What is nature to us?

coast.gifThe current green craze is flawed because it perpetuates a false relationship between us and the Earth. In most cases, it still depicts the planet as a collection of resources to be conserved and cherished. Granted, that’s much better than treating it as a collection of resources to be squandered and abused, but it still suggests a slightly disturbing view of the relationship between humanity and the Earth.

It’s disturbing because it sets us apart from nature. To think of ourselves standing apart from the web of life as observers rather than participants is to misunderstand the order inherent in the design of the universe. As the poet Robinson Jeffers put it:

The greatest beauty is organic wholeness,
the wholeness of life and things,
the divine beauty of the universe.
Love that, not man apart from that . . .

Behind the rush of the current green movement is the question:

What is nature to us?

We are of it, not apart, and yet we are its conscience, aware of it and our place in it in a way that no other creature can be. What we are to nature is stewards.

Through the green movement we are undoubtedly moving toward stewardship, learning the wholeness of life and things, and learning to think long term. As a result, almost all of us now recognize that our actions today will affect the world tomorrow, just as we recognize that yesterday’s environmental transgressions are taking their toll today.

But do we really see ourselves as integral to nature’s wholeness, or outside it? Will we use biotechnology and nanotechnology to try to control nature as a collection of resources or will we use them in the service of stewardship? How do we even define the difference?

I’m not against the green movement, just vigilant as to its outcome. Will it dissipate, giving way to the next big thing? Or will it cause a lasting, fundamental change in our relationship with our planet? It’s up to us.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.