Let me start with a question: Can you support a healthy, sustainable environment in a capitalist system devoted to all-out consumption? With some qualifications, most would say, Yes, we can. Most of our answers would be in the affirmative because we could not find an alternative way of life, like giving up consumer capitalism, once we said, No.

During our walk at Greenfield Community Collegetoday, we saw a rabbit that was in no hurry to scamper away, obviously unafraid of the two-legged creatures nearby. This small encounter with the rabbit reminded me of the articles I read recently in the Recorder on the large subject of nature or nature-related habits of mind in connection with environmentalism. Further thinking about the subject brought me to the idea that whether we love and support nature or remain indifferent to it, the consequences are the same. The fate of the rabbit, and that of other creatures in nature, is wholly unrelated to whether we personally love nature or are indifferent to it.

Here is the subsequent gist of my sociology of nature: All things about nature are governed by the rules of society and its policies of how the society wishes to govern nature. Its the city, the county, and the state, and ultimately the nation and the whole humanity that determine whether the rabbit, and other such creatures, survive well, not whether or not we love the rabbit. Indeed, it is the nitty-gritty aspects of governing politics the budget, the manpower, the rulesand our human habits that determine the fate of nature and all the creatures living in it. Environmentalism is about our survival, not natures. If we do well with society, nature does well too, but not necessarily the other way around. One of the writers on environmentalism quoted a U.N. report that emphasizes human behavior in environmental protection: We must redefine our way of life and consumption.

We tend to think that nature, in reality a sub-category of society, is something separate from our social existence. We claim to love nature even when we have a very negligent society that systematically destroys all that is in nature by overdevelopment, pollution, exploitation and neglect. In order to save nature, or its environmental impact, we must first save our society, for society is everything that nature is. Not a single animal, like the rabbit we saw today, not a single petal in the wild flowers, not a single blade of grass, can simply belong to nature without what our society does to control it and manage it. It is wonderful to observe that many people profess to love nature and the environment, as my wife genuinely does. But if one loves nature, one must love the society first and pay attention to whats going on with the society and what people are doing in society to destroy ones beloved nature or to preserve it.

While indifferent to nature, I am keenly aware how humanity is slowly destroying nature by rapidly destroying society. In general, a society that is decent, just and wholesome as a human society also tends to be decent, just and wholesome toward nature, for nature depends so critically on the society that functions as its steward. Just observe Scandinavia or Japan, whose decent social systems also maintain a very friendly and thriving natural environment.

The articles in the Recorder seemed to argue that if we loved and understood nature well, we would have a peaceful and harmonious human world as well. I would say the opposite: If we loved and understood the society in which we live and the human beings we are part of, I would say, we can also have a peaceful and harmonious natural world. Wherever we witness nature threatened and destroyed, we witness a human society thats doing the damage. All things, good and evil, begin from the society and end in nature, not the other way around.

All forms of loving nature are expressed through doing something about it in society. If you loved humanity in society, it would solve all environmental problems. Everything on this earth, including the welfare of the wild rabbits and flowers, begins and ends with humanity in society. You cannot enjoy a vegetarian sandwich and a glass of organic wine by the beautifully-manicured river while, across the river, poor people live in squalor and are shot by police. On the other hand, how could a city, where all citizens live peacefully and in harmony with one another, not have a beautiful, clean river?

If you love nature, then make sure that all humanity on this earth live in a decent way. How could we love nature without first loving our most immediate nature, namely, our neighborhood and its inhabitants, the neighbors?

Jon Huer, columnist for the Recorder and a retired professor, is the author of The Wages of Sin: Americas Dilemma of Profit Against Humanity, a book about Americas political economy. He lives in Greenfield.

Original post:
'As I See It' with Columnist Jon Huer: Want to save nature? Save society first - The Recorder