“The ‘control of nature’
is a phrase conceived
in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age
of biology.”
Ecologists today must
ask a difficult question: Are we succeeding?
Is the human enterprise changing quickly
enough? We can go to Worldometers and glimpse
forests ticking away, deserts growing, and
temperature rising. We know a great deal
of numbers. But we also feel the impact
in our gut as we witness another great tree
fall or another species blink out of existence.
Rachel Carson wrote
Silent Spring, launching the modern environmental
movement, almost 50 years ago. Today, the
world has many more ecologists, environmental
groups, lobbyists, green trade shows and
‘earth-friendly’’ products. We have more
Environment Ministers, laws and university
courses. However, are we more sustainable
in 2010 than we were in 1962? No, we are
less sustainable. After 20 years of the
Kyoto climate protocol process – science,
politics, meetings and agreements – do we
have less global warming? No, we have more
global warming. Why? What else must we do?
Ecologist David Abram
helps examine these questions in one of
the most compelling and important ecology
books in decades: Becoming Animal: An Earthly
Cosmology (Pantheon Books, 2010). Through
encounters with wild creatures and terrains,
Abram reminds us that we do not stand outside
nature as independent observers, but rather
fully within, embedded in a dynamic, living
world. We exist only in relationship to
this world. Our species, however technologically
complex, co-evolved with every living thing
around us. These may appear as philosophical
ideas, but they are not trivial ones. These
ideas prove critical to the actions we take
and the success we achieve.
“Our tools are better
than we are, and grow faster than we do.
They suffice to crack the atom, to command
the tides. But they do not suffice for the
oldest task in human history: To live on
a piece of land without spoiling it.”
Aldo Leopold
Fourteen years ago Abram,
Director of the Alliance for Wild Ethics,
published his only other book, Spell of
the Sensuous, which became an ecological
classic. Abram demonstrated that our sensory
perception of the world is not a one-way,
objective observation but is rather an active
participation with nature. “Ecologically
considered,” he wrote, “it is not primarily
our verbal statements that are ‘true’ or
‘false’ but rather the kind of relations
that we sustain with the rest of nature.”
In Becoming Animal,
Abram takes us deeper into our ‘embeddedness’
with the wild, evolving world. He suggests
we will not develop those ‘true’ relationships
with nature through political strategy,
policy initiatives, or technological breakthroughs
until we first ’apprentice’ ourselves to
nature. He encourages us to spend less time
in front of our computer screens talking
about nature and more time being in a dialogue
with nature.
An award-winning photo
- in the Global Vision category of POYi
(Picture of the Year International) 65 Award
2008 - here Adelie penguins head for water
in Antarctica. Image: Daniel BeltráAbram
examines our ideas through our actions and,
specifically, our encounters with the landscape
and the creatures with whom we share those
landscapes. His insights spring from a naturalist’s
experience in the wild, through encounters
with moose, spiders, forests, shamans and
even the contours of his own home.
One of my favourite
stories in this book recounts the author’s
experience with Steller sea lions and a
humpback whale while kayaking in Alaska.
Abram gets himself into a bit of trouble
by disturbing the sea lions, who leave their
rock and charge at him through the water.
I won’t spoil the story for you, since the
telling is the jewel, but in short the lone
kayaker must find a way to communicate with
these creatures who feel threatened by him.
He tries singing, which helps, but finally
discovers that a lively dance with his arms
helps calm the conflict. However, when he
stops his dance, the sea lions turn aggressive.
He’s stuck.
We experience several
important insights in this story. First
of all, we cannot observe nature without
disturbing it. We need to understand this
deeply. All of our technical ‘solutions’
to ecological challenges include further
disturbances to the natural world. Most
human ‘problems’ are artefacts of previous
‘solutions’. Bulldozers mow down forests
to grow soybeans and make biofuels. We contemplate
seeding the atmosphere with sulphates to
shade us from the sun’s heat. Every action
we take, even well-intentioned, disturbs
the world around us.
Secondly, that world
occasionally resists, fights back or seeks
its own balance. We’re not in control of
nature, as Rachel Carson reminded us. Nature
has its own rules and rhythms. There is
no ‘End of Nature’ no matter what we do.
Nature is far more resilient in its diversity
and native intelligence than humanity and
our technologies.
Finally, this is a story
about language and communication. Humans
often presume that we are the only animal
with ‘language’, but Abram points out that
language is simply the power to convey information.
Birds call a companion, beg for food, announce
territory, threaten aggression and sound
alarms, all with nuances of their voice.
Living in the woods, I always knew when
owls were present by the alarm calls of
towhees and thrushes. Ravens, whales and
wolves have language and use it. But Abram
takes this further. “Everything speaks,”
he observes.
He recalls that indigenous
cultures throughout history have embodied
a “sense of inhabiting an articulate landscape
... a community of expressive presences
that are also attentive, and listening,
to the meanings that move between them.”
Our modern technical language and phonetic
writing risk losing "the rhythmic,
melodic layer of speech by which earthly
things overhear us."
“To the illumined mind
the whole world burns and sparkles with
light.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Why is this important?
Because we are not going to engineer ourselves
out of ecological imbalance until we understand
that we are natural beings ourselves, heir
to all the limits, laws and patterns of
the living world in which we took form.
Once we remind ourselves
that we are in a constant interchange with
the beings and processes of our world, our
actions take on a new quality. Abram invites
us to feel this reciprocity with nature
by paying attention to our senses more than
our intellects, by spending time within
the miracle of nature and paying attention.
