Wendell Berry and the 2012 Election
As soon as I read the word “polarized” in Wendell Berry’s essay “Preserving Wildness,” I thought of the current political climate. The election is fast approaching, and although environmental issues aren’t at the top of either candidate’s agenda, they are a consideration for voters. Although written decades ago, some of Berry’s points are still very much applicable.
“Preserving Wildness” opens with a dichotomy: those who love nature and think that natural good and human good are one and the same, and those who view nature in economic terms and value it according to what it adds to human good. Berry himself takes a middle ground, outlined clearly in the seven points which he spends the rest of the essay elaborating. For this brief space, I will focus on a few points: humans have no choice but to use nature for their good, human good is not necessarily synonymous with natural good, and the problem is not solvable by traditional “problem solving” techniques.
I would say that Berry’s dichotomy is still relevant, but perhaps needs some tweaks. It seems that the economic set views the resources as more valuable than the land itself nowadays. The argument over the oil pipeline in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge illustrates this nicely; certain people value their oil profits more than the wilderness they’d be disturbing, or even any revenue the state might get from people paying to visit the refuge. An argument proponents use that I find, honestly, amusing is that the pipe will benefit the animals because it will keep them warm. This is a textbook example of assuming things that are good for humans (warmth in the winter) are also good for animals.
Berry’s grouping of people that view natural good and human good are the same is more closely aligned with environmentalists of today. But, it seems as if sometimes the more vehement groups view natural good as more important than human good. They’re acknowledging that they are different things, which is more than could be said when Berry was writing, but overall it contributes negatively to their reputation. “Eco-terrorism” is a thing now; groups are actively sabotaging equipment and bombing companies in the name of protecting the environment. I can’t help but think such things galvanize the “anti-environment” sect by giving them an enemy and a reason to feel the way they do. More to the point, though, they forget the fact that humans need to exploit the environment in some way to provide for themselves- food, shelter, and medicine, to name a few ways.
Berry’s point about traditional problem solving techniques being insufficient couldn’t be more true today. I’m thinking of the “cap and trade” proposal, which seems to be a compromise like one would traditionally attempt to reach to solve disagreements. It allows companies to continue their pollution-causing activities if they can pay for the vouchers required. Business owners and environment-lovers both get something out of. But the proposal isn’t widely supported because businesses don’t like regulation and environmentalists don’t like pollution at all.
So, perhaps Berry’s notion of the middle ground would do some good in the modern political sphere. If proposals would try to change how we use our resources instead of arguing over whether we should use them or not. I also think that recognizing that natural good isn’t always the same as human good is vital. That way, the environment can be valued on its own merit instead of looked at as a way to enhance human lives. That, I think, contributes a lot to the destruction of land and overuse of resources- people trying to make life better.
Another Berry essay, “The Making of a Marginal Farm,” deals with Berry’s efforts to rehabilitate some marginal farmland that had been in his family for generations. He found success- not vast economic success, but the building of a life- through traditional techniques like horse-drawn plows instead of newer technologies like tractors. Berry focuses on the interplay between land and history and land and heritage. This notion of “better,” something to share with future generations, is what is missing from a lot of today’s debate. It would frame issues in entirely different ways if we looked forty years ahead instead of four. We could have enough natural gas to run the country for 100 years, but how much of the country would be left?
Berry is right; history and land are inseparable. His personal history is tied to his family’s land in real ways, and the geography of the US has shaped its history just as much. If we want future generations to have a strong sense of history, we should preserve the land that made that history.
“Preserving Wildness” opens with a dichotomy: those who love nature and think that natural good and human good are one and the same, and those who view nature in economic terms and value it according to what it adds to human good. Berry himself takes a middle ground, outlined clearly in the seven points which he spends the rest of the essay elaborating. For this brief space, I will focus on a few points: humans have no choice but to use nature for their good, human good is not necessarily synonymous with natural good, and the problem is not solvable by traditional “problem solving” techniques.
I would say that Berry’s dichotomy is still relevant, but perhaps needs some tweaks. It seems that the economic set views the resources as more valuable than the land itself nowadays. The argument over the oil pipeline in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge illustrates this nicely; certain people value their oil profits more than the wilderness they’d be disturbing, or even any revenue the state might get from people paying to visit the refuge. An argument proponents use that I find, honestly, amusing is that the pipe will benefit the animals because it will keep them warm. This is a textbook example of assuming things that are good for humans (warmth in the winter) are also good for animals.
Berry’s grouping of people that view natural good and human good are the same is more closely aligned with environmentalists of today. But, it seems as if sometimes the more vehement groups view natural good as more important than human good. They’re acknowledging that they are different things, which is more than could be said when Berry was writing, but overall it contributes negatively to their reputation. “Eco-terrorism” is a thing now; groups are actively sabotaging equipment and bombing companies in the name of protecting the environment. I can’t help but think such things galvanize the “anti-environment” sect by giving them an enemy and a reason to feel the way they do. More to the point, though, they forget the fact that humans need to exploit the environment in some way to provide for themselves- food, shelter, and medicine, to name a few ways.
Berry’s point about traditional problem solving techniques being insufficient couldn’t be more true today. I’m thinking of the “cap and trade” proposal, which seems to be a compromise like one would traditionally attempt to reach to solve disagreements. It allows companies to continue their pollution-causing activities if they can pay for the vouchers required. Business owners and environment-lovers both get something out of. But the proposal isn’t widely supported because businesses don’t like regulation and environmentalists don’t like pollution at all.
So, perhaps Berry’s notion of the middle ground would do some good in the modern political sphere. If proposals would try to change how we use our resources instead of arguing over whether we should use them or not. I also think that recognizing that natural good isn’t always the same as human good is vital. That way, the environment can be valued on its own merit instead of looked at as a way to enhance human lives. That, I think, contributes a lot to the destruction of land and overuse of resources- people trying to make life better.
Another Berry essay, “The Making of a Marginal Farm,” deals with Berry’s efforts to rehabilitate some marginal farmland that had been in his family for generations. He found success- not vast economic success, but the building of a life- through traditional techniques like horse-drawn plows instead of newer technologies like tractors. Berry focuses on the interplay between land and history and land and heritage. This notion of “better,” something to share with future generations, is what is missing from a lot of today’s debate. It would frame issues in entirely different ways if we looked forty years ahead instead of four. We could have enough natural gas to run the country for 100 years, but how much of the country would be left?
Berry is right; history and land are inseparable. His personal history is tied to his family’s land in real ways, and the geography of the US has shaped its history just as much. If we want future generations to have a strong sense of history, we should preserve the land that made that history.