|
|
Part II
Due to space, last month I didn't say everything that was on my mind about the issue of human's relationship with nature. One of the written responses I received (see the letters section on page 2) gives me the opportunity to address this topic in further depth. I obviously agree with Dan, the letter writer, that we participate in both parts of the cycle he describes. There is life/death, yin/yang, night/day, male/female; this is a planet of dualities and the trick is to learn how to navigate and integrate both successfully. What I was pointing out in last month's article is that humans have gotten out of balance in this regard. Yes, coyote eats his rabbit with delight and relish. But he doesn't lure it with bait, slaughter it, leave the carcass, and then hang the head on his den wall as a trophy. Humans do. When animals take life it is done in response to biological need, not greed. Although some may want to call it sentimental, I believe ewe are part and parcel of nature and are meant to co-create with her. That doesn't mean we don't cut down trees or utilize other natural resources just as the four-legged animals do. What it means is that we do it with respect for the trees and the earth and all other living things. We take trees in a sacred manner, honoring their willingness to work with us as homes, furniture, books, and newspapers-and we take them in a responsible manner, not haphazardly with no regard for other life forms who also need the trees. I call this co-creating with nature as opposed to using nature. Certainly few of us might be able to live up to this standard all the time, but we surely could try. The destruction of the woods near where I used to live is very different fromm the cougar's destruction of the fawn. If a cougar preys on a fawn, it is because she needs to eat and has no other option to pursue, The local grocery store isn't too keen on opening its meat counter to wild animals! The woods did not have to be destroyed. They were destroyed because people were too selfish to pay a small amount of extra money every year to educate their children. There is a big difference. Housing is a great example of humans gone awry. In the Puget Sound area in July there were 16,024 homes and condos on the market. There were only 2,828 closed sales. Yet developers are out there clearing land and cutting down trees in order to build more new homes. Is that necessary destructtion? Do we need to take away more natural areas and harvest trees to build houses when the market is so slow? What kind of sense does that make? Then there are the situations like the ones at a development called Landfall in North Carolina. According to a Newsweek(italic) article in the September 18 issue, the ads for this gated community didn't show houses or a golf course, just a picture of three young deer. Now that the der are nibbling on the residents' shrubs and gardens, they are allowing hunters on the land to kill them, not because we need the meat but because they are eating the ornamental plants we put where their natural vegetarian used to grow. Sure makes me proud to be a member of our species. I'm not against development per se. If humans are going to live on this planet we need homes to live in. There are ways to plan and develop in order to minimize the negative impact on wildlife and the land. As a species we also might want to give some consideration to the issue of overpopulation. fewer people means less need to develop. We could express our higher evolutionary abilities. Just because we can reproduce ourselves doesn't mean we should. We humans can participate in the natural cycles of nature and still behave responsibly. Just because we can be destructive predatorsx doesn't mean that role is always the highest and best of which we are capable. Maybe that is the point where we are supposed to branch off in our evolution: whereas coyote simply acts on his urge to kill without thinking about the ultimate consequences of his action ( other than a full tummy ), we humans have been gifted with the ability- and responsivility- for doing exactly that. Simply because we can kill doesn't always mean we should kill. Just because we are capable of ridding the earth of all her natural resources like oil and gas doesn't mean that is the highest read we can take. What about exploring solar energy? The only reason why this planet is not running on solar energy is because no mega corporation has figured out how to charge everyone for it and make a lot of money. In the meantime, we'll follow our baser instincts and prey on the natural resources until things become critical. Then we'll be forced to look for other solutions. Wouldn't it be nobler-not to mention more intelligent- for us to seek ecologically sound energy alternatives before there's a crisis? Life on this planet is a dance and we have many partners. One of them is nature herself. Humanity's problem seems to be that we want to lead all the time and don't mind stepping on our partner's toes. If we pay attention we'll notice that she's getting pretty black and blue due to our infeptness and lack of willingness to follow once in a while. Maybe it's time for us to smarten-up and quit tromping on our dance companion berfore she decidees to leave the dance or kick us in the shins. Editorial took a sentimental view of Nature... Dear Editor, But let me suggests that this view of nature overlooks and ignores the basic fact that nature is full of predators. The coyote whose play you enjoy will joyfully slaughter and devour the fawn you love. So will the cougar. The eagle, hawk, and owl can only live by tearing apart terrified mice and smaller birds. Since you write, "Nature is an entity of which we are a part," your need to recognize that humans are also predators, and that our destruction of your beloved woods is in principle no different than the cougar's destruction of the fawn. We also must destroy in order to live. Your house, your furniture, the very paper upon which you base your livelihood, all come from the destruction of trees- but your awareness f these facts seems to have been repressed. Nature involves a cycle of both creation and destruction, both life and death. I imagine that as a woman ( and perhaps a mother) it seems natural to you to side with the creative half of this cycle, and be opposed to the destructive half. Perhaps you can visualize a world in which the human part of nature becomes somehow so isolated and self-sufficient that it no longer needs to utilize and destroy any of the resources that nature provides. If you can point the way to such a utopian future, some may follow. But it seems to me that the first step on that journey must be full awareness and acknowledgment of the fact that, for the present, humans cannot live without participating in both halves of nature's cycle. Most Sincerely, Dan Christiansen, Seattle, WA |
Quite
a few people called me about last month's editorial, saying how
much it touched them and thanking me for writing it. I am very
grateful to each of them for their kind words of appreciation.
It means a lot to me.