4 ms·

What about a naturalist tale that doesn't indulge in either sort of fetishism, the sort of fetishism that observes an artificial distinction drawn between "natu

What about a naturalist tale that doesn't indulge in either sort of fetishism, the sort of fetishism that observes an artificial distinction drawn between "nature" and "development" and assumes uncritically that must be all there is? You've just inverted the sign, without noticing that the figures don't add up in the first place. Like all life, we modify our environment in accord with our needs, and by itself there's no more harm in that than when beavers or wasps or crows or spiders or any other animals do it. The problem isn't that we're so good at improving our environment for ourselves, but that we suck so bad at avoiding damage to the ecologies we so modify. We can improve upon the latter without forswearing the former, which is good, because we might as well try to forswear breathing.

z2h-a6n 5y ago
My point was not so much about the distinction between nature and development, although I think the distinction is far from artifictial (depending perhaps on what one means by "nature" and "development"). Rather, I was reacting to the seemingly common view that deserts are somehow worse than e.g. forests and that a naturalist would want to turn a desert green. As far as your second point, that it is possible to improve our environment in ways that are reasonably ecologically-friendly, I generally agree. What constitutes environmental improvement vs damage will vary considerably from person to person however, and some things we may collectively view as improvements are much easier to implement than to reverse, so in fragile ecosystems (e.g. much of the desert in southwest US) we should think very carefully about whether our improvements are really a good idea.