Anthology - The natural man

 Wild Nahani

_________________

 

Natural Man

On the concept of the value 

in itself of nature

  

Notes scattered around 

a social ecology and an ecology of conservation

 

 ____________________

 

 

 

 Cover photo: Yanomami, South American tribe (from the Web)

 

 

 

 

  

In loving memory of Elzbieta Mielczarek (1963-2014)

I  will always love you!

Rest in Peace - RIP 

 

 

 

 

"You are tired of these years of civilization.

I come, and what do I offer you? A single green leaf ".

Gray Owl

 

"Remember you

belong to Nature

not it to you "

Gray Owl

 

Nature is dead, but first

that it is buried and thrown on it

the last handful of earth,

it is good to say something

 

There is a charm in the woods without a path,

There is an ecstasy on the lonely beach,

There is a kindergarten where no importunate penetrates,

on the shore of the deep sea water;

and there is harmony in the breaking of the waves.

 

I love men less, but more Nature

And in these my talks with you

I free myself from everything I am

and from what I was before

to confuse me with the Universe.

And I feel what I can not express

and that I do not know how to hide completely.

George Gordon Byron

 

 

 

To what remains of the wild world

and its free continuity!

 

 

___________________ 

 

   

 Preface

 

 

"As you read these words, packs of wolves are running long leaps through the forests and wilderness of North America. Sniffing the wind, they hunt and play, they feed and rest, just as their ancestors did for millions of years. There are still thousands of specimens, wild as the immense regions in which they wander ......

The wolf, Canis lupus, was once the most widely distributed terrestrial mammal in the world, and could be found throughout the northern hemisphere, wherever the large mammals it is able to hunt were present. Now the species is extinct, or almost, in a large part of its natural habitat .... " (Savage, 1989).

 

"There is only hope of rejecting the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer every place on earth. This hope is the organization of the people most sensitive to the values of the spirit, so that they fight for the free continuity of the wild nature " (Robert Marshall).

 

The vast scale of the ecological problem, which has clearly come to the fore in the 20th century, has pushed me to this work that collects my writings and thoughts on ecology and nature in general, also seen in the social aspects or aspects, in an attempt to contribute , albeit minimally, to the development of a different philosophical conception of the environmental problem. Aldo Leopold, an acute American conservationist, affirmed, in fact, that environmental problems are fundamentally philosophical in which the solution of a new relationship with nature must be sought (Hargrove, 1990). The need to deal with the environmental question mainly from an ethical / philosophical point of view, is based on the fact that in the West all philosophical speculation has been practically deprived, from its origins to the present day, of substantive arguments on the subject (the exceptions are counted on fingers of one hand). Indeed, Hargrove (1990) writes: "Despite the many monumental results of philosophy, it has never succeeded, throughout the West, in providing a basis for environmental thinking. This failure involves all the major branches: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, social and political philosophy, philosophy of science and, of course, aesthetics ......

Environmental ethics is an opportunity for philosophy to correct its greatest error, the rejection of the natural world which is experienced concretely in real life ......

We hope that conservationists and conservationists of the nature of the beginning of the next century will have better philosophical theories to make a choice ... ".

The intent of the work is also to disseminate the concept of the value of nature in itself so that they begin to spread, albeit in an embryonic form, the "real" topics on conservation. The writings, even if in an apparent logical order, must not be strictly understood as such, nor do they claim to complete the discourse they open, but in any case they should provoke certain reflections and ideas on the same subject in the reader.

The work is enriched by numerous quotations taken from works by qualified authors who have deepened many of the issues treated so much that the publication became almost an anthology (by kind permission I also included some exhaustive chapters of Guido Dalla Casa) . A new environmental ethic can not be recognized with dogmas and specialized scientific rigidities, but above all with a maturation of the spirit, of sensations and therefore of thought. Hargrove (1990) answers to the question of Darwin on the loss, by the evolutionist, of aesthetic tastes towards nature, affirming that this loss "is a natural consequence of his attempts to be scientific, to deal with facts alone". The development of scientific specialization has led to a sort of "specialist deafness" (Boulding in Pignatti 1994), ie the inability to perceive the general characteristics of a system due to the obsessive concentration of attention to details (Pignatti, 1994). The holistic notion of landscape (nature) tends to overcome this particular "deafness" by seeking a global representation of the system (Pignatti, 1994). In fact, Kuhn reminds us that "normal science is a strenuous and determined attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes provided by vocational education".

However, what is written in the work does not claim to be absolutist and unilateral, but simply indicative and relative. In every sector there are always exceptions and differences. Among other things, for reasons of clarity, some of the causes hypothesized in the text that are believed to originate the distortion of the relationship between man and nature, refer to a few fundamental factors, even if in reality the variables on the topic are very numerous , often antithetical and almost always intertwined with each other. The work, therefore, as mentioned, wants only to draw an indicative line of thought and certainly not a universal and all-encompassing groove. However I think the most important part is that which was not written ....... Wittgenstein said in fact (Hargrove, 1990) that "the things we can not talk about are more important than those we can talk about".

Perhaps the endless battle for the preservation of nature is a battle already lost at the start, but nothing and nobody will prevent us, paraphrasing Rousseau, to cry out to the world that the moat is too deep to get out, but we were made strong enough not to we could fall!

 

Before the civilized man made his "appearance" on earth, the whole world was "wilderness", an immense wilderness where only natural truth reigned. Then the civilized man arrived and, little by little, he took from the world and himself the unpredictable and "chaotic" harmony of nature that was the spirit of life.

Man is therefore responsible for providing for the preservation of nature (because he is the man who destroys it and therefore it is he who must preserve it); unless one wants to consider it as a simple component of dialectical materialism, which would have been entrusted with the task of subverting completely the natural environment: only this could be, in an ironic key, the essence of androcentric philosophy. In truth, human interventions on the territory are devastating and do not spare any element of nature: water, air, flora, fauna, inert matter, etc. Faced with such degradation, the defense of the environment, through a wilderness vision, must become a primary and global goal. But in conserving the natural world, the field must be cleared of a preliminary ruling that is of such importance that it assumes the value of a contradiction in terms, since this is precisely the claim of those who insist on considering the environmental problem exclusively in relation to man . Man is a part, a piece of the ecosystem, is not the navel of nature, so it is in grave error who subordinates the protection of the environment to the primacy of man. In short, there is the risk that our inveterate androcentrism is always present in our speeches, everything and always for man. It is necessary to overturn such a concept to place the global interests of nature at the center (ecocentrism). The rule must tend to preserve nature for its value in itself: in the end even man will take advantage of it but it will be a reflection, not the purpose of that rescue. An ecocentric vision would bring enormous benefits and rebalances also from a social point of view. Civilization can not ignore the wilderness, the wild and uncorrupted nature! (John Muir).

But to elaborate the profound disagreement of man with nature is a task that is anything but easy, even if one simply wants to reach the pure awareness of the fact. It is partly like trying to recompose a complicated puzzle made up of many unequal elements without having a leading image in front of them. This is also due to the fact that it is necessary to eradicate a form of thought that in recent centuries has been progressively directed towards an all-encompassing disjunction where the mental monocultures, based on the deep groove of dualism (man on the one hand and nature, well distinct, on the other), they are strongly perched in a vision unilaterally turned towards the only truth and existence of mankind. A new thought, libertarian and broad-minded, must therefore face a double obstacle; the first is to eradicate globalized thinking on the dominance and one-sidedness of man (thought that even in the unconscious form is now inherent in the minds), the second will be to unsaddress the false certainties so strongly set to glimpse, albeit in the distance, a holistic view of everything. How many authoritative figures with their saying and their actions have tried to carry out this immense task, but, at least in the first instance, they have seen themselves in the difficulty of being metabolized by "mental monocultures" to the exact opposite. But perhaps one day what for now, in some respects, still seems distant, will be understood and practiced in total awareness and understanding. At the beginning the acute "prophets" of a profound change have not been understood or even completely ignored, but even if the time is very limited, a cautious optimism on the inversion, even partial of the route, could hang in the air (? !). Understanding, understanding, self-examining seem to be terminologies and concepts difficult to digest, but it is not excluded that they instead make their right path in order to eventually be acquired. Hope, even if weak, is always the last to die. But for the moment until exploitation, looting and destruction of the planet earth (on all fronts) will still represent a huge economic advantage, extremely difficult will appear the way to proceed to the right operation and vision of things. So far the man from his blindness has begun to see something, but only the smoking remains left behind his devastating path and will be so wise and far-sighted to reverse the route? The doubts remain many and largely unresolved. Many actions that now seem positive are still a small drop of water in a large ocean that is excessively dirty with "oil"!

"When it can no longer fight the wind and the sea to follow its course, the sailing ship has two possibilities: the cloak gait (the bow at the neck and the leeward bar) that makes it adrift, and the escape in front of it. to the storm with the sea in the stern and a minimum of canvas. The escape is often, when you are far from the coast, the only way to save the boat and crew. And in addition it allows you to discover unknown shores that appear on the horizon of calm waters. Unknown shores that will forever be ignored by those who have the illusory fortune of being able to follow the route of the cargos and oil tankers, the route without the unexpected set by the shipping companies ... " (Laborit, 1990).

 

"The battle for nature conservation will continue indefinitely,

because it is part of the universal battle between right and wrong ".

J. Muir

________________________

PART ONE

 

 

For a social ecology

 

 

 

 

Here is the moral of all human stories; it is but the same proof of the past; first the Freedom and the Glory - when this is missing Wealth, Vice, Corruption - Barbarie finally - and history with all its volumes has only one page.

 

G.G. Byron

 

The social contract

 

 

"In this world, the best of all possible worlds, every event is interconnected" (Candide, Voltaire). "Man has lost the ability to foresee and prevent. It will end up destroying the earth " (Albert Schweitzer, in Rachel Carson, 1963, a precursor of the problems related to environmental destruction).

If, as Hegel says, the creation of the state is God's entry into the world, it is true that Hobbes affirms that it identifies the state matrix in the mutual fear that pushes men to associate, inducing them to renounce the right natural. Rousseau observes: "The first who fenced a land thought to say" this is mine "and found some people stupid enough to believe it, he was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and errors would have saved mankind who, tearing the pegs and filling the moat, had shouted to his fellow men: "Beware of believing this impostor! If you forget that the fruits belong to everyone and that the earth belongs to no one, you are lost! "........... From the moment when a man needed the help of another, from the moment when he realized that it was useful to one only to have provisions for two, equality disparve, property was introduced, work became necessary, the vast forests were turned into laughing campaigns that the men had to wet with their sweat and in which they saw soon sprout and grow, together with the messengers, slavery and misery .......... From free and independent that was first here is the man, because of a multitude of new needs, enslaved, so to speak to his fellow men, who in a sense becomes a slave even when he seems to become his master. If he is rich he needs their services, if he is poor he needs their help, and mediocrity does not put him in a position to be able to do without them ........ ". We are therefore faced with a social contract that does not derive from absolute values but which instead has its source in mutual fear and in the instinct of "conservation". These aims, it is true, appear achieved, at least in their essence, in the state aggregation, but we can not avoid remembering the lacerations that took place within the states themselves, among which we want to emblematically remember the struggle between Caesar and Pompey, or that between Octavian and Anthony. But the most resounding failure of the constitution of the state is represented by its inability to transfer its ethical principles to relations with other states. It is with horror that the scholar must pause to consider what happened in the course of history, marked as it is by violence, by wars, by massacres, by overpowering, so that it appears written in blood, because too many Arges have dyed red. What optimism can sprout before such horrors? It is, in essence, the transfer of Hobbes's "homo hominis lupus", from the sphere of individual relationships to that of relations between states that are confronted in immense conflicts (like what Benedict XV defined as "the useless slaughter" ", Or like the other world war, still close to us, but not enough cautionary, see the many wars scattered throughout the world. How is it possible to accept the thought of Locke and his "homo homini deus"? At this point, the irony of Voltaire, which in Candide, traces from its own the shipwreck of Leibnitian optimism before the harsh reality of the world.

However, pessimism must not be identified with the philosophy of despair, but must instead strive to find new ways of living, a new "Weltanschaung". But in reality you can not fight today's people. Man's lacerations on man have also included the relationship between man and nature, and pessimism inevitably takes the upper hand. "Society and the laws .... They posed new obstacles to the weak and gave new energy to the rich, definitively destroyed natural liberty, fixed forever the law of property and inequality ... and, for the benefit of some ambitious, they subjected mankind to labor, servitude and misery " (JJ Rousseau).

The class struggle, the overwhelming of man over man, develops man's overpower on the environment. Conceiving the value of nature in itself, in a non-utilitarian vision, would achieve a reconnection with nature and, consequently, the birth of an egalitarian and "human" society: "... most of our ecological problems have their roots in social problems and that the current disharmony between humanity and nature can essentially be traced back to social conflicts. I do not believe that we can achieve a balance between humanity and nature if we do not find a new balance - based on freedom from domination and hierarchy - within society " (Bookchin, 1989). Urges Hosle (1992): "... the state of social and democratic law must be at the same time an ecological state. By this I mean that one of the most important tasks of the state must consist in preserving the natural foundations of life ... ".

But unfortunately, the hegemonic classes "entirely" orientate the thought of the masses, with the most subtle and penetrating means. The ideology of the blind logic of profit is the mental characteristic of our times, now firmly rooted in broad layers of public opinion and the social fabric. This makes even more difficult the proposal and the subsequent affirmation of a new ancient, extremely practical ideology based, as mentioned, on the reconnection of man with man and man with nature, intimate union and a real time essence of life . A totalizing contrast comes from the triggering and prevaricating forces of capitalism and therefore of Westernism, all projected towards the unlimited accumulation of money and decision-making power. About capitalism writes Bookchin (1989): "One thing must however be clear: it is a system that must continually expand to the point of destroying all the bonds between society and nature, as the holes in the ozone layer demonstrate and the increase in 'greenhouse effect. It is literally the cancer of social life ".

An ideology of the intrinsic value of things must therefore be confronted, in an unequal struggle, with the utilitarian value of Western current thought, a value supported by strong economic pressures. Among other things, it should be remembered that the strongly articulated social contract progressively reduced the "real" individual freedom. Kaczynskj (1997) reminds us that "Freedom means being able to control (both as an individual and as a member of a small group) all aspects relating to one's life-death; food, clothing, shelter and defense against any danger there may be in your neighborhood. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's life. No one is free if someone else (especially a large organization) has it in his power, no matter how benevolent, tolerable and permissive this power is exercised ... ".

In this immense dialectic, the economic-social development, initially limited, necessary and controlled, gradually takes on an invasive and prevaricating character. The economic needs of the working classes, now inserted in a degenerative social fabric, push the States and even more private entrepreneurs (in society or in their own), to "invest" the capital in the production of goods, often useless, with the only logic of profit. Society then gradually sinks into a "productivistic" illusion with the intent of having and accumulating more and more. The bourgeois classes are assured of "having", while the business classes are the accumulation. Logic is that of profit, as we know, and then the parameters of common sense and mediation lose all meaning. The consumerist society, with the ideology of false necessities, pushes the individual to ask for things, which the system gives birth at a rapid pace (the concept of development is a definition that is repeated incessantly like an enchanted disk). But the parable at first illusively ascending bend its curve, because the perverse logic of capitalism lays its foundations in the looting of the environment, both in the sense of withdrawals (energy, raw materials, etc.) and in that of the releases (waste pollution ). The circle closes and the human system sinks into the swamp and unfortunately with it also the elements of nature. Marx asserted that the exploitation of nature is one of the contradictions of capitalism; more generally, I would say that the destruction of nature is the result of "civilized" human society! Man is capable of ruining everything he touches because in the end the "civilization" has in itself the germ of its own destruction and of the destruction of the world.

Murray Bookchin (1995) still writes: "'Civilization' as we know it today is more silent than the nature for which it claims to speak and more blind than the elemental forces it claims to control. In reality, this 'civilization' lives in hatred for the world around it and in hate for itself. His gutted cities, ruined lands, water and poisoned air, his petty greed are a daily accusation of his hateful immorality. Such a small world is perhaps irrecoverable, at least within the framework of its current institutional and ethical structures ......... This planet deserves a better destiny than what seems to be waiting for it in the future, if only because history including human history, has been so full of promises, hopes and creativity ".

Paradoxically, one might consider that even the works of man (cities, machines, technology, etc.) are to some extent "natural" things, the result of the ingenuity and evolution of a sentient being. This could also be true, but this "human nature" stands in stark contrast to all non-human "natural things". The anthropic world not only opposes and separates itself from that of nature, but determines the total destruction and prevarication of the latter. In short, no harmonious agreement can be established between the parties because the split always determines the contrast and the antithesis. He wrote J. Muir (1995) "I call Carlo and to go back home I retrace the uncomfortable stretch of Indian Canon, pleased to be where I am and sympathizing in my heart the poor professor and the general, bound by clocks, calendars, orders, duties and how much more ties ever and forced to live the troubles of the life of the plain, the dust and the noise, while the poor, insignificant vagabond enjoys the freedom and the grandeur of the divine wild nature ".

The concept of globalization, so widespread and popular today, is a concept that makes human societies increasingly dependent on each other, causing a weakening of the spirit of "survival" so that each of us is more and more a slave to the infernal mechanisms of life. daily. If once, for example, a small mountain village remained isolated for months during the long winter, the population was perfectly able to survive thanks to a good dose of self-sufficiency that reigned both in spirit and in daily practice. Today, a village, if it loses the access road for a few days, enters a deep crisis both material and spiritual. Here is the result of the social chains that we are increasingly amplifying. An addiction that can not be renounced. The social contract should be concluded between small autonomous groups without creating immense social structures strongly dependent on each other, not libertarian and increasingly ungovernable. Obviously we are not referring to the ecological dependencies of ecosystems, but to those non-cyclical and useless chains that increasingly permeate social relations. The enormous development of the services and industry has definitely contributed to the enslavement and vulnerability of the masses.

Bookchin (1989) writes: "In order for the tendency to be reversed, capitalism must be replaced by an ecological society based on non-hierarchical relationships, decentralized communities, on eco-technologies such as solar energy, on organic agriculture and on human-scale industries , in short, forms of settlement that are truly democratic, economically and structurally coherent with the ecosystem in which they are located ". But an ecological society can not be born within the current system, but only by a "revolutionary", radical and all-encompassing act. Indeed, Bookchin (1989) states: ".... It is founded on the decidedly wrong opinion that the new society should be born in the very bosom of the old, growing and developing as a vigorous son capable of imposing his parents or destroying them".

The social contract, although it has a genesis of positivity, has turned into a multifaceted variety where only power as unlimited as possible, overwhelming, social disparities, lies, mere illusions, destruction, discrimination, wars and it has more or less. It does not look like a good "contract" at all. Let's think about it a little bit! We conclude with a maxim of EB White, cited by Carson in the epigraph of his masterpiece Silent Spring (1963): "I am pessimistic about the fate of the human race because it has too much more ingenuity than what is needed for its well-being. We approach nature only to subdue it. If we adapted ourselves to this planet and appreciated it, instead of considering it in a skeptical and dictatorial way, we would have a better chance of surviving ".

 

 

Globalization and its vulnerability

 

 

Human societies increasingly enlarged and monstrously unequal have progressively developed with the common denominator of unlimited growth, at any cost, it does not matter if the bill is to be paid for by human lives (either physically or qualitatively) or by the environment natural. The liberalism of the markets now more and more without restraint, the productivism growing in good part of useless goods or in any case not strictly necessary, creates wealth as usual only to the countries of the rich band (remember that in the world millions of people live in misery darker with an ephemeral or perhaps it would be better to say ridiculous daily income, for them the single day must be entirely dedicated to "scrape" the bare minimum to not starve and not always succeed!), and continuously free economic inequalities and impoverishment dramatic of natural resources. We are faced with a situation similar to an avalanche that began its descent with a small forehead as it gradually widens and grows bigger (it acquires progressively more and more energy) in its fall downstream causing a total destruction of all the things that stand in the way. at his ruinous path. The blindness of the capitalist markets does not ignore this heavy price, but it completely disregards it because it makes it pay to others (but ultimately even to itself). Obviously this only for a short-sighted vision because one deludes oneself that growth, even if with the awareness that it will have some setbacks, will always be unlimited and linearly uphill. We now know from ecological teachings that this is not structurally possible and, once the breaking point has been exceeded, the vertiginous collapse will not only be a certainty but inevitably unavoidable. The great financial empires ruled by opulent and wealthy nations have wisely planned this irresponsible development but after a long time they realized that demonic planning presented at some point the strong limits of saturation and expansion, as well as a weakness based on continuous consumption and on waste. And here is the illusory "magic formula": globalizing the market and the customs of consumption and voluptuousness in a single body. Obviously always with the decisive distinction between the "rulers" of the situation (in other words those who weave the canvas) and submissive because of the events. The powerful of the market, chased by those who challenge globalization, paint their mouths with seemingly astute "universal" and "humanitarian" policies, making the ignorant masses believe (ignore why they uncritically draw what is inculcated with a shrewd and subtle "washing" of the brain ") that all human beings, rich countries and poor countries, will be able to draw freely and " without limit " to the new goods that will be collected from every part and from every class. The giant grows bigger and bigger, ties up more and more, trying to reach a fearfully flat society where only the economic God apparently unites and strengthens. The rich countries are well aware that it is their eager interest to put poor countries in the best conditions to suddenly create immense new markets where they can channel their productivistic wealth and make the societies of the planet earth join them to spread consumption. And, if the plan succeeds, here again the two weights and the two measures: the poor countries delude themselves of the sudden and apparent "manna" that falls from the sky (but in any case they always pay dearly), while the rich ones fill their piggy bank and above all save, at least for a while, their now shaky consumerist / capitalist society. When you see the chasm, you try to look away and aim for something else, hoping it will work. But globalization, as it has been conceived, has even more fragile feet than clay: they are feet resting on quicksand, so they are totally unstable and highly dependent (see for example the energetic subjection). But to argue with greater descriptive rigor it is good to think about the reflections of Luciano Gallino (2001) that are very eloquent and sufficiently complete for a more linear understanding of the short-term (both the italicized part is his textual words). The structural errors of globalization are easily found in having wanted to focus its construction on technological and social systems that must be gigantic, able to embrace every recessed recess of the planet always with the same leimotiv, always working in a continuous cycle hour by hour, day by day, seven days a week. In other words, we aimed to do everything as a sort of watch of immense greatness, automatic, extremely precise and controlled. As it was set up it contains in its genesis all the elements of its easy vulnerability. This super clock can also stop, who can say the opposite, and also for causes unrelated to it (read wars, revolutions, etc.), but the real causes are inherent within the mechanism itself and certainly not outside. "Transport systems for goods and people, communication systems, production systems, with their social and technological components: the more they are globalized, the more they tend to become vulnerable. A first cause of vulnerability is identifiable in the fact that any socio-technical system is necessarily formed by many pieces, or by a multiplicity of subsystems. As the subsystems become more numerous, because the system that includes them is expected to cover the whole globe, it increases the probability that among them there is someone who works badly, or breaks down. Or that jump connections between one another. In both cases the whole system can go into crisis, and immediately send others into crisis ... .. A second cause of vulnerability of global systems is the loss of the ability to adapt to local changes, of any kind: social, economic, environmental. It follows both from the reduction of the variety of nature and the behaviors that the global system manufacturers tenaciously pursue, and from the loss of decisional autonomy that the local subjects suffer because the decision centers have been transferred elsewhere. In large regions of the globe, including Europe, local economic systems have been de-constructed and then rebuilt in such a way that decisions relating to the ways of producing consumer goods or food, employment, consumption, distribution of populations on the territory, which were once taken on the spot by artisans, small businessmen, farmers, local administrators, are now taken by someone who is thousands of kilometers away. A distant decision maker is not necessarily an evil decision maker. It is, however, a decision maker to whom in the region where his decisions are likely to import little, if only because in its order of global priorities that region may occupy the tenth place. In the best case it will end up making late or inadequate decisions ...... ".

Infinite events among the most disparate will highlight the easy vulnerability of the global system, vulnerability that so comments, to conclude, Gallino (2001) ".... It already entails additional human costs, like a dozen million new poor, those living on less than a dollar a day. The time may have come to try to understand why the world seems to refuse to function like a clock. And to possibly try to change design ".   

And to complete it, it is recalled that the globalization of markets inseparably brings with it the negative side of one's own coin. If a big country falls, they all fall! This collapse could eventually also be "beneficial" to nature even if unfortunately it will happen in a disastrous, iniquitous and desperate human context. On the other hand, those who sow evil, badly collect.

Problems of the South of the world

 

 

The marvelous blossoming of Greek civilization witnessed by Democritus and Socrates, by Aristotle and Plato, spread through the cities of Magna Graecia in much of the Mediterranean basin, and then projected on the wings of Hellenism in every part of the ancient world. The Greek cultural heritage later moved to Rome which, first in the Republican period, then in the imperial period, became a bearer of civilization in the Iberian countries, in the Gauls, in Britain, and in Illyria and Dacia. The decline and fall of the empire then began a sort of "long middle age" until, the Renaissance first, and then the Enlightenment, opened the doors of modern "civilization". The cultural maturation of which we have just mentioned, extending over a span of about three thousand years, had a single, great theater: Europe. And one understands then how the "ventura" of being born in such a continent can be for Europeans (at least according to their point of view), "presumed" motive of pride and title of nobility. From here comes what is usually called Eurocentrism, that is a vision of the world that recognizes and exalts itself in those spiritual and cultural values. But the development of this "civilization" has caused a great impact on the environment, at first slowly and then rapidly altering the natural appearance of the European continent, transforming it into a sort of large, tame and manipulated garden. The "conquest" of the new world and the subsequent extraordinary development of the means of transport lifted the veil on new peoples and new continents and widened the breath of history and environmental destruction to reduce the image of Europe to those of a province of our planet. However, Europe, the cradle of the capitalist development that followed the French revolution, asserted its primacy also in the opulence of the industrial society, and transferred its model to the American countries, while, through the maturation of the thought of Hegel and Feuerbach, it was still Europe, which by theorising the overcoming of capitalism by means of Marxism, made possible the industrialization of the immense Sarmatic plains, which remained for centuries the exclusive prerogative of an ancient and salubrious peasant society.

Well, what environmental and economic effects are derived from Eurocentrism and its irradiation in some parts of the globe? From an environmental point of view the damages have been progressive and incalculable and at the moment it is possible to observe the last wilderness territories only where the "white" man has not arrived. European "civilization", on the other hand, with its own culture and technology, has greatly amplified its destructive potential, causing devastation, oppression and prevarication. However, the effects of such an invasion have not touched only the natural scenarios (think of New Zealand, completely transformed in its environmental appearance or the few wild areas that remained in the United States - Alaska excluded - despite the large extent of the territory) , but also human populations resident from immemorial ages in those places of conquest. The extermination and subjugation of the Native American peoples of North America or the Australian aborigines is an example to all.

From an economic point of view, the statistics provide us with an extremely alarming fact, and this is the case: countries located in the North Atlantic area, that is North America, Europe and the European part of Russia, demographically represent 15% of the world population , while their economic resources make up 75% of those available on the globe. This dramatic divergence of well-being is at the root of the serious problems that have emerged in recent years and it is now clear that the rich countries will not be able to close again in their egoism without jeopardizing the stability and peace of the world. Eurocentrism affects us and leads us to analyze world problems from a typically European cultural and scientific point of view, but it is now time to overturn such a point of observation to privilege what starts from three immense continents such as South America, 'Africa and South Asia, even if they are pregnant with dangerous contradictions, marked, in large part, by the tragic specter of hunger and overpopulation (the phenomenal "development" of China and India is an example). It is necessary to convince ourselves that the extraordinary development of the means of communication and transport has now reduced the size of our planet to those of a province, which must be governed outside any dichotomy, eliminating forever the persistent effects of the most negative sides of colonialism. It must be affirmed that there will never be stability in the social world until, alongside the opulence of the rich countries, the hunger of a large part of the human population will survive, with dramatic contrast. No one can nourish the illusion of being able to lock himself in his own well-being, because it, like freedom, is indivisible. We can not feel truly free if we do not assure others of their freedom, so we can not consider ourselves entirely freed from the slavery of need if others were denied even hope of survival: "as long as a man is in chains no human being is free" ( Che Guevara).

However, the question appears to be more problematic than it seems. It is necessary to renegotiate everything in order to reduce capitalist society according to a stationary economy that is also paid by other countries. In short, it must be universalized not with the current capitalist model of the rich sector, but according to an intermediate logic inspired by the economy of natural equilibria. If every citizen of the Chinese or Indian state succeeds (and it does not seem so far away) to live like an American or a European today, the last resources of the earth, already already greatly depleted, would be sufficient for only a few years. Thus, to universalize the economic model of living according to the parameters of profit and of current consumerism / liberalism, means to project oneself towards the immediate end of social life and even of natural life. It is necessary to reorganize instead according to physiocratic, stationary, cyclical principles and above all with a low demographic index (and not only in the south of the world), which can lead us back to a new dimension able to last over time. Simplicity must be universalized and globalized, not the logic of profit and accumulation (profit and accumulation for a few, inequality for many others). If we want to make the economies of the poorest countries go up strongly, we want to do it exclusively to create new immense consumer markets to overflow the products of those rich countries that are beginning to saturate themselves. Apparently richer you (first poor and always poor), really and enormously richer us (always rich and even richer)!

