Evading Society

            Chris wanted to escape.  He wanted to escape the fallacy of his childhood and the pretentious rigors and hypocrisy of society.  The expected linear life progression was essentially strangling him and depriving him of real truth.  Chris yearned for truth.  He needed to flee from society – from family – from expectations - and find candor within the wild.  Human civilization was simply too much. 

            In Into the Wild, Chris viewed human society as something that obscured, contorted, or hid the truth which is housed in nature.  In Chris’s eyes, the belief that man is superior to the natural world was stifling and false notion.  He was very much a deep ecologist and was incredibly adept at “the art of evading society.”  However, this evasion of society, from the perspective of Bookchin, is just as sinister.  Bookchin asserts that deep ecology reduces rich histories and traditions to their simplest denominator.  It ignores the social aspect of humans and reduces them to a simple, biological species.  Chris disregarded his social self in exchange for a more biological approach.  He wanted to be another member of the greater biological community, not a Harvard Law student.

Bookchin insists that deep ecology completely overlooks human social history thereby also overlooking the very roots of ecological destruction.  It fails to consider the social and ideological developments, such as social hierarchy, which Bookchin states are the roots of the ecological destruction (PP 169).  Essentially, by fleeing society, Chris not only escaped from the demands of society but also from the very roots of the problem he tried to evade.  By going into the wild, Chris ignored the truth of his problem - the truth of society’s ecological mess.  While he searched for the wild’s truth, he turned from the very problem masking it. 

Failed Courtesy

            Respect is something I highly value.  It is something I was raised with, something I hope to perpetuate, and something which I hope to receive in return.  I believe that every person has the right to dignity and respect.  Viewpoints, ideas, and individuals, evening those in contrast to my own beliefs, deserve a certain level of courtesy.  I truly do try to embody this virtue.

            I have never had to try so hard in my entire life than I did at Ann McElhinney’s lecture on the hypocrisy and fallacy of the Green Movement.  I anticipated disagreeing with the majority of her statements.  I predicted it would be a challenge – a challenge to remain calm and collected.  However, I did not expect the gross level of disrespect she directed towards environmentalists and the CSBSJU community.  I felt as though she took every opportunity to point her finger at both groups and yell, “shame!”  She insulted the Abbot, the Abbey’s mission, and the practicing Catholics on campus.  She called environmentalists “elitist” and, essentially, heartless hypocrites who willingly kill five-year-old African children.  She asked if her bottled water was hurting us.  It was almost too much to handle.  There was no respect.

            Perhaps the root of this tremendous challenge was the fact that McElhinney’s lecture was intended to be defeatist.  Her purpose was to disagree with and discredit the environmental standpoint rather than prove her own.  I went into her lecture with the intention of discovering what she wanted – not what she did not want.  What was she advocating for?  Amidst all of her disparaging comments about environmentalists and all the “stuff” we preach and own, I pulled out a few key ideas.  First, DDT needs to be used in countries plagued by malaria as a disease prevention agent.  Second, the Bible needs to be interpreted literally.  Third, the Earth possesses resources that are strictly intended to be utilized and consumed.  The rest of her lecture, I felt, was dripping in disdainful comments about bearded environmentalists, erroneous (peer reviewed) science, and sandals.

            DDT – I can agree with that.  If used wisely, sparingly, and precisely, DDT has the potential to save lives.  It simply cannot be applied in massive clouds such as it was in the United States in the 1950’s.  The Bible and theology is an individual concern and should only be determined by the individual.  It must be a free decision.  The Earth’s resources, however, are not strictly intended to be commoditized by humans.  From my perspective, that is a selfish, wasteful, and unsustainable process.  We cannot continue to use coal for the next 300 years assuming we will eventually invent a replacement.

            Honestly, I just do not know how to respond.  She dismissed any outside facts, insulted and used religion as a fighting point, and blatantly tried to provoke the environmentalists within the room.  In addition, McElhinney repeatedly used one argument to dodge questions.  I honestly tried to go in with a respectful mind.  I tried to hold myself back and not fall into the hateful polarization of society.  I tried to be courteous.  I do not think I succeeded.

One Bead to Another

“We need to be as beads of a chain.  Different people can be doing different things as long as we hang together.” 

Brilliant.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a figure within the Environmental Studies community.  She stands amongst Wendell Berry, Rachel Carson, and Maude Barlow.  She has been a constant fixture of my collegiate education.  While I have not always agreed with all of her controversial and pioneering reasoning, I admire her.  She is an adamant, confident, and knowledgeable advocate for the environmentally and socially marginalized of the world.  It was truly an honor to meet her. 

