I have been watching a little of a nature program done a few years ago covering many species, biomes, and locations, for the most part it is very well done; I am very jealous of their camera equipment but do not envy the people who get to sit in a blind for months on end in the worst conditions hoping something might traipse by. I wish they would shut off the commentary however, at best it is inane ('not just rare animals but all animals depend on the sun for energy,' really?!) and at worst it is downright depressing. Every scene basically has the same script (and they love using mothers with newborns) which goes something like: animal X is desperate (can they find any other word?) to get to Y food source because her milk is drying up and her babies will starve but it is dangerous because of Z, what will she do? Her chances of survival are dreadful…as if the species has not survived millennia without pessimists peeping in on their most intimate affairs and predicting their ultimate doom! I remember the same oppressive feeling as an undergrad at a college that prided itself on its environmental awareness. Strangely, they seemed to be think that if they were miserable enough it would somehow 'save the planet.' It was a rather depressing atmosphere and took all the joy out of life until I remembered Whose we and all creation are.
G. K. Chesterton proposes that nature is not so much our mother (as the ancient pagans and modern environmentalists assume) but rather our sister; we are fellow creations begotten of the same Maker rather than children of unfeeling chaos and chance. This is a much healthier basis for a relationship with 'mother earth' than many modern thinkers otherwise suggest, for then we can cooperate with and enjoy nature rather than deify and regard her too highly, sometimes at the expense of our own wellbeing. It also means we are stewards or caretakers, rather than the enemies or slaves of creation. We were created to use and enjoy nature, not to either wantonly destroy it or undermine our own species in defense of it. Those that think 'nature' needs our protection have never had a garden (I am not saying we should not try to preserve species or sensitive habitats that have been unscrupulously exploited in the past, but rather that the natural world is far sturdier and resilient than we give it credit). Just spend an entire day weeding and look at your efforts on the morrow, the whole thing will be covered anew in verdant growth, not of your planting!
It saddens me to hear all the commotion over man and his 'war' against the natural world, as if we were some alien virus sent to destroy all else that lives rather than a part of the natural order of things, if the former be true, the species as a whole had better just commit suicide and do the world a favor. Or, if we are a mere collection of atoms and the whole universe will eventually be a cosmic memory, why not just live however makes us happy and who cares about anybody or anything else? But as a species we are neither completely suicidal nor so libertine as we might be, thus Chesterton's proposal makes much more sense than either an abiding hatred of all things manmade (and thus 'unnatural) or a complete 'survival of the fittest' mentality wherein we simple, 'eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.'
I much prefer Chesterton's buoyant and joyous spirit to the doom and gloom of the modern prophets of looming environmental apocalypse, and if you have ever read him, you will know that amid his silliness and wanton buffoonery, he makes a great deal of sense, which often is sadly lacking in our more 'enlightened' age. So I shall enjoy the wonder of all about me rather than mope that all is doomed to futility.
No comments:
Post a Comment