 

 

Energy sources

 

 

Since the dawn of its history man has been in a dialectic relationship with the forces of nature, and the unfolding of this confrontation, sometimes exciting, often dramatic, seems to ideally extend from the myth of Prometheus to the apocalyptic deflagration of Hiroshima. The activity of the spirit, in the anxiety of penetrating the mysterious essence of matter, has developed - over the millennia - innumerable philosophical and scientific constructions that, starting from the seventeenth century, with a singular sudden flowering, gave life to successive discoveries , with incessant progression, from the field of physics to chemistry, from mathematics to biology, to genetics. But a large number of original intuitions could not have achieved practical and executive results if social structures and production relations had not been subtracted, owing to the historical turning point determined by the revolution of 1789, to the mortifying conditions of the feudal world. It is, in fact, the third state that, appropriating the sum of scientific discoveries, becomes the protagonist of the industrial revolution and realizes great engineering works that still appear titanic today, such as the excavation of the Suez Canal or the cut of the Panama isthmus . It is thanks to the spirit of enterprise of the bourgeoisie that large fleets plow the oceans, or that gives rise to the great steel plants, or to the giants of the mechanical industry. The incessant growth of the industrial society is nevertheless entirely conditioned by the energy sources, and the fossil carbon appears for about a century the miraculous engine of the mighty mechanism. But coal is not inexhaustible and here begins the frantic search for oil, an energy source that, rich in calories and easy to transport, soon becomes the instrument of power of the great international monopoly companies (and at the same time a devastating source of pollution) direct and indirect as, for example, the oozing of the oil mass due to the sinking of an ever increasing number of oil tankers). But the decline of the colonial world and the progressive depletion of oil fields, in turn, cause dramatic problems to arise that endanger the economic and political pre-eminence of powerful industrialized nations. These factors encourage research into nuclear energy which, as a pure instrument of death, seems to transform itself, through a singular catharsis, into a source of "well-being and peace". The construction of nuclear power plants for the production of electric energy is thus started up, which the industrial, insatiable consumer system demands in much greater quantities than that which can be obtained from the water forces. But the rise of the atomic cathedrals brings back the memory to the invocation that the Cross pronounced immediately after the Hiroshima holocaust, when he hoped that, similar to the treasure of the Nibelungen, the formula of the nuclear equation would be thrown forever in the waters of the Rhine Invocation that appears in true always current because that form of energy has in itself something demonic and terrifying that seems almost to challenge, with superhuman protervia, the very structure of nature, and that is why it - even if used for purposes of peace - implies distressing questions that refer, above all, to the unresolved problem of waste conservation or to the holocaust of accidents in power plants: the example of Chernobyl applies to everyone. But if the economic forces, urged by the incessant expansion of consumption, do not seem to withdraw before such distressing questions, it is necessary that humanity makes an effort to determine new models of life that have at their base the example of the natural economy , an economy with steady growth. Alternative energy sources, generated by natural forces (solar, geothermal, biomass, etc.), perpetually renewable, can integrate or replace systems that are being exhausted or extremely dangerous, but at the bottom of the problem there remains a question: that the Malthusian theories still have their validity? It can not be denied that the insatiable demand for energy, linked to the unbridled development and abuse of consumption, is intimately linked to the demographic push that, in the immediate future, will reach the worrying goal of a world population very close to eight ten billion. The entire planet earth is also being altered due to the continuous thirst of energy, largely used for waste, useless, superfluous. Nuclear power plants are built, rivers are blocked, coal-fired power stations are activated, and so on, and much of that force is dissipated in the void. And even renewable energy sources often have their medal implications: entire regional territories removed from nature to make room for aberrant wind farms which, in addition to a permanent disfigurement of the landscape, entail another series of negativity: road construction, raising of real skyscrapers rotating over a height of a meter, sometimes local climatic changes, a continuous and apocalyptic massacre of the birds that are hit by the "invisible" shovels (in the big power stations there are hundreds if not thousands of birds killed per week !) or the damming of rivers for hydroelectric energy that completely disrupts the waterways permanently altering the life cycle that for centuries has unfolded freely (obviously not counting the domestic and industrial pollution of the water or the cementification of the banks that already they are loaded with death and sterility), etc. Therefore, even for the so-called clean energy, the elements of environmental impact, which are inevitably present, must also be carefully examined, and never come to a generalization of the new systems; on the contrary, it is right and proper to analyze case by case. But, paradoxically, if contemporary society, as it probably will, will have available unlimited forms of clean energy (eg hydrogen) and perennially renewable, it will seem strange to say but the final and immense act of destruction will be completed, because (the reflection is too obvious), man will thus have the opportunity to develop even more, more and more, will have the opportunity to expand as he wishes with the submission of the whole mother earth. An apparently apocalyptic but unfortunately highly realistic paradox. Unlimited energy means in fact to be able to easily overcome or circumvent any other limiting factor of the environment and, with an unprecedented force, human beings will be able to "create" everything that seems to him "useful" (it's like having an infinite number financial accumulation that can be spent without brakes and without any hesitation, even if a limit will be that of the exhaustion of raw materials). And, since the history of humanity has taught us too well that to go "forward" must grow and "grow" more and more, what can it stop? Your own non-existent self-consciousness? Or his immense greed? Or its deep-rooted sense of concentration? Skepticism is a must, indeed one should say that skepticism turns into a bitter certainty. Even with this act, mankind will demonstrate its definitive decline and with it all that pulsates around it. Do they seem paradoxical statements? I do not think so: they are the true "moral" of contemporary human kind. And to conclude, however, we must remember another fundamental element: even in the case of being able to have a clean and unlimited energy, it will always have a technological support at its foundations and, as the history of capital teaches us, there will be two weights as usual and two measures: countries that "will govern" the new system and will therefore be ever richer and more powerful and countries that will also have access to great innovation, but always in a subordinate and subordinate form. In this case, the gap in "riches" will also be a constant reality. We can therefore easily say: clean and perpetually renewable energy, but we could certainly not say clean and perennially renewable energy that is the same for everyone.

Let's go back, to complete better, to what was examined pocànzi; In short, we are always absurd: we are eagerly looking for a continuous energy and we never talk about drastically reducing the consumption often connected with the superfluous, with the waste, with the abundance (we want more and more): all instead easily reducible (with simple common sense). Just think, to make just one small example, that if everyone for his part reduces the useless or excessive uses of things and therefore energy by 1%, we would have a global saving such that the figure would hardly be read. But the imperative of this consumerist society is always that: "comsumare più più" otherwise the system gets jammed. And we return to yet another paradox: to seriously save, make life easier, to become aware of what is behind our consumption, especially if superfluous ... of this "should not" be aware of it, otherwise the indices of the growth of the rich nations "They would lower" and everyone would cry out to catastrophe, to recession, and fear, on every side, would spread into the air. For some time now, the internal combustion of engines has been overcome, but for the moment its elimination is not economically "sustainable" because it would undermine the regent finance of oil and the big rich nations: and in the meantime it continues to pollute, to loot, to destroy, to annihilate. The air does not "breathe" almost anymore, but the economic accounts still swell, so why reduce them to the right balance? Even a mad external observer coming from who knows what galaxy would be stunned, but he is told that this is how the economy of the contemporary world works and there is "nothing to do". As long as the exploitation and destruction of nature (soil, water, air) still represents an evil gain, nothing will change. One day, and perhaps when it will be too late, if the current system of development is deemed to be no longer profitable, it will almost certainly change course, both because of extreme necessity and because even in a new dimension we will try to hover at a new form profit. The economy will therefore always be at the side of the contemporary man and of the future and no other real cause will move things because the imperative is and will always be exclusively the economic profit (if we look at the newspapers or the televisions the main news is always economic ones, GDP, growth of finances, etc., never a line, if not as a totally secondary and negligible factor, on the condition of the planet seriously ill because of us. mere "folk" information, fruit of the mind of some "fixed" environment! Do not miss the news that do not report the index of the bags on a daily basis.Why is it not on the index of the ecological disaster? All of this at the expense of nature and the poorest classes in the human world. Think about what happens, if everyone saves things, is satisfied with the excess that he has, is careful not to be deceived and engulfed by advertising and maintains a decent but essential life and does not consume like a hungry being: well, even if it seems incredible , the whole economic system of the world wavers and in short everything collapses. Nice way we have chosen to "govern" our existence. Let us reflect at least a little and then whoever wants to be truly sincere with himself draws conclusions. But it is important not to wonder so much if we have more air to breathe, uncontaminated landscapes to observe, clean rivers and seas to admire, silent and uninterrupted forests to travel, uncontaminated drinking waters, wild places left to their free development, etc. . (and as we have seen the destruction will happen equally with renewable and clean energy, because thanks to their limitlessness, it will remove the last brakes to the "apocalyptic" human thought). After all, if we wonder or complain, let us remember to look at ourselves inside. Let us interrupt our destructive madness, our covetousness for a moment and let ourselves be profoundly examined by conscience, and whoever has no sins cast the first stone; but beware: we must not deceive ourselves, so we cheat ourselves in the end!

 

  

Urbanism

 

 

Humanism, affirming the centrality of man within sociality, is in its essence a revolutionary fact that not only profoundly modifies the structure of the society in which it is affirmed, but also represents the premise of that radical renewal of thought that through enlightenment he lays the foundations of modern society. The rupture that humanism causes between the medieval world and the modern world appears not only with evident contraposition in painting that, freed from the archetypal buildings of Byzantine art, ranges in visions, sometimes dramatic, of man's life and destiny, not it is affirmed only in the literature that, reappropriating the classical models, it frees itself from the conditioning of mysticism, but it is perhaps in the urban fabric of the city that it irrides in a more innovative and decisive way. Think of Siena, in Florence, think of the serenity and the essentiality of their squares, of their streets, made for man and human scale, their monuments, palaces and churches where art does not it is the superimposition of elements extraneous to man and to the citizen but it is the expression itself of the highest values of a civil and concordant society.

What a contrast between that world, though not so remote, and the metropolises that, arising from the industrial revolution, stand today as monuments of an alienated civilization! It is the alienation that Marcuse sees both in capitalist and marxist societies, and it is an alienation from which one can not escape unless the centrality of man is reaffirmed (always in a social and not natural sense), if technology is not at the service of man and not man at the service of technology (which unfortunately is totally unlikely). The metropolises, the megacities are inhumane filiations of the productive centralizations, and the skyscrapers that they raise, almost to renew the challenge that the titans launched to Jupiter, loom over us as if they wanted to cancel our measure of men, and the hallucinating high streets seem crush the city under the weight of their impressive structures. The nature is mortified and oppressed by the asphalt, the green of the meadows and the rustling of the leaves, farther back from a pouring of concrete that moves like a Moloch never satiated with sacrificial victims. The destruction seems unstoppable. We need to stop as long as we are on time, and the commitment must be for everyone: politicians, industrialists, engineers, architects. Ah, if you had heard Wright's lesson! It had indicated, with prophetic timeliness, the way that could save us from urbanistic monstrosities: build on a human scale, adapt the structure of buildings to the elements of the landscape, almost to realize a mimesis of nature itself. What is the model of a city that regains its human values? It is certainly what humanism has shown us, but it would fall into the utopia who thought he could repeat it and imitate without coming under the profound transformations of the social model. Who will otherwise give us the green suffocated by cement, who will take on the task of demolishing the huge, desolate and anonymous buildings? Perhaps the beginning of the rebirth of a more human city could also be achieved through the reappropriation of the values of civilizations brought by a peasant society, which in the past century have been annihilated by other values that nourish the forces that destroy them.

 

  

 The absence of values

 

 

"You are tired of these years of civilization. I come, and what do I offer you? A single green leaf (Gray Owl).

Perhaps never over the centuries the society has taken on such contradictory aspects as those that currently distinguish it. This is caused, in our opinion, by the persistent influence of philosophical conceptions which, overlapping, contradict, exclude, contrast and reach us both from distant times, such as Cartesian rationalism, and from movements closer to us, such as positivism not yet completely extinguished, or as the Bergsonian anti-intellectual intuition, or the idealism of the Cross, or existential angst, or historical materialism and dialectical materialism. The current society is therefore governed by instability, as well as by the absence of absolute and permanent values and by a fluidity of perpetually changing situations. There is essentially no philosophical certainty, a social ecology capable of reassuring man and defining his destiny, and this precariousness is reflected on the environmental problem and, while we see that some reject it totally, there is no shortage of on the other hand, the signs of a new attention paid to nature, attention that is not however free from the doubts and uncertainties inherent in the society in which nature must reconnect. This is why official science and environmentalist movements have been searching for an interpretative key to the environmental crisis for over thirty years, and if conferences on ecological problems or the emergence of strong mass movements for conservation are a high testimony of this research, we must also note that the solemn attentions of principle proclaimed by them are still object of contestation or even rejected. The disquiet is attested by the debate of many unresolved problems (think, for example, to the emissions of carbon dioxide or the deforestation of the Amazon) and manifests itself in a clear way in the birth of more radical and penetrating thoughts that try to propose the highest philosophy of conservation (deep ecology, the concept of wilderness, bioregionalism, etc.). The ecological drive thus appears to be conditioned by the totalizing and prevaricating forces of today's societies that, voluntarily, do not want to appropriate new models and new absolute values inspired by nature and an equalitarian and harmonious dimension. Capitalism, with its aberrant logic of profit, does not in any way change its course of navigation, even if it will lead it, in the immediate future, to a catastrophic socio-environmental crisis. The present society must therefore descend into the natural reality, thereby overcoming the apparent antinomy of human life - nature, because if man becomes self-resized he becomes himself nature, as indeed the distant past of wild men attests to us, though not rejecting all the positive values of a society that still has something good in it. However, an effective social ecology must always move beyond anthropocentrism to embrace biocentrism; only in this way the social structures will lay the foundations for a universal and balanced system. To conclude, it seems to us that through the reconnection of man with nature a "humanized" society can be built, a society that through action can lead man back to a serene monistic vision of life. A. Herzen writes: "We do not build; we destroy; we do not make new revelations; we deny the old lie. The man of today, sad pontifex maximus, can only erect the bridge; another, which will arise in the future, will cross it ..... " . We conclude with a reflection by Della Casa (1996): "The very term 'civilization' is useless and dangerous, because it submits a merit judgment based on a particular scale of values, considered obvious.

'Civil' today means in fact 'conforms to the principles of the West' and nothing more. There is no reason to consider Western civilization better than the civilization of the Yanomani, the Papua, the Eskimos, the Dogon, or the thousand other cultures that have appeared on Earth ".

"Liven by nature with its wedding dress, in the midst of waterways and bird songs, the Earth offers man, in the harmony of the three kingdoms, a show full of life, interest and charm, the only show of which eyes and heart never get tired. (Jean Jacques Rousseau).

  

 

 The uprising of '68

 

 

"In order not to struggle there will always be many pretexts in every age and in every circumstance, but never, without the struggle, you will have freedom" (Fidel Castro).

The ferments of '68 involved young people in Europe and in the world. The "uprising" was born within the bourgeoisie, with a clear rejection of the traditional values while not opposing them a precise choice. The rejection of the society in which they live has in itself the desire for self-destruction resulting from an existential angst. In fact, they become carriers of an antithesis that is depleted in itself, because it is not mediated by the third dialectical term. The antithesis advocated by the youth of '68 turned against the consumer society, rebelled against the alienation inherent in the relations of production, tried to escape the anonymous coexistence of the masses. The crisis of values was profound. He invested the family and its principle of authority; involved the school and its hierarchical order; he touched the despotic certainties of the clergy; in short, it was a desecrating movement driven by the desire for a confused and indefinite catharsis. The prophet of the movement was Marcuse, but his philosophy was often misunderstood, because the German philosopher did not intend to be merely an assertor of a demolition of the bourgeois system, but also proposed in his "Weltanschauung" the return to a new humanism in which man could have ignited ferments destined to disrupt both the capitalist model and the model of real communism of the time. The '68 threw a mountain into the ocean, but the gesture, although desecrating and provocative, did not raise an exceptionally devastating wave, even if it was not irrelevant its contribution to the emancipation of many new social customs and thoughts. Many seeds were scattered and although in good proportion they vanished into thin air, a part sprouted vigorously and virulently, laying the foundations for a new mentality and a new way of standing before the reality of social and personal existence. Subsequently there were strong waves of reflux, but now the alleged certainties of a system had been affected. Many thought movements that arose decades later certainly had their genesis from that jolt. It is true that in the following years many bourgeois parameters regained the upper hand, and the mental flattening encompassed the masses (juveniles and not) and the logic of profit, consumerism and accumulation of the useless took the upper hand, but a this, despite its slow operation, has continued to pose doubts about reality. Now, the 21st century society seems to be rooted in a globalized liberal / capitalist model, but its foundations are less stable than we think and perhaps we gather in a new analysis of extreme doubt. The illusion that the development of consumption can continue indefinitely already has within it the certainty that this can not be. Time will give the right and sad sentence!

He wrote Che Guevara in a letter to his sons (in Bucellini, 1995): "To my children. Dear Hildita, Aleidita, Camilo, Celia and Ernesto. If one day you will read this letter it will be because I will not be there anymore. You will hardly remember me: the little ones will not remember anything. Your father is a man who acts like he thinks and has certainly been loyal to his own convictions. Grow as good revolutionaries ......

Above all, always be able to feel any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world in the depths of yourself. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary ...... ".

 

  

Ecology of unemployment e

the economy in a steady state

 

 

The birth of the social state, a typical political construction of the twentieth century, is connected to three events: the second industrial revolution, the '29 crisis and the social changes resulting from the Second World War. The State left to us as a legacy from the nineteenth century, what is usually called gendarme state, found its motivation in an extremely simplified society in its components, while contemporary society, is instead strongly articulated, complex, contradictory, in which the pushes, solicitations, conflicts, meet and clash in an incessant dialectic. Such an articulation, even more accentuated by the exceptional development of the advanced tertiary sector, brings out even more complex and urgent problems.

Faced with such a change in the social fabric, the modern state is forced to review its choices for quality and breadth. In this regard it should be remembered that the New-Deal Roosevelt is the first relevant evidence of an economic policy that shifts its focus from the micro-economy to macro-economy and, there is no doubt that the theories of Keynes and its famous multiplier were decisive for the overcoming of the recession of '29.

The serious problems currently affecting the world economies (except for temporary exceptions) are particularly evident in the progressive increase in the unemployment rate of the labor force. There is no doubt that the problem is highlighted with an increased urgency, also because the incidence of the juvenile component has, within it, meanings of particular social value.

It is a general opinion that the causes from which the employment crisis derives are of a structural and conjunctural type and, among the structural ones, it counts - firstly - the effect deriving from the advent of the third industrial revolution which, bringing the automation and robotization, eliminates a significant amount of labor. It is also true, on the other hand, that the service sector, especially the advanced one, absorbs new work forces but, as is well known, the sector requires highly specialized personnel, while the working units freed by the industry are not always in able to meet specific market demands.

With regard to the remedies that are invoked by many to solve the employment question, it should be emphasized that they are often contradictory because they reflect angles of opposing interests. Among the suggested economic theories are the following:

a) "law" of Pigou, called the "law" of full employment, which - assuming a general reduction in the real wage - tends to achieve full employment, without prejudice to the salary fund;

b) reduction of working time ("work less, and work all");

c) greater mobility and incentives for part-time work;

d) Budget maneuver aimed at reducing current expenditure for the benefit of investment, in order to achieve the effect of the Keynes multiplier.

Those that have just been mentioned are the most debated theses but, of course, that none of them arises as an independent variable because any intervention of economic policy generates, almost always, chain reactions due to the interdependence of complex economic problems.

The problem of employment presents great difficulties in analysis and solutions and, in the opinion of the majority, can not be solved by fragmentary and occasional policies, but instead requires interventions that, through careful planning, tackle the causes globally in order to remove a picture economic uncertain and full of serious tensions.

But the underlying error of all capitalist economic policies is the claim to plan the economy always in terms of continuous upward development, with the illusion that the system can continue over time. It is instead necessary to refer to a steady-state economy as defined by Daly (1981 in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995) : "... constant stocks of populations and manufactured goods , maintained at the level considered sufficient with low rates of material and energy entropy and rejection of waste and emissions as low as possible ". In essence, acquire an economic vision that takes into account the pre-eminence of the laws of ecology and thermodynamics. Productivity must tend towards stability with a sinusoidal trend and must decrease the production of useless goods until they disappear (it will take decades), in conjunction with a rigid reduction of the world population. The workforce that comes to free itself will be absorbed by socially and ecologically useful jobs. Twenty-first-century society must also include this category of workers. The economic policies of the states, standardized and universalized, will therefore have to settle on parameters of stationary and essential productivity, renouncing the logic of profit, consumption and waste. An essential company in addition to guaranteeing a real existence over time, will be "rich" in quality and harmony. On the other hand, the necessity of a bioregional ecological economy (that is the mutual relationship with the environment surrounding one's own community) will be an obligation of the immediate future societies unless man, a prisoner and slave of his own opulence, does not He wants to plunge into the abyss that he has dug himself. A. Solgenitsin writes wisely "Progress should no longer be considered the desirable characteristic of society, the perpetuity of progress is an absurd myth. It is necessary to realize not an economy of continuous development, but an economy of constant, stable level. Economic growth is not only not necessary but is pernicious ".

Annota Naess (1994): "Recently, regardless of the ecological movement, the economists themselves have begun to vigorously criticize economic growth and the way national goals are set as indicators of welfare growth in industrial countries. But the key word 'economic growth' continues to have a fundamental importance in politics, although it is increasingly evident that it has a negative impact on the quality of life of rich industrial nations. It also seriously endangers the chances of survival for future generations.

It would be a serious mistake for the environmentalist movement not to use the criticisms made by the economists themselves to propaganda for economic growth. Every day, every week, newspapers and television continually cite the economic growth measured in terms of GNP (Gross National Product) as if it were a decisive element in the success of economic policy. It is rare for ecologists to question this link ....... ".

However, to add yet another real note of pessimism, we must remember Passmore (1974 in Hargrove, 1990) when he asserts that there will always be economic conditions that will prevail over the preservation of anything. The short-sighted vision of the immediate will always accompany the choices of contemporary man!

The economy worries more than any other human interest (the Gross National Product is considered the only indicator of development), and a responsible, capillary, effective, fundamentally bioregional environmental policy is not practiced , ignoring or pretending to ignore that without the maintenance of natural balances also the economy ceases to exist for the irresponsible drying up of the source of its nourishment. "Only by minimizing the use of non-renewable resources and using renewable resources at the same pace with which they can be restored, without causing serious damage to the ecological cycle, can we minimize the deficit between society consumption and in-kind production" (Rifkin, 1982).

We happened to leaf through an advertising depliants with an economic theme that unfortunately reflects the thinking of contemporary capitalist society and which contains the seeds of destruction. We report a brief as eloquent excerpt.

"The main development trends and changes in the coming years will cause an increase in demand in many sectors worldwide:

 

Trend: Increase in the world population                            

Effects: Growth in consumer demand

 

Trend: Dissemination of communication and information

Effects: Exponential increase in demand for information technology

 

Trend: Globalization of the markets

Effects: Growth in demand for branded products

 

Trend: Progressive global industrialization

Effects: Growth in the demand for energy resources

 

We add: Rousseau

 

Trend: total invasion of the planet earth (both in the physical sense and in the sense of polluting agents)

Effects: end of planet Earth!              

Perhaps at that point our "development" economy will no longer be useful!

 

Hosle writes (1992): "But we do not know if the reason will have time to enter the locomotive of the train that dart to the abyss and in which we all travel, or if he can stop it in time (especially as the braking space it is not minimal). But what is the locomotive of the modern world? It is certainly the economy. Its propulsive principle, its spring, however, are the values and the now popularized categories of modern philosophy: the myth of feasibility, the aspiration to overcome every quantitative limit, the lack of scruples with regard to nature. Therefore, a philosophy for which responsibility is not an empty concept must first of all seek to create new values and secondly to transmit them to society and to the leading exponents of the economic world, and will have to try to do so as quickly as possible. Because time is ticking ".

Kirkpatrik Sale, a deep lover of bioregionalism, shows us the way to follow (in AA VV, 1994 pp. 31-32): "The economy of a bioregion derives its characteristics from the conditions and laws of nature.

Our ignorance is certainly immense, but after so many centuries of living on the ground, we can refer to what Goldsmith has called the complex of the laws of ecodynamics, distinct from the complex of the laws of thermodynamics.

The first of these laws is that conservation / preservation / maintenance are the main objective of the natural world: hence its intrinsic resistance to large-scale structural changes.

The second law says that, far from being entropic, nature is instead intrinsically stable and always tends towards that state that ecology defines climax, ie a balanced, harmonious and integrated state of maturity that, once achieved, it is maintained for long periods.

For this reason a bioregional economy tries to maintain, rather than exploit, the natural world and to adapt to the environment rather than resist it.

It will try to create the climax conditions, in a balance that some economists define today as a steady state, instead of a condition of perpetual change and continuous 'growth', at the service of 'progress', illusory and false divinity.

The bioregional economy, in practical terms, minimizes the use of resources, emphasizes conservation and recycling, avoids pollution and waste; adapts its production systems to local resources, for example using wind energy, if it is possible, or wood, where appropriate, or, as far as food is concerned, addresses what the region itself, particularly in its pre-agricultural state, it is able to produce. This starting from the most elegant and elementary among the principles of nature: that of self-sufficiency.

Nature, which does not provide for 'trade', does not create elaborate networks of interdependence on a continental scale; therefore the bioregion must find all the resources it needs for energy, food, housing, clothing, tools, artifacts and so on, within its borders.

Far from being an impoverishment, this would mean a gain, for the economic health of the bioregion, in every respect.

It would be a more stable economy, free from the boom and recession cycles, far from the influence of political crises. In it it would be possible to plan and redistribute the resources, to obtain the development of the deficit sectors, at the most appropriate pace and in the most ecological way .......

One of Schumacher's most valid insights is this: the market economy of twentieth century capitalism is fundamentally wrong because it continually ignores nature.

Schumacher also warns that 'it is inherent in the methodology of economic science to ignore man's dependence on the natural world. However, the market represents only the surface of society, and its meaning is relative to the momentary situation, as it exists here and now.

Modern economic reality "does not study things in depth, the natural and social facts that lie behind them".

This is why, as he points out, the distinction between primary goods 'that man must conquer in nature' and secondary goods, manufactured by man himself, has been lost; or between renewable resources and exhaustible resources.

Furthermore, the economist normally does not consider the social costs of competitive development.

A bioregional economy is based instead on these vital distinctions ".

 

   

The physiocracy

 

 

"My son, know that nobody will help you in this world ... You have to run to that mountain and go back. This will make you stronger. My son, know that no one is your friend, not even your sister, your father or your mother. Your legs, your hands, your brain, these are your friends. You have to do it with them " ( A Life Apache by Morris Opler in Mears, 1991).

For the production of economic "wealth" in the human sphere, the only inspiring process should be the natural one. In fact, referring to the physiocrats, we remember that agriculture is the only economic activity that provides a net product, since at the end of the process we collect more than what we sowed (Bresso, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). The "sterile" sectors (industry and tertiary) are only able to increase the value of the raw material but not its physical quantity (Bresso, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). A rationally structured economy that cares about the fate of the planet earth and of man himself can not therefore ignore the productive model of biocoenosis. In fact, the net product pocànzi mentioned, is not the result of something abstract, but is the result of the "work" that phytocenosis develops thanks to photosynthesis (Bresso, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). The natural economy is therefore a closed-cycle system that draws only the energy from the outside from the outside. Similarly, the human economy must also close its cycles (Bresso, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). From the thought of the Indians of North America: "The circle of the Life of Creation is endless. We see the seasons come and go. And Life Always flow into Life. The child becomes a parent. The parent becomes our respected ancestor. Life is sacred. It's nice to be part of it. All things are a circle. Each of us is responsible for his actions. They will see their return of energy " (Betty Laverdure, Ojibwa - in AA, VV., 1995). But for the reaffirmation of such a process it is fundamental to review the development model and the needs of the individual citizen. Until when contemporary society will remain anchored to the excessive possession of goods, to consumerism, to the senseless exploitation of resources, to the production of the useless, etc. it will not be possible to reset a production model according to natural and therefore physiocratic principles. "How can a straw be a politician? It's a question that will seem ridiculous to a lot of people. Men, women, old, millions of individuals greedy or disgusted, excited or angry, but all hit and tied to the chariot of history, capital, the masses, oppression ...

Bourgeois, proletarians, machoists, feminists, liberals, socialists, all fighting for power. The power of a straw. no! and who knows him? Who sees it even a straw? The power is of the newspapers, of the courts, of the scientific laboratories, of the factories, of the presidential palaces and of the intellectual technology, of the squares ... of the majorities! But freedom does not inhabit these places, it grows and walks on the wings of the swallows they enjoy flying, in the breath of a tuft of grass that communicates to the world its peace, its transparent humility. Freedom is hidden within the currents of the laws of nature ...... That is why they are discrete laws and to hear them we must silence and put our ears near, close: they speak with a slight murmur. A murmur that becomes rumbling or roaring on a few occasions, but for a universal deluge how many centuries of battle dates?

The policy of straw is out of history, it is against history, it is before and after history. The straw-wire revolution is possible for each of us, by choice.

Fukuoka suffices 1000 square meters per person to get food self-sufficiency and even if you have to adjust the numbers, the power of this thinking and working 'small' would be stronger both ideologically and operationally than any party or organization subversive and more manageable only 'from below' without degrees, or diplomas?

Therefore that of the straw is a way to abolish capitalism and take possession of the means of production without going through the room of buttons and in this it is truly revolutionary " (G. Pucci, in Fukuoka 1980). "'The true purpose of agriculture', says Fukuoka, 'is not growing crops, but cultivating and perfecting human beings'. And he speaks of agriculture as a way: 'Being here, taking care of a small field, in full possession of daily freedom and fullness, every day: this must have been the original way of agriculture'. Complete agriculture nourishes the whole person, body and soul. One does not live by bread alone " (W. Berry, in Fukuoka 1980).

"The exaggeration of desires is the fundamental cause that has brought the world to the current situation.

Soon, instead of plan; more, instead of less: this seemingly 'development' is linked in a very direct way to the looming collapse of society. In practice it has only served to separate man from nature. Humanity must stop letting go of the desire for possessions and material gains and moving towards spiritual awareness instead.

Agriculture must move from large mechanized activities to small farms based only on life itself. To the material existence and to the alimentary diet one should give a simple place. If you do this the work becomes pleasant and the space for the abundant spiritual breath.

The more the peasant enlarges the scale of his activities, the more his body and spirit disperse and furthermore moves away from a morally satisfying existence. A life of small-scale agriculture may appear primitive, but living it becomes possible to contemplate the Great Way (the way of the light of conscience that implies the attention and care for the ordinary activities of everyday life). I believe that if one goes deep into the environment that surrounds him immediately and in the small world of every day he lives in, the greatest of the worlds will be revealed .....

... Cultivating the land once was a sacred work. When humanity began to decline from this ideal condition, modern commercial agriculture came out. When the farmer began to grow his crops to make money, he forgot the true foundations of agriculture ......

'If autumn will bring rain or wind I can not know it, but I know that today I will work in the fields'. These are the words of an old country song. They express the truth of agriculture as a way of life. No matter how the harvest will be, whether there is enough food to eat or not, simply by throwing the seed and tenderly devoting oneself to plants under the guidance of nature, there is joy " (Fukuoka, 1980).

Capra writes (1997): "One of the most evident contrasts between economics and ecology derives from the fact that Nature is cyclical, while our industrial systems are linear. Our companies take the resources, transform them by obtaining products and waste, and sell the products to consumers who, after consuming them, produce other waste. To be sustainable, the patterns of production and consumption must be cyclical, imitating the cyclic processes present in nature. To realize such cyclical patterns we must redesign our businesses and our economy ".

To conclude with Walt Whitman (from Leaves of Grass): "Now I see the secret of the formation of the best people. It is growing outdoors and eating and sleeping on the earth ".

In the times of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) the agricultural activity of man of the third millennium appears as a frightful monster capable of engulfing the whole life on the planet of mother earth. To say that it would be appropriate to reflect well and for a long time it is practically useless because nothing will stop this latest devilry of which man has signed so far too many. The history of its continuous and infinite degeneration is a warning, but in the end it will only make us observe, without fear, the course of the last end.

 

 

Animal husbandry / agriculture and vegetarianism

 

 

The transformation of plant products into animal products has an average yield of about 10%, thus causing an energy waste of 90%. Vegetarian nutrition, which is 10: 1 in the meat diet, is therefore a practice that modern society must undertake. According to accurate studies it has emerged that about four fifths of the cultivated part of the planet is used to feed the animals and to produce one kilogram of animal protein requires seven kilos of those vegetables with an energy expenditure, as we have seen, of 90% . Furthermore, intensive livestock breeding, causes serious damage to the environment (pollution and consumption of enormous quantities of water, deforestation, etc.) and profound imbalances. If instead the lands were cultivated only for direct human feeding, the current agricultural area would be enough to feed a much larger population than the present one, providing a quicker and more economical food (less animals, less degradation, more food for the men - Battaglia, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995).

To reinforce the idea of vegetarianism, it is not only the positive ecological value that this practice has, but also the absurd structure that has taken up zootechnics in industrialized countries. Fattened calves forcibly forced to live tied to a very short chain and deprived of important nutritives (iron) to favor the production of a certain type of meat; pigs kept by thousands in a few hundred square meters subject to intense stress; thousands of chickens crammed like sardines in metal cages; geese forcibly fed to promote the abnormal development of one's own liver; etc. In this dazzling situation, to cope with a precarious health condition that is inevitably created and to stimulate the "productivity" of the animals, massive doses of highly destabilizing chemicals (antibiotics, hormones, additives, etc.) are used. In recent years, at the height of the production paradox, it has come to administer feeds with animal proteins to cattle, notoriously "vegetarian" (with the consequent BSE phenomenon)! Above all lies the logic of profit and contempt of other living beings. The vegetarian choice then, will have a dual role: ecological and ethical. But if the second, that is the ethical one, will be the reason for choosing only the most sensitive to the dramatic state of the bred livestock, the first, the ecological one, must be an obligation of the society of the immediate future. But since the world governments will try to lengthen the time for such a decision, it will be up to the individual citizen to undertake such a choice, even gradually, since a significant reduction of meat supply will certainly have its positive effects on the environment and on the health of the consumer . "Even the modern zootechnical and fishing industries have serious flaws. Everyone agrees that by raising chickens, livestock and fish, the way we feed ourselves is improved, but nobody even suspects that meat production could damage the land and fish farming could pollute the seas. In terms of production and calorie consumption, someone will have to work twice as long as they want to eat eggs and milk, rather than cereals and vegetables. If he wants to eat meat, he will have to work seven times more. Because of the poor energy yield, modern breeding can not be considered literally 'production'. In fact, the actual energy efficiency has been reduced to such a point, and human labor and fatigue have reached such a level, that man is even considering the possibility of increasing the efficiency of livestock production by breeding genetically breeds. improved " (Fukuoka, 2001).

