Rebuilding ecologies
I've really enjoyed Jason's last few posts over at Anthropik about the Alleghany Forest and wolves and coyotes, and have begun to understand that this is what's going to happen. Ecology is dynamic- there is no perfect arrangement. It's built from the ground up by different species tentatively (or not-so-tentatively) making headway into new areas, and negotiating terms with the other inhabitants there. Maybe there is no such thing as a perfect ecosystem, or a single climax community. It seems that a new species will enter a (re-)building ecosystem and have an early stake in it. If one player doesn't show up, the game doesn't go on as it would have otherwise. They are integral, but not perhaps not necessary. The ecosystem, in their absence, would develop in another way.
That's not to deny the importance of basic role-players (producers, consumer, decomposers), but only to suggest that the details are up for grab.
That's why humans can and were and will be again (if we make it) integral parts of ecosystems. In such a community, humans are essential and play a role that the rest depend on. They're not outsiders or foreigners, but co-designers. And that's why the destruction of indigenous is such a tragedy from the broader ecological sense, not just the personal human one (which it is, and mustn't be forgotten). The civilized don't have a place, don't understand that an ecosystem could be better, indeed, could be with humans here. Everywhere the civilized go, the ecosystems would be better off had we not been there, and we're not all dumb; we know this. That supports the absurd notion of original sin and humanity's inherent evilness. We see the destruction we bring, even if on some levels we celebrate it. We invade and have no place in the new communities, and instead of trying to find a place where we could integrate, we destroy. But we can find a place to integrate, and we will again. We're going to have to, and soon. And I'm excited for it.
That's not to deny the importance of basic role-players (producers, consumer, decomposers), but only to suggest that the details are up for grab.
That's why humans can and were and will be again (if we make it) integral parts of ecosystems. In such a community, humans are essential and play a role that the rest depend on. They're not outsiders or foreigners, but co-designers. And that's why the destruction of indigenous is such a tragedy from the broader ecological sense, not just the personal human one (which it is, and mustn't be forgotten). The civilized don't have a place, don't understand that an ecosystem could be better, indeed, could be with humans here. Everywhere the civilized go, the ecosystems would be better off had we not been there, and we're not all dumb; we know this. That supports the absurd notion of original sin and humanity's inherent evilness. We see the destruction we bring, even if on some levels we celebrate it. We invade and have no place in the new communities, and instead of trying to find a place where we could integrate, we destroy. But we can find a place to integrate, and we will again. We're going to have to, and soon. And I'm excited for it.
posted by Archangel at 10:48 AM
7 Comments:
EXACTLY. You put this perfectly. Thank you!
I do so wish that this integration would come from an epiphany rather than a tragedy. There is a remnant who see this. The majority are simply slogging through as best they can, trying to juggle the overwhelming press of obligation and civilization. Alas, I fear you are correct. Like Tyler Durden says, "It's only after we lost everything that we are free to do anything."
Hi -- moderate my comments visible?
Thanks,
Devin
Jason,
Thanks for visiting! And thank you for your continuing great posts!
Frank,
I worry that, too, and I think I hold out some hope somewhere in me that the shift won't be all bad, and that it'll be painless, even to those who die. But I suspect that it won't be like that. I hope I'll make it through to see the other side, though.
Devin,
Sorry! All up now.
That's why humans can and were and will be and ARE integral parts of ecosystems.
Even civilized humans. I'm not playing the "We are not humanity" Daniel Quinn card here, either.
Ecosystems are the whole, entire thing. There isn't a dichotomy between "civilization" and "ecosystems", because ecosystems include civilization.
The "could be better with humans" makes no sense. How is one ecosystem better than another? What are you valuing here? Because it seems like I don't share this value.
Alan Watts said it well, I think: " You didn't come into this world. You came out of it, like a wave from the ocean. You are not a stranger here."
and
"We are at war between consciousness and nature, between the desire for permanence and the fact of flux. It is ourself against ourselves."
We gotta stop fighting ourselves!
- Devin
p.s. glad we got this comment stuff figured out.
Hey Devin,
Of course we're part of ecosystems, but maybe we're using different understandings of integral. As I see it, right now, we civilized humans play an overwhelmingly negative role in the ecosystems we're a part of. We continually take without giving back. When I say we can play an integral role in our ecosystems, I mean that we can once again reach a point where our give and our take has reached parity.
And an ecosystem being 'better with humans' is only in regard to the fact that the ecosystems civilized humans inhabit are predominantly the worse for civilization's impact. Fewer salmon each year, more acreage of dead zone off the Gulf coast, fewer old-growth forests, and so on. I mean, we can split hairs over what constitutes better, but I'm willing to accept that those things are bad and undesirable, and their absence would be better.
In a broader sense, though, I agree with you and Alan Watts. We've never left this world, and we are part of it. We just have to find our place.
As I see it, right now, we civilized humans play an overwhelmingly negative role in the ecosystems we're a part of. We continually take without giving back. When I say we can play an integral role in our ecosystems, I mean that we can once again reach a point where our give and our take has reached parity.
Aha! So "negative" in that particular context really means "takes without giving back." And you value what you're calling parity in giving and taking.
So -- what constitutes a gift, and what constitutes a take? What would parity look like? And what do you think "our place" is?
I'm curious to hear your thoughts and feelings on this, if/when you feel like sharing. These are all subjects worthy of an in-depth exploration, no doubt. Perhaps in new blog posts, so everyone can join the fun! (I'm afraid comments discussions like this aren't very visible on old posts -- it's nice to have discussion on posts while they're still fresh! :)
- Devin
Post a Comment
<< Home