Science provides information
about the world but also leads us into a
“retreat from directly experienced reality
... our carnal entanglement” with the living
world. Other beings in the world are not
just ‘objects’ for our observation, but
also subjects in their own right, conscious
observers with senses very similar to ours.
An orangutan swings
on a tree in an orangutan reserve in Riau,
Indonesia. Image: Will Rose / GreenpeaceCultures
who live in reciprocity with nature understand
intelligence is a quality of the whole living
world. Even our science tells us that nothing
exists independently in nature. There are
no ‘things’ alone unto themselves in nature,
only relationships. Every breath we take
could remind us of this fact.
We err to presume that
‘intelligence’ is the sole possession of
humans. Thought, Abrams reminds us, was
“not born in a human skull” but is a phenomenon
of the body, the sensing organism. “What
if mind is not ours,” writes Abrams, “but
is Earth’s?” If we fail to witness the mind
and intelligence of nature, we risk creating
bigger problems by trying to ‘fix’ nature
with our technologies.
This book sets out to
remind us that we exist inside a living
matrix of intelligence. This is not purely
philosophical. Many indigenous people know
this instinctively. The small farmer and
attentive gardener know this. Ecologists
should know. Sentience is an ongoing encounter
between our body and the larger body of
the world. Our purely human dreams and technologies
can only impose their patterns within the
constraints of the living biosphere.
As I read Becoming Animal,
I felt a great sense of relief that someone
with experience and intelligence was able
to articulate this message with such graceful
storytelling. Fourteen years after Spell
of the Sensuous, David Abram has given us
another classic that will help us ponder
our future and choose our actions wisely.
+ More
IT Companies Should
Google “Prop 23”
Blogpost by Jodie Van
Horn - October 27, 2010 at 2:10 AM 3 comments
In California, we are one week away from
a vote that threatens to stunt innovation,
kill thousands of jobs, reject billions
of investment dollars, and paralyze the
eighth largest economy in the world in its
attempt to shift to clean energy.
Yet, Silicon Valley
companies haven’t really picked up the fight.
When California’s global
warming law (AB32) was signed in 2006, it
sparked a clean tech boom across the state
as investors and innovators geared up for
a clean energy transformation. California's
nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst's
Office estimates that the state now stands
to lose $10 billion in private investments
in clean energy businesses and 500,000 jobs
if Proposition 23, a ballot initiative intended
to cripple AB32, passes on November 2.
The proposition, which
bears the deceiving title of California
Jobs Initiative, would suspend AB32 until
the state’s unemployment rate falls below
5.5 percent for a full year. California’s
current unemployment is at 12.3 percent,
and the likelihood of it descending to 5.5
percent in a timeframe necessary to address
global warming effectively makes Prop 23
a repeal of California’s climate plan, not
a suspension.
Time to Mess With Texas
Follow the money behind
Prop 23 and you’ll discover that Valero
and Tesoro, both Texas oil companies, are
intent on highjacking the IT sector’s clean
tech business potential by obstructing California’s
ability to regulate its emissions and grow
a much needed new market, essential to the
state’s long-term economic development.
So, why aren’t the largest
Silicon Valley brands, with the seeds of
a fertile new market for technological innovation
already beginning to germinate, fighting
as hard to save AB32 as their well-funded
opponents are fighting to overturn it?
What we should be seeing
is a showdown between the IT companies,
which have a profitable opportunity to become
the guardians of a clean energy economy,
and the oil companies, which hope to stall
an energy transformation for as long as
possible.
The IT companies seem
more like sideline cheerleaders than players,
which is particularly wimpy given that IT
companies have the home-field advantage.
The proposition has been most aggressively
challenged by venture capitalists and other
technorati defending their clean tech investments,
but few IT companies are running their own
offense.
Credit is due to Google
and Cisco, which have stepped off the sidelines
to argue against the law’s suspension. Google
publicly stated the importance of AB32 for
job growth and California’s clean tech market
at an event held on the company’s campus
in August. Cisco published two opinion blogs
last week, one of which sends a clear message
that the company “urges Californians to
vote No on Prop 23.”
Google and Cisco need
some company out on the field. Newsweek
just awarded eight of its top ten U.S. Green
Rankings to Information and Communication
Technology companies. But where are Dell,
HP, Intel, Yahoo! and the other “green”
leaders in this critical environmental battle?
Why aren’t they speaking out to protect
their interests and the future of California’s
clean tech industry?
The Silicon Valley Leadership
Group also put out a statement naming member
companies Google, Cisco, Apple, HP, Intel,
and eBay as supporters of AB32 back in February.
It would be more effective for them speak
out under their own brands, make use of
the bully pulpit, and capitalize on the
public persona of their CEOs rather than
band together under the less recognizable
banner of a trade association.
The World Is Run by
Those Who Show Up
While California is
the battleground for the current debate
over climate and energy policy, the ramifications
of Prop 23‘s passing will be globally felt.
California has the most clean tech business
in the U.S. and leads the country in renewable
energy deployment. If climate policy fails
in the trailblazing state of California,
it’s a bad omen for other states or the
likelihood of federal action.
In the absence of clear
policy signals to investors, they will pick
up and move elsewhere. That’s bad for California.
But losing California’s innovative engine
and climate solutions to date is bad for
the world at large if we hope to address
climate change in the waning timeframe scientists
say remains.
Fortunately, recent
polling shows a decline in the proposition’s
popularity, but in reality this vote shouldn’t
even be close. To kill Prop 23 and any suggestion
that AB32 be suspended, IT companies need
to project the ‘No on 23’ message loudly
and clearly to the ultimate decision-makers:
California voters.
No on Proposition 23: http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/
