep up the good work.
You are. But McKibben, who was quite young at the time, goes on to spend his career as an environmentalist. Nature does not, in fact, end for him. The sort of "aha" on which Bill's work, and this piece, turn require to reader (and the writer) to adopt a view of nature as a virginal and non-human (or at least non-Western) space, which once touched, is corrupted. And so it is easy to show "touch" -- by microplastics, CO2, pesticides -- and then "nature" is gone. Isn't that sad? End of essay.
Note that, in the fine anthropological/Rousseau tradition, any people who happen to be out there already are assimilated to nature. "Native" or now "indigenous." We've gotten more correct but the move is the same.
(As an aside, I'm not sure any other culture has a Rousseau.)
Here is another way to put it. Suppose you said humans are animals, we are not special, and we have transformed the world. As have, most obviously, plants. Or primitive biota. Climate change is hardly new. So now the microplastics etc. are all "natural."
Completely logical, but doesn't help much. I mean, so they're completely natural, now, tautologically so, but are you going to regulate microplastics or not?
(There are other epistemological/ontological problems about the notion of the artificial, that is, the assertion of human agency gestures towards a theory of history that is not in fact thought through -- it's only used as a bogey man against which the Romantic mind can set "nature." But not for now.)
In your piece, having demolished "nature" to your satisfaction, you turn to a sort of naked utilitarianism. (Don't think Bill did that.) But you're an aesthetics guy, and so when you say "it's just aesthetics" (we need to look at the ROI?) it just doesn't fly. Of course our relationships to the context we create matter. In part, that's what architecture is, as you know very well and think about a lot.
But suppose nature is not some sort of an absolute used to oppose human activity in fallen civilizations like our own, but is seen as some sort of direction, like "north" or "dark" or "up"? That is, relational? And then the question, ultimately an aesthetic and even theological one, would be is this the "right" relation?
One probably is forcibly returned to some sort of (post) Christian notion of husbandry. Though that quickly slides into dystopian terra farming. But something like that is the state of play.
Anyway, much too fast/in haste. I'll try to send you some bibliography in due course.
Thanks David, it's very generous of you to outline this for me (and I'm in awe of your ability to dash this off so quickly).
I think your criticism is very fair, but I also think we basically agree. Generally speaking, I’m in a holding position intellectually as I try to develop my position (which certainly won’t be utilitarian!). Among other issues, I'm looking for a way to think critically about our desires and intuitions (which I do regard as largely aesthetic and religious) without suggesting they are mere illusions or narratives. Hopefully more on that in next week's post.
I admit that, with environmental issues as with many others, my outlook is essentially tragic, at least for the time being. That my understanding of nature is culturally and historically contingent does not, as you suggest, make me care about it any less. And understanding why we destroy nature does not make that destruction any less terrible. But that just leaves me with the awareness that we are destroying something I care about for understandable reasons. Until I see how to progress in this dialectic, I can only try (successfully or not) to illuminate the situation as it exists.
Can never forget how clothes are made of plastic now too. Cant escape those artifical blends. And lot of clothes end up in landfills too as clothes are cheaper as people dont want to pay more for better products. Harder to mend too.
There's also a giant thing of garbage just floating in the ocean!
I took some clothes to be repaired the other day, and the woman there put it perfectly. Good quality is harder and harder to find, bad quality is infinite.
Wessie, this is kind of where I started in environmental law. You might recall, well know of, Bill McKibben & the End of Nature? Was groundbreaking at the time. I think the theoretical/rhetorical frame you are using relies on just the imaginary you say is no longer available to us. And so I don't think this is the way forward, especially for somebody who thinks about aesthetics. But it's a really long conversation, I don't want to bore you with my own bibliography, and I'll try to find time to respond with more care. Those things said, it's a really good piece on its terms (I read it Unherd, too, and meant to congratulate you on that), so bravo and keep up the good work.
I'm intrigued! This sounds like a learning opportunity. I thought I was going with the grain of McKibben and to some extent Latour in that period.
You are. But McKibben, who was quite young at the time, goes on to spend his career as an environmentalist. Nature does not, in fact, end for him. The sort of "aha" on which Bill's work, and this piece, turn require to reader (and the writer) to adopt a view of nature as a virginal and non-human (or at least non-Western) space, which once touched, is corrupted. And so it is easy to show "touch" -- by microplastics, CO2, pesticides -- and then "nature" is gone. Isn't that sad? End of essay.
Note that, in the fine anthropological/Rousseau tradition, any people who happen to be out there already are assimilated to nature. "Native" or now "indigenous." We've gotten more correct but the move is the same.
(As an aside, I'm not sure any other culture has a Rousseau.)
Here is another way to put it. Suppose you said humans are animals, we are not special, and we have transformed the world. As have, most obviously, plants. Or primitive biota. Climate change is hardly new. So now the microplastics etc. are all "natural."
Completely logical, but doesn't help much. I mean, so they're completely natural, now, tautologically so, but are you going to regulate microplastics or not?
(There are other epistemological/ontological problems about the notion of the artificial, that is, the assertion of human agency gestures towards a theory of history that is not in fact thought through -- it's only used as a bogey man against which the Romantic mind can set "nature." But not for now.)
In your piece, having demolished "nature" to your satisfaction, you turn to a sort of naked utilitarianism. (Don't think Bill did that.) But you're an aesthetics guy, and so when you say "it's just aesthetics" (we need to look at the ROI?) it just doesn't fly. Of course our relationships to the context we create matter. In part, that's what architecture is, as you know very well and think about a lot.
But suppose nature is not some sort of an absolute used to oppose human activity in fallen civilizations like our own, but is seen as some sort of direction, like "north" or "dark" or "up"? That is, relational? And then the question, ultimately an aesthetic and even theological one, would be is this the "right" relation?
One probably is forcibly returned to some sort of (post) Christian notion of husbandry. Though that quickly slides into dystopian terra farming. But something like that is the state of play.
Anyway, much too fast/in haste. I'll try to send you some bibliography in due course.
Thanks David, it's very generous of you to outline this for me (and I'm in awe of your ability to dash this off so quickly).
I think your criticism is very fair, but I also think we basically agree. Generally speaking, I’m in a holding position intellectually as I try to develop my position (which certainly won’t be utilitarian!). Among other issues, I'm looking for a way to think critically about our desires and intuitions (which I do regard as largely aesthetic and religious) without suggesting they are mere illusions or narratives. Hopefully more on that in next week's post.
I admit that, with environmental issues as with many others, my outlook is essentially tragic, at least for the time being. That my understanding of nature is culturally and historically contingent does not, as you suggest, make me care about it any less. And understanding why we destroy nature does not make that destruction any less terrible. But that just leaves me with the awareness that we are destroying something I care about for understandable reasons. Until I see how to progress in this dialectic, I can only try (successfully or not) to illuminate the situation as it exists.
What an elegant response! We will, I hope, talk more.
Can never forget how clothes are made of plastic now too. Cant escape those artifical blends. And lot of clothes end up in landfills too as clothes are cheaper as people dont want to pay more for better products. Harder to mend too.
There's also a giant thing of garbage just floating in the ocean!
Thanks for this piece.
I took some clothes to be repaired the other day, and the woman there put it perfectly. Good quality is harder and harder to find, bad quality is infinite.