The dream

Some luxuriate in a technological dream – where technology pampers them and provides every comfort and solves every problem.  But immediate satisfaction and the elimination of the rough edges of life eventually stale.  Their only challenge is to create more and more frivolous problems so that they can devise frivolous technologies to solve them.

They are on a path towards technological perfection in their own lives, plugged and wired to the technological superstructure, on which, for all their brilliance and freedom, they are dependent like a man on a respirator.

There is a different route which other people have seen: to rediscover the physicality of life by engagement with nature.  To stroke the roughness of bark, pat the wet of grass, to go dizzy on the pleasant scent of rotting.  To feel your body stretched by the distance between two boughs, to be rocked and sprayed in a canoe.  But it’s not just about touching the frayed edges of the universe: it is to witness love and death in the natural world, to know I am part of the natural world, and every step I take touches, shapes, crushes, shifts, rebalances something in that world.

The technologists deny their dependence on nature and create a dependence of their own creation, but no less a dependence.  We embrace our dependence on nature, recognise our limitations, temper our ambition and seek fair sharing with other living forms.

I pull headphones over my ears so I can’t hear suffering; I merge my mind with a screen; I live in a cocoon, a compartment.  I pull down the blind so as not to see animals in agony, clawing at the window.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Beauty in the wrong place is ugliness: conversation with a (nice) psychogardener

Walking back from the shops this afternoon, down Németvölgyi út in Budapest, I saw a lady pulling up all the grasses, wild carrot, plantain, wood sorrel and other “weeds” lining the edge of the pavement.

Since I like lots of wild flowers breaking through pavements and walls, while she clearly preferred the bare, stern stone surface, I thought that we had different views of what is beautiful.  So I stopped by her and greeted her.  She put down her hoe and stood up.  “Isn’t it is pity to kill these plants?  Don’t you think they are beautiful?” I ask.

I picked the exquisite head of a seeding grass and showed it to her.

“Oh yes,” she said.  “Beautiful.  Nature is wonderful.  I love these.”

So I am thinking: How can you love them and also be tearing them up in handfuls?

“But not here,” she explained.  “I love them in the woods and in the fields and mountains.  But this a town.  This is not their place.  They don’t belong here.”

It seems that she has a concept of what is right and proper for a town.  A set of rules which determine a well-formed town. One of those rules is that the line between the pavement and the front wall of people’s houses should be straight and not interrupted by plants growing.  There should be an appearance of “orderliness”.  Unfortunately “weeds” suggest neglect and disorder.

By referring to the “impression” of neglect, she implies that what is important is not whether or not the road side is actually neglected, but what people think of the road side.  That is, if you deliberately let the plants grow, it would not be neglected, but it would give an impression of neglect.

There are two ways around this.  First, she could be persuaded not to care about what others think.  Second, she could actually inform passers-by that, despite appearances, the roadside is not neglected: the plants are deliberately allowed to flourish.

However, neglect is just one aspect.  Disorder is the other.  Either she or those whose judgment she values consider random green forms as being disorderly and this is important to them.  It is odd that disorder in itself should be a problem.  After all, the clouds above her are disorderly; so is the pattern of passing cars; the wind is disorderly; the barking of dogs is… she is surrounded by disorder.

However, what distinguishes that environmental disorder from the specific disorder of the roadside is that she can control the latter and can be expected to control it.

I wonder if she dislikes the disorder per se.  Perhaps if I had dug deeper, I might have discovered that she didn’t really mind it.  After all, she likes it in the woods, so why not here?  I have a hunch that this is more about her impression of what others think of her.

I wonder if this is partly about “rule following” – she has set for herself a rule about how the road should look and is now obediently following it.  Perhaps it is also about status and connected with her self-confidence.

When the weeds have returned, perhaps I will see her again and can pursue this topic further.

This is all important because tidiness is an enemy of nature and if we want to encourage nature we must learn to treasure disorder.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bomb the Chinese to save the elephant

Every day on Twitter I see gruesome facts and photographs about the murder of elephants.  A headline in Huffington Post refers to an unread article that elephants, highly intelligent and sensitive and emotional animals, will be extinct by 2020.  The murder of elephants fills me with grief and anger.  It makes me think: “Bomb the f***ing Chinese, because it’s their fault.”

I think: “What is it about the Chinese that means that they don’t care a damn about the imminent extinction – an irreversible destruction by greed and ignorance – of something incredible and beautiful and noble and peaceful as an elephant – undeserving of its willful annihilation?”

These initial, intuitive, “system 1” thoughts are racist, unworthy and unconstructive.  They are quickly overtaken by “system 2” reflections that it is not all Chinese (if it was, Africa would be 100% desert already), and there must be a some reason why they and other Asians want to buy elephant tusks, rhino horn and the skin, horn, fur, penises and other body parts of all manner of species on the brink of extinction.

There is a strange thing.  When you see news about elephants and rhinos it is 90% about the African guys at the tough end of the supply chain, poachers, the wicked things they do, the declining numbers of animals, the noble rangers and their difficult job.

This focus is understandable: to the extent that there are so few rhinos left, it is imperative to focus on protecting them.  But we have to address this problem at both ends.  While pioneering work is done by Wild Aid (http://www.wildaid.org/), for example, it attracts far less attention than the war on poaching.  We have to stem demand as much as we have to stem supply.  Just as in the case of the drugs war which has left 40,000 Mexicans dead, you have to tackle tough problems at both ends.  Helicopters and assault rifles are high on testosterone but very low on effectiveness.

This is indeed why we have to bomb the Chinese.  We have to carpet bomb them with education and enlightenment.  We have to bombard them with propaganda (in a positive sense) about the inconceivable grief and evil caused by their demand for these products.  We have to create an explosion of urgency to find safe alternatives that meet their needs.  We need to nuke them with care for the natural world.

As long as the fight against poaching focuses on the poacher, we are wasting our time.  Even interrupting supply chains and burning piles of seized ivory is a waste of time.  We have to hit the problem at its heart: the association of these products with status and virility, the morass of myth and ignorance among consumers of phony medicines.

If a few rich guys could put together a massive program of marketing, education and propaganda in Asia – say a billion dollars worth – it might just be enough to save the elephant.  Shooting the poachers won’t.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Old ladies and German football

Old ladies and German football can teach the World Bank a bit about economics.

From time to time we hear from the World Bank and other economists that the way to protect nature is to put a price on it.

Old ladies and German football show us that good owners, not markets, are the key to looking after things.

If you want to buy a used car, you look out for “one user, female, 3,000 miles.”  You might imagine a retired, female school-teacher, who has driven carefully and religiously taken the vehicle for servicing.  The car has thrived under careful owernship.  You don’t want the previous owner to have been a young tear-away who practised hand-brake turns off-road.

Similarly, German football, with supporters owning at least 50% of the clubs, is in good hands, and the results are evident.  The glitzy, quick-rich billionaires who dominate the ownership of English football clubs are put to shame.  As much as they might think they are building for the long-term, the lure of the refinancing and the dividend inevitably corrupts and compromises their good intentions.

In the same way, if someone does have to own forests, rivers, mountains and seas then it should be caring owners.  A price-mechanism is blind to the character of the owner and therefore an insufficient or irrelevant mechanism for the purpose of ensuring the natural phenomena are cared for.

If you want your woods to be the sylvan equivalent of the English football team, privatise by all means.  But nature deserves more.

Posted in Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Break

The Bustard is taking a break.

Posted in Climate change policy | Leave a comment