The man at the beginning was only occasionally carnivorous, giving prevalence to a substantially frugivorous diet. The analysis of its physical appearance confirms the fact: dentition free of large canines, lack of offensive nails and a long intestine. The carnivore, on the other hand, has a very short intestine (not to absorb the toxins of the meat), large and sharp canines to tear the meat and nail to hurt. The structure of the human intestine allows, due to its length, the absorption of all toxic substances of the meat, and causes, for those who make excessive use, the onset of numerous degenerative diseases including cancer.

Let's not forget, then, just to briefly mention, the very serious genetic manipulations that you want, or rather already are already implementing, both on animals and on agricultural products (so-called GMOs, or genetically modified organisms) with the excuse that they will give the food for all human beings (for example, animals with ultra-rapid and higher growths will be created) and will be immune to parasitic details and so on. This without thinking that a genetically manipulated agriculture will bring incalculable devastating effects on the wild world with contaminations that can not even be imagined. A simple recent data, to name only one, reports that 60 GMO fish are sufficient to extinguish a herd of 60,000 "normal" (Mochi C., 2001). We do not speak of course what will happen to people who will feed on these products (agricultural or animal origin) and it is not a pessimistic view if we say that sooner or later everyone will feed on these "new" products ". Similar situations of the past, even in other sectors, provide us with too many certainties.

A short passage is then useful to bring back to become even more aware of the follies that modern man has given birth. With the advent of chemical agriculture that massively polluted the planet earth together with the industry, the products of the soil have become more and more products, so to speak, similar to substances of "chemical synthesis" less and less rich in nutrients and organoleptic elements. increasingly opulent of poisons and profound alterations. Then one of the "most comical" scenes comes from the sudden awakening of the man who, a little aware of the path taken, tries to correct the shot to produce so-called "organic" agricultural food. That is what has been done for thousands of years in agriculture and then wiped out by chemistry now we try to get it back on the plate. A simple psychoanalytic session would tell the doctor that the patient suffers from a real lack of memory, a total forgetfulness from healthy reasoning. He had forgotten what he did very well and had experienced for hundreds of generations. Then, and here is the forgetfulness, he suddenly preferred to practice the poisoning route, in stark contrast to what good mother earth could offer. But too much intoxication has perhaps aroused the patient a little and has begun to take again a small part of the main road, also because he also wants to detoxify himself. Out of the metaphor, we can say that the future will give us some answers in this sense, even if the prospects do not seem to be good at all.

"In today's society, man is detached from nature and human knowledge is arbitrary. To give an example, suppose a scientist wants to understand nature. It could start with the study of a leaf, but then its research would inevitably continue in the analysis of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles, losing sight of the original leaf.

Studies on fission and nuclear fusion are today the most dynamic and avant-garde research field and, with the development of genetic engineering, man has acquired the ability to modify life to his liking: self-appointed substitute of God, he has taken possession of a sort of terrible magic wand.

And what could you want to experience man in the field of agriculture? Probably intends to begin with the creation of curious plants obtained through interspecific genetic recombination. It should not be difficult to make gigantic varieties of rice. The trees will be crossed with the bamboo and the aubergines will grow on cucumber plants. It will even be possible to ripen the tomatoes on the trees. After transplanting genes of leguminous plants into tomatoes or rice, scientists will produce tomatoes containing rhizobium, a bacterium that fixes nitrogen in the air. The tomatoes and rice thus obtained will no longer need nitrogenous fertilizers: there is no doubt that the peasants would take such an opportunity on the fly. Genetic engineering will certainly be applied to insects too. If hybrids such as flies-bees or butterflies-dragonflies are created, they will no longer be able to distinguish beneficial and harmful insects. Just as the queen ant produces nothing but worker ants, even man will try to create any insect or animal that may be useful to him. Eventually things could get to the point of creating hybrids of foxes and raccoons to show at the zoo and we could even see human-vegetable or human-machine created just to work. The most ridiculous creatures, if realized in the name of the progress of medicine, we say, will receive the consent and the general applause ... .. " (Fukuoka, 2001).

These last examples demonstrate for the umpteenth time what man is: a simply contemptible being (to use a "diplomatic" terminology) that once again shows his true image without the mask of his own false morality and ethics. And he will finally appear to us as he is: without a face!

We report again some very acute steps of Fukuoka (2001) that will enlighten us even better on contemporary "scientific" agriculture and on the decline of man for having taken a wrong path. "We often talk about 'making food', but farmers do not produce the food of life. Only nature has the ability to create something from nothing and farmers can only make them helpers. Modern agriculture is just a processing industry that uses oil-derived energy in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and machinery to make synthetic food products that are nothing but poor imitations of natural food.

The farmer today has become a mercenary of the industrialized society. He tries, without success, to get rich by cultivating with the help of chemicals, a company that would put a strain on the Goddess of Mercy of the Thousand Hands. Natural agriculture, authentic and original form of cultivation, represents the method 'without method' of nature, the unchanging path of Bodidarma. Although it may seem fragile and vulnerable, it is actually a very powerful method because it leads to victory without having fought; it is a Buddhist method of cultivation which proves to be very fruitful without damaging the soil, plants and insects ......... The aim of natural agriculture and non-action and the return to nature. It is a centripetal and convergent movement. On the contrary, scientific agriculture moves away from nature following the whims and desires of man, with a centrifugal and divergent movement. Since this movement of expansion to the outside can not be stopped, scientific agriculture is condemned to extinction ...... Humanity has abandoned nature and only recently has it begun to realize, with growing disquiet, its pitiful orphan condition of the universe. And yet, even when man strives to return to nature, he discovers that he no longer knows what it is and that, moreover, he has destroyed and lost forever the nature he tries in vain to return ... .. To reach a 'humanity and a society founded on' non-action ', man has to review all he has done in the past and get rid of all the false concepts of which he and his company are imbued. This is the moment of 'non-action'. Natural agriculture can be considered a sector of this movement. Knowledge and human labors expand and become useless and complex. We must stop this expansion, convert, simplify and reduce our efforts and our knowledge to keep in harmony with the laws of nature. Natural agriculture is more than just innovation in agricultural techniques; it is the basic practical element of a spiritual movement, of a revolution aimed at changing the human way of life ". Regarding the destruction and deleterious contamination of environments due to the use of pesticides we would like to conclude the paragraph with the unforgettable, warning and really sad words of Rachel Carson (1963): "There was a strange quiet. The birds, for example, where did they go? ... It was a spring without voices. The morning dawn of the chorus of thrushes, cat-birds, pigeons, gravels, wrens and a whole series of other voices, now echoed no sound; the silence hovered over the fields, the woods and the marshes . "

                                                                     

_______________

 

- FAO after a specific research has published a study in which claims that if all were vegetarian there would be no more serious problem of hunger in the world!

 

- It is scientifically proven that the vegan diet (see following chapter) reduces the environmental impact by more than 50%!

 

- The World Health Organization has estimated that the overcoming of vegetarians on omnivores will take place in 2050 according to the critical mass !!

 

- Remember that in the world there are over 800 million vegetarians (90% concentrated in the eastern countries, influenced by the choice also by the various religions that do not allow the use of animals for food). In Western countries, including Italy, the phenomenon is growing rapidly, affecting many millions of people.

 

 

The vegan choice

 

 

"A day will come when killing an animal will be considered a serious crime like killing a man" (Leonardo da Vinci)

 

1 - From Wikipedia:

 

Veganism is compassion, equality, justice.

Veganism is sensitization and education.

Veganism is peace. But above all veganism is the only way to put an end to all cruel exploitation and slavery.

Veganism is total liberation. (see Vegan Manifesto)

 

The vegan word was coined in 1944 by Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson. Shrigley and Watson who were vegans or pure vegetarians, were dissatisfied with the fact that many people who called themselves vegetarians ate dairy products, eggs and fish. Shortly thereafter, on November 1 of the same year, Watson founded the Vegan Society in the United Kingdom. Since 1994, the 1st World Vegan Day is celebrated on November 1st, the World Vegan Day.

 

They coined the new name by taking the first and last letters of the English term vegetarian, with the indication that veganism was "the beginning and the end of vegetarianism". The Vegan Society provides the following definition of veganism:

 

"The word" veganism "denotes a philosophy and a way of life that aims to exclude - to the extent that this is practically possible - all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals perpetrated to produce food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of non-animal alternatives, for the benefit of man, animals and the environment. From a dietary point of view it indicates the practice of avoiding any derivative product, in whole or in part, from animals ".

 

The first news of vegetarianism, understood as a tradition spread among a significantly large number of people, refer to ancient India and the civilization of ancient Greece both in southern Italy and in Greece itself. In both cases this practice was often connected with healthy principles and with the idea of non-violence towards animals (called ahisma in India).

 

2 - Note by Aurora Mirabella

 

Many people think that veganism is just a diet, not seeing the hidden philosophy behind it.

Surprisingly meeting vegans who go fishing (or worse still hunting), vegans who eat and use honey, vegans who eat eggs and milk products, vegans who "occasionally" eat meat and fish, vegans only for health reasons that they allow themselves to linger on products of animal origin.

All of this is very unfortunate because it contributes to the vegan labeling of non-vegan choices only creating confusion and damage to the vegan movement.

First of all, if we really want to give labels it is good to clarify that choosing a diet based exclusively on vegetable health reasons (or ethics) but that includes milk and eggs is called vegetarianism; and secondly, eating products of animal origin (meat, fish) even if "occasionally" is not acceptable for a vegetarian, let alone for a vegan.

Veganism by definition brings with it profoundly ethical motivations and has clear and precise "rules" (let me pass the term). There is no such thing as a vegan whose choice is only and exclusively a choice linked to a diet, a diet and that eats or uses even if products of animal origin sporadically.

Veganism excludes all forms of exploitation and cruelty to any species that is part of the animal kingdom (animal kingdom that includes human and non-human beings, then land animals, air, water, insects and so on).

Veganism is against slavery, it is anti-speciesism, anti-racism, sexism, classism, as well as against any other form of discrimination. It is not a trend, something that is fashionable: it is a serious matter and its main objective is to put an end to all animal exploitation, to every form of slavery. We consciously choose to fight for total animal liberation and for all the rights of the animals / men / women without a voice.

A vegan does not buy and does not use products that contain ingredients of animal origin (nor products tested on animals): it may happen that you inadvertently buy products containing ingredients of animal origin and / or tested on animals; it happens by pure chance or ignorance, in the sense of clearly ignoring the components of the product (unfortunately most of the confined products have unclear labels and indications for which it happens to run into non-vegan purchases). But once you find out that that product is not vegan, it is good to leave it on the shelf!

A vegan does not kill insects: they are animals too.

A vegan does not turn pets into toys to fill a selfish sense of loneliness.

A vegan does not support: experimentation on animals, aquariums, circuses, zoos, rodeos, horse racing, bullfighting, fighting dogs, roosters and other animals, does not support hunting, fishing, child labor, and all that involves exploitation of men and animals and useless cruelty.

Smoking is not considered a vegan friendly practice because it involves animal testing, child exploitation in tobacco companies, the financing of multinationals that are harmful to the ecosystem.

Note that the use of the word exploitation often occurs: this is because some people think that it is okay to eat the eggs of the hens saved from the farms or raised in their own backyard, because this would not harm the hen. It does not matter if it hurts the hen or not, it is exploitation anyway, it means however to feed on one of our peers for which it is against the vegan thought.

Many people who have chosen to follow a plant-based diet for simple health reasons and call themselves vegan, in fact should be defined as vegetarian food. The difference between vegetarianism and veganism is that the former excludes all products of animal origin from the diet and lifestyle except milk and eggs; veganism instead moves in the perspective of protection of all members of the animal kingdom, wants to avoid exploitation and cruelty to a peer. In other words, a person who follows a plant-based diet is not necessarily a vegan. There are many people who after being vegetarian for years decide to become vegan but they do it for the most motivated by ethical and non-health reasons. Because there are vegetarians who go fishing, visiting aquariums, zoos, circuses, riding, using leather, silk, wool, and fur products. They buy products tested on animals or by multinational companies that subject men and animals to unprecedented forms of exploitation and cruelty so that not always following a plant diet corresponds to following a vegan-friendly lifestyle.

The vegan term was congealed by Donald Watson in 1944: "Veganism is a way of life that excludes all forms of exploitation and cruelty to the animal kingdom and includes respect for life. It applies to everyday life excluding meat, fish, eggs, honey, milk and dairy products and all products that derive in whole or in part from animals ".

Animals are not our property and are not born to be eaten by us, nor are they "things" to wear.

The animals are not ours and we can not arrogarci the right to experiment on them, products of only our use and consumption, abuse them and make them the object of entertainment.

It should be noted that exploitation and slavery are different from cruelty: the former often involve cruelty, but this does not necessarily imply exploitation and slavery. An example: Nature is cruel, has strict rules, natural selection exists. Intensive livestock farms are simply wrong, unethical and unacceptable.

Vegans can avoid any kind of exploitation and slavery but I can not avoid any form of cruelty. They can reduce cruelty by avoiding, for example, taking drugs tested on animals, avoid trampling on insects when they walk (obviously if an insect is inadvertently crushed because not seen this is called Nature which as we said before is often cruel).

Damaging or killing someone in self-defense is acceptable to a vegan, even if you should look for a solution that will not hurt your neighbor. There are no perfect vegans: vegans are people who want to end the useless and cruel exploitation of animals / men, which causes suffering and pain to innocent living beings, which ruins the planet and the future of the next generations. Contrary to popular belief, vegans do not consider themselves better than others, even if you ask around vegans they define themselves as the smallest of insects, by virtue of the fact that there is no speciesism.

Being vegan is within everyone's reach, those who think it's impossible / difficult to talk like that because they have not yet tried to be.

Perhaps at first it appears difficult, until you touch the ease with which you contribute to counteract useless cruel practices. All vegans renounce to products that already at the start can be totally useless: they do not need to eat / wear products of animal origin, to use cosmetic products (or for cleaning) of animal origin or tested on animals, to support cruel shows as a circus or dressage to entertain themselves, they do not need to exploit or abuse other living beings on the planet earth in order to live happily.

These few lines just want to be a clarification (not a stance or judgment) because I think lately the vegan term has been abused in its most incomplete terms creating only confusion and damage to the vegan movement.

Veganism is compassion, equality, justice.

Veganism is sensitization and education.

Veganism is peace. But above all veganism is the only way to put an end to all cruel exploitation and slavery.

Veganism is total liberation.

 

GO VEGAN!

 

   

The concept of consumption

 

 

In the past, human needs were very limited and were concentrated on simple subsistence. As the years progressed, society has become increasingly sophisticated, contracting a kind of feverish growth not only of the population but also of consumption and goods "necessary" to the changed standard of living. Pressed by the logic of profit and unbridled consumerism, here, what once was sufficient for daily survival and therefore for the whole of existence, today becomes a nothing because, on the contrary, it is necessary to possess an enormous quantity of "things". Let's take a simple example. If once on a farmland a family could get the necessary to live, today on that same land it is not possible to get even the money to pay for car insurance. The point is: the ground has become unproductive or have the demands of those who worked on it changed?

If before ten was enough, today it takes ten thousand and then there will be no ground that makes it. It is not possible to discuss the protection of the entire planet earth if we do not drastically reduce consumption and eliminate the false necessities we have created. But the system is highly perverse in that the arrest of the consumption of goods, assured by a frugal conduct of life, would undermine the entire contemporary social order since the production of enormous quantities of products would become superfluous. Many categories of people would find themselves unemployed, states would increasingly be in trouble, and the collapse, from the social point of view, would be total. So, if you save money, if you live according to the dictates of simplicity and essentiality, the capitalist social system falls; if it is wasted, if the superfluous (passed off as necessary) is required more and more, if we use and throw away as much as possible, then capitalist and consumerist society will apparently go forward. But the parable will not always be ascendant because the limits of looting to nature will impose the end of resources and the end of human life itself. Then self-destruction will take over. From 1950 to the present day the population of the world has consumed as many goods and services as they have consumed all previous generations (Nebbia & Gente, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). A family in the South of the world spends almost 100% of its income for basic survival, while, a similar American family, spends less than 10%! The natural world and mankind have no future!

Now the development of the human species is no longer sustainable for the environment and it must be said that the permitted limit has long been exceeded. Today everything is commodified even water (a right of all, but increasingly in the hands of a few) and it will not take long that it will also be sold "the air"! The mad rush of capitalism / liberalism / globalization is breaking through a wall that is much stronger than its substance, a wall that was believed to never be met.

"Success, the harrowing race for power and material prosperity can be the bitter reward of a defeat, while life in solitude and darkness can offer precious and unsuspected gifts" (Meli, 1989).

 

  

The religion

 

"Man has always known; He has always known that life is fundamentally good, that the universe, the stars in the sky, the animals, the plants, the minerals, the elements of the earth are not malevolent, but cosmically impregnated with the ordering purpose.

Purpose is inherent sacrality, the order of the universe in itself. As long as man has respected this sacredness, until he has modeled it in his heart through humility and inner spiritual harmony, the model of human society has also reflected the sacredness and order of all things. they are endowed " (J. Arguelles, in J. Levey, 1988).

 

At this point it is necessary to deal, albeit with a rapid "excursus", of the influence exerted by religious thought in relation to the relationship that, over the millennia, man has entertained with the environment, observing preliminarily that, where it is excluded Taoism and Buddhism (at least in part), and not considering the philosophy of life of most American Indians and of a few other "native" peoples, character common to almost all religions is anthropocentrism in which the man is the "lord of creation" .

Everything is available to the human race and nothing has value outside the anthropic circle. The spread of anthropocentric religions has had a devastating effect on nature so that the latter, subjugated and enslaved to blind human needs, has always been considered an inexhaustible source from where to draw hands without limits and without respect. At the apex of man is a "superior being" (read God) who cares only about him, enlightens him, guides him, protects him and exalts him in eternal life. In the face of such a centralized setting, what space and meaning can the green of a forest have, the look of a wolf, the flight of a bird or the race of a cheetah? No one, they are just contour beings that the religious man sees around him, but that he considers only in the light of his needs and his necessity. This way of thinking and acting, together with other historical / philosophical factors, has determined the destructive dualism between man on the one hand and nature on the other, external and independent, created exclusively for the "lord of creation". The birth of this dualism is at the origin of all the "violent" conceptions of man towards nature, detached from a reality that at the beginning he saw it integrated. Murray Bookchin writes (AA.VV., 1987): "To overcome the problem of the conflict between necessity and freedom, fundamentally, between nature and society, we must do more than simply build bridges between one and the other, as happens in systems of values based on purely utilitarian attitudes towards the natural world. The denunciation of the abuse that man makes of nature, compromising the material conditions of his own survival, is undoubtedly founded, but completely instrumental. It presupposes that our interest in nature is based on personal interest, rather than on a sensitivity towards the living community of which we are a part, albeit in an absolutely unique and peculiar way. From this point of view, our relationship with nature is reduced to the possibility of looting the natural world without damaging ourselves, provided we can find feasible or adequate substitutes (however synthetic, simple or mechanical) of the forms of existing life and ecological relationships. Time has shown that this concept has played a prominent role in the current ecological crisis, a crisis that is not only the consequence of physical destruction, but also a serious disruption of our ethical and biotic sensibilities ". Man, in most religious beliefs, has no longer taken care of the unity of his life with that of the "outside of himself" and, as a consequence of the radical split, he felt himself at the center of the universe's motor and consequently he has governed from power a power never given but stolen or better invented.Unfortunately the spiritual contents of most religions did not project man into a universal dimension of life, but led him to a blind selfish and centralizing vision. this is the "mortal sin" of many "faiths", which, free from that unified and global vision, have "imposed" on man the sense of dualism creating an unconscious disagreement with what is external to him.

"Western thought is dominated for centuries by Aristotelian philosophy, but starting from the sixteenth century there is a radical change that marks the transition from the ancient conception of an organic and living universe to that of a machine-world. This revolution takes place following the discoveries of Descartes, Galileo and Newton in the field of mathematics, physics and astronomy. Descartes separates the res extensa from the res cogitans ie the spirit from the matter. Man is the only being endowed with both: he has a body whose functioning can be described in mechanical terms but also possesses a reasonable mind, the seat of thought. This makes it different and superior to all the rest of Nature, which consists exclusively of material elements, is a great machine governed by precise mathematical laws that Man can know and dominate. " (Guarraci, 2004).

But destabilizing elements that make man hostile to himself and to nature all are strongly felt in the biblical / Christian conception of the world. In the latter, quoting Kaiser (1992) we recall that "a chasm is created between the world, a source of danger and threats, and believers, and hostility is preached against the earth .... In the Genesis of the Old Testament the man, considered above all from a spiritual point of view as being similar to God, is consequently called to dominate the rest of nature ....... So the account of Creation has not only laid the foundations of the dualism between God and the world, but also that between man and the rest of creation, nature: that is to say between man and his world. "Perhaps", as Frank Water writes, "right in this dualistic conception, which divides man from nature, lies the root of the human tragedy of the West" ". B. Russell wrote (1959): "Religion is based, I believe, first of all and above all on fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the desire to know that we have a kind of older brother next to us in all trouble and disputes. Fear is the foundation of everything: fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death ".

How much more noble it would be to live a universal spirituality, not disjointed, in which man, the element of a wide infinite system, carries out his own part like a stone, a flower, a mountain or a wolf. This does not exclude any thought that considers man important for man without reaching the universe as an element of appendix to his life. If Western man has succeeded in developing a wide and distorted spirituality, he has lost the great opportunity to rise above anthropocentric mediocrity where man and only man as a species and as a single individual have value. But it is good to remember that in social coexistence such a centralizing spirituality can only lead to continuous splits, dissensions, intolerances and misunderstandings.

Let's take Christianity as an example. While expressing the cult of meekness and non-violence at its origins, it has not been able to consistently transfer those principles to the relationship that man has with nature, as it remained conditioned, as we have seen, from the historical-theological root expressed by Old Testament. We read in the Bible (Genesis 1:26): "Let us make man who is our image, conforms to our likeness, and has dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle and all the fairs of the earth. , and also on all the reptiles that crawl on the earth " and then made the man God said (Genesis 1, 28): " Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky , on the cattle, and on all the fairs that crawl on the earth ".

Words that weigh like boulders, words that lead to the triumph of anthropocentrism. "... God, conferring a divine legitimation to the aims of man's cosmic dominion, commands him to subdue the earth to himself" (Kaiser, 1992). Only Buddhism, among the greatest religious conceptions, has been able to grasp, at least in a good way, as we have underlined above, the unitary nature of man and nature, even if obviously it is always the man who plays the main part; among the fundamental principles of Buddhism there is one that recites: "every man is led to keep a constant love for his brother and the animals", or another: "...... Because he who makes himself fully aware of the intimate union between his life and every other form of life, he will find that his consciousness expands, and as he gradually understands, he loves: until the heartbeat of his heart is identified with the palpitation of the universe and his consciousness coincides with everything he has life: love, of course, has as many forms as the beings that enclose it, but ultimately, what is merely personal must give way to the impersonal, that which is selfish must withdraw before what is altruistic ........ ".

When, moving from so disconsolate meditations, we retrace century after century the human story, until we arrive, between scenarios of genocide and immense ruins, to the history of the twelfth century, we suddenly find ourselves in the presence of the figure of Francis of Assisi ; what indescribable enlightenment, what a vivid ray of light then settles on the history of the Catholic Church! What a truly revolutionary act is the "Canticle of the Creatures"! And that Canto appears even more sublime if the repetitive "be praised my Lord" does not follow the Latin "propter" that can translate "because of", but instead follow the French "par", which sounds "by of ", so that it is a chorus of thousand and thousand voices that rises from the creatures in praise of the Lord. "Already in the thirteenth century, St. Francis of Assisi tried to divert Christianity from the prevailing anthropocentrist thesis in favor of a more animistic and older biocentric position" proposing a democracy of all God's creatures " (Devall & Sessions, 1989).

CG Jung writes "Nothing could convince me that the 'made in the image of God' should refer only to man. Actually I believed that the high mountains, rivers, lakes, trees, flowers and animals manifested the essence of God much better than men, with their ridiculous clothes, their meanness, vanity, lying, l 'hateful egotism ... ".

The North American Indians, with exceptions, are the most vivid example of a unified vision of life and spiritual practice. There is a gulf between their way of thinking and acting and ours because "the fundamentally global, holistic thinking of American Indians and other native peoples is opposed to Western dualistic thinking" (Kaiser, 1992) . A Pueblo artist said, "Only after I had freed myself from Christianity did I reacquire the feeling of being whole, of having achieved my balance, of being Indian" (Kaiser, 1992). Kaiser (1992) writes again: "All efforts to overcome the current crisis of our conception of the world are aimed at overcoming the dualism of a Western footprint and rediscovering the path that leads to the global world, lost more than two thousand years ago.

A central aspect of this conceptual drama is the question of the sacredness of the world. Before the unitary and global world was split into two spheres of being, it was understood as spiritual and material at the same time, divine and earthly, transcendent and immanent ....... This world filled with divine spirit was considered whole and therefore sacred. Only after the differentiation between the sacred and the non-sacred, and after the melting of the close interweaving of the divine and the mundane, did one gradually concentrate all the sacredness in the transcendent God and, consequently, on the dedivization or deconsecration of the world of matter ...

All of this is offset by the global vision of the world of the inhabitants of America before the arrival of Europeans: practically all native American populations shared the mythical conception of a world in which the spheres of spirit and matter, of the sacred and the profane they were not strictly distinct, but they formed a single whole .... ".

Integrates the discourse From the House (1996): "In the Eastern conceptions the other living species are composed of beings who live in different ways our own adventure, with full right to a free and independent life. Instead, in our world, the so-called 'movements for life' consider it obvious to deal only with human life, without even the need to specify it. Of the balance and the state of health of Life, that is of the Complex of the Living, they do not worry at all ". A classic attitude of this kind is clearly evidenced by many believers who worry exclusively and selfishly about human life! Hosle (1992) notes wisely that: "The Churches will have to radically change their way of preaching: today, those who work in an ecologically conscious way can affirm that they follow the spirit of Christian ethics with greater rights than those who pass on beliefs that can also to be worthy of respect for their age, but which give little contribution to the solution of the problems concerning the existence of mankind. It is clear that in this context the formation of the theologians should also be reviewed: it seems to me that for a moral teacher (because this too should be the priest) some fundamental notions about ecology are more important than a detailed study of liturgical science " .

Speaking of all human speculations on the meaning and goals of our lives, speculations that involved an endless line of philosophers, theologians and others, Watts (1978) reminds us masterfully: "Perhaps we begin to understand why almost all men have the tendency to seek comfort among the trees and plants, the mountains and the waters ....... perhaps the reason for this love for non-human nature is that communion with the natural world brings us back to a level of nature human in which we are still healthy, free from the nonsense and anxious questions about the meaning and purpose of our life. In fact what we call 'nature', is a world free from a certain type of presumption and cunning. Birds and beasts commit themselves to seek food and to generate with the utmost devotion, but they do not seek justifications, they do not pretend that their actions are at the service of higher ends or that they contribute in a relevant way to the progress of the world ".

John Muir with his infinite sharpness of thought wrote (in Devall and Sessions 1989): "Suppose that a Christian hunter goes to the Lord of the woods and kills his best beasts or wild Indians and there will be nothing to say. But imagine that one of these predestined victims, a little more resourceful than the others, goes to homes and fields and kills the most insignificant belonging to these two-legged murderers made in the image of God and this will be absolutely unorthodox and, if 'killer is an Indian, a heinous crime. Well, I feel very little sympathy for the selfish property of civilized man, and if a war breaks out between the wild animals and the Lord Man, I would be tempted to sympathize with the bears ...

We have been told that the world has been created for man. It is a supposition completely contradicted by the facts. Many are astonished when in the universe of God find something, alive or dead, which is not edible or is not, as they say, useful for man. Not content to take everything from nature, they also claim the divine space as if they were the only creatures for which this unfathomable empire was designed ...

It is much more likely that nature has created animals and plants for their own happiness rather than for the happiness of only one of its elements. Why should man consider himself more important than an infinitely small entity that makes up the great unity of creation? ..... ".

To complete the short dissertation there is no more appropriate passage than that of Gregory Bateson (1976): "If you put God outside and place him before his creation, and you have the idea of having been created in his image, you you will see yourself logically and naturally as outside and against the things that surround you. And at the moment when you will arrog the whole mind, the whole world will appear to you without mind and therefore without the right to moral consideration or ethics. The environment will seem to be exploited to your advantage. Your survival unit will be you and your people or the individuals of your species in antithesis with the environment formed by other social units, other races, other animals and plants.

If this is the opinion you have of your relationship with nature, and if you have an advanced technique, the probability you have of surviving will be that of a snowball in hell. You will die because of the toxic byproducts of your own hatred or, simply, for the overpopulation and the exaggerated exploitation of resources ".

 

"Do not believe what you have heard; you do not believe in traditions just because they have been passed down for generations; do not believe in something because it has been rumored or many have talked about it; you do not believe simply because you are quoted a written affirmation of some ancient essay; do not believe in conjecture; do not believe in what you consider true because you have been attacked by habit. Do not simply believe the authority of your teachers and elders.

After observations and analysis, when the truth you have found by yourself is in accord with reason and contributes to the good and improvement of each one, then accept it, practice it and live according to it " (The Buddha - in J. Levey, 1988).

"I believe in the God of Spinoza, which manifests itself in the harmony of all things, not in a God who is interested in the destiny and actions of men" (A. Einstein).

"In the Indian world there is no conception that the being would be distributed along a vertical scale, with the earth and the trees placed on the lower steps, the animals a little higher and the man, especially the civilized one, in top. All things are considered rather like sisters or relatives; all are daughters of the Great Mystery and of Mother Earth, and necessary members of an ordered, balanced and vital globality " (Paula Gunn Allen, in Kaiser, 1992).

 

 

Contemporary man

in contemporary society

 

 

"Freedom means being able to control all aspects related to one's life-death ..... Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's life " (Kaczynskj, 1997). The bourgeoisie, triumphantly out of the revolution of 1789, rose on the smoking ruins of feudalism to start the construction of a new society. Hard and huge task! But it was up to the task that human history assigned to it and, appropriatasi of scientific achievements that ranged from the field of mathematics to those of physics, chemistry and biology, seemed to dominate the elements to bend them to their own will. It was a great revolution that did not only affect things, but it was also an upheaval that tore and destroyed a social fabric even before another was born. Everything was placed at the service of inexorable economic laws that ignored man and his centrality (with respect to himself, we mean), so that humanism appeared as a happy era no longer repeatable. This was the price that the social man had to pay to the ruthless advance of the industrial revolution. The human condition in today's society is very different. Little different, and no less troubled by a historicist dialectic that re-proposes every day the desecration of the goals just achieved. However, every citizen has acquired the awareness of his own destiny, has analyzed the forces that exert conflicting pressures in the social fabric, and has become - within certain limits - the protagonist of history (at least in apparent forms). The new means of information and communication can now reach even the conscience of any poor 'Ntoni who, through the multiform aspects of life associated, is able to hear his voice and his hopes (but not their own certainties) . Apparent democracy, a creature of the "immortal" principles of 1789, has penetrated into every formal aspect of modern society which, however, troubled by internal contradictions and the logic of power, is perennially searching for new goals and new refinements of conquests. Today's production systems, the result of new technologies, have tied mankind to the false necessity of useless goods and to the assembly line, from which a different but more dramatic alienation has been generated than in past epochs (today almost all the work activities "invented" by men can be subjected to real "assembly lines" ). But it must be remembered that the traumatic aspects of contemporary human "civilization" also affect, and I would say above all, the ecological balance of the earth, seriously endangering the future prospects of the biosphere. It is impossible to escape the alienation of social and ecological desperation, because the consciousness of modern man is now imbued with an apocalyptic faith: the certainty that a new season can no longer arise, in which man reconnected in nature returns to being protagonist of a story as sublime as fascinating. Capra citing the philosophy of Buddhist life writes (1997): "Because of ignorance we divide the world of perceptions into separate objects that we consider transient and constantly changing. Trying to remain clinging to our rigid categories instead of grasping the fluidity of life, we are destined to experience one frustration after another. "

 

War and the environment

 

 

This topic (war and environment) could have a historical exscursus and a descriptive course practically infinite, because the issue is radically connoted in relationships or better in the frictions that man has always triggered with his own kind (or at least a few thousand years ago ). But, here, we can not even develop a simple case that summarizes the continuous events that have continued over the millennia without a solution of continuity, otherwise it would take dozens of volumes in this regard while maintaining a strict scheme of synthesis. We will limit ourselves to underlining what wars lead to the natural world and that everyone has been very careful to point out both for bad faith and because they do not see the problem at all. And here too, as always, the natural world can only passively undergo events. This does not mean, mind you, that you want to ignore and keep quiet about the immense genocides that peoples and individuals have lived and paid on their skin, but, to address the environmental implications of such a thorny issue, it was right to set a different cut. The miseries, the apocalyptic sufferings, the most atrocious privations, the rivers of blood scattered will remain forever engraved on that abominable part (which represents the majority) of the history of humanity.