I thoroughly enjoyed her lecture and found myself nodding in agreement for the majority of it.  However, one particular statement, the quote above, struck me especially.  It fully embodied every ideal she was advancing.  The Food Movement, the Gender Movement, and the Environmental Movement are all interconnected in one global and societal web.  It is one holistic - Gaia-hypothesis – social movement.  One cannot be an advocate for one cause and not for another. 

The chain of beads also reflects upon the world population.  While we are free to act as individuals, we must always be mindful of the greater community and remember to “hang together.”  We are all individual beads strung upon the thread of life.  We come in different colors, designs, and materials; together we create one beautiful piece of art.  If one of us chooses to attack the thread (drastic pesticide use), add greater weight (increased consumption), or attack those around us (bio-piracy), we will break the thread.  The integrity of the thread relies upon the equality of each bead. 

From one bead to another: let’s hang out. 

Animal-loving Omnivore

            I love animals.  I really do.  I grew up watching Animal Planet, reading dog breed encyclopedias, and perpetually wanting another pet.  My dog, Copper, was one of my best friends during my childhood and the purple finches at our bird feeders provided endless entertainment.  Even now I find myself embracing that same passion for animals.  I support wildlife management and Endangered Species Act, I am entirely in favor of organic agriculture, and ASPCA commercials break my heart. 

            I love bacon, barbecued chicken, and steak too.  I love the smell of a roast baking in the oven and the sound of sausage sizzling in a frying pan.  Summer just is not complete without hamburgers and hotdogs from the grill and beef jerky is, by far, the best snack food during ROTC labs.  I am, by no means, a vegetarian.  I happily smash mosquitoes and I detest roosters (loud and mean).  I would save my roommate over my dog and I would give water to a dying person before a dying horse.    

            I have a bit of a problem.

            Where do I stand with animals?  I clearly do not put animals on the same level as humans, but I also do not see them as purely a resource for human use and consumption.  Although I would love to identify as a holistic vegetarian, I cannot.  I guess I would like to consider myself as an animal-loving omnivore.  I do not want to see animals needlessly suffer, but I also want to eat meat.  Sentient animals, such as cows, should not be forced to live in conventional feedlots.  Healthy, wild animals should not be captured and locked away in zoos.  Grass-fed or organic beef is the way to go and animals should only be placed in zoos if they are incapable of surviving in the wild. 

            As an animal-loving omnivore, I believe that the dolphin slaughter in Taiji needs to stop – for the sake of the dolphins and the people of Japan.  These clearly sentient animals should not be brutally slaughtered in the thousands only to supply unaware consumers with unsafe food.  Both lose.  Even if the meat was safe or if the dolphins were not sentient, I would not support the dolphin massacre.  There is nothing right about what is happening in The Cove. 

Monarch Land Ethic

            I grew up in two, seemingly endless acres of maples, snowmelt rivers, and snapping dragons.   There was not a single tree I did not attempt to climb nor a grove I did not transform into a fort.  It was my home.  Each season brought new wonders that seemed to surprise me every year.  Be it the flaming fall leaves or the hoarfrost donned winter limbs, I was amazed.  We had a grove of cedar trees on the edge of our property that came to life in late summer.  The monarch butterflies would come in the hundreds and congregate amongst the cedars.  I would walk through the grove, startle the monarchs from their respite, and skip in a vortex of black and orange. 

            Over the years, some of the cedars lost their vitality.  I remember my dad saying something about disease and spreading to the other trees; I did not quite understand it.  He had to cut a couple of them down.  At first I was worried about the monarchs.  Would they come back to a smaller grove?  He told me not to worry, but, as a little kid, naturally I did.  Sure enough though, the butterflies came back the next summer and I once again danced in black and orange.

            Although I did not understand it at the time, my father acted in the best interest of our two acres and the monarchs.  He embodied Aldo Leopold’s land ethic.  First, he eliminated and utilized individual trees in order to maintain the integrity of the entire cedar grove. Second, he used the cut cedars to fuel our wood-burning fireplace.  Third, by eliminating the diseased cedars, he preserved the habitat of the monarch butterflies.  He maintained a chain in a migration and pollination that spans the entire continent.  He acted in the best interest of the entire biotic community – including one frolicking little blonde girl.

            My life in those two acres and my interactions with my dad, in particular, instilled within me a love for nature.  My dad made a conscious effort to craft a respectful relationship with nature and to bring me along.  He brought me to bird nests to watch turquoise robin eggs hatch into incessant chirping mouths.  He helped me dig up earthworms for fishing bait.  At dusk we sat on our deck and listened to the cooing of mourning doves and the calls of killdeer.  He taught me how to live amongst nature – how to be a member of the biotic community.