Every conflict has an unquantifiable environmental cost, with sometimes integral destruction of entire territories, of immense forests, of animal species, of landscapes that sometimes even radically change their connotations. And mind you, if during a conflict you want to underline this immense catastrophe, immediately there are voices that "excommunicate" the reflection because we are allowed not to talk about the deaths and the destruction that man undergoes and determines; but on this point we hope to have already been clarified at the beginning of the paragraph.

Now, in the context of war, a double distinction must be made: the impact on the environment in peacetime for preventive military preparations and the impact on the environment in times of war (both local and large-scale). In the first case, the effects on ecosystems are more impactful than when one thinks that the war industry is mobilized on a broad front of action to "fine-tune" its systems, to develop increasingly sophisticated and "smart" weapons, to in action continuous practical tests, to produce increasingly devastating weapons, to employ large sums "necessary" for further research in order to verify the effects of various offensive weapons. We remember the experiments of nuclear weapons, laboratories for the production of bacteriological substances, the training of armies, etc. The list could never end. All paid for by the environment with a heavy use of energy, raw materials, land and other closely related elements.

Then, when we move on to the operative part, the whole war machine develops on the field its destructive force, both grandiose, as happens in the great conflicts, and less ostentatious for the more localistic wars but always strongly detrimental to the environment. And then, many human structures commonly used in peacetime (eg dams, power plants, oil wells, etc.), become targets and potential detonators of a destructive chain reaction. Sometimes war actions touch places of the earth that in the eyes of the most seem insignificant as deserts, immense stony mountain valleys, expanses of "desolate" plains, etc., but even there the environmental damage is devastating because in those extreme conditions live well organized and adapted a whole series of living forms, animals and plants, which undergo the destructive actions of man. Nothing is spared and, especially when you move to places where for example there are animal species on the brink of extinction, even local conflicts of an ethnic or religious nature can cause a real catastrophe. See for all the perhaps decisive collapse of the population of mountain gorillas - already threatened by the alteration of habitat and poaching - after the bloody wars between the peoples of those places. And what about when biological or even nuclear weapons are used that carry on the field destruction and alteration for decades if not for hundreds of years? (remember for example the atomic deflagrations of the Second World War on Japan or the numerous nuclear tests during the cold war); or the deleterious actions in the Vietnam war when thousands of hectares of forests were defoliated with napalm to "flush out" the enemy under them. Or the devastating fires voluntarily set on large expanses of forest or as a result of bombings or attacks. And what about the millions of anti-personnel mines scattered across the land that in addition to mutilating or killing over time an incalculable number of human beings cause the same effect for the remaining animal world? The examples could continue indefinitely, but the list, albeit extremely alarming, seems to have no restrictive effect on the consciences of all the men of the earth because they are always too easily belligerent. It is necessary, however, to highlight the fact that at every war event it is easy to see for yourself. Try to note, even with extreme care, if all the magazines, newspapers, journalists posted in the field or the writers who later analyze with wisecdality and "intellectuality" the causes of a war, never even spend a little thought on what the natural world is suffering in those terrible moments. One can obviously accept that in the first place the situation of the armies or of the unarmed population is highlighted, on the other hand it is the man who makes war and keeps us talking about himself, it is also justifiable, but not even in the second place and even a single word or a single line of an article is spent last time. Surely there will be due exceptions or the matter will be addressed by experts in the field, but in a general framework the silence is total because, as we said before, the topic is not seen at all. When it comes to destruction it is always argued from a strictly human point of view, with the consequent disadvantages and nothing more. Even on such a sensitive, atrocious, devastating subject, human thought has been trying to smear once again two blood stains (even if it is basically the same thing): the blood of men and the blood of nature. But over the centuries history books will only talk about human blood (and probably not even in the right and proper form). There will be no trace of nature either, because from the beginning the minimal elements of the subject had never been crossed. And here, as we have said, we do not enter into the merits of the widespread bad faith in the sense of justice and truth when a war, local or global, breaks out.

In this circumstance, the witty reflection made by Byron: "Here is the moral of all human stories; it is but the same proof of the past; first the Freedom and the Glory - when this is missing Wealth, Vice, Corruption - Barbarie finally - and history with all its volumes has only one page ".

Here, now, to conclude a passage taken from an important work by Kropotkin, "Mutual support. A factor of evolution " (from AA, VV 1994, page 27): " Fortunately, competition is not a rule, neither in the animal world nor in the human one.

Among the animals, it is limited to exceptional periods and natural selection, to be implemented, finds better strategies for action.

The best conditions for evolution are created by the elimination of competition, through mutual help and support.

In the great struggle for life - for the greatest possible fullness and intensity of life, with the least waste of energy - natural selection constantly seeks ways to avoid competition as much as possible.

The ants are organized in nests and in nations; produce their own food, breed their own "livestock" - this avoids competition and its harmful consequences.

The natural selection rewards, among the ants, those varieties that can best collaborate.

Most of our birds move slowly to the south and then return to winter.

These birds travel in large flocks and this helps to avoid competition.

Many rodents fall asleep during the period when it may be necessary to compete for survival; while others store food for the winter and make it gathered in large communities, to have the necessary protection at work.

The reindeer, when the lichens dry up in the internal areas, migrate towards the sea.

Buffaloes cross an immense continent to get enough food. And when the beavers become too numerous in the same river, they are divided into two groups and go, the older ones, towards the mouth and the youngest towards the source. This avoids competition.

When animals can not fall into hibernation, nor migrate, nor store, nor grow their own food, like ants, then they do like a tit ....: they resort to new food! And this also avoids competing.

'Do not compete! Competition is always negative for the species and there are many ways to avoid it! ', This is the tendency indicated by nature, not always fully realized, but always present.

This is the message that comes to us from the forest, the bush, the river and the ocean.

Therefore, unite and practice mutual help! This is the best way to give everyone and everyone the greatest satisfaction, the best guarantee of existence and progress, material, intellectual and moral ".

 

"Mutual aid institutions have something more than their functional value. They are a measure and an indicator of the health of every society " (C. Ward).

 

 A small tribute to a great revolutionary and Russian thinker: Pëtr Kropotkin (1842-1921)

 

 

".... They also taught me how few man's real needs are, as soon as he has emerged from the magic circle of conventional civilization. With a few loaves of bread and a few grams of tea in a leather bag, a saucepan, and an ax attached to the saddle and, behind the saddle, a blanket to hang on the bivouac, on a bed of freshly cut branches, a man can feel perfectly independent even in the middle of unknown mountains, covered with thick forests or covered with snow .... ". (PA Kropotkin).

"Freedom is a very fashionable word. It is not from now, of course, but for some time particularly - and mostly abusively - in fashion. Perhaps because it lends itself to a thousand interpretations, even the weakest, indeed very weak. But there is also a strong concept, indeed a very strong one of freedom. An 'exaggerated' idea. The exaggerated idea of freedom is, according to Popper, anarchism. But is it an exaggeration of freedom or its most complete and coherent expression? One thing and the other, maybe ..... As deserves an anti-dogmatic thought par excellence, because born on the negation of the principle of authority ......

.... Words of a rebel, The conquest of bread, Fields factories and workshops, Mutual support, Memoirs of a revolutionary, The great revolution, Modern science and anarchy, The ethics ...... Pur diversified, these works (by Kropotkin - note of the writer) represent the unitary attempt to demonstrate the one-sidedness of the Darwinian hypothesis and, conversely, the natural sociality of man as an irreplaceable factor of his social and civil evolution. In this way the effective possibility of agreeing the world of nature and that of culture is highlighted, in order to identify which forms of human cohabitation are more in tune with the modalities of the natural world. Kropotkin must be considered one of the major precursors of contemporary ecological thought " (GN Berti, 1998).

Peter Kropotkin, as Berti mentions, is an anarchist figure that goes beyond the sense of sectoriality to blend seamlessly between nature and man's true and pure sociality. In his writings this desire to reconcile human culture with the elements of nature appears constantly, placing at the base a close and at the same time a broad biocentric vision of human values. This also thanks to his benevolent and strong character: "What is still vague in the boy is precise in man" (Pëtr Kropotkin). Here are some hints of the analysis of Berti (1998), supplemented by some direct writings of the Russian anarchist who always reiterates this sincere, noble and comprehensive understanding of being.

"Under this conditional push, the Russian anarchist conceives a great theoretical wide-ranging response: to demonstrate that anarchism is in perfect harmony with the growth and purpose of science. And, even more, to demonstrate that the truths of this science go in the opposite direction to the culture of conflict and domination, instead testifying to a real, objective tendency of animal and human life towards universal cooperation and solidarity ..... Evolutionism and positivism, scientific determinism and creativity of the popular masses are the theoretical weapons used by Kropotkin to demonstrate the perfect encounter between anarchism and science, between social revolution and intellectual disenchantment, between moral truths and natural truths .... In short, it is the attempt to justify freedom and equality through naturalistic explanations. The juxtaposition seems antinomical and problematic because while the justification pertains to the field of ethics, the explanation is resolved in that of science. This is why Kropotkin's theorem: giving the justification of ethics through the explanation of nature. But how to solve nature in culture, science in values? How to formulate an explanation that is at the foundation of justification as the logical expression of the same ethical equation of natural authenticity?

The Kropotkian answer can be summarized in this progressive articulation: science points out as the internal logical necessity of nature, whose most mature valence, however, is given as spontaneity; that is, the explanation of natural necessity translates into the justification of its spontaneity. In turn, the immediate value of spontaneity can only be grasped under the meaning of freedom. Nature, spontaneity, freedom: these are the terms of the progressive sequence inherent in the response of the Russian anarchist ".

Kropotkin writes (1913): "Anarchy is a conception of the universe, based on the mechanical interpretation of phenomena, which embraces all of nature, not excluding the life of society. His method is that of natural sciences; and, according to this method, every scientific conclusion must be verified. Its tendency is to merge a synthetic philosophy, which extends to all the facts of nature, including the life of human societies and their economic, political and moral problems ". Continue Berti (1998): "Even anarchy is outlined as a general tool of scientific understanding able to 'elaborate synthetic philosophy, that is the understanding of the universe as a whole". Kropotkin indirectly integrates (1913): "... because man is a part of nature, since his personal and social life is also a phenomenon of nature - like the growth of a flower, or of life in the societies of ants and of the bees - there is no reason why, moving from flower to man, from a village of beavers to a human city, we must abandon the method that had served us so well until then, to look for another in the arsenal of metaphysics ".

Now to conclude a passage taken from an important work by Kropotkin, "Mutual support. A factor of evolution " (from AA VV 1994 page 27): " Fortunately, competition is not a rule, neither in the animal world, nor in the human world.

Among the animals, it is limited to exceptional periods and natural selection, to be implemented, finds better strategies for action.

The best conditions for evolution are created by the elimination of competition, through mutual help and support.

In the great struggle for life - for the greatest possible fullness and intensity of life, with the least waste of energy - natural selection constantly seeks ways to avoid competition as much as possible.

The ants are organized in nests and in nations; produce their own food, breed their own "livestock" - this avoids competition and its harmful consequences.

The natural selection rewards, among the ants, those varieties that can best collaborate.

Most of our birds move slowly to the south and then return to winter.

These birds travel in large flocks and this helps to avoid competition.

Many rodents fall asleep during the period when it may be necessary to compete for survival; while others store food for the winter and make it gathered in large communities, to have the necessary protection at work.

The reindeer, when the lichens dry up in the internal areas, migrate towards the sea.

Buffaloes cross an immense continent to get enough food. And when the beavers become too numerous in the same river, they are divided into two groups and go, the older ones, towards the mouth and the youngest towards the source. This avoids competition.

When animals can not fall into hibernation, nor migrate, nor store, nor grow their own food, like ants, then they do like a tit ....: they resort to new food! And this also avoids competing.

'Do not compete! Competition is always negative for the species and there are many ways to avoid it! ', This is the tendency indicated by nature, not always fully realized, but always present.

This is the message that comes to us from the forest, the bush, the river and the ocean.

Therefore, unite and practice mutual help! This is the best way to give everyone and everyone the greatest satisfaction, the best guarantee of existence and progress, material, intellectual and moral ".

 

"Mutual aid institutions have something more than their functional value. They are a measure and an indicator of the health of every society " (C. Ward).

 

   

Message from the six Iroquois nations

confederate to the western world.

"Spiritualism: the highest form of political consciousness" *

 

 

 

"The Houdenosaunee - Confederation of the Six Iroquois Nations - has existed on this earth since time immemorial.

Ours is one of the oldest cultures still alive in the whole world.

At the beginning, we were taught to take care of each other and show respect for all the Beings of the Earth.

We were shown that our life can only exist thanks to the life of the trees, that our well-being depends on the well-being of the plant world and that we are closely linked to the four-legged beings.

Because of this, in our culture, spiritual consciousness is the highest form of politics. (...)

The original teachings say that those who walk on earth must express great affection, respect, and gratitude to all the spirits that create and sustain life.

We owe gratitude and gratitude to those who help us: wheat, beans, pumpkins, the wind and the sun ...

When man ceases to respect and be grateful to all this, then life is destroyed, human life is heading towards the end. (...)

Our message to the world is essentially an exhortation to the awakening of consciousness.

The destruction of native cultures and peoples is part of a process that simultaneously attacks animal and plant life, the life of the whole planet.

This process consists in the affirmation of a social system and its technologies: it is, precisely, Western civilization. (...)

The attack on the Iroquois culture, with the reserve system, is only a small aspect of colonial and imperialist action, which is exercised over the whole world.

Starting from the time of Marco Polo, the West has developed a system of mystification towards all the peoples of the Earth.

Most of these do not find their roots in Western culture and tradition.

He finds them in the natural world, and it is precisely the traditions linked to the natural world that must prevail in order to develop truly free and egalitarian societies.

At this point it is necessary to begin a work of critical analysis of Western historical processes, to unveil the profound nature of the conditions of exploitation and oppression to which humanity is subjected.

At the same time that we begin to know it, we must reinterpret the history of the peoples of the world.

On the other hand, it is a fact that the people most oppressed and exploited are the people of the West.

It has been loaded with the weight of centuries of racism, of ignorance, to the point of becoming insensitive to the true nature of one's life. We must, with the utmost conscientiousness and continuity, challenge every model, every program, every process that the West tries to impose on us.

Paulo Friere wrote, in Pedagogy of the oppressed, that in the nature of the oppressed there is the imitation of the oppressor and that, through this attitude, it tries to redeem itself psychologically from the conditions in which it finds itself.

We must learn to resist this type of trap. People who live on this planet need to break with the narrow concept of human liberation, and must begin to see liberation as something to extend to the whole natural world.

A liberation of all that sustains life is necessary: the sacred interweaving of life.

We feel that the Native Peoples of the Western Hemisphere can continue to contribute to the survival of the human species.

Most of our people live according to tradition, a tradition that has its roots in Mother Earth.

But the native peoples need a forum from which to make their voices heard.

We need the alliance with the other peoples of the world, in the struggle for the reconquest and the maintenance of our ancestral lands and for the possibility of living as we wish.

We know it's not easy.

The protection and liberation of peoples and cultures linked to the natural world are, in our conception, elements that must become part of the political strategy of those who fight to restore dignity to man; this obviously annoys many national states. (...)

Traditional Native Peoples are the key to overthrowing the process of Western civilization, which threatens a future of unimaginable suffering and destruction.

Spiritualism is the highest form of political consciousness.

We, the Native Peoples of the Western Hemisphere, are among the survivors in possession of this type of consciousness.

We are here to tell you the message ".

 

* (taken from: AA.VV., 1994 pages 26-27 to contribute to the diffusion of the voice of the native peoples).

 

  

The cynical philosophy

 

 

Cynicism was a philosophical movement that had its origin in Athens, initiated by Antisthenes in the fourth century. to. C. and protracted until the fourth century. after Christ. The etymology of the cynical name derives from "dog", an epithet given to the most famous representative of the current, Diogenes of Sinope, and accepted by him, as a symbol of the style of his life.

Here we briefly recall the cynical thought, strongly distorted in its original meaning, to affirm a wise vision of life that is extremely current in antithesis to the consumerist and superficial contemporary thought.

"Nature, according to the Cynics, has created the most suitable conditions for the life and well-being of all living beings, artificially altering those conditions means introducing a disturbance in the plane of nature and weakening man, making his existence more difficult: hence the condemnation of civilization with all its achievements (family, state, laws, scientific progress, arts, etc.) and the aspiration to an ideal of existence without needs, of life according to nature, similar to that of animals and primitive peoples. "Thus the Cynics displayed an absolute indifference (adiaforia), not only for the goods, but also for the most feared and abhorred ills, indifference which for them was the result of liberation from all that they called false opinion, smoke or This interior liberation was possible through the exercise of virtue, understood by them as self-sufficiency of the spirit (autarchy), and the victory over the passions ............. But if the cynic proclaims his own indifference to current values, positive and negative, indifferent, however, are not the external conditions of life, as they can promote or hinder the total liberation in which happiness consists (eudemonia), which he understood as a negative concept: because the the beggar more easily arrives than the king. Thus the cynic works a veritable inversion of values, despising what is at all ambition and desiring what everyone abhors; this is how we see him wandering covered with a rough cloak, the only garment for all seasons, beard and unkempt hair, oblivious to the contempt and outrages of those struck by the bitter words, now witty, now vulgar, with which he blames weaknesses and the human iniquities, ................ The Cynics exalted personal freedom, proclaimed the equality of all men and wanted to see abolished all the differences of class and nationality, the privileges of sex and birth ............... " (Merlo, 1958).

 

"Oh great spirit

grant me serenity

to accept things

that I can not change,

the courage to change things

that I can change

and wisdom

to understand the difference ".

(Cherokee Indian prayer)

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________ 

 

  

 

SECOND PART

 

For an ecology of conservation

 

 

 

Nature is dead, but first

that it is buried and thrown on it

the last handful of earth,

it is good to say something

 

 

The ecology

 

 

"We have become a species that is no longer in equilibrium coevolved with its environment" (Chapman & Reiss, 1994). The serious environmental imbalances connected to the extraordinary demographic development of our planet have focused on the study of ecology, a science that deals precisely with the relationship between the environment and the sum of living organisms, both under animal and plant species. It is known that nature, when it is not disturbed, provides for itself to keep in balance the relationship between living beings and the surrounding environment (ecosystem), a constantly changing equilibrium that is essentially based on the food chain that sees plants at the first level , herbivores to the second, carnivores to the third; the transition from the first to the third level can be described graphically as an energetic "pyramid". It should also be noted that the vegetable and animal remains are decomposed by degraders, or micro-consumers (bacteria, fungi) in inorganic substances, and put back into circulation.

"It is surprising that the same ecology, one of the most organic contemporary disciplines, has such an organic way of thinking. I refer to the need to derive differences from within, one thing from the other: what is ripe by what is in embryo, the most complex things from the simplest ones. In short, I refer to a way of thinking biologically, not simply deducing conclusions from hypotheses, as used in mathematics, or simply recording and classifying facts. Ecologists or accountants, it matters little: we all tend to share the way of reasoning that prevails today, and that is above all analytical and classificatory, rather than procedural, evolutionary. The analytical, classifying and deductive ways of thinking work perfectly, when you have to disassemble or reassemble the engine of a car, or build a house, but they are totally inadequate, if you want to identify the phases that constitute a process, each conceived in the its integrity, but also as part of a continuum in constant evolution .... ". (M. Bookchin, in AA.VV., 1987).

It is therefore evident that our planet is governed by the principle of dynamic evolutionary equilibrium (sometimes non-linear mechanisms, sometimes chaotic or stationary or cyclical - R. May, in Bologna 1997) for which any disturbance caused to the natural one "relative harmony "Is a bearer of serious, often irreparable consequences. Moving from such a finding it is easy to understand the extent of the devastation caused by the activity of man who has rightly been called "the most catastrophic anti-ecological agent ever to appear on Earth" (Mainardi, 1973). In fact, man interferes in a thousand ways on the environment, altering it either directly, as happens when he destroys a forest or sacking a river bed, or indirectly, as happens when he releases enormous amounts of chemicals, such as mercury vapor, into the atmosphere. and of lead, hydrocarbons, asbestos, co2, DDT, sulphurous and nitrogenous substances, or when it discharges tons of detergents, waste of any kind, or toxic products into the rivers that flow into the sea modify or destroy marine flora and fauna. "..... We build dams and oil pipelines hindering the free movement of animals; paving the earth and building basins, altering the water balance ....; we unfold unconsciously, favoring floods and impoverishment of ecosystems; we risk irreversibly modifying the natural cycles ......; we invade the environment with radioactive contaminants ...... " (Mainardi, 1973).

It can therefore be said that the planet is on the verge of a real environmental mutation, as if humanity did not carefully evaluate the danger of self-destruction. It does not seem that it gives a free catastrophe who predicts that a future laden with unknowns will present itself before the generations of the venture where new rules of lifestyle and economy based on a steady and harmonious equilibrium even if in continuous change. When the absolute dominance of a single species on planet Earth is not counterbalanced by a series of "equal and opposite" forces, the overpowering and arrogance of the ruler (Homo sapiens) inevitably determines that soon leads himself and nature all towards total annihilation. The man at the back is a sort of "monster" that, taking over the entire planet, determines its total submission and destruction. Nietzsche (in Hosle 1992) recalls that: "rational beings who make the mistake of interpreting themselves as sovereign subjectivity must necessarily self-destruct".

Chapman & Reiss (1994) write: "The observation that with our irresponsible behavior we are destroying species, habitats and perhaps even the system of sustaining life on the planet is a depressing thought. However, we have the necessary knowledge to realize what we are doing and to understand what we should do to stop the decline and remedy the situation. That's where ecology enters the picture ".

Regarding the basis of an ecological education, Capra (1997) notes: "To rejoin the plot of life means to build and maintain sustainable communities, where we can meet our needs and aspirations without reducing opportunities for future generations. For this purpose we can learn valuable lessons from the study of ecosystems, which are sustainable societies of plants, animals and microorganisms. To understand these lessons, we must learn the basic principles of ecology. We must become, so to speak, ecologically educated. Being ecologically educated, or "eco-friendly", means understanding the principles of organizing ecological communities (ecosystems) and using those principles to create sustainable human communities. We need to give new vigor to our communities - including the educational, economic and political communities - so that the principles of ecology manifest themselves in them as principles of education, administration and politics ......

As our century is about to end and we are moving towards the beginning of a new millennium, the survival of humanity will depend on our degree of ecological competence, on our ability to understand the principles of ecology and to live in accordance with them " .

Unfortunately, our detachment from nature, progressively coming to light perhaps also due to the development of abstract thought, language, "culture", has led us to operate in a completely irresponsible way, creating a social and vital structure completely divorced from reality natural (dualism) which is the content of our existence. Hence the need, precisely using that thought that has led us to the "chasm", to intellectually reappraise the principles of life and ecosystems. Principles that were spontaneously ours when we lived coevoluti with the breath of nature, principles that the "simple" plants or the so much "underdeveloped" and vituperated animals have in their vital being. We now, with effort and perhaps with paradox, must put ourselves to "study" to regain what we have lost, hoping to make sustainable a social reality that has nothing sustainable with nature and therefore with the future. The principle of this study is valid, but will it have a real and real feedback in reality? The detachment from nature of political, religious and economic categories is still too great, and the alienation of anthropocentrism is certainly not part of everyday thinking. Perhaps natural ecosystems are not able to wait for our "steps of understanding", the end of all will happen unfortunately long ago!

Aldo Leopold in the late forties shortly before his death "had finished his famous essay The Land Ethic which, more than any other essay, marked the beginning of the ecological era and was considered as the most concise description of the new environmental philosophy ; it combined a scientific approach to nature, a high level of ecological refinement and a biocentric community ethic that challenged the dominant economic attitude towards the exploitation of the territory " (Worster, 1994). Worster (1994), on the subject of Leopold, writes that "One of the essays by Sand Conty Almanc entitled Natural History - Forgotten Science, represents an appeal to return to holistic, open education, to a scientific style open to amateurs. and to the wise lovers of nature, more sensitive to the 'pleasure of being immersed in a wild nature'. In laboratories and universities it was taught that 'science is at the service of progress'; it linked with the technological mentality that regimented the world chasing material progress and had to be transformed together with the managerial trend ........ In the preface of Sand County Almanac had written: 'Environmental conservation is not coming from any part because it is incompatible with our earth's abrasive concept. We use the earth because we consider it as a consumer good that belongs to us. When we consider it as a community to which we belong we will begin to exploit it with love and respect ".

Despite the commitment it is not possible, citing the great E. Goldsmith (1997), to conclude with a positive note: "Modern man is rapidly destroying the natural world on which his survival depends. Everywhere, on our planet, the picture is the same: forests that are cut, dried up marshes, eroded coral reefs, eroded, salinized, desertified agricultural lands, or simply covered with cement or asphalt. The pollution is now generalized: the aquifers, the streams, the rivers, the estuaries, the seas and the oceans, the air we breathe, the food we eat are affected ...

By destroying the natural world in this way, we are progressively making our planet less habitable. If current trends persist, it may be that in no more than a few decades it will no longer be able to sustain complex forms of life. This may sound exaggerated; unfortunately, it is too realistic ".

  

The natural noumenon - the value in itself of nature

 

 

"A philosopher has defined this imponderable essence as the noumenon of material things. It is in opposition to the phenomenon, which is ponderable and predictable, even in the motion of the most distant stars " (Aldo Leopold, 1949-1997). The knowledge of a phenomenon is purely empirical, that is the fruit of the sensitive mediation of the subject. This acquisition, however, can not be elevated to a universal concept, since it is quite arbitrary to generalize a strictly individual experience. A personal experience, then, also presents limits to itself, because it is the result of a constantly changing empirical "moment".

The "intrinsic or intrinsic value" of a phenomenon (noumenon), a value devoid of subjective experiences and mediations, takes on a lasting, universal and real character. The "value in itself" is something superior, something undefinable perhaps not knowable, which transcends the subject in order to become the essence of the object: "the definite Tao is not the eternal Tao" (Lao Tse). Thus, a profound universal and "noble" concept appears in the mind.

Only at a later stage will we be able to "interpret" the noumenal transforming it into a "phenomenon", that is, an object of the senses. Thus the contraposition between "things in themselves" and "things with respect to us" is born. This dualism is a fundamental concept, as we shall see, also for the protection and conservation of nature. The dualistic vision of the natural world was imposed to a large extent in the West thanks to a negative religious influence (eg Christianity placed the dominant man on one side and the nature subjugated by the other), and was proper, among other things, the Greek philosophy that placed man, a thinking and sensitive subject, outside an objectified and subaltern nature. Only in Eastern thought will it be possible to discern, at least in part, a vital philosophy that is not anthropocentric and therefore missing dualism. In the West the self is exalted to the detriment of everything, in the East everything is exalted to the detriment of the self. "The control of nature is a phrase full of presumption, born in a period of biology and philosophy that we could define the Neanderthal Age, when it was still believed that nature existed for the exclusive advantage of man" (Carson, 1963). The philosophy of life of most American Indians is another vivid example of globality and the absolute absence of dualism. "It is a culture of respect for nature, for all the forms in which it manifests itself; a vision of the world as a whole, continuous exchange and mutual dependence; a conception of life as an incessant participation in creation " (Kaiser, 1992). Still quoting Kaiser, it is emphasized that "dualism divides man from nature, thus separating him from himself, as he too is nature ... ... A dualistic conception of man's relationship with his neighbor implies that The individual feels first of all separated from the other, opposed to him ... The dualistic thought of divider sees man as opposed to nature, so that man is called to dominate nature, submitting it to his own will. Nature has no ethical relevance and man therefore has no moral responsibility towards him .... In this respect, traditional Indian thought revolves around the concepts of a great cosmic family and solidarity with everything .... ".

However, we need to highlight the difference between the concept of duality. Kaiser (1992) writes in this regard: "In our reflection it is necessary to clearly distinguish between 'duality' and dualism. The confusion between these two concepts, which we can detect very often, prevents, in fact, a clear differentiation between the Western dualism and the way of thinking, in terms of balance, typical of Asian cultures and American Indians.

The idea of balancing, of balance, of compensation, which distinguishes the Indian interpretation of the world, is based entirely on the concept of 'duality'. We have mentioned the duality between man and woman, but the whole reality is ordered on the basis of that concept: day-night; summer Winter; earth-sky; repulsion attraction; love Hate; joy-sadness .......

In the idea of equilibrium it is fundamental to consider duality not as being formed by opposite realities, of different value, dominated by discord, but by realities of equal value, existing in a complementary relationship and therefore integrating with each other. The true engine of the world is therefore the desire for oppositions to reunite and reconcile. Moreover, it is important not to intensify or prolong indefinitely the divisions and dissonances within the dualities, because otherwise they become dualisms. The dualism, in fact, is a sign of a duality understood antagonistically and not in a complementary way ........

Modern physics, therefore, interprets certain contradictions no longer as mutually exclusive realities, but as different aspects of a single reality ".

It is therefore recalled that the interpenetration of opposites, even in diversity, always generates unity within the dialectic of nature provided that the vision of the world is unifying and centripetal.

The "intrinsic or intrinsic value" of nature (natural noumenon) is the highest expression of thought. To affirm therefore that the natural substance (in the general sense of the term) must be preserved and respected for its value in itself, without our own mediation or intuition, is the highest conceptual elevation of conservation that can be formulated. Every action must always be an end in itself without attributing to it a positive or negative value in relation to the possible consequences it generates.

On the contrary, in the common mental speculation of knowledge, we refer "always" to concepts "with respect to us". In fact, interventions are stimulated only if they bring material or spiritual "gains" or in any case utilitarian. Translating, we will have: we protect a centuries-old forest so that in the present and future generations man can enjoy it materially and spiritually.

Here, however, is a superior concept: "Nature must be preserved and respected for its value in itself, not for our material or spiritual interest".

A natural phenomenon has its greatest value in itself, and manifests itself independently of knowledge and sensitive mediation. It is essential to understand that a "place" has something in itself that we can not and must not try to interpret. Only in this way will we succeed in giving the natural world the right value that belongs to it. At one time the human spirit had in itself, in the unconscious, this concept, as a wild wolf or a forest bear possesses it, but the traumatic detachment from nature has deprived it. Every being has its own "vision" of life and unknowingly posits itself (especially as an individual) to the "center" of reality. But this centrality is only apparent, useful for the needs of the survival of the moment. On the other hand, man transforms that centrality into a total subordination of all external reality from him, making only the universal and absolute rights of his own species prevail. All with the maximum of awareness.

When "studying" a natural phenomenon it is impossible to know it without being influenced by the personal speculations of those who carry out this investigation. The claim of Western science to understand aseptically the "objects" of nature without considering the contribution of the subject, is a pure Cartesian illusion. J. Wheeler, physicist at Princeton University reminds us that "there is no law except the law that there is no law".

If, as we have seen, man was in the past a full member of the wilderness of the world, he progressively became the only subject, he came out of the stage of nature, he falsified the truth, and he conditioned to his underhands interests almost all the elements of nature.

Faced with this deep dialectic so articulate and rich in variables, the need arises, within the same human thought, to reverse the state of things, mental and material, to recondition man to a "balanced and just" dimension. This "right" dimension was proper, as mentioned, in the wild peoples or in those who lived in each case in "essence" with nature.

If man remained in connection with the wild world, as an indistinct element in the ordered and unpredictable natural chaos, he did not raise any problem of destruction and intrusiveness and, consequently, of protection, respect or conservation of nature. But his rebellion against natural truth led him to extinguish inside if the sense of original harmony and purity, turning him into a voracious being blinded by his own affirmation and his own self-centeredness. Here, then, that the essential becomes superfluous and the vacuo becomes essential. The total detachment from nature takes place, the overwhelming of things happens and the annihilation of the external world by oneself. Man then considers himself the center of everything and the only yardstick of things. " Nature may have destined the fertile land also for other purposes than for the nourishment of human beings". (J. Muir).

Conservationist thought, seen in its entirety, has often ignored the concept of "noumenon" in proposing a new mental approach to nature, reiterating instead once again the centrality of man as the ultimate goal of protection (anthropocentric ethics). Only ecocentric ethics have introduced this new paradigm in the form of both non-utilitarian and transpersonal intrinsic value (deep ecology). On the other hand, what is recognized in the "concept of wilderness" is very important, in which much importance is given to the preservation of a territory for its value in itself and not utilitarian, spreading these principles profitably, taking fundamental steps towards a new and real conservation philosophy.

The superficial ecology, exclusively anthropocentric, is clearly inclined towards a utilitarian evaluation of nature (nature remains an instrument, a resource at the service of man - Naess, 1994). Deep ecology, on the other hand, tends to attribute an intrinsic value to the things of nature (living and not), universalizing the sense of identification.

Going beyond the intrinsic value of nature means losing oneself in conservative speculations that move away from the assumption of this value and are distorted into a subjective and egocentric profit. The next step, but already contained in the noumenon, is to reconnect with the natural one by crossing and dispersing the dualistic weltanschauung of life. We must dimension ourselves above the parts and the subjective mind. This does not mean that the personal ego must be overwhelmed, but on the contrary it must practice a real subjective revolution to merge into the infinite sea of the impersonal.

"It would be a grave injustice to dismiss utopian thought as pure fantasy, imaginary and unrealizable; relegating it to the defined utopian literature means underestimating its wide diffusion at many levels in all cultures. In whatever way it is expressed, utopian thinking is essentially a critique of the defects and limits of society and the expression of something better " (P. Sears, 1965 in Devall and Sessions 1989).

It is not possible to ignore the wilderness and, I add, even more from its value in itself. Those who understand the intrinsic value of things will have a totalizing vision of life that will be new and profound (in the work it will be honest, in friendship it will be sincere, in love it will be loyal, in the breath it will be deep, the next will be kind, and so Street).

Aldo Leopold rightly asserted that environmental problems are fundamentally philosophical, in which the solution of a new relationship with nature must be sought (Hargrove, 1990).

"We have tried to relate to the world around us only through the left side of our mind, and we are clearly failing. If we intend to reestablish a livable relationship, it will be necessary to recognize the wisdom of nature, aware that the relationship with the earth and the natural world required the whole being " (Dolores LaChapelle in Devall & Sessions, 1989).

John Muir said: "I only went out for a walk but in the end I decided to stay out until sunset: because I realized that going out was, in fact, going inside".

 

"I declare to understand

what's better

what to say the best.

And always leave the best unspoken. (W. Whitman, A Song on the Rolling Earth)

 

The philosophy of conservation

 

 

"When you have polluted the last river, caught the last fish, cut the last tree, you will understand, only then, that you will not be able to eat your money" (Cree Indian prophecy).

The matter that concerns the conservation of nature can be defined as a true philosophical science that has close links with ecology. However, it should be noted that, although such a link appears intrinsic, it would be erroneous to consider the preservation of nature as a requirement that is exhausted in the pure scientific sphere, since it has a much wider connotation that ranges from ethical to social and political implications. On the other hand such a clarification also benefits the ecology in itself, which, already operating in such a vast sphere, can not bear other superimpositions.

Ecological science undoubtedly offers the basis for the conservation of the environment, but this will then have to follow its own path that is fraught with obstacles that are often difficult to overcome. In fact, the protection of nature, inevitably entering into conflict with human activities that disturb the balance of the ecosystem, often finds an all-encompassing and tenacious opposition, as only the one connected to economic interests knows how to be.

Environmental degradation has reached such a high level that at times the mind of the naturalist is overwhelmed to such an extent that it is no longer able to appeal to mental rigor, without which it can not set the guidelines for solving problems. On the other hand, it happens that the naturalist has the right to take his steps into areas, increasingly rare, not yet damaged by degradation, and then the incessant dialogue of nature fascinates him, now with the appearance of the soft lights of the undergrowth, now with the glow of large expanses of ice, now with the clear stand out of immaculate peaks, now with the red beech in autumn.

"An uninterrupted forest stretches from all sides of the hut where I write, flowing before us, into a sombre, undulating stream, toward the north, up to the Arctic Ocean. No railroad crossbar, to burn and destroy, no colonizer ruins it with fire and ax. From every eminence, you can contemplate innumerable leagues of Forest, which will never feed the hungry jaws of commerce.

This is a different place, it's another day.

Nowhere does the sight of the stumps and the noble fallen peaks offend the eye or sadden the spirit; nor the strange, wild, unimaginable beauty of these Nordic sunsets is disfigured by rows and rows of skeletal and horrendous trees ......... Back to the origins? Maybe yes; but they brought us luck.

All dreams have become true, and even more. Disappearance is the nagging fear of a vandalism. Wild life in all its many varieties, animals considered timid and elusive, pass us now almost at hand, and sometimes they stop at the hut, and observe. And birds, and small and large beasts, and small and large creatures, have gathered around here, and frequent the place, and fly and swim or walk by their nature.

Piomba la Morte, as it must also sometimes, and life rises in its place. Nature lives and proceeds and flows all around in its harmonious and methodical order.

The scars of the ancient fires slowly disappear; tall trees become even bigger. The cities of beavers re-flock. The cycle continues .... ". WA-SHA-QUON-ASIN (Gray Owl, 1940 )

At this point a question is pressing: can civilization have a future? The answer seems to be negative, because man is now a prisoner of a development model that leads to irreparable environmental imbalances and is, moreover, the protagonist of a frightening demographic explosion that has almost made him reach the maximum biotic potential that can be drawn to nature from the human species. Added to this is that a large part of the population of the planet leads a standard of living that involves the use of a huge amount of energy as well as the consumption of precious metals that start at the total exhaustion.

In truth, human interventions on the territory are devastating and do not spare any element of the natural environment: water, air, flora, fauna, the structure of the so-called inert matter, etc. Man exploits nature in a thousand ways, almost always for the vulgar and useless accumulation of wealth and power. What once, in the small and the episodic, could be sustainable (eg sport hunting, the withdrawal of non-renewable resources, fishing, the emission of relatively polluting substances, etc.), also because many activities were adequately filtered and degraded by natural systems (for example, the self-purification of rivers or small seas), now, with technological means, with the excessive use of "things" and with the drama of overpopulation, many human activities are no longer each of them has a strong impact on the economy of nature. If one or two people pick up a flower in a meadow, the lawn is not affected at all, but if that operation is carried out by thousands of people the lawn will lose all the flowers it has. This must make us reflect on the continuous claims that the contemporary man constantly flocked also in reference to the activities of the past times. It should also be remembered that even in the past, systematic and capillary phenomena, even if exercised with reduced means and by a less demanding population, have produced deleterious results for nature (think of the massive deforestation of Great Britain, the extinction of the wolf in the alpine arch, the disappearance of the Maia population or that of the Easter island). Another example is offered to us by the phenomenon of mass tourism. To favor today's tourist visits of natural places means to completely alter those territories. For example, the last places inhabited by brown bears in Italian territory (Abruzzo and Trentino), should be jealously protected from the pernicious mass presence of people, otherwise in a very short time the plantigrade will remain a distant memory of the native fauna.

Faced with such degradation, the defense of the environment must become a primary and global objective. "The vision of the man 'lord of creation', in full right to destroy or alter everything, is hard to die. Certain cultures, more than others, have even expressed a profound hostility towards anything natural: this explains why in some industrialized countries the degradation and alteration of the environment are greater than in others " (Storer et al., 1984).

But we must nevertheless consider that environmental problems are so complex that hypothesizing their solution within a single country means consuming oneself in an unrealistic effort, since the degradation is, so to speak, ecumenical and does not really stop before the customs barriers. In fact it is necessary to observe that the degradation is not uniformly distributed on the planet, as it presents a distribution that we could define as "leopard spot"; it would be a fallacious hope, however, to try to reconstitute the general ecological balance by means of measures that treat the "spots" on a case-by-case basis, since it is necessary that the negative influence exerted by human activities on environmental equilibrium is drastically reduced everywhere. "Men must find the solution to current problems in a universal context" (Dorst, 1990).

It is then necessary to clear away the field of naturalistic studies or of common thought from a preliminary ruling that is of such importance that it assumes the value of a contradiction in terms, since this is precisely the claim of those who insist on considering the environmental problem solely as a function of 'man. Man is a part, a piece of the ecosystem, is not the navel of nature, so it falls into a grave error who subordinates the protection of the environment to the primacy of man, falls into serious error who says, for example, "If the destruction of the forests continues, the damage will affect the man" ... "if you continue to poison the fields the man will also be poisoned". In short, there is the risk that our inveterate anthropocentrism, everything and always for man, will reoccur in our speeches. It is necessary to overturn such a conception to place the global interests of life at the center of everything and not on Earth (ecocentrism). The rule must tend to save an age-old forest not for man, but for the forest itself; in the end, even the man will take advantage of it, but it will be a reflection, not the purpose of that rescue. We must reverse the thought of safeguarding a "wild valley" in order to then experience emotions and deep sensations in front of that uncontaminated natural scenery. The "wild valley" must be kept as such for itself, for its free being, then if our spirit will benefit from it will be only a possible positive consequence and not the spring that has driven us to work for the maintenance of that pristine status. I went to the end of the earth, I went to the end of the water, I went to the end of the sky, I went to the end of the mountains, I did not find anyone who was not my friend. (Song for the God of the Little War, Navajo - in AA. VV., 1995). The value in itself of things independently of us and of everything is the highest thought that the human mind can conceive. It is also possible to justify anthropocentrism as an "instinct" of the human species for effective self-preservation. After all, each species is a bit "self-centered" towards itself in order to survive in nature. But in other living beings, egocentrism generally leads to an undoubted advantage for the species and an even greater advantage for the whole nature. Human egocentrism, on the other hand, leads to destruction and death both in man himself and in the whole natural world. Among other things, the attitudes of the other living are not premeditated and aware of the consequences, while man is fully aware of their abuses, their own pride and their destructions and prevarications. A beautiful difference between the two forms of egocentrism! Santayana writes (1944): "A Californian who I recently had the pleasure of knowing told me that if philosophers lived among its mountains, their systems would be different from the systems that the European tradition of good manners handed down to us. since the days of Socrates, because these systems were selfish; directly or indirectly they were anthropocentric, and inspired by the fatuous notion that man or human reason, or the human distinction between good and evil, is the center and pivot of the universe. This is what the mountains and forests should make you ashamed of asserting. " With his speech presented in Berkeley in 1911, Santayana was one of the few Western philosophers to launch a significant attack on anthropocentrism and the egocentric vision of Christianity. In fact, "it represented a historical turning point in the development of contemporary investigation on an alternative world view and non-subjectivist, anthropocentric and essentially materialistic environmental ethics.

In his speech, Santayana stated that acquiring ecological awareness through deep contact with nature would help us to abandon the ballast of our human chauvinism " (Devall & Sessions, 1989). The aspects of such a sizeable mingling of roles are focused with great clarity by Franco Zunino (founder of the Italian Association for Wilderness) when he says that ".... Man must respect nature for its value in itself, and he must know how to pull back as soon as his presence affects you negatively, not find quibbles and temporary remedies to justify the necessity or, worse, the 'right' of his presence. Pavan (1988) then writes: "... we are going through a phase of confusion of man, his moral values, his rights and duties, his role and perspectives; we are in a phase of discovery of the mistakes we have made and are doing, but we still have the power to correct ourselves. "

We must ask ourselves: are we really able to correct ourselves? There are many doubts, too many. Our destructive actions are manifold and almost never fully understand the implications connected to the interventions that disturb the natural equilibrium: if, for example, the killing of a bear by a poacher constitutes a dramatic wound to the environment, a disturbance even greater is inherent in those acts that, in changing the environment in itself, determine, with time, the disappearance of all bears in the territory. Thoreau writes "If we want to protect wild animals we must guarantee them a forest in which they can live and to which they can resort".

These considerations on brown bears lead us to reflect again on the interconnection of environmental problems. In nature there are no vital phenomena which exhaust in themselves the reason for being; all the phenomena are chained together, a bit like the single musical scans of a symphony. Having kept this principle in mind, it is quite intuitive that in such a natural concert the territorial structure exerts an impact that overpowers the other factors, to the likeness of what happens with the "leitmotif" of a musical text. The example on which we have just entertained, hypothesizing the disappearance of the brown bear following the subversion of its "habitat", finds a comparison, leading to comparison another example, in the disappearance of the sea eagle from some areas of its range even after the destruction of its "habitat" represented by the marine coasts that the anthropic activity has profoundly modified and polluted. It should also be noted that the conservation of a territory (valley, cave, sea coast, etc.) must always be equal to the conservation of an animal or plant species even if a given environment is of minimal size (destroy a territory because small it is like killing the last bears of the Trentino, considering their survival useless as they are too few now). Indeed, often, the safeguard of "places" is an even more important act. The last wild areas are of great importance as integral or unitary and rare complexes as such; conserving them we will also safeguard their "capitals" of animal and plant species, we will safeguard the landscape, the environment, the whole structure: all this in a single act of action. Animals and plants are in fact only a part of a territory, albeit salient and inalienable. "A flower without a garden is condemned to death even if it finds survival in the limited space of a vase thanks to artificial seeding" (F. Zunino).

Pavan (1967) writes: "Nature is made up of innumerable factors linked to each other by ends, actions and reactions that constitute a dynamic equilibrium in continuous displacement: man throws himself headlong into actions of disturbance, of alterations, and it causes profound modifications and breakdowns of equilibrium of which it is rarely concerned with predicting evolution and destiny ........ The historical development of humanity, taken as a whole, has taken place in a very disharmonic way and so continues , maintaining many imbalances, sometimes aggravating them and creating new ones. "

In nature each species plays its part in a dialectical process that tends to achieve a state of equilibrium; this is obviously not perennial, and has in itself the ability to settle on the parameters that will gradually present themselves. It should be noted that every single biological specificity, when it enters into the dialectical process that will then determine the equilibrium point of the ecosystem, assumes its own unitary structure. In theory, man should also participate in the dialectical process with equal rights with other species, both animal and vegetable, but this does not actually happen because man, due to his intellectual development is, among other things, able to modify and change the structure of the so-called inert matter by means of gigantic works, such as - for example - dams that block rivers, thousands of kilometers of highways, the drying up of lakes, the construction of new cities; to this it is added that, thanks to its sophisticated technology, man has the possibility of exterminating, in a short period of time, any other living form. On these problems Galiano & Marchino (1990) entertain, who note "... the great 'sin' of Western man is to have become detached from nature, from its environment. For him the sun, the moon, the stars, the flowers, the plants, the animals, are no longer either 'sisters' or 'brothers'. From cosmocentrism it has moved to theocentrism and ended up in anthropocentrism. The "perverse" consequence was clear: if man is the center of everything, then he becomes despot, he can impose his laws without hesitation, he can exert violence on nature and oppression on the brothers. But the expropriated and manipulated nature manifests all the boomerang effects of such an intervention ". With these considerations G. Galiano and M. Marchino icically focus on the dimension of today's man who seems to be dramatically suited to self-destruction.

According to Rousseau, progress represents something external to man, something that does not touch what is most intimate in our being, that is, the natural instinct (Geymonat, 1971). If the thinker in Geneva seems to fall into the paradox when he proclaims the superiority of primitive life compared to that achieved by the so-called "civil" peoples, it is true that one of the most significant aspects of modern man's crisis is precisely his detachment from nature. And it was a particularly cruel detachment that occurred in the years that mark the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the looting of the environment assumed a destructive capacity until then unimaginable. "Humanity is a cancer in the universe of life" (David Foreman). Western man is in fact a real "cancer" in the organism of nature and, like the malignant cells, brings only death and destruction. "The preservation of the environment lacks its objective because it is incompatible with the concept of land that has been handed down to us from the time of Abraham: we rape the earth because we consider it an article that belongs to us. Only when we see it as a common home, to which we belong, can we begin to serve it with love and respect " (Leopold, 1949-1997).

The need to treat the environmental question mainly from an ethical / philosophical point of view, is based on the fact that in the West all philosophical speculation has been practically deprived, from its origins to the present day, of substantive arguments on the subject (the examples are few: J. Muir, A. Leopold, HD Thoreau, etc.). Indeed, Hargrove (1990) writes: "Despite the many monumental results of philosophy, it has never succeeded, throughout the West, in providing a basis for environmental thinking. This failure involves all the major branches: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, social and political philosophy, philosophy of science and, of course, aesthetics ......

Environmental ethics is an opportunity for philosophy to correct its greatest error, the rejection of the natural world which is experienced concretely in real life ......

We hope that conservationists and conservationists of the nature of the beginning of the next century will have better philosophical theories to make a choice ... ".

The lack of this philosophical basis has certainly determined all the substantial negative attitudes that man has developed in his vision of the world (andropocentrism, dualism, etc.). Proof of this are the dull religious speculative and prevaricating speculations of the West or the rigid mechanization of Cartesian rationalism. A. Leopold wrote (1949-1997): "There is still no ethic that considers the relationship of man with the earth, and with the animals and plants that grow on it. Just like the slaves of Ulysses, the earth is still considered a property. The relationship with the land is still strictly economic and provides rights but not duties .....

In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens as a conqueror of the earth to a simple member and citizen of his community. It implies respect for the other members and for the community itself, as such ".

The Capra discourse is very well integrated when he writes (1997): "All living beings are members of ecological communities linked to one another in a network of interdependent relations. When this deep ecological perception becomes part of our everyday awareness, a radically new ethical system emerges.

Today the need for such a profound ecological ethic is urgent, especially in science, given that much of what scientists do is not used to promote life or to preserve it, but to destroy it. With physicists who design armament systems that threaten to cancel life on the planet, with chemists that contaminate the world environment, with biologists who put new and unknown types of microorganisms into circulation without being able to predict their consequences, with the psychological and other scientists who torture animals in the name of scientific progress, with all these activities that continue, it seems urgent to introduce in the science of the norms of 'eco-ethics' ".

Vittorio Hosle in his interesting work "Philosophy of the ecological crisis" (1992) highlights the importance that ethical / philosophical thought assumes for a new collective responsibility towards nature. "Ecological catastrophes are the disaster that looms over us in a future not farther; despite all the collective efforts to remove this perspective, despite all the strategies developed to reassure and reassure us, in the meantime this conviction has consolidated in the conscience of most people and constitutes the gloomy background of the meaning of life for the young generation of the developed countries . On the one hand, the practice of cultivating this feeling has something repugnant about it, since it is all too easy for it to lead to resignation and apathy, or even worse, which leads the masses to frantic hedonism and intellectuals. a morbid cynicism that resigns itself to what seems inevitable and that only wants to put the last drops from the chalice of the world, before sending it to pieces. On the other hand, however, this danger can not serve to justify the removal and therefore the undaunted, mad suicide race towards the abyss: this applies to each of us, and above all to philosophy. This fact is badly reconciled with the removals. because philosophy deals with the truth, and precisely not with this or that single moment of it, but with the truth that conceals the totality of being ...... Philosophy can not remain indifferent to its destiny. None of the great philosophers has escaped the emergencies of their time ......; therefore, in the moment in which not only the destiny of one's own people is at stake, but also that of humanity and much of inanimate nature, being indifferent means betraying the cause of philosophy ...

How did man come to threaten his planet in the way we are experiencing today? Is the idea of progress still meaningful in the face of this situation? ......... It is not enough to recognize the danger in which we find ourselves, in the middle of a frozen lake, the ice creaks under our feet; you have to look for loopholes to escape the danger. And even if all around us are enveloped by fog, philosophy can still hope to see the beach of salvation thanks to the light that radiates; it may perhaps indicate the direction in which it is necessary to proceed ..... ".

Kaiser (1992) brings into focus the extremely negative aspects of the dualistic vision of life in four fundamental relations (Self-I, You-I, I-world, I-God). In fact, he writes: "(I-Self) Dualism divides man from nature, thus separating him from himself, because he too is nature. The result of this split, the experience of a profound contradiction, of an inner laceration, is the feeling of not being one with oneself, of not living in harmony with one's own person - (I-You) A dualistic conception of the relationship of man with his neighbor implies that the individual feels first of all separate from the other, opposed to him. Polarizing tendencies in political and social life are an eloquent example of this (I-world). Dualistic divisive thinking sees man as opposed to nature, being substantially different from it. Here, too, only one step separates us from the consequences of imperialism, for which man would be called to dominate nature, submitting it to his own will - (I-God) In the relationship between man and the divine, dualism leads to the concept of a personal and transcendent (and therefore theistic) God, distinctly separated from man and the world. God is 'totally other', not comparable with any earthly thing. Consequence of this dualistic conception of God is the desecration of the world ... which is at the base of cosmic imperialism ... ".

G. Snyder writes (1992): "American society (like all companies) has its own system of assumptions about reality that are taken for granted. It continues to nurture a largely uncritical faith in the concept of progress. It is attached to the idea that there can be immaculate scientific objectivity. And, more importantly, it works on the basis of the illusion that each of us is a kind of 'solitary knower', a pure uprooted intelligence, without numerous layers of local contexts: the illusion that there is a 'self' and the 'world'".

A philosophy of conservation must therefore be inspired by a profound unitary vision of life, where the divisive particularisms give way to universality and impersonal: "The examination of the parts never leads to an understanding of the whole" (Fukuoka, 2001). Only in this way can the value in itself of things be gradually acquired by collective thought, lending, in the initial phase, to the most sensitive and profound people who, having understood this idea, commit themselves to spreading it.

"There is only hope of rejecting the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer every place on earth. This hope is the organization of the people most sensitive to the values of the spirit, so that they fight for the free continuity of the wild nature " (Robert Marshall).

"By doing nothing, there is nothing that is not done" (Lao-Tze).

 

 Environmental aesthetics

 

 

"Pollution, contamination, desolation, are words that would never have been created if man had lived by nature. Birds, insects, bears die and clean themselves in a clean and beautiful way. (...) The woods are full of dead and dying trees, yet their beauty was necessary to complete the beauty of life. (...) Every death is beautiful! " (J. Muir, John of the Mountains, 1938 - taken from Devall & Sessions, 1989). Whereas in the past the natural beauties were seen only as aesthetic phenomena devoid of content, the conceptions of modern environmental aesthetics, as well as assessing and recognizing the various aspects of beauty, preminently press for the protection and conservation of nature (D'Angelo, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). What is most felt is therefore the correct relationship between man and the environment and the true protection of nature. At the limit, the natural beauties are used to reaffirm arguments in favor of their conservation (D'Angelo, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). And even in this case we can develop this concept both in an egocentric way, that is, natural beauties valid only if linked to the sensory perception of man, and both in an ecocentric key or natural beauties from their intrinsic value. Hargrove (1990) writes about it: "Beauty is an intrinsic and objective character of the natural entity (which therefore is beautiful for the mere fact of existing), therefore it is released from the perception by a subject".

Nature is considered, according to science, as a kind of container in which it is rationally possible to discern the various elements quantifying them and ordering them according to strict mathematical and mental principles (read Cartesian rationalism). What emerges is a parceled, controlled, aseptic nature, where everything is as it should be. "Nature is a perpetual kaleidoscope of fertile changes that refuses to any rigid categorization. The mind can grasp the essence of this movement, but never all its details " (Bookchin, 1995).

A holistic view of the world, instead, makes us understand that nature is not the sum of all the individual elements that compose it, nor the sum of the relations between the members, but certainly something more. Theodore Roszak says that we must be aware that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The natural world, then, can be seen with as much validity and certainly with superior spirit, also through sensations, perfumes, emotions. It follows that environmental aesthetics calls for an alternative behavior to the "professional" rigidity of modern natural science. A wild being knows his environment very well and receives continuous emotions in the relationship with it: this is the natural knowledge of things. Therefore, developing this aspect, that is a practical knowledge made of experiences and sensations, is the best relationship that can be established to reconnect with nature. Feel the scent of the undergrowth after the rain, identify the track of an animal, observe the dynamics of geological processes, know how to predict the imminence of a storm, know how to light a fire with simple means or know how to get away in a wild environment: this is the main knowledge of natural history. A wolf spontaneously lives in deep unity with its environment, knows its "secrets", and from it perceives continuous simple sensations. They will probably be different from ours, as they will be from those of a bear or an eagle, but in common there are the same two elements: direct and practical knowledge of the territory and sensations (fear, pain, smell, loss, joy , etc.).

Modern science, produced by human thought, has instead assumed an invasive, dominating and aggressive attitude towards nature, reducing it to a pure external laboratory of enslavement and destruction (D'Angelo, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). The dualistic concept is reaffirmed (man, center of the world - nature, external and subordinate) and prevaricating principles and corollaries are postulated. This conception is opposed to the aesthetic experience. D'Angelo writes (in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995): "In contrast to these prevaricating attitudes, the aesthetic experience of nature offers a non-simplifying and non-invasive model of the relationship, both because it teaches us to take into account all the complexity of the our interaction with the environment, re-evaluating the sensorial component of our experience, both because the contemplative attitude of the aesthetic experience represents the antithesis of the violent submission of nature accomplished by the technique ".

Faced with the current destruction and invasion of nature, it is unthinkable to propose an environmental ethic rich in utilitarian considerations for man. Instead, it is necessary to define an ethic that empowers it and leads it towards a monistic and global vision of life to allow it to reconnect with the natural one. To be able to recognize the limits and the reduced dimensions of man, to be equal to the other elements of the natural world, it is however necessary to renegotiate the value of things. But to be honest, an ethic so engraved with non-utilitarian elements will find many antagonists in the course of its proposition. Hargrove in his work Fundamentals of Environmental Ethics (1990) notes: "Let us now turn to the final problem, that is to say that the natural beauty is inferior to the artistic beauty, because it is too foreign to conform to the aesthetic criteria and tastes of man. This position was sustained in 'Our Responsibility for Nature', where Passmore affirms that tamed nature is preferable to wild nature, to wildness, because, from the point of view of man, it is more pleasant and more intelligible. Man understands domesticated nature because he "helped to create it". On the other hand, continues Passmore, 'man is somehow alienated from the wilderness; it is something external to him .....

This conception of nature has common elements, for example, with Locke's theory of property, for which nature is valued by the work of man. Nature thus transformed becomes property, as something human, work, has become part of the raw nature and has permanently united with it. This conception of nature as something incomplete and almost worthless, waiting for man to pour the structure, order and value, also emerges in Hegel's philosophical writings, when he states that, since nature has no will of its own, the man has the right to use his will to seize all natural objects, making them his own ". Any comment to these disharmonious arguments would be superfluous. Hargrove in fact in the next paragraph recalls that: "Since our aesthetic criteria derive from nature, it is absurd to state that the criteria of nature are too foreign to be acceptable and intelligible to man". The speech Leopold (1949-1997) integrates: "The tourist hunting for trophies 'natural' has some peculiarities that contribute subtly to his behavior. In order to satisfy oneself, it must possess, invade and appropriate itself. As a result, the wild places he can not see personally have no value for him. From this derives the common opinion that an unused land does not render any service to society. For those without imagination, a void on the map is a useless waste, for others it is the most precious part ".

And then again Hargrove (1990): "According to positive aesthetics, nature, to the extent that it is natural (that is, not altered by man), is beautiful and has no negative aesthetic qualities. This conception found its most famous expression in the phrase, continually cited in the nineteenth century, by John Constable, who stated, 'I have never seen a bad thing in my life'. According to this concept, anyone who finds the ugly in nature simply did not know how to perceive it correctly, has not been able to find appropriate criteria on the basis of which to judge and appreciate it aesthetically. Positive aesthetics is closely associated with a specific type of preservationist argument, which supports the right of nature to exist. According to this argument, which is generally expressed in an inadequate way, everything that exists has the right to exist simply because it exists ... .. ".

Finally, Franco Zunino (1980) writes: "Wild nature is a spiritual need that each of us carries within us and that goes from the simple love of beauty to the overwhelming need for solitude that some feel. It is the sense of annoyance that we experience in nature in the face of the work of man, even when this work is minimal or has purposes of conservation or study. The wild nature is water free to flow, to erode, to swell and overflow; it is the freedom to fly and run animals; they are the intact horizons of mountains or flat marshes; it is the immensity of the sky on a grass landscape; it is the silence of nature and the roaring of water in the mountain valleys; the cry of the storm in the forest; the hiss of the storm and the fearful roar of the avalanche; the slow flight of the eagle that cancels the space between the mountains; it is the game of waves on the cliffs. The wild nature is to turn around the eyes and not to see the sign of a man; it is listening and not hearing man's noises ".

 

 

"Apparent" longevity and overpopulation

 

 

"Perpetual growth is the belief of the cancerous cell" (E. Abbey). In contemporary society the idea is that man lives longer and that diseases are under control. Nothing could be more false. If, statistics in hand, we see that today we are more long-lived than in the past, we forget to consider, at the same time, some fundamental parameters. Once the real life that took place was "net", that is developed for a certain number of years without external "aid" and "protections". We lived, in essence, according to the influence of the environment and according to our physical constitution. Diseases, even when man was linked to natural selection, were opposed by their biological defenses, while the act of reproduction was assured only by the healthiest subjects, able to pass on "healthy" and "selected" genes.

With the passing of generations, natural selection has gradually diminished to make room for an artificial barrier (medical, scientific and social progress), which has completely isolated man from environmental traps. After the selection has disappeared, mass reproduction, besides causing a significant increase in the global population, allows the transmission of defective genes, thus causing a progressive weakening of the species. The man, therefore, has certainly managed to lengthen the average life in existence, but to a precise condition: that he lives under an artificial glass bell, following strict sanitary rules and intervening promptly to every minor obstacle. The critical analysis of such a picture, makes us understand that in reality man is much weaker than once, is subject to the pitfalls of a greater number of diseases and is in sharp decline in the psyche and in matter. We try, by hypothesis, to give birth to a child, a child of the genetic legacy of modern civilization, in a wild environment, and let us develop it over time according to the selective dictates of the environment. If, in the end, we count the years that survive, we will realize that it will have had a shorter life than the same human lived in a similar situation but the son of a "wild" gene population. Therefore, the contemporary technological man is apparently more long-lived, but is actually more frail, tame, weak and without character. With large artifices (therapeutic, surgical, hygienic, etc.), it protects artificially and generally has a greater number of years, but no longer has the strength and energy of the past. The gentleness and the sedentariness of daily life that "civilization" imposes weakens it dramatically. The statistics then confirm that the diseases are increasingly numerous and varied. Overpopulation as well as the continuous and rapid interchanges, further promote the birth and propagation of pathological changes (today in a few hours with an airplane it is possible to spread an infection from one end of the world to the other). Dorst writes (1988): "The constant increase in mental and nervous illnesses of all kinds -" civilization illnesses "- is the most documented proof of the profound lack of harmony that is currently taking place between man and his environment. The human activities brought to the paroxysm, pushed up to the absurd, seem to bear in themselves the germs of the destruction of our species.

This phenomenon is reminiscent of the politics observed during the evolution of certain types of animals; a character appeared in a line is then able to develop, and to develop exaggeratedly, to become harmful and contrary to the interests of the species itself and without having, from that moment, the slightest value as a mutation of adaptation. So many lines have become extinct in the course of geological times, following the exaggerated development of a feature that has become monstrous. One wonders if the same is not happening to the man and the technical civilization created by him, which allowed him, at the beginning, to reach a high level of life but whose excess risks becoming fatal ". Even many races and human populations have become extinct over the millennia due to their excessive development becoming "monstrous" (Dorst, 1988).

It is necessary to immediately remember how man, in the hunter-gatherer state, was represented by numerically low populations, which prevented the development of numerous infectious diseases; among other things, the interchanges between the various populations were minimal and localized. For their daily subsistence they moved periodically away from their own debris and garbage (Goldsmith, 1992). The time spent in hunting and gathering was a small part of the total, thus leaving space for rest and "reflection" (Goldsmith, 1992).

With the agricultural revolution, man begins to exterminate part of the biocenosis that hinders his path leading to the extinction of many animal and plant species. With the technological and industrial revolution then, the last stage of invasion, the number of species extinct or brought to the brink of extinction is enormously multiplied.

If, to reach 3 billion people, the human race took about 600,000 years, it took less than 40 years to double! The problem of human overpopulation is perhaps one of the most worrisome and devastating elements that present themselves to contemporary society and to the natural world. Once the natural selection and the brakes imposed on the environment had been eliminated, man has given rise to an extremely exaggerated proliferation by plundering environmental resources and at the same time protecting himself with technology, medicine and more. But overpopulation leads to continuous stress, facilitates the spread of diseases, leads to serious physiological imbalances, triggers social tensions, and ultimately leads to the decadence of the species. The problem is not to be underestimated and it is from unconscious to propagate social policies in the name of population proliferation. It is necessary to intervene immediately and drastically. But the myopia of the populations, also favored by religious illusion and by the policies of profit of the States, does not allow us to observe, at least in the distance, the flashes of hope and perhaps we do not suffer from excessive pessimism if we imagine the future of the next millennia as a sort of desert populated, among the most striking forms, only by some species of insect that survived the passage of man by now self-destructive.

It is necessary both to save nature and man from himself (Dorst, 1988)! No conservation policy can disregard the problem of overpopulation: "... the absolute premise is the blocking of the expansion of the human population" (Simonetta, 1976). Kaczynskj writes (1997): "It is established that overpopulation increases stress and aggression. The degree of overcrowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The industrial revolution has greatly increased the size of the cities and the proportion of the population that lives there, and modern industrial technology has made it possible for the Earth to support an increasingly dense population ... "" For primitive societies the natural world (which, in general, changes slowly) provided a stable structure and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature, rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly due to technological changes. Thus there is no stable structure ".

Edward O. Wilson said : "The responsibility of the biodiversity crisis has only one big reason: the demographic success of the human species".

 

 

Technology and population pressure

 

 

"Technology has deluded the man that with it he can improve his life and his difficulties. But in fact the technological man has become even more enslaved and bound by real chains that encircle his wrists and ankles: he has become totally dependent on his 'creations' so much that his very existence is lacking without that glass bell that it's built. Or worse: he has lost his essence forever and, paradoxically, his freedom. He himself, in other words, became a machine and a prison of which he was the volunteer creator! ". Technological development is sometimes linked to pure research, but is more often prompted by the need to increase the livelihoods of the growing population of the planet. To achieve this goal, there is no hesitation in exerting destructive violence on the natural environment, cutting entire forests, planting immense industrial complexes, discharging highly polluting substances into watercourses, cementing and asphalting large areas of the land, draining the marshes. , blocking rivers and installing pharaonic livestock farms that produce huge amounts of organic waste. It is intuitive, if not obvious, that such a vast tampering with the territory and the related ecosystems will result in the extinction of many species of birds and mammals, an event that unfortunately has frequently occurred in the period that separates us from beginning of the industrial revolution. It is necessary to note that the aggression exerted to the detriment of the nature does not always happen in the contiguous territory to that in which the demographic pressure is verified, but - thanks to the extraordinary development of the means of transport - the resources derived from the work of tampering they are often channeled even at a great distance, where they are actually needed, mainly towards the North-Atlantic belt, which, compared to a population that is equal to about 15% of the world, consumes almost 75% of the planetary resources. Such an accentuated imbalance is not only due to a "standard" of life adequate to the demand of a "civil" society, but it is also caused by reckless waste, as happens for example in domestic heating, lighting, food, use of electric motors, in the production of useless goods, in the abuse of chemical pesticides, etc. etc.

At this point let us ask ourselves if there is the possibility of pragmatically composing the dissension that man opposes to nature; yes, perhaps this is possible if we reconsider the problem in its entirety, which means to identify a new model of development, and to apply it in its entirety. A new model of development means evaluating the energy reserves available at the planetary level, programming them and allocating them in proportion to the demographic pressure of each individual area. But it also means drastically influencing the behavior of the individual man in relation to nature; the latter is an essential point of the problem.

Wisely writes From the House (1996): "... In light of this exponential trend of the phenomenon 'industrial civilization', it seems perfectly logical that for a couple of centuries the true destructive nature of this civilization has not been noticed. In fact, its real effects on Life can not be highlighted if not a very short time before its end .....

So the persistence of the current model for two centuries, fact on which the idea of continuation of the ever-growing industrial civilization rests, is instead a further proof of its imminent end: as we have seen, the model can exist without manifesting its true nature for a time almost equal to that of its total existence ......

... we continue with the greatest unconsciousness to eliminate one species after another, and apparently nothing happens in the global ecosystem. But at a certain point everything will jump ".

 

  

 The hunter / gatherer man

a technological man

 

 

"In the communities of hunter-gatherers of the first world - the world of the inhabitants of the ecosystem - man 'projected a friendly image on animals: these spoke among themselves and thought rationally as men; they had a soul (...) (Man was still) inside that world, he had not yet turned it into an instrument or a mere source of resources.

The second world - that of culture - is a creation of man. According to Eiseley's analysis, it is the result of more progressive forms of symbolic representation, of the linguistic phenomenon, of affective displacement, of the invasion of historical time. Man has separated himself from the rest of nature, has become an inhabitant of the city and has moved away from the spirits present in every tree and in every stream. His animal companions moved furtively away from him like stray ones without a soul. They did not speak again. Pan's power was lost. From that moment the life of humanity is considered 'unreal and sterile' ..... " (Devall & Sessions, 1989 paragraph on Loren Eiseley).

Primitive man lived essentially in gathering (roots, fruits, etc.) and occasionally hunting and fishing. At that stage it was perfectly harmonized with its surroundings so much that it did not cause any kind of damage. Later he began to domesticate the animals and became a shepherd. In the following phase he landed in agriculture. Leaving behind hunting and gathering, with pastoralism first and then with agriculture, begins to disarmonize from the surrounding environment and activates serious changes to the natural world. The last phase, then the industrial and technological one, will give the coup de grace to the stability of nature, universalizing the interventions and amplifying the destructions. The definitive decline of nature and the apparent domination of the human race is realized.

If at the origin, with the practice of pastoralism and agriculture, they already inflicted serious damage to the environment (deforestation, habitat changes, extensive and malicious fires, destruction of predators that "threatened" the livestock, etc.), these However, damage was localized in a few places on the earth and had devastating effects on a small scale. On the contrary, with the progressive increase of the population and especially with the advent of technology (industry, chemistry, etc.), the negative effects of the various practices (chemical agriculture, intensive breeding, light and heavy industries, further destruction of predators and alteration massive habitat for pastoralism, etc.), have gradually assumed a global character, not sparing any corner of the earth and even part of the space (nowadays the agricultural / pastoral activity is destructive to the environment as the industry, wrote Lovelock "That the agriculture practiced by the increasingly large human population represented the most serious threat to the earth" - Worster, 1994). This in connection, as mentioned, with a sharp increase in the human population. Dorst writes (1988): "At the beginning man lived from the simple harvest (fruits and plant roots) and from animals whose capture was easy. Then he invented various weapons that allowed him to devote himself to hunting and fishing: to exercise, that is, predatory activities. In this stage (reached in the Lower Paleolithic), man is still an integral part of the natural environment from which he exclusively depends. The changes in the environment that determine the availability of food, have a profound influence on man and force him to look elsewhere for the elements necessary for survival. The men of that era, who lived by hunting and gathering, changed their habitat very superficially ". The sunset of the human species and, consequently of nature, begins gradually and locally since the Neolithic, to become drastic, brutal and universal in our day. In fact, Paul Shepard asserted that the ecological crisis has been going on for ten thousand years: "When agriculture replaced the hunting and gathering economy, there were radical changes in the world of men to see and react to the surrounding nature. The hundreds of local forms of agricultural organization that have developed gradually (....) all aimed to give a completely human face to the earth's surface, replacing the wild with the domestic and creating landscapes from the habitat "( Shepard, 1973, in Devall & Sessions, 1989). Integra well J. Dorst (1988): "After all, the history of humanity can be considered as the struggle of our species against its environment and the progressive liberation from nature and some laws, and as the enslavement of the whole world - soil, plants, animals - to man and to the finds of his genius. Of course, primitive man did not even remotely have enough mechanical energy because his collision with nature surpassed certain precisely circumscribed limits. But the difference between the Neolithic farmer intent on clearing a clearing and tilling the ground, and the man of the year 2000 that has a base of atomic explosions will move the mountains and change the course of the rivers forcing them to irrigate the deserts, it's just a difference method. The human factor must be taken into consideration in the biological equilibrium of the world, starting from the dawn of humanity, and if the impact has become ever deeper, we must not deceive ourselves about its antiquity " . However, the numerous peoples who did not come to pastoralism and agriculture (for example, part of the North American Indians) are exempted, and therefore remained in harmony with their environment (some are still) until the "white" bearers arrived of "Western Civilization" (Dorst, 1988). Still Devall & Sessions (1989) about Shepard's considerations write: "Not only is agriculture itself an ecological damage, but, for Shepard, the traditional peasant has led 'the most obtuse life that man can ever live' . While the first farms that practiced self-sufficiency farming were in harmony with the environment, farmers in today's monocultures must rely on a vast and continuous network of socio-economic relationships. The life of the countryside is hopeless in modern industrial agricultural organization. Plants and pets are biological disasters, Shepard continues, they are 'genetic nonsense'. Shepard agrees with Brownell when he says that humans need wild animals in their natural environment to be able to take them as an example and become fully human; domesticated puppies and farm animals are inadequate and pathological surrogates. For Shepard, an ecologically healthy future means the disappearance of almost all forms of agricultural organization, of genetically altered plants and animals. Another essential element for the future is the full recognition that men are genetically hunter-gatherers ".

Gian Luigi Mainardi (1973) summarizes with extreme synthesis and clear clarity the rise and development of Homo sapiens on planet earth. We report a brief, eloquent excerpt: "About 50,000 years ago, after a strenuous, victorious fight with other types of hominids, a new species, the skilled Homo sapiens, set out to embark on a path that in short (geologically speaking) he had to lead him to a position of absolute pre-eminence. At first the march was slow and saw the gradual passage from the closed forest habitat to the open plains, the transformation of the diet from vegetarian to carnivorous, with consequent participation in the game of prey and predator, the development of hunting techniques in groups, the use of rough weapons and tools, the construction of safe shelters. For all this long period the environment remained almost uncontaminated, thanks to the relative disorganization, numerical inconsistency and dispersion of the only inhabitant that could have polluted it. The truce, however, should not last long. The discovery of fire as a means to conquer new spaces and favor the growth of grazing and forage plants, together with the domestication of various animal species, had a devastating effect on ecosystems.

Rapidly the human species multiplied, there were more and more numerous groupings, stable structures were gradually developed more organized, and the problem of the accumulation of community waste, the spread of pollution, of diseases, of the erosion of nature. Since then the march has turned into a fast race and man has increasingly dressed as the most catastrophic anti-ecological agent that has ever appeared on Earth, able to interfere recklessly with the environment in a thousand ways, direct and indirect ... ........

So far, nature has endured the wounds we have inflicted on it, but it is clear that we are approaching the limits of tolerability. Let us not forget that ultimately even the great Homo sapiens to survive needs nature, needs water, soil, oxygen, plants, animals. If he forgets this elementary truth, he will destroy himself in a more or less near future ".

Devall & Sessions (1989) on the impact of nature on the part of contemporary technological man remind us that "excessive human intervention in natural processes has led other species to the brink of extinction. According to deep ecologists, the balance has long been in favor of men, now we must rebalance it to protect endangered species: the protection of different types of wild nature is imperative. While native peoples have lived in sustainable communities for tens of thousands of years without undermining the vitality of ecosystems, modern industrial-technocratic society threatens every ecosystem on Earth and can also bring drastic changes in climate models in the biosphere. "

   

Hunting

 

"The greatest act of courage is not killing, but letting live"

 

"Every man should profoundly bring respect for every form of life to the highest level" (Albert Schweitzer, but also affirmed by many other prominent personalities and by many religions, especially Eastern)

 

In the so-called developed countries, contemporary society has reached a high degree of "well-being" thanks to the progressive affirmation of the middle class. The logic of profit, the driving force of the system, determines a considerable industrial production and a consequent environmental pollution. The citizen, subservient to the capitalist categories, activates the consumption turnover, fueling the demand for elements and its consequent use. The natural scenario, global container of human activities, heavily undergoes the capillary and penetrating aggression of the mechanism. Deforestation, chemical, acoustic and nuclear pollution, anthropization of the territory, reduction of wild areas, domestication of places, overpopulation are just some examples of the consequences of this vital system.

In a scenario that is so dramatic and precarious, hunting is introduced. Practiced by man since prehistoric times, when it was a gatherer / hunter, it has gradually lost its function of livelihood, thanks to the advent of agriculture and pastoralism. At present it remains in almost all countries with only recreational intentions, of passionate reminiscence and, occasionally, as an activity of rebalancing and selection of animal populations (for example ungulates - even if the wild boar problem was created by wild reintroductions of the last hunters' own years) disarmed by the lack of natural predators eliminated or reduced by man. But let's ask ourselves a question: is it still lawful or better still makes sense to practice "sport" hunting in a world that is now ecologically devastated and altered? If the concept of hunting as a livelihood and fauna balance can make sense, it certainly can not have the current hunting reality, especially in certain countries (such as Italy).

Many hunters, rightly, claim that the damage done to the environment comes from another source (industry, chemical agriculture, anthropization, lifestyle, overgrazing, etc.), but they forget to say that the little that has been accidentally saved by that Negative "source", must now be destroyed or disturbed by them.

One thing is the concept of hunting, as a food intake of the wild practiced by those who need vital, and one thing is hunting in today's reality. If the first concept is legal, the latter can not be.

"Technological" men, who live in an advanced society, suddenly take up the rifle and, remembering the old times, declare themselves to be protectionists and go to exercise their "tourist / sporting" entertainment by shooting on everything that moves (and not ). A large number of "riflemen", in territories already in themselves destroyed and altered (pollution, mountain roads, deforestation, overbuilding, anthropization, etc.), even by our simple invasion, attack what little of the wildness has remained, causing the other a notable source of environmental disturbance and to the fauna. It is true that the same applies to the hordes of tourists, mountaineers, skiers, cementifiers, etc., but here is the hunt to be "analyzed".

Think if it is right that in a natural area (eg a wilderness area) fortunately protected from the insults of domestication, the "valorization" of tourism or other polluting object, the hunting is practiced to kill a wild animal that has already its problems to survive (habitat shrinkage, disturbance, environmental difficulties, etc.). Not to mention the disturbance caused by the raking of dogs and the noise of rifle shots. Each hunter is worth, as an impact on the territory, at least four times the normal tourist! Not to mention the public "risk" of stray bullets and lead pollution of pellets. Here we do not want to emphasize the moral, pietistic or animalist aspects, but only an umpteenth subjectivity of man. You do not want to condemn those who still today, somewhere in the earth, hunting or fishing to survive, but only that fringe of humanity that for pleasure and "passion" goes "atavistically" hunting. We obviously exclude, we reiterate, the hunting exercise as it is done to rebalance populations of animals strongly increased by the lack of natural predators, even if this practice must be implemented with great care and in "severe" forms. If then hunting must be, then we must renegotiate the concession rules to try to codify an ethically compatible behavior. In the first place, a true hunter, must renounce the modern technological comforts (rifles infrared or with telescope viewfinder, transceivers, etc.), must renounce to go to the mountains using the roads that bring him fresh and rested at high altitude and must acquire a profound ecological culture pre-eminently respectful of the value in itself of nature and the precepts of deep ecology. Another important element must be that all the territory is closed to hunting and only in some areas it is allowed to practice it among other things in rotation. The number of hunters then, must be considerably restricted in the right ratio (annual alternation of permits) with the extension of the territory open to hunting. Huntable species (at least in certain countries, such as in Italy) will therefore only be those that can be reproduced in captivity and easily re-entertained (eg hares). However, this practice (ie the seasonal re-entry of fauna) highlights the serious environmental imbalance of certain territories no longer producing wild fauna and therefore subject to continuous and forced hunting re-introduction (there are many disputes and the side effects of forced re-enactments of animals of dubious origin). The failure of such a situation and consequently of a hunting activity that can be defined in more appropriate terms is extremely "artificial" and meaningless.

Returning to considering the hunting practice in reality, it should be added that the differences that are found between the various countries are all too evident. If in Scandinavia, for example, the hunter generally respects the rules to be subjected, he self-regulates and actively participates in the preservation of the territory (with the exception of the Sami, reindeer breeders who, despite having thousands, find a wolf, even if in their territories they are scarce, they do not scruple to shoot illegally, despite the State in case of loss of a garment gives him a substantial reimbursement in a very short time.Also, although in a considerably lesser form, they also illegally kill lynxes and golden eagles. this is the ignoble mentality of breeders / hunters!), in others, conversely, it reigns the most absolute vandalism, cunning and ignorance (see, for example, the case of Malta). Obviously the due and sometimes substantial exceptions are valid. If the hunters, in the past few years, when the most total hunting anarchy reigned, they were worried about really protecting the territory and organized themselves not only to shoot wild animals but above all to set up a rational environmental defense (something they say about to do), when in the following years, the public opinion, the environmental associations and the various legislators had proposed downsizing the hunt and set up new protected areas, the hunters, at that point, could proudly flaunt the results obtained for their environmental protection , at least for those sectors that competed, and oppose the downsizing of their business. Instead, at the time of the showdown, even if partial, they found themselves with the desert behind (kill of birds of prey, almost extinction of the wolf and bear, etc.). A true "environmentalist" is not only when it is imposed by law. Hunters have missed the favorable opportunity.

Contemporary man, in most of the meanings, is completely alien to the dialectic of nature. It is therefore essential, at this point, to consider that the few natural places still remained such, must be totally preserved or at least controlled to the maximum, by human "interventions" of any kind: tourism, recreation, development, hunting, etc. It is not possible to oppose those who are antagonistic to hunting by stating, to defend this activity, that the destruction of the world is for another reason. Here we discuss the negativity of man towards nature in all its forms and one of these is the senseless, disturbing and above all uncontrolled hunting in reality; but the problem is controversial.

In terms of general politics, Player, a worldwide exponent of the wilderness movement, asserts that no type of hunting should be allowed in the "heart" of the Wilderness Areas; on the other hand, Aldo Leopold, practically the founder of the same movement, was a convinced hunter and "devised" the Wilderness Areas for hunting purposes as well. It should however be remembered that Leopold "moved" in the first decades of the last century in the immense US territories, where there were still significant extensions of wild nature and where the impact of hunting was adequately filtered by the wide "breath" of nature and from the low density of the hunters themselves. In addition, while recognizing the Leopold all the merits for having spread, among the first, a new and revolutionary environmental ethics and for having contributed to the preservation of many wilderness spaces, it is recalled that he had, for more than two thirds of its existence, a vision of nature strongly anthropocentric and much less "enlightened" considering that it was necessary to "manage the wildlife" placing at the front line a ruthless fight against large predators (eg against the wolf). Finally, let us not forget, however, referring not only to North America, the numerous extinctions of animal species due to the casual use of thundering reeds! Leopold himself said (1949-1997): "Take a look, first of all, to a swamp populated with wild ducks; a cordon of cars parked around it; lurking at every point of its banks covered with rushes is a 'pillar' of society, the automatic rifle ready, the trigger that tickles an index ready to break, if necessary, any state law or public welfare to kill a duck . The fact that he is already super-nourished in no way subsists his greed ". Leopold certainly opposed the "technological" hunt and was a proponent of a "primary" hunting activity made of difficulties, of wild places, of the agnostic search for prey, of approaches on foot, of a single "cane strike", of cultural value. "And deep in practice and so on. But these noble principles would be valid if all hunters were on the same "high" cultural and ethical plane, certainly not in the real practice of mass; moreover, even if all the hunters behaved in a calm and primordial manner, multiplied by their high number every rule of common sense would fail. Finally, to tell the truth, even the automatic rifle should stay out of this hunting search because the hunter who wants to compete equally with the prey should do it in the most sober possible way! To legitimize the hunting practice that then for "democracy" must be theoretically accessible to all means that it will never be actually implemented with respect, control and low environmental impact. Those who believe in the opposite know perfectly well that they are in bad faith. Regarding Leopold, it should be remembered that his thought "constitutes a milestone in the development of the biocentric position" (Devall & Sessions, 1989) and that, as G. Sessions wrote (in Roshi, 1989), "he experienced a dramatic conversion from the mentality of superficial ecology of 'service' and of man resource management above nature to announce that human beings should realistically see themselves as 'simple members' of the biotic community. " Returning to the hunting question we still use the words of Leopold himself (1949-1997) on the negative behavior of a certain type of hunting, which is then a negative act of most of the world "sport" hunting: "Here he is sitting in a boat steel, with its synthetic lures ducks that float a little further. Thanks to the engine did not have to work hard to reach his hiding place. At his side he has fuel to heat himself in case of strong wind and speaks to the passing flocks with an industrial call from which he hopes that attractive sounds come out .... You have to shoot immediately because the swamp is full of hunters (all equipped in the same way) who could do it first. It opens the fire for about sixty meters, because its shotgun is set to infinity and advertising says that the 'Super Zeta' cartridges have a long throw .... Is this hunter absorbing a cultural value? ..... From another hiding place, another hunter opens fire from sixty-five meters, in a desperate attempt to get something ... Where is the idea of the 'light hand' and the tradition of firing a single cartridge? I myself use industrially manufactured tools, however there is a point beyond which the accessories purchased at the store destroy the cultural value of hunting ...... every type of entertainment in the natural environment is essentially primitive, atavistic, and it has value only by contrast; excessive mechanization destroys the contrasts, transferring the factory to the woods or swamps ".

The good and healthy cultural principles of hunting are excellent, but will reality actually correspond to that culture? Leopold's words confirm this doubt, on the contrary they give the certainty, unfortunately, that the current hunting is practiced only in degenerative form, as is mass tourism, excessive industrialization, chemical agriculture, senseless fishing and so on. Aldo Leopold perhaps, was a wonderful exception.

Writes From the House (1996): "In Western-style civilizations there is the phenomenon 'kill for fun': often killing is even considered a 'merit' by the hunter. The phenomenon, seriously present, however, involves a minority, even if rather intrusive; the only way to limit it consists for now in strict prohibitions .....

In many animist cultures the capture of the prey was seen as the gift of a god, which can be interpreted as 'the genius of the species': the capture was lawful only if it was followed by the complete use of all the parts of the gift, for mainly food and in any case of survival ..... Any killing done 'for fun' or 'without purpose' was an offense to the god: so it was experienced as a crime ......

Animist cultures rarely provoked species extinction or the destruction of ecosystems: for many thousands of years the natives of America lived in symbiosis with millions of bison and all the other species in harmonious and dynamic balance; two or three centuries of European civilization were enough to destroy everything .........

In general, the cultures of the East considered the other beings or in a cycle of deaths and rebirths (samsara) or anyway worthy of the greatest benevolence: all the living beings were part of a cosmic equilibrium ......

Basically, in order to really end the 'hunting' phenomenon, although prohibitions are very useful, a new ethical and cultural basis is indispensable .... ".

Integrates the discourse Hargrove (1990): "Many primitive tribes had the habit of asking for forgiveness and understanding of the wild animals that they killed to feed on it. However, these customs or traditions did not survive in Western civilization, where instead the tradition of killing nature for sport, ie for one's own pleasure, not to obtain food, developed. According to this tradition, the hunter derives pleasure from killing animals, without any feeling of guilt ". What has been said so far obviously applies to sport fishing (not to mention the industrial one that is devastating the seas, rivers and lakes). He wrote with great perspicacity J. Muir (1995): ".... Also, people of very respectable appearance, people who seem even wise to look at it, are impinging pieces of worms on pieces of curved wire in order to catch trout . This activity is called sport. If churchgoers set out to fish in the baptismal font to kill time during boring preaching, the so-called sport would have a raison d'etre; but so to mess around inside the temple of Yosemite! Finding pleasure in the agony of creatures struggling for life ..... ".

But you do not make the grave mistake of using the hunt as a litter. Do not mask an alleged protection of a territory by banning the classic hunting ban, and then design so-called "environmentally friendly" interventions on that territory (mass tourism, equipped trails, excessive and capillary paths, shelters, etc.). We have expressed a negative opinion on the hunting activity at least in the countries affected and compromised, but we have done it like the other negative human activities. Otherwise, in a wild territory, paradoxically (very paradoxically), it is better to consider the hunting activity, albeit strongly restricted and indirectly limited to a few, that far away the rifles but completely distort that environment with other dubious interventions. A large number of people abhor hunting as a negative activity, but totally ignore (or pretend to ignore) the heavy impact of tourism and other forms that disturb the wilderness of a place. We have expressed a negative opinion to the hunt because in reality many practitioners of this activity are not worthy of it behaving in a totally negative form, but we will theoretically be the first to defend it if the hunters will demonstrate a true mission towards the wilderness of the places and towards self-regulation worthy of the name (hunting activity according to the precepts of Aldo Leopold, which, as we pointed out earlier, were based on a "cultural" type of hunting, controlled, agnostic, atavistic). This last reflection, however, is in the utmost utopian way !!

Contemporary man through his thousand categories of "necessities" (hunters, fishermen, skiers, hikers, mountaineers, lumberjacks, shepherds, farmers, landowners, speculators, researchers and "scientists", etc.) continuously ramp up the rights to make something, each in exclusive form. It is no coincidence then that the environment is always at the expense. By now man is a foreign element to the phenomena of nature and for this reason it is extremely opportune and necessary to limit it. The important thing is not to create serious categories A with all rights and categories of series B without rights!

However, it is extremely difficult to find the concept of the value of nature itself among the "surface environmentalists" and hunters. In both categories there is almost always egocentricity, or rather, anthropontrism and in the hunters the myopic personalistic interest.

Franco Zunino writes: "... Who feels the desire for a different relationship with the environment, more linked to the inner needs of beauty and solitude, of reflection, of enjoyment of beauty, of moments of living and of the evolution of nature more easily understand the need for greater respect, will understand that the rights of nature must have the first place and that man must always visit it ready to draw back as soon as the signs of change that his presence brings to them become evident; ranging from environmental degradation to the disturbance of the fauna, to the loss of certain states of peace and solitude (which are a right of the fauna before our own), therefore also ready to renounce nature when it is the case.

Instead, the majority of those who love nature, fauna, flora, or enjoy it through physical recreation in it (naturalists, mountaineers, hikers, hunters, etc.) rarely pose problems of renouncing their pleasures out of respect to its needs ......... In reality every category of users of nature must resign itself to setting limits, because there are no good users and harmful users, and it is in the limitation of all the freedoms the right compromise that allows to guarantee nature the possibility of perpetuating itself in its freedom, because while our needs are adaptable, in most cases it is not those of nature ....... 'there is need of love towards the Earth, not towards the pleasures that derive from it through use. ' Unfortunately, it is almost always the inverse for the vast majority of members of the various interest groups, from the ornithologist to the hunter .... ".

One last question needs to be highlighted. The hunters accuse those who are against their activity (as deeply the undersigned) stating that the latter abhor in front of their killings and then ignore and feed on meat produced by lager breeding and an extermination in the slaughterhouses (however, we reiterate, not let's make the mistake of forgetting even the fish). This is true and the writer both for ecological reasons and for reasons of absolute respect for every form of life, of coherence and health has been deeply VEGAN for decades (to feed only on vegetables), a practice that in the future to contribute to safeguarding at least in part the planet earth will almost be a requirement to be all of it.

 

"We were eating on a rocky ledge, at whose feet a turbulent stream bent to one side. We saw what we thought was a deer wading, submerged up to the chest in the white water foam. When he climbed the bank on our side and shook his tail we realized our mistake: he was a wolf. Another half-dozen, evidently already grown up, jumped from the thickets of the willows, gathering to welcome, wagging their tails and arguing playfully. In short, a real bunch of wolves stirred and tumbled in the open just below our boulder.

In those days we had never heard that someone missed the opportunity to kill a wolf. In a moment we were unloading lead on the herd, with more excitement than accuracy .......

We reached the agonizing animal, which was a she-wolf, in time to see a fierce green fire extinguish in her eyes. I realized then, and I never forgot, that there was something new to me in those eyes, something that only she and the mountain knew. At that time he was young and his finger was on my trigger; I thought that less wolves meant more deer, and therefore no wolves were equivalent to hunter's paradise. But when I saw that green fire go out, I felt that neither the she-wolf nor the mountain shared that point of view ......

Perhaps this is what Thoreau's saying means: 'The salvation of the world lies in the wilderness'. Perhaps this is the meaning hidden in the wolf howl, which mountains have known for a long time, but which men rarely perceive " (A. Leopold, 1949-1997).

"With all beings and with all things, we will always be brothers" (Sioux proverb).

The writer will always oppose the hunting activity, but also all the activities that do not respect the wilderness of the places. Obviously the writer is also "guilty of mistakes" and does not want to point out to the others only the negative! The writer is certainly not a bearer of absolute truths.

The Buddha said: "The fundamental rule of every sentient being is to always have, and then always a profound COMPASSION !!

And to conclude, I endorse the great statement made by Albert Schweitzer about bringing into the deepest part of one's heart the "respect for every form of life" , respect that was hoped not only by Schweitzer, but also by many other important personalities from the whole world and even from many religions, especially Eastern ones.

 

An integration of Guido Dalla Casa (1996)

 

Hunting

Let us now examine the attitude of the three groups of cultures with regard to hunting:

 

- In Western-style civilizations there is the phenomenon "kill for fun": often the killing is even considered a "merit" by the hunter. The phenomenon, seriously present, however, involves a minority, even if rather intrusive; the only way to limit it now consists in strict prohibitions. In the West there are those who spend money to kill, which is even the opposite of "getting food" essential to the idea of hunting in many other models.

 

- In many animist cultures the capture of the prey was seen as the gift of a god, which can be interpreted as "the genius of the species": the capture was lawful only if it was followed by the complete use of all the parts of the gift, to primarily a food and survival purpose. Often the most hunted animal was also considered a totem, had its own sacredness. The possible killing made "for fun" or "without purpose" was an offense to the god: therefore it was experienced as a crime and placed the hunter in the position of those who await the punishment of the god, which we could also call "consequence of the complex guilt ": usually this punishment arrived punctually, through the mysterious paths of the unconscious and the indissoluble bonds between mind and body.

Animist cultures rarely provoked species extinction or the destruction of ecosystems: for many thousands of years the natives of America lived in symbiosis with millions of bison and all the other species in harmonious and dynamic balance; it took only two or three centuries of European civilization to destroy everything.

 

- In general, the cultures of the East considered the other beings or in a cycle of deaths and rebirths (samsara) or anyway worthy of the greatest benevolence: all the living beings were part of a cosmic equilibrium. This gave rise to morals such as "Do not harm any sentient being". Even here the possibility of having fun killing was experienced as a serious crime.

In the Eastern conceptions the other living species are composed of beings who live our own adventure in different ways, with full right to a free and independent life. Instead, in our world, the so-called "movements for life" consider it obvious to deal only with human life, without even the need to specify it. Of the balance and the state of health of Life, that is, of the Complex of the Living, they do not care at all.

Basically, in order for the "hunting" phenomenon to really end, even though prohibitions are very useful, a new ethical and cultural basis is indispensable.

However, it is necessary to pay attention to the "traditional hunting" permits granted by some governments, and therefore from the West, to tribal cultures under the pretext of keeping them alive, because this hunting often results in a massacre with firearms to sell furs to big commercial companies and so have the money to buy the TV. The Eskimos or the Siberians hunting by helicopter have nothing traditional: when they take up a gun they are already the West. Traditional civilizations no longer exist from the moment a firearm arrives and the values of the original culture are lost.

The West is contagious and easily seduces with its new myths. With this fighter we obtain only a further degradation of Nature and a "western" massacre even if performed by former members of other human cultures.

There is a great confusion between race and culture: an Eskimo who kills the seal with a rifle or in any case with the purpose of selling the skin to a commercial company is not an Eskimo, but it is the West.

Integrated hunting in animist cultures is something quite different from commercial or industrial hunting, even if carried out by people or communities of non-European ethnic groups. The substance is given by intention, purpose and manner, not by the hunter's ethnic origin. 

Fishing

 

Respect for every form of life is a spiritual and practical attitude of great existential value. Many people do it, many Eastern religions make it one of their basic principles, but unfortunately this noble awareness is opposed by most. Being Vegans (do not feed on any animal, including their derivatives) is a great result for one's own being can conquer enriching itself from all points of view: ethical, spiritual, healthy.

But here we do not want to talk about veganism, but put our attention on the cruel and useless slaughter that is made of fish.

Normally we tend to almost always talk about not eating land animals, or, for example the battles on the now anachronistic and absurd activities of hunting, we always focus on this practice. Very rarely we talk about fish. They too, like all living beings, must be respected and not eaten.

Unfortunately, in the area of industrial fishing, we are faced with real massacres, which have recently depleted the seas, rivers and lakes to offer, to a greedy people of death, beings who should live freely in the waters. Then, albeit in considerably lesser forms, there is sport fishing or in any case that practiced with fishing rod by many people. Many condemn the hunt, but they often forget to add to this condemnation even fishing. It seems that the fish are animals of series B (showing that the attitude towards fish is much more superficial and less emotional, compared to other terrestrial animals is proven by the fact that, for the latter almost never see in the media - I would say never - their slaughter, but simply the meat already ready, as far as it concerns the fish it is easy to observe their cruel capture, their fading and even in normal television broadcasts as you do to clean them, to cut them and so on. It is marvelous and irritating, it seems that it is working on something that had not been until recently a living being that lived free in the freedom of the water! Or, in addition, many say "I do not eat meat, but only fish" !!). On the contrary, they deserve respect too, and renouncing eating them is only good for us (spiritually and healthily.) Let us not forget, among other things, the serious pollution caused by heavy metals in the waters). What absurdity to see modern men who for pleasure and say "for passion" go fishing. What a useless massacre.

Obviously here we do not want in any way to include all those native peoples scattered around the world that rightly fish to survive, but only for those who do it for pleasure and sport !! No need to eat fish, being vegan you live better and in any case the same way. In this way we can also oppose industrial fishing, which, as we have mentioned, is destroying the trophic resources of the waters, especially the sea.

Let us face an examination of conscience and, with an act of great altruism and spiritual depth, let us renounce eating living beings. It will be said: also vegetables are living beings. It is true, but these are the basis of the need to survive. Here we are not talking about mass suicide, not to "kill" any form of life, but simply to avoid what it is useless to do.

So the simple act of becoming vegan, will automatically make us respect all the animal life forms on the planet earth.

To conclude, when we are antagonists of hunters (obviously excluding those who are to survive) or slaughterhouses, let us also remember to include the world of fish, both referring to the form of industrial killing and that of small fishermen.

Remember: when you talk about animals and their respect, think of fish as well. They, metaphorically, will thank you.

 

He wrote with great perspicacity J. Muir (1995): ".... Also, people of very respectable appearance, people who seem even wise to look at it, are impinging pieces of worms on pieces of curved wire in order to catch trout . This activity is called sport. If churchgoers set out to fish in the baptismal font to kill time during boring preaching, the so-called sport would have a raison d'etre; but so to mess around inside the temple of Yosemite! Finding pleasure in the agony of creatures struggling for life ..... ".

 

Finally a bit 'of clarity and balance. 

Tourism and the environment

 

 

Once it was the prerogative of a few intellectuals, explorers or daring adventurers. Subsequently, the phenomenon involved large sections of the population, starting from North America, contaminating a few decades after the entire West and even Oceania (Moretti, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995).

The advent of the petty bourgeoisie and the increase in financial resources facilitate the need to create a period of leisure thanks to paid holidays. Becoming a mass phenomenon immediately creates a serious environmental impact (direct and indirect with the construction of second homes, residences, etc.). If in the initial phase the assaulted localities were relegated to areas not far from where they lived, then, thanks to the strengthening of means of transport and the organization of travel, an increasing number of people moves to every place on the planet , attracted by the references, cultural, naturalistic, recreational (Moretti, in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995). Even the Third World areas suffer the invasion and the consequent irrational and wild construction of the reception structures. From a local and relatively limited phenomenon, it has moved on to a broad and mass to go even further with international tourism.

To counteract the spread of consumer tourism, the so-called "ecotourism" is born: the trip to measure of nature (sic!). Basic rules are: educational purpose, not alteration of habitats frequented, economic income for local populations as an alternative to exploitation of nature. But ecotourism has within it the germ of environmental destruction: mass. In fact, it has become a mass phenomenon, paradoxically representing a worrying danger for natural habitats. Millions of "ecotourists" who cross the paths of the Alps, national parks and reserves or sift the tropical forests, the Nepalese peaks or the Australian coasts. "Green" tourism, just to immerse oneself in the most beautiful places, often refers to protected areas, causing in these places an extremely negative impact. Ecotourism then assumes, like classical tourism, a devastating and uncontrollable form. J. Muir wrote (1995) with great profundity of spirit: "It seems strange that tourists visiting Yosemite are so little moved by such unusual grandeur, as if they had blindfolded eyes and corked ears. Most of those I met yesterday looked like someone who is completely unaware of what is happening around him, while the rocks themselves in their sublime beauty quivered with the accents of the mighty congregation of sound waters that descend from the mountains and here they gather with music that could take angels out of paradise ".

In the current state of affairs, mass tourism is one of the forms with the greatest environmental impact (consider, for example, skiing). It is a pure illusion to believe that it can be contained within certain limits. Tourism once exploded is unstoppable and behaves like a cancer. So the prostitution of nature "sold" to "environmentally friendly" tourism takes place with the excuse that this is the price to pay to "protect" a place (the ecology market). But we ask ourselves: from whom do we protect it if we sell it to activities which, being mass-compatible, are not at all? "Only going alone, in silence, without luggage, allows you to really enter the wilderness. All other journeys are nothing but dust, hotels, suitcases and talk " (J. Muir). These profound and simple words by J. Muir remind us what could be the qualities of a tourism and a prudent tourist: discretion, spirituality, simplicity, sense of place, reflection. If we add to these individual qualities the non-domestication of the places will inevitably lead to a very low density of visitors and a very high quality of the "journey". Among other things, it should be remembered that what is not expressly equipped, favored and advertised does not cause mass phenomena.

Aldo Leopold immediately understood the great danger of mass tourism and technological development when he wrote (1949-1997) that: "Leisure became a precise problem at the time of the first of the Roosevelt, when the railway lines, which had excluded the campaign from the city , began to transport masses of citizens in the countryside. It was realized that the more people went there the smaller the individual chance of enjoying peace, solitude, nature and beautiful landscapes became, and more and more along the necessary route.

The car has extended this unfortunate situation, previously mild and local, to the extreme limits of practicable roads, making something previously lacking. But this something must still be found, and then, as ions projected by the sun, Sunday tourists radiate from every city, generating heat and friction every weekend. The tourism industry provides food and accommodation to attract more and more ions, faster and farther away ..... Businesses build roads inland, then buy other lands to absorb the holiday flow, accelerated by the roads just built. The accessory industry paves the way to virgin nature; the knowledge of the woods becomes the art of using all the various tools available ........ for those looking for something more, this kind of outdoor recreation has become a self-destructive process, in which one searches without ever truly find anything: one of the great frustrations of mechanized society ".

The serious threat of tourism

 

 

We know that the aggressions suffered by nature have had the most varied origins, including those related to industrial activities, overbuilding, deforestation, population growth.

But to these negative forces has been added in recent years, as we have just seen, the destructive action carried out by mass tourism, both through its direct infrastructure and through the induced ones. It is an unprecedented invasion that has not spared any part of the planet, with peaks that are obviously concentrated in the most accessible locations and often in those more rich in landscape charm. But, we find tourists everywhere: in the Arctic to photograph white bears sitting comfortably in a bus, in the Pacific islands, in Alaska, in reserves, in national parks. The coasts, especially the Italian ones, have been cemented and assaulted to make room for hotels, villas, equipped beaches, thus erasing all traces of uncontaminated environment, as happened, for example, in many places in Sardinia. Then came mountain tourism with the explosion of hiking that invades even the most remote points of the mountain, thus depriving it of the tranquility that is its main attribute. In addition to frequenting the marked paths that lead everywhere, the masses of hikers are scouring every place, often behaving in an uncivilized manner (noises, abandonment of waste, ignition of fires, camping in places not allowed). In Italy the phenomenon is so widespread that it fears the fate of the balance of the mountain, especially as regards the Alps; just think that in the peak months some ascents must be carried out in single file (it should be remembered that the Alps, in their entirety, are visited every year by over 100 million tourists compared to a resident population of 12 million). Hikers, this vast array of modern troubadours that does not pursue rhymes of Provencal poetry, but dreams of conquering Apennine or Alpine summits that then immortalizes it in countless photos, true relics to be proudly shown to friends. In fact, having reached a peak, or a remote valley, or a mountain lake is a task that the hiker celebrates with accents of victory, when his soul often remains almost completely deaf to the lyricism of landscapes that gradually hatch, nor is it able to perceive the beauty of the subdued lights of the undergrowth, or of the subdued murmur of the streams, or of the velvety and mysterious song of the cuckoo (there are the due and substantial exceptions). Not to mention the disinterestedness and non-perception towards the negative aspects inflicted by man on the territories that the active hiker is going through (distortion of places, impact of the structures present in nature, refuges, etc.). On the contrary, if a place is not well "humanized" (eg with clearly visible signs, clear and broken paths, etc.), it feels compelled to complain and define that environment that is completely "abandoned" or badly "managed". What about the mountaineer all tended to the "conquest" of a rock face? In this case the ambition is not satisfied with a souvenir photo, but aims at much higher things, such as the national or global resonance of the "record", or a fruitful sponsorship, or even the copyrights deriving from a sudden literary fulguration. It should be added that the same mountaineering has now lost that genuine dimension that distinguished it in the past years, so as to transform it, as mentioned, in a sort of competition to the sound of record and return of image. Mountain shelters are born and develop (obviously also linked to hiking), via ferrata, rock climbing, etc. Malatesta writes (1997): "The sublimation of the mountain, an inevitable process that is part of its charm, enhancing the perennial power and the indomitable power of nature, has made us forget the fragility of its ecosystem and how easy it is to annihilate the 'call', beyond a sometimes unbearable rhetoric. Explain Carlo Alberto Pinelli, orientalist, documentary maker and international coordinator of Mountain Wilderness, that mountain culture does not precede, but follows the culture of the society in which it is immersed. The mountaineers were romantic in romantic times, nationalists in the most intense nationalistic period and now they have become consumerist. They are moved by the beauty of uncontaminated nature, but in reality they are linked to the world they want to escape, dragging behind its worst vices: excessive and neurotic competition, aggression, the use of the mountain as a pretext for dubious ambitions. And the environment as an enemy to be conquered ".

Not to mention the ski-mountaineering that for its part has a very noticeable disturbance to the fauna during the delicate winter period and the downhill skiing which, enormously facilitated by the ski lifts (in Italy over 3,000 kilometers of cable cars), as well as from all the annexed structures (hotels, restaurants, etc.) is literally devastating the mountains, all the more so when one thinks that in recent times it has come to bring skiers at high altitude with helicopters (elisky)! Notable disturbance also involves skiing and cross-country skiing because they have become mass phenomena that concentrate a large number of people in the mountains. Other mountain "devastators" are mountain bikers, who have become a real scourge in just a few years. One thinks that in the United States, where these bicycles were born, it has reached the point of prohibiting their transit in many mountain areas. In recent years, the practice of gliding with the gliders that often frequent the vital territories of birds of prey or fly over low-protected areas with serious disturbances to the fauna is becoming more and more popular. The practice of hang gliding and the ever more widespread paragliding must be added to the gliding flight. Similar tampering record the coastal environments and all the lakes areas mortified by merciless pouring of cement and invaded by rivers of tourists and vacationers. In the coasts so devastated where the sea eagle or osprey can find shelter? Let's not forget the exploitation of animals for tourism and advertising purposes. Animals exploited, reduced to machines for the illusory advantages of the moment. Animals "used" and "trained" for the doubtful fun of man (which then bring only economic benefits to those who practice such activities: think of aquariums with dolphins, killer whales and more, animals in circuses, animals in zoo-lager , etc.). Finally, it is worth mentioning the increasingly widespread activity carried out by photographers and "naturalist" filmmakers who often is a source of considerable disturbance for the life of wild animals, especially during the reproductive period. With the examples we stop here.

F. Zunino writes (1995): "We should not therefore cry out at the scandal or oppression of minorities whenever measures are taken to defend Nature by banning those that are only supposed rights. It is not always pointed to the "biggest" damage, to be hit before them, repeating the category in the category, because for each one the 'danger' is always the real danger, those to be hit: like tax evaders!

In Italy it is allowed to climb practically everywhere, to go mountain biking practically everywhere, to ski on snow, pastures and screes practically everywhere, to descend rivers and to climb gullies practically everywhere, to climb ice falls practically everywhere: all new 'arts' of the use of Nature: but it is enough that a single prohibition be made to these activities because they all shout at the injured majesty of their categories; not one to make an examination of conscience. Instead we should never forget that the recreational use of nature is still the most detached and false in the environmental context, which has nothing more than the ancient healthy balance. For absurd, after all, the most correct relationship with nature is to renounce living it! And precisely because this absurdity should not end up becoming the only rule to safeguard it, we must set limits and accept rules ". (NB Zunino's writing has been inserted in this paragraph to better integrate the discourse made on the tourist problem, but the meaning of the text can certainly be valid for all the other activities of man as those of work, of the so-called "development" "And in general the lifestyle of each of us).

"It is clear, and no further explanation is needed, that mass use directly reduces the possibilities of loneliness and that when we mean camping sites, paths and toilets as so many elements of 'development' of the resources inherent to recreational activities, something false is said. In fact, these facilities for the crowds are by no means a factor of development, in the sense of enrichment or growth, but, on the contrary, they are only water added to an already tasteless soup " (A. Leopold, 1949-1997).

To conclude, we would observe that it would be necessary to raise public awareness of the devastating effects of mass tourism, so that the hypothesis of safeguarding the natural environment is studied, but it is unfortunately to be convinced that the great economic benefits brought by mass tourism represent an insurmountable obstacle. "Going alone offers a double advantage: the first to be with oneself, the second not to be with others" (A. Shopenhauer).

 

The ecology market

 

 

"Spend half an hour a day thinking about the opposite of how your colleagues are thinking" (A. Einstein).

Today everything is for sale and everything is sold. The market, the sacred word of Western civilization, is the daily bread of all ruling forces. The commodification of nature, like the social one, is consequently reaching scary levels. Environmental issues are continually subordinated to the market and this not only for the will of the economists, but also for most of the environmental world that has by now clearly surrendered to the combined nature-development-market (the productivity of the parks is the clearest example ). It is an extremely negative attitude that only the most radical environmental forces, profound and free from politics, are fighting, while the "ecologists" of fashion, of the "armchair" opportunity, want to further develop. The "image" nature or rather the "show" nature is sold daily by a shrewdly planned operation. In this sense, no longer do single operators in the sector, but highly accredited journals, newspapers, entire Regions, environmental associations, political forces, managers of protected areas (the directors of the parks seem more like "business managers" than operators of naturalistic issues) , etc. If before nature was sold for its "products", now, as well as for these, is also sold for its image.

They say that by now nature can be protected only if it guarantees "development", only if the advantage is economic and of image (mass ecotourism by now we all know it). For the rest, the true preservation of a bear, a wolf or a landscape, it does not matter anymore, because it is something else that "makes". In any case, an eagle is valid for the image it offers, not for its value in itself. The market of ecology is the coup de grace to a long-agonizing and dying nature. If at least some small contribution was expected from certain forces, this has failed and discomfort can only assail those who still believe in the purity of the intentions and the value of things in themselves. The time has come to unmask a situation that, if the economists or the arrivals of the western capitalist society is very well, can not be accepted by those who still hope for a future not dominated by a technological / economic man who sees only in their own personal or group interests the only reality of this earth. Silence, on the issue dealt with, is now widespread and almost no one has the courage to oppose this creeping way of thinking and doing. There are however exceptions, even authoritative, and it is pleasant, for those who still believe in a nature that has its own value, in reporting the following passage, written by a convinced and profound environmentalist. Here is a brief but significant excerpt: "By now we are coming to the market of ecology. And it must also be that someone begins to say ..... In a few years all the 'revolutionary' value of the value-environment has been perfectly and quietly incorporated by the market-value through the passage of 'sustainable development'. In other words, our media society, structured to train consumers (and consensus) in drums, with a wise and fast social and political operation, has reduced the environment, from fundamental value, in itself and alternative, to simple and harmless patina with which to strengthen the values of the market economy. By now, the environment no longer counts for itself but only if and as it creates jobs, it increases consumption (and the market), increases the god GDP: as is appropriate when there is a government of 'economic rehabilitation' .

The most worrying fact is that this operation has been, and is, also endorsed by a part of the environmentalist world, which, for fear of becoming 'marginal' in a society focused on market value, has adopted the 'tactic' of ' to conjugate 'and' contaminate 'the environment with the dominant economic values; completely taken for granted in Italian environmentalism, never suffering from fundamentalism, and always attentive to the binomial economy-ecology .......

In short, we have gone from 'sustainable development' to market ecology and we are rapidly reaching the ecology market ......

And so, to avoid misunderstandings, it will be better to clearly state, every time, that we defend and will continue to defend the environment per se, and not because it is functional to market "values" (Amendola, 1997).

As regards specifically to the protected areas, it is important to remember (a number of times expressed in this work) that unfortunately the "managers" who manage the protected areas or often the regional and government bodies, do not care at all, except for sporadic exceptions, to actually implement concretely a serious environmental policy that primarily protects the needs of nature in general. Today in the protected areas of many European districts there is more and more talk about their economic yield ("the economic productivity of the parks"), their tourist image (ecotourism!), Their potential to best accommodate visitors, but almost never , in a real and practical sense, of their wild status and of the real interests of the fauna. This way of doing, as regards species at risk, is indirectly and definitively compromising their existence. If the work of a poacher is rightly pointed out as a very serious and negative, the pernicious and underhanded by the bodies responsible for the government of protected territories, goes completely unnoticed, rather often public opinion unaware of the real situations, unconsciously applauds them . Zunino ironically concludes in one of his articles on "active conservation" in the logic of the park: "..... It seems that today nature can be saved and protected in this new and modern way of preservation, so that it can in the first place produce, however, sound sonante! ".

 

The naturalist / contemporary biologist

 

 

"What moves you, or homo, to abandon your own houses of the cities, and to leave them relatives and friends, and to go in rural lochi for mountains and valleys, if not the natural beauty of the world? ..." (Leonardo da Vinci ).

The "spiritual" and "profound" naturalist turns to observe nature with the amazement that pervades those who are preparing to listen with humility of spirit and intellect to the mysterious concert with which the universe punctuates its dialectic. The attention of that researcher is not directed to a specific natural phenomenon, but is interested in nature in its entirety, is enriched by its charm and sometimes derives such insights, to make a quantum leap in scientific research.

Quite different are the real interests of the superficial naturalist who underlies a sort of exasperation of the Aristotelian categories, that is to say a specialization brought to its extreme expressions, in this supported by the extraordinary technological development; so it happens that he turns, in many cases, into a sort of "computer" walking, which rarely moves away from the University or other laboratories to perform the observation in the field and, when it bends, it can not wait to return to the trustworthy walls of the scientific cabinets to "download" the hastily collected data into the computer (with due exceptions). "The modern mind divides, specializes, thinks by categories ...." (Adorno et al., 1991), or, citing Thomas Kuhn, "Normal science is a strenuous and determined attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes provided from professional education ".

This downgrading the nature from category of the universe to a mere instrument of utilitarian competition, therefore, concerns the so-called "scientific research"? Of course, here the reflection must be more careful and circumspect, since research is a matter that inspires a reverential fear, almost as if its esoteric position is equal to that which surrounded the ancient alchemy. It is true, one remains admired before the patient method of the botanist or the zoologist, who all record, order, experiment and - in the end - catalog with extreme rigor. And what about monsters in white coats that "torture" millions of animals in laboratories around the world both for medical-pharmaceutical research and for ethological studies (eg research on the behavior of caged scimpazè reduced to real machines). From this activity the diligent "researchers" will undoubtedly gain a heightened academic prestige and a great notoriety within the public opinion, but it is however legitimate to wonder if, beyond the hope of achieving these coveted recognitions, they have been moved also from respect for nature, which is a respect totally indifferent to fame and prestige. Respect for nature also means "to feel" that the bear specimen, shortly before observed and cataloged, is not only an entity to be enclosed in the processing of statistical data, but is a creature that must be recognized and admired for what it is, and for what it represents, within the wondrous universal order / disorder.

Brian Martin (1993) writes: "Scientific experts are the new saints of modern society. Sentenced on any subject with the highest authority, the scientific one. Criticizing the opinion is heresy.

Yet it can be done. Experts are also vulnerable, in many ways. Their data can be challenged and even the assumptions on which they are based. Their credibility and their competence as such can be challenged. Their weaknesses can be unveiled and exploited without mercy ........

Anarchists are opposed to any system in which a small number of people dominate over others. In their view, decisions should be taken directly by the people, based on a free and open dialogue. Knowledge is important, but it should be accessible and usable by everyone. Today, however, 'competence' is so specialized and esoteric as to be useful only to experts and their employers ....... An egalitarian and participatory society would certainly give a high value to knowledge, but would make it available to all but not exclusive to the elite ..... Yet it is rare that the role of experts is questioned as such ...... It is time instead of encouraging people to think with their own head instead of relying continuously to someone else ".

"The expert is the one who knows very little about very little" (NM Butler).

Here it is worth mentioning the thought and the practical life of a Canadian biologist, Sam Miller, who was responsible for research on bears and other animal species whose "habitat" fell into the vast territory of Canada. Day after day he realized that his "forma mentis" was increasingly "harnessed" by pure and abstract research that forced him to spend most of the time before the computer to process data and to fill tables. One day, all of a sudden, he said enough, he left everything and took refuge in the Canadian tundra, just beyond the large coniferous forests. There today he lives in a small chalet where he hosts, as a kind of hotelier sui generis, those who want to spend unforgettable days in those places; in this way he earns a living and can wander in that wild nature equipped with binoculars and a notebook for notes, like a carefree naturalist who, almost with the spirit of a child, gets excited in front of the wonderful scenery of nature (see for example John Muir or Sigurd Olson).

The naturalist who today investigates in nature as Sam Miller does is outside the scientific competition, outside the university careers or prestigious awards, nor can he intervene in high-level conferences where the relations of the "wise men" are discussed, since a naturalist of this kind is certainly "out of the market" and is therefore irrelated by the brotherhood of researchers. "The Indian who is perfectly able to find his way through the woods has an intelligence that the white man does not have. Observing it increases my ability, and so does my faith. I am delighted to discover that intelligence flows in channels other than those I know " (HD Thoreau - in AA, VV., 1995).

We wanted to mention the experience of Sam Miller because it does not come, as some might think, from a naturalist frustrated in his ambitions, and therefore critical of the system, but it is an indication, rather it is a merit that rises out loud from a naturalist who could excel in the "system", if he wanted to. With the following thought of HD Thoreau Sam Miller's portrait seems to be completed: "The scholar who has only literary weapons is incomplete. It must be a spiritual man. It must be prepared for bad weather, poverty, offense, fatigue, declaration of failure, and many other disagreements. He should have as many talents as he can " (June 23, 1845). Still referring to Thoreau, Worster writes (1994): "Facts had to become experiences for man in his entirety, not mere abstractions in a mind split from the body, and the naturalist had to immerse himself completely in the smells and textures of perceivable reality. ..... 'Turn aimlessly with a raincoat, wet to the legs, you sit on the mossy rocks and on the logs listening to the verse of the migratory swallows that fly among the oaks .... at home although you are all 'open, comfortable despite you are wet, sinking with each step in the earth in thaw' ".

Be prepared for bad weather, poverty and fatigue, says Thoreau, and - one could add - be prepared for the dangers and the drama of solitude, as were primitive men who, by living according to natural laws, acquired perfect knowledge of their environment.

G. Celli writes about the naturalist Bernd Heinrich (referring to his work "Corvi d'Inverno, 1992) " ... good Heinrich is not a psychologist, he proclaims the technological devices and the laboratory, he is a naturalist, and he thinks that the eye, directly taken with the brain, and therefore with the judgment, still remains an irreplaceable organic tool to grasp the peculiarities of animal behavior ........ an account is to observe the animal live, and an account on the video In this second case, there are no smells of the forest, the sound of wind in the trees, the wonderful liquidity of the winter sky, the living landscape that breathes around the animal in the target. ! ... ".

The naturalist of today should meditate on these considerations, in order to reappropriate the reasons of nature that are far from the reasons for the success of the university, and even more distant from the "fury of the investigation", now in fashion (radiocollars, continuous captures for physiological studies). , etc.), which not only disturbs the animals that are the object, but also damages them and invades what could be called the "physiological privacy" of the poor inquisitive, and all with the main intent to make a "scoop" which has resonance in a prestigious scientific publication.The naturalist, on the other hand, could play an important role in the dissemination of the concept of the value of nature in itself and therefore of its real conservation. "Adolph Murie (in Heacox, 1991), a scholar of the wolves wrote Alaska: "I remember the first bear print I saw in my life ...... All we saw was a footprint in a mud puddle. symbol, even more poetic than seeing the bear itself - a delicate and deep approach to the spirit of wild Alaska. At any time a bear's imprint can create a stronger emotion than seeing the bear itself, because imagination is called into play. You carefully observe the landscape, waiting to see it appear at any moment, while the attention is refined and reinvigorated. The bear is somewhere and can be anywhere. The area has suddenly come alive, has acquired a new and richer quality ".

But as we have already noted, the researcher of our day, having made the due exceptions, does not like excessively "field trips" but prefers to refer more often to the experiences gained by others, who in turn drink from other sources, so that both the ones and the others benefit from a quantity of data that, properly elaborated, go to form reports or publications that impose themselves on the general attention for their bulkiness. The development of scientific specialization has led to a sort of "specialist deafness" (Boulding in Pignatti 1994), ie the inability to perceive the general characteristics of a system due to the obsessive concentration of attention to detail (Pignatti, 1994). The holistic notion of landscape, on the other hand, tends to overcome this particular "deafness" by seeking a global representation of the system (Pignatti, 1994). The Norwegian ethnologist and explorer Thor Heyerdahl (Del Re, 1997) reminds us that "soon we will realize that to save ourselves we will have to work together and begin to understand the world in which we live. A more interdisciplinary, almost ecumenical attitude will be needed. More coordination between the various scientific disciplines will be needed, but also between biology and theology, between physics and philosophy. Because who is an authority in a specific field is usually the most ignorant outside of that field ". Complete the speech Rocco Guy Jaconis (1992): "When he was a graduate in game biology at Cornell University, in my mind I had organized the natural world in many small compartments. Thirty-five years of experience in nature and teaching, instead, have made me realize that there is a subtle, overwhelming, understanding which is not divisible into compartments, and which is part of the daily knowledge of primitive peoples, all over the world " .

Nature, in all its manifestations, is not a "scientific", technical, categorical and aseptic laboratory. A member of a wild community does not know the surrounding environment according to a "rational and scientific" approach, but according to an instinctive and "mental" dictate. Now we, in our contemporary thought, reduce the natural phenomena to the pure scientific sphere, storing them as concepts that have meaning only if analyzed and dissected from this point of view (read Cartesian rationalism). Instead, it is necessary to "feel" things differently, and to place oneself in nature with a spontaneous, intuitive and holistic vision. Natural science, on the other hand, must be conceived exclusively as the next "product" of a philosophical and spiritual vision of knowledge. "The primacy of the 'rational' on the 'emotional' and 'intuitive' is only a prejudice of modern Western culture" (Dalla Casa, 1996).

The ecological analysis that derives from it must move in "depth" without "anthropic" ends even if only implied, and must arrive at a transpersonal and not egocentric vision (read deep ecology ). The "profound" naturalist must therefore recognize the intrinsic value of nature and must learn not to define it, since, as stated, "the definite Tao is not the eternal Tao" (Lao Tse).

Worster (1994) clearly underlines the "narrow" vision of the scientist: "Leopold's disappointment with the overly artificial landscape also influenced his faith in science; he had come to think that the perception capacity of academic researchers was too limited to grasp the completeness of nature, an essential factor for achieving wide-ranging environmental protection. One of Sand County Almanac's essays entitled Natural History - The Forgotten Science, is an appeal to return to holistic, open education, to a scientific style open to amateurs and wise lovers of nature, more sensitive to the pleasure of be immersed in a wild nature '. In laboratories and universities it was taught that 'science is at the service of progress'; it was linked to the technological mentality that regimented the world by pursuing material progress and must therefore be transformed together with the managerial tendency ".

Writes the impeccable pen of Della Casa (1996): "........ we remember that Bateson calls 'reductionist madness' the idea that one can describe with nature ontological fullness, which is much richer in meaning than how much it is not possible to represent. The physical-spiritual complexity of the natural world is infinite: only with intuitive perception can there be a faint idea.

The paradigm of simplification is based on what has been called the 'schizophrenic Cartesian dichotomy', the dualism between the subjective cogito and the objective rex exstensa . Western science was founded (until the first half of this century) on the elimination of the subject, in the illusory conviction that objects, existing independently of the subject, can be studied as such ".

What conclusions to draw from the considerations on which we have so far been entertained? One is certainly the most important: it is necessary that the mind of the naturalist turns exclusively to the observation of nature, freeing himself from the acriticism, from the scientific dogmatism and the idolatry of the academic and anthropic archetypes that reduce science to the level of empty officiated rituals from some "big tures". Obviously the contemporary naturalist can not be seen only in this negative light that we have just outlined. There are due exceptions and there are "scientists" who clearly differ from that dogmatic and anthropocentric vision. The list of "operators" in the sector certainly dedicated to conservation and research with a global and profound vision. This for honesty!

"Plants also interested me, but not scientifically. I was attracted to them for a reason that escaped me, and with the feeling that they should not be extirpated and dried: they were living beings that had meaning only as they grew and flourished, a hidden, secret meaning, one of God's thoughts. They had to be considered with reverential fear and contemplate with philosophical wonder. What biology could say was interesting, but it was not the essential " (Carl Gustav Jung) .

 

Technological and scientific "development".

A world in antithesis to nature

 

 

"Like the winds and the sunsets, wild life was considered safe until the so-called progress began to take it away. Now we are faced with the problem of whether an even higher level of life is worth its frightening cost in all that is natural, free and wild " (A. Leopold).

In the era of personal computers, and completely electronic, it seems almost anachronistic to write a letter by hand, or read a book in the evening, without watching television. Technological life now conditions the way of life and, what is most troubling, it will affect it more in the future, to transform man into a kind of robot, no longer moved by feelings but only by electrical impulses. Some scientists and sociologists affirm with conviction that the technology will save the planet earth from self-destruction, since the refinement of research will result in the creation of low-pollution, low-consumption and more efficient machines. Now, it is useless to underline the unreliability of such a statement, since if it can be true that the advance of technology leads to the improvement of quality, it is also true that, under the pressure of demographic pressure, it is inevitable that account of the degree of danger of new discoveries, not opposed by political authority because of the relevant social implications that the problem entails. Even the discovery of nuclear energy seemed immune to harmful effects, but then - as we know - that innocuous discovery gave birth to the atomic bomb and the disastrous "Chernobyl effect". In the same way it was asserted that genetic research would not have given rise to degenerations of sorts, then from those experiments were born monsters that the sorcerer's apprentices do not know how to exorcise. Something similar happened in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when research carried out for pure spirit of knowledge by Lavoisier, Gay Lussac, Boyle, Mariotte and Avogadro, came gradually to the applications of our days, when the abnormal growth of collective consumption , has produced a degree of chemical pollution that, in a direct way, or mediated, risks extinguishing life on planet earth. E. Goldsmith (1997) reminds us that "progress is anti-evolutionary and anti-way that serves to disrupt the crucial order of the ecososphere and reduce its stability" , while T. Roszak asserts that "we have not fallen into the arms of Gog and Magog: we have progressed ". J. Dorst (1990) about the development of science reminds us that "This immense and naive trust has cruelly abused. Science has not prevented wars, violence, injustices: it has made them more acute. The advantages it provides seem outweighed by the drawbacks. Every progress seems to be repaid, sometimes costly, with even greater disadvantages. Particle physics taught us about the structure of matter: we took advantage of it to create the nuclear weapon. The chemistry has allowed us to synthesize substances hitherto unknown and to protect crops from predator attacks: but we have polluted the lands, the seas and rivers pouring indestructible products, generators of problems .... ". Just make another simple reflection: the great northern forest, the Taiga, once sheltered from the destructive action of man thanks to its geographical isolation and the rigors of its climate, is beginning to see the massive fall to the ground of its giants, like those of the Amazon, because the rampant technology produces machines capable of working in those areas, with that climate. Kaczynskj makes his manifesto (1997): "The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have dramatically increased the life expectancy of those living in 'developed' countries but have destabilized society, made life insignificant, subjected human beings to unworthy treatment, widespread psychological suffering, inflicted substantial damage to the natural world. ... ". Writes From the House (1996): "The concept of progress is the invention of the West to destroy other human cultures and remain the only culture of the planet: it makes sense only if we take as reference a particular scale of values, which is always relative and arbitrary.

The term 'development' actually means the degree of overwhelming our species over other species and industrial civilization over other human cultures ". Urges Charles Russel (in Devall & Sessions, 1989): "A pioneer is a man who comes to a virgin land, captures all the beasts with traps, kills all the game, eradicates the roots (...). A pioneer destroys things and calls this civilization ".

Konrad Lorenz (1984) asserted that evolution is not of necessity aimed at a concept of "better", the mechanisms of adaptation are not identified in the idealizations of man. The current evolutionary push towards the technocracy is a race towards decline. "Technological society alienates people not only from the rest of nature, but also from themselves and others; it necessarily generates destructive purposes and values that often compromise the interaction between firm and vital collectivities and the natural world.

The technological vision of the world has as its ultimate image the total conquest and domination of nature and spontaneous natural processes - the image of a 'totally artificial environment' reshaped according to human standards and man-made for man " ( Devall & Sessions, 1989).

It is good to reflect on what Dalla Casa wrote (1996): "The dominant conceptual framework in European culture until the seventeenth century had all the prerequisites for starting a systematic destruction of nature, but something was still missing: technical power.

The decisive push to get hold of this power came from the spread of the thought of Descartes, Bacon, Locke and some others and from the arrangement of the physical sciences by Newton. The main cause was the ideas of Descartes.

When the conceptions of the French thinker, perhaps even on the wave of some happy mathematical intuitions, have made their way into the minds of the West, here is forming the most expansive and destructive cultural model ever appeared on the Planet: industrial civilization.

And with it the ecological drama broke out ".

The aberrant anthropocentric vision of Descartes begins with its clear distinction between "spirit" and "matter". Only man has the "possession" of the spirit, therefore all the rest, inert matter, is at his complete disposal, strong also of the biblical idea "of separation between our species, protagonist, and the world, stage made for us " (From the House, 1996). The whole living or non-living natural world is a sort of big machine that moves only under mechanical and methodical impulses (for example, animals are only automata that do not feel any sensation or pain). The thought of Descartes is associated with that of Locke, reaching out, without any remorse, to the manipulation, control and destruction of the natural world. Complete the picture Bacon that sees in the domain of nature the only true "mission" of man. Other notable authors had a very different view of things (eg Leibniz), but their philosophies were not able to impose themselves as that of Descartes, which instead became the backbone of all Western "development" (Dalla Casa, 1996). On the neutrality of science in front of metaphysical conceptions he notes with sharpness Dalla Casa (1996): "Official science often resorts to real intellectual acrobatics in order not to leave the Cartesian paradigm, which it considers 'obvious' and 'acquired'. Thus it finds itself in way without exit, and sometimes it is forced to deny or not to consider the facts not framed in that conceptual scheme, not to question the premises: and then it must make to disappear entire categories of phenomena of masochroscopic interference, or non-distinction, between spirit and matter, with the excuse that they would not be 'repeatable' ".

Della Casa still writes (1996): "So humanity, the only one to be also spirit, could do what it wanted of nature, which would have been matter: this idea has exacerbated the pre-existing 'divine right'. With materialism, the last child of the West, it changes very little: matter against matter, the strongest wins, which at its pleasure can preserve pieces of 'original nature' to brighten up life: this is surface ecology ".

About the intervention of technology for overcoming environmental problems write Devall & Sessions (1989): "Those who practice ecological resistance do not accept that there are only purely technical solutions to social problems in a reductive way (such as atmospheric pollution). These problems are nothing but symptoms of wider issues. The technocratic solutions present three great dangers. The first lies in believing that resorting to the dominant ideology and technology is the only acceptable solution. The second danger is the impression that something is being done while in fact the real problem continues to exist: adjusting to the best deters from 'real work'. Finally there is the danger of believing that new experts - such as professional ecologists - can find the solution to the problem, while there is the risk that they become the public relations employees of companies and bodies with the sole objective of obtaining power and profit".

Integrates the speech R. Galli (in Gamba & Martignitti, 1995): "Among the products of intelligence and human activity technology is certainly the one that more than any other is considered responsible for the progressive deterioration of the relationship between man and the environment. In fact, the widespread changes that man has produced in the natural world are attributed in the first place to the widespread and persuasive use of technology; it is no coincidence that the term "technosphere" has been coined to indicate the new environment that resulted from it. The history of the construction of the technosphere is confused with the history of technological development and both with that of the emergence of the environmental question ...... ".

Contemporary society is not based on sobriety and steady equilibrium, but on consumption and waste of resources, in sharp contrast with the dynamics of natural elements. Even the former president of the United States of America (Clinton), symbol of opulence, Westernism and consumerism (Americans are 5% of the world population and consume as much as 35% - Storer et al., 1984) On June 27, 1997, in a statement to the United Nations, he asserted that the earth is in a red alert , on the verge of an irreversible environmental crisis. But since environmental issues are only "formal" and not substantive, similar discussions never follow anything concrete and executive but only promises of changes, hypothetical parameters to be respected and so on (see also the total apathy and inattention towards the various protocols aimed at reducing the polluting impact of man). No radical and revolutionary intervention is sustained even if we are in a red alarm: "the West is a ship that is sinking to a peak, whose flaw is ignored by everyone. But everyone is busy making the journey more comfortable " (E. Severino). Gary Snyder (1992) reminds us that "If we really tried to teach them the values of Western civilization, we would only sell the ideology of individualism, of human uniqueness, of special human dignity, of the unlimited potential of man, of the glory that comes to success ...... After Protestantism, capitalism and the conquest of the world, all in all, this is perhaps the point of arrival of Western culture ". Doug Peacock (from Snyder, 1992) sums up Western culture with three assumptions "Jewish introversion, Greek narcissism, Christian domination". Kaczynskj in his manifesto reminds us (1997): "Only with the industrial revolution the effect of human society on nature became truly devastating. To alleviate the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a particular type of social system; it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. But even when this principle was accepted it would not solve all the problems. The industrial society has also caused tremendous damage to nature and it will be a long time before it can cure its wounds. Even pre-industrial societies can cause significant damage to nature. Nonetheless, getting rid of industrial society will carry out a major project. In its most devastating aspects, it will lighten the pressure on nature so that it can heal its wounds. It will take away from organized societies the ability to increase their control over nature (including human). Whatever kind of society can exist after the death of the industrial system is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way in which people can survive. To feed themselves they will have to go back to being farmers, shepherds, fishermen, hunters, etc. And, in general, local autonomy will have to return to play a significant role because the lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the ability of governments or other large organizations to control local communities. "

Even J. Dorst who is certainly a man of science and a strenuous defender of scientific research feels the need to alarm the world, through his works, for the profound ecological impact that man pours on the entire planet. In fact, he writes (1990): "Industrial civilization, pushed up to the absurd, seems to bring in itself the seeds of its own destruction. Its prodigious acceleration to paroxysm is a typical example of a phenomenon well known by biologists studying the evolution of animal lineages. A characteristic that appears modestly develops progressively favoring the animal more and more; its further exaggeration soon made it overcome the limits of harmfulness: it then became contrary to the interests of the species, no longer having any value for adaptation. Many species have disappeared during the geological eras, following the monstrous development of one of their characteristics. What is true of an animal is the same for civilizations who have for a moment believed that their unreasonable growth was synonymous with power and that they abruptly disappeared, victims of their gigantism ........ So do not think with detachment from cultures that have collapsed over the centuries: the health of our civilization, so complex and for this very reason so fragile, is a pure appearance. The symptoms, whose list is continually prolonged, they persistently repeat it to us ".

It is beyond doubt that some discoveries of science have brought us advantages and "well-being", at least for the contemporary lifestyle (think of the medical, pharmacological, mechanical or engineering fields), and nothing can be objected to the long list of "Utility" that, at least in appearance, science offers us (at least for those who believe in it!). However, this does not give the license to a blind and uncritical faith in regard to scientific research and the work of professionals. It certainly can not make a whole bundle of grass but we need to get out of the box of the contemporary mind that seems to move only under the impulses of rationalism and mechanism. Bates (1970) writes: "It seems useless, at this point, to try to compile a list of the specific advantages that have come to civilization from these applications of science, since the advantages, the" usefulness of science "have been adequately highlighted from all those who have taken the task of "divulging" science ..........

The advantages are real, but I wonder if they are as big as our popularizers would have us believe ....... The whole concept of progress is something that has crept into our mind with the advent and development of science, so that it becomes difficult for scientists to completely escape the task and responsibility of determining their direction and speed ......

Especially in the last few centuries we have escaped the mechanisms that maintain balance and relationships in the biotic community. We went on a bridle, like a weed introduced in a new continent. We have kept the birth rate to which the species had adapted in its evolution through the wild life of the Pleistocene, and at the same time we radically altered the nature and incidence of the factors that cause death. The result is a population density that goes beyond any reason, any possibility of livelihood, and we do not see the end yet ".

On the moral responsibility of modern science Hosle (1992) highlights that "If we compare the biological knowledge of our time with that of Aristotle, progress is immeasurable; but if we compare his awareness of the necessity of the integration of living beings into the totality of being with the rejection of the modern science of nature to reflect on the philosophical premises of his work, then we doubt whether this evolution can be defined below all respects as progress; and to conclude, one would like to speak of decadence if one compares the sense of moral responsibility proper to ancient science with rejection, or rather with the incapacity of the modern scientist to respond on the moral level of the vast consequences of his work ..... .

I am far from wanting to idealize the past ......; but man did not have the power that is in his hands today. It is the disproportion between power and wisdom that gives cause for concern; and from the historical point of view this disproportion can not but coincide with a development of man's power over nature as only industrial society can allow ".

Returning again to the Kaczynskj poster (1997): "Imagine an alcoholic in front of a wine barrel. Imagine that he begins by saying to himself: 'Wine does not harm you if used in moderation. Because, they say, small doses of wine make you even good! It will not hurt me to sip a little '. We know how it ends. Do not forget that the human race with respect to technology is an alcoholic in the face of a wine barrel ".

We conclude the paragraph with a deep reflection of Fukuoka (2001): "Man boasts of being the only creature with the ability to think. He claims to know himself and the natural world, and he believes he can use nature to his liking. He is also convinced that intelligence is synonymous with strength and that whatever he wants is within his reach.

Humanity, evolving, making progress in science and immensely expanding its materialistic culture, has gradually turned away from nature and has ended up building its own civilization, like a capricious child who rebels against his mother. However, these frenetic activities, these gigantic cities, have led man towards empty and dehumanized joys, towards the destruction of his environment, through the indiscriminate exploitation of nature. The harsh punishment for having moved away from nature and having plundered its riches, has manifested itself through the impoverishment of natural and food resources, casting a dark shadow on the future of mankind. After opening his eyes to the gravity of the situation, man has finally begun to consider what to do, but unless he is ready for a serious examination of conscience, he can not help but follow the path of total ruin.

Extracted from nature, human existence becomes vain, the vital source and spiritual growth dry up. Man becomes ill and weakens more and more because of his strange civilization which is nothing but a useless struggle for a fragment of time and space ".

The concept that mental processes are superior in the human field is an entirely pretentious, snooty argument that knows so much about yet another anthropocentric centralization. Goldsmith (1997) clearly explains the concept: "The idea that man's mental processes are categorically distinct from those of other animals is a free assumption that is not based on any valid knowledge of any kind. In particular, it is free to support, as official science does at present, that only human beings are 'intelligent' - especially since the term has never been satisfactorily defined. Declaringly, we have tests of intelligence, but, as Herrick notes, 'we do not know exactly what they measure'. Some authors, among them Ashis Nandy, argue that intelligence is little more than 'what is measured by tests of intelligence' ".

 

Lifestyle

 

 

"As the tree does not end with the tips of its roots or its branches, and the bird does not end with its feathers and its flight, and the earth does not end with its highest mountains: so I too I end up with my arms, my feet, my skin, but I constantly expand with my voice and my thoughts, beyond every space and every time, because my soul is the world " (NH Russel, Indian Cherokee) .

The world of life flows like a river, sometimes placid at times impetuous, and along its mighty path, it welcomes in its bed all the elements of the surrounding environment and of its own interior. We now feel in our hearts that we need to change our lifestyle, we need to close the circle to get out of the infamous world of the contemporary "spirit" to place, as much as possible, the marginal parts, so as not to find ourselves on the verge of death (paraphrasing a little 'Thoreau) chained to the absurdities, the subjugations and have been accomplices of the death of nature and then do nothing but bitterly understand that they have not lived.

In the centuries that preceded the modern Evo the relationship of dependence that exists between an individual and the other, and - more broadly - between an individual and the society that expresses it, was of extreme simplicity, and equally simple were the consequent socio-political superstructures. Agricultural production, the foundation of the economy, was entrusted to a peasant society in which every single family unit constituted an economically self-sufficient "unicum". The carbohydrates, proteins and fats that were produced on their own were consumed, the wool obtained from the shearing of the herds was spun and woven, and the modest dwellings were lighted with oil lamps fueled by the olive oil obtained from their own olive groves.

Here is the opportunity given to us by the reference to the lamp to make a comparison between that "archaic" cohabitation and the cohabitation of today: when a family belonging to that ancient society decided to light the lamp, it would have only been a simple act, subtracted at each mediation, he filled the oil with oil kept in large earthenware vessels; the ignition of an electric light bulb is instead an act that sets in motion a power plant (eg the Phoenix atomic power plant in French territory), activates a high voltage electric pipeline, and sets in motion a whole series of synergies and controls that the large distribution of energy requires. The lighting of the light bulb is an example that wants to symbolize today's technical-economic complexity of the consumption / production ratio but, of course, there are other thousands of consumptions that activate equally complex relationships, often with a far greater complexity , articulated as it is in countless variables. "Man has lost his way in the jungle of chemistry and engineering, and will have to retrace his steps, however painful it may be. He will have to find out where he was wrong, and make peace with nature. In doing so, perhaps he will be able to regain the rhythm of life and the love for the simple things of life, which will be for him a joy that is renewed every day " (R. St. Barbe-Baker in Goldsmith, 1997).

It should also be noted that most of the consumption available today expresses an extraordinary power of seduction towards potential users; so, for example, the availability of lavish lighting, or running water and automatic heating, gives us the illusion of being freer because richer than the faculty of choice, but in fact only those who shed light with the flame of 'oil that has produced, only those who go to draw water from the stream, only those who warm the firewood that he previously collected, can be said to be a truly free man, as his personality can not be manipulated by the chain "exasperation needs - consumption - production ". Paraphrasing JJ Rousseau we can say that we were born free, and everywhere we are in chains. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation" (Most men spend a life of quiet despair - Henry D. Thoreau).

It is not clear to everyone that the model of development based on the aforementioned chain is not an archetype of nature, nor does it sink its roots far in time, but it is rather a fairly recent human construction, indeed we could say almost contextual to our time, if we consider that, for different, long millennia, others were the economic relationships that governed the civil cohabitation. The rise of the capitalist organization of society, and therefore of mass production, is traced back to some 16th century with the birth of the first commercial cities, from others to the industrialization process which began in the second half of the eighteenth century; among the factors that underlie this process, there is in the 16th century England the enclosure (enclosures) of the lands in common use and their appropriation by the landowners, with the consequent exodus of the rural population towards the cities, where it was transformed into manpower for the nascent industry. The emergence of large colonial empires, with the consequent inflow of low-priced raw materials, the introduction of large quantities of precious metals into Europe, the effect of the enclosures mentioned above, were the events that created the conditions necessary for the emergence of modern capitalism through "the original accumulation", to which, according to some, also piracy and the slave trade contributed.

It must be considered no less that capitalism has gone through different historical phases; what stands out for the stimulation of consumption begins with the crisis of the 30s (of the last century), when - at the suggestion of Keynes - it was used as an antidote to the serious depression of the world economy. But what was supposed to represent a conjunctural phase was then transformed into a structural phase until reaching, through obsessive advertising aggression, the paradoxical chain that we have shortly defined as "exacerbation of needs - consumption - energy". However, today's western capitalist society can not endure in the future: the sudden and global collapse will be total unless it renounces the "creation" of needs and urgently implements measures aimed at protecting the environment; but this is in clear antithesis with the very principles of capitalistic mechanicism. The resounding failure of the distorted real socialism leaves momentarily and illusively wide space. The total absence of unitary relationships with things and with oneself is the worst deficiency of contemporary man:

"My words are but one.

With the greatness of the mountains,

With the size of the rocks,

With the size of the trees,

They are but one with my body

They are but one with my heart.

You will all come to my aid

Thanks to your supernatural power.

And you, day, And you, night!

You all look at me

And I am but one with the world " (Prayer, Yokuts - in AA, VV., 1995)

 

From the House (1996) quoting the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, he writes: "Suppose we find ourselves getting on an airplane and seeing that there is a person who is quietly unblocking the rivets, which are a special kind of nails that hold together the wing plates. Naturally, we are alarmed to cry out to the man to stop: but he replies to be calm because it is not the first time he does it (he sells them to a company) and nothing has ever happened; indeed he is about to leave on the same flight, there is nothing to worry about. Obviously, the man does not realize that he will come to remove the bolt that marks the maximum resistance threshold of the private wing of the bolts, and at that point the catastrophe will happen. The same thing happens for our planet: we continue with the greatest unconsciousness to eliminate one species after another, and apparently nothing happens in the global ecosystem. But at a certain point everything will jump ".

The change in one's lifestyle is therefore an essential step for the protection of all the ecosystems of the world, but it would be a serious mistake to consider these changes only in some particular sector. Giovanni Salio (1989) writes: "It is then necessary to change on several fronts, from the cultural and ethical to the political, normative, relational, social and technological. It is hard for me to think that a change in these proportions can take place without a basic philosophy inspired by a life that makes human beings happier, but not through a simple material hedonism, which almost inevitably leads to an endless pursuit of induced needs. , but rather to a lifestyle inspired by a choice of 'voluntary simplicity' that makes richer inwardly, even if poorer outwardly ". Integrate the speech Devall & Sessions (1989): "In industrial-technocratic societies, propaganda and incessant advertising stimulate false needs and destructive desires to encourage an increase in production and consumption. This often distracts us from dealing with reality objectively and starting the 'real work' of spiritual growth and maturity ".

"The rehabilitation of the rift between man's consciousness and nature is an inalienable step for those who want to live as nature thought we should have lived" (concept taken from the third and fourth part of D. LaChapelle's book, 1978 in Devall and Sessions, 1989).

Annotary Giuseppe Moretti (1995): "There is a precise sequence that traces the genesis of the relationship between man and nature in Western culture:

- from the totemic nature of the primary peoples, hunter gatherers, where every form of life had meaning because part of a large and mysterious set (the wild nature was their home);

- the mother nature of the people who became farmers farmers, where nature was sacred, was mother / nurse because it rewarded their efforts with wealth of crops;

- to the nature produced, where the mathematical logic neither measures the importance and the value.

Nature is no longer sacred or totemic, but a commodity of power, of enrichment or of simple entertainment.

We belong to this third phase. Every day at work, in newspapers, on trams, in conferences, we are reminded that we belong to the modern era, that nature is inseparably part of an irreconcilable growth of GDP (gross domestic product). That you can not go back. But there is a line of thought, come to us, preserved in the poems of poets, in the vision of the mystics, in the myths, in the archetypes and in the wisdom of simple native peoples, who speaks of a continuity of symbiotic image with the world natural that too quickly we have put aside.

The recent flourishing of an ecological sensitivity that asks the modern human to 'stop', to 'reflect', to clarify what is its role on earth, is nothing but the reaction of the wild human within us to destruction of green forests, clarity of water, soil health. This instinctive awareness must follow a conceptual and practical reconstruction of our belonging to the plot of life. A reconstruction that, according to Gary Snyder, is 'educated by the post - informed on the eco-biotic, socio-political and social and environmental history of the place' ".

To complete, we leave the word to the ever-current thought of Rousseau who observes: "To live is not to breathe, to act, to make use of our organs, our senses, our faculties, all the parts of ourselves that give us the sense of our existence. The man who has lived the most is not the one who has counted the greatest number of years, but the one who has most felt his life.

All our wisdom consists of servile prejudices; all our uses are nothing but awe, harassment and anguish. Civilized man is born, lives and dies in slavery: at birth he is locked in the bands; at death he is nailed in a coffin; as long as it preserves human aspect it is chained by our institutions.

Observe nature and follow the path that you are tracking ..... ".

Here is a beautiful poem by Edgar Lee Masters to ponder:

 

"Many times I have studied

the headstone that they carved me:

a boat with furled sails, in a harbor.

In reality this is not my destination

but my life.

Because love offered itself to me and I withdrew from its deception;

the pain knocked at my door, and I was afraid;

ambition called me, but I feared the unexpected.

In spite of everything, I was hungry for meaning in life.

And now I know we need to raise the sails

and take the winds of destiny,

wherever they push the boat.

Making sense of life can lead to madness

but a meaningless life is torture

of restlessness and vain desire -

it is a boat that longs for the sea, yet it fears it. "

(George Gray by Edgar Lee Masters from the translation by Fernanda Pivano,

in the Einaudi edition, Turin 1974).

 

"In a small kingdom with little population,

I would make sure that the instruments for ten and a hundred men were not used.

I would make the people go to die

And that far did not go away,

that despite having wagons and ships

he did not go up there,

that despite having arms and armor

do not deploy them.

I would have him come back to the knotted cords

and he used them,

that he found his food tasty,

her clothes are beautiful, her dwelling is comfortable,

delightful his customs.

Neighborhood states would see each other,

the voices of the roosters and dogs

they would answer each other,

but the peoples would reach death by old age

without having trade with each other ".

(Stand by itself, in Taoist Texts, UTET, 1977 by Devall & Sessions, 1989).

 

"I went to the woods because I wished to live wisely, to face only the essential facts of life, and to see if I were not able to learn how much it had to teach me, and not to discover, on the point of death, that I had not lived"

Henry David Thoreau

 

"As you make your choice in life, do not forget to live"

Samuel Johnson

 

"You can not ask a wolf to become anything else. It is a violence. Always defend your essence against any attempted expropriation. Find out what animal you are and go. You will have luck. Follow the law of nature. Be yourself. This is my wish dear my brother ......

Remember that every wild flower, even if it fades quickly, before dying gives the wind infinite seeds .... ".

 

  

Protected areas

 

 

The establishment of protected areas is an important and decisive step for the protection of entire ecosystems and for the protection of flora and fauna. However, these areas can not be considered sufficient for a true conservation of the natural world if they are not accompanied by a unitary, profound and ecocentric vision of the whole biotic and abiotic reality. To stop at the superficial protection of this and that area without radically changing anthropocentric thought, not only will it not really guarantee any success in the conservation of the world, but it will nullify the creation of specific "protected" areas.

The establishment of these areas stems from the need to ensure a valid defense of the vital areas still totally or partially untouched, for the sole purpose of protecting nature. But it is unfortunately necessary to note that in the historical reality such noble intent is often overrun by motivations deriving from anthropic interests of a tourist-recreational type; It is no coincidence that the first national park established in the world, that of Yellowstone, was born under the sign of such original ambiguity. It sometimes happens that areas born with the genuine intent of saving nature will subsequently see their "status" overturn due to the "explosion" of tourism that inevitably brings about the construction of roads, reception points, shelters, paths and other structures, often solicited by the economic interests of the populations living in contiguity with the park. It is only to be hoped that such a contamination of intent does not involve over the years the large parks that extend into uninhabited areas such as those of Canada and Siberia, but we are not guilty of excessive pessimism if it is also prophesied for those areas a future full of pitfalls. As regards in particular the problems related to the protected areas that develop in Italian territory, it should be disconsolatly observed that the high population density of the peninsula often generates conflicting situations between the administration of the area and the local populations, from which it follows a comparison dialectic that often ends with compromises that inevitably go to the detriment of nature (it is necessary to "compensate" the local populations to avoid or reduce the development of activities not compatible with the environment or finance any initiative compatible with the protection of the territory). It is therefore desirable that in the future the statutes of the parks will not be thwarted, nor will yielding to selfish economic pressures occur. Of course, it must be remembered that local populations are not considered at all when operating in third-world localities or in any case in places where the locals do not have a political and social "weight". Western man destroys the environment and then asks the "locals" for the sacrifices. Because we often talk about moving entire villages from one place to another for certain interests (for example for the deviation of a waterway or for the construction of a dam) but strangely those shifts never involve "high-altitude" places (let's try to ask to move Manhattan !!!). The "weight" that a protected area unloads on any local populations must be absorbed by the whole community that must take charge of operations in the collective interest. Putting in a position to "produce" a protected area to favor the premises, means, certainly favoring the premises, but also means destroying the objective that was set for the real conservation of a territory (read in first instance "tourism development "). Therefore, as we will expose more fully a little further, we need to work with the policy of indemnity and decentralization of high impact activities in places with low environmental value.

It is important to note that the establishment of protected areas can also fulfill the task of preventing the extinction of animals or plants that can only survive with adequate protection. An emblematic example of the protection of animal species following the establishment of a protected area is the rescue of the Marsican brown bear and the Abruzzo chamois thanks to the creation of the Abruzzo National Park.

From these considerations it is clear that, given the extreme gravity of the environmental degradation, it is necessary to intervene radically, without compromise, placing the protection of the environment in a pre-eminent position with respect to any other interest; this can often be achieved, at least in part of the territory, through the establishment of protected areas, in which human intervention is not limited or precluded, but sometimes human presence is strictly forbidden (integral reserves) . It should also be kept in mind that, where a reserve actually wants to perform its protective function, it must incorporate a large portion of a territory that is configured as a complete, harmonious and homogeneous expression under the territorial, phytological and zoological aspects (a The protected area must be as large as possible, but always in reference to the environmental quality and not to the "exploitation" of the territory to strongly extend the area of the park with clear "speculative" economic intentions). It is also necessary that the protected area be circumscribed within an external respect band that acts as a buffer between the protected area itself and the remaining man-made territory. Unfortunately, however, truly protected areas of an integral nature, as well as limited in number, are almost always of little importance, which certainly derives from the fact that this type of protection really protects the environment but does not indulge in economic interests. Dorst writes (1988): "In the eyes of naturalists, the first and most important measure to adopt is the establishment of integral nature reserves placed under the control of the public administration and in which it is strictly forbidden any human action, tending to modify the habitats or to make disturbances of any kind and entity to the fauna or flora. In these reserves nature must be left to itself, as if - in theory - man did not exist ".  

With what has been said up to now it is not intended to affirm that all protected areas must be precluded to people, thus neglecting the important educational and spiritual recreation function that sometimes they can play to raise awareness of the masses to protect the environment. But to do this it is necessary to impose severe restrictions because a protected area is an oasis of nature, not a public garden. So consider also the opening of national parks and nature reserves at least in the less delicate parts, but on the condition that human presence, whether connected to occasional visitors, or that represented by local communities, is strictly controlled and harmonized to the rhythm of nature.

Sometimes it is useful to establish "oriented" protected areas in which the aim is to restore the natural conditions compromised by human activity; this goal is sometimes achieved through the reintroduction of wildlife species present in earlier times and destroyed by man, other times through the elimination of human works such as roads, dams, construction of other artifacts, etc. Obviously this type of intervention can be implemented only in those areas that present fairly intact conditions, that have a minimum of resilience and retain the potential needed to accommodate the previous forms of life. In other words, if in an area you want to reintroduce a species of fauna that was present in the past, it is not enough to protect only this area to proceed without further reintroduction of the species, but it is necessary to ensure that in those places there are still the necessary conditions that the reintroduced animal species can affirm itself and flourish again. If the management considers it useful to carry out some form of reintroduction within the protected area, it should precede any interventions by long and meticulous studies, such as: collection of historical evidence on the past presence of the species, identification of the causes that have determined the disappearance of the species, surveys on the existing ecological conditions of the area in order to verify their compatibility with the species to be reintroduced (if the reintroduced species has a wide range of displacement, the "real" environmental and protectionist conditions must also be assessed of the surrounding territories in order to guarantee suitable conditions for the species reintroduced even if it borders the Reserve / Park). The interventions deemed scientifically feasible must minimize the tampering of the territory (if it will be necessary to construct acclimatization pens, it must be located in places with low environmental impact, also wishing to build them with inconspicuous structures).

It would be very serious to proceed with the introduction or reintroduction of historically absent animal or plant species in the area or to reintroduce animal species which, although they do not find the ecological conditions necessary for their survival (eg food sources), are maintained exclusively with human aid artificial. Equally serious mistake would be to reintroduce / introduce a species for aesthetic purposes only (many examples are offered to us by the work of the Anglo-Saxons as in Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia).

The emergence of a protected area should therefore be motivated exclusively by the need to preserve the territory as an end in itself, putting aside any direct utilitarian end. The reality of the facts, however, denies in many cases this consideration because, as already mentioned in the introduction, the mutation of human thought is still not felt, always addressed to one's selfish and myopic interests. It is very important to remember the words written by Franco Zunino that help us, without further investigation, to clearly illustrate our point of view (from Wilderness Documenti Anno IX n ° 2, 1994). "The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one should be the purpose for which it should be implemented: to preserve the territory as an end in itself. And to preserve it means, or it should mean, to make sure that it is not intentionally altered, it means deciding to remove it from the logic of development (which is the logic of profit) that is purely human.

Deciding to preserve a place is to decide to hold ancestral, animal behavior for that place, which is our origin, which is the only way to define ourselves in balance with the environment: no deer, no wolf, no bear has ever been able or required to "develop" or "enhance" or "produce" its habitat. They have been using it for millennia for what it spontaneously offers them and leaving it unchanged for other generations. It is only man the only animal species that has emerged from this "circle of life".

The spirit that is at the origin of the institution of protected areas could only have been that: deciding not to interfere with intelligence in the logic of natural things that happen in a certain place. At least, this is what we perceive by reading more than one report, speech or act related to the birth of the first national parks of the world at the end of the last century and at the beginning of the new. And this is the true, original meaning, which, only, we should give to the term conserve: leave everything as it is!

It is obvious that it was then the logic of development to take the upper hand, to make sure that this very simple concept was altered, bringing back the institutions that are the parks in the logic of profit from which we had stolen them ideally. John Muir at the end of the last century said that "the battle for the preservation of nature will continue indefinitely, because it is part of the universal battle between right and wrong". He was right, because nothing has changed since then! Only, to better understand it, the terms should be replaced: right = conservation, error = development.

Obviously the decision of wanting to preserve a certain place for himself and in itself, if only as a consequence or for the purpose of this choice, can also arise from disparate motivations: because the place is unusual for beauty, or because it is the last flap of an environmental state that due to overdevelopment has disappeared almost everywhere, or because we are in love for its usuality in our life. If this principle, because a principle I think it is, had always been kept in mind when parks and reserves were established, while recognizing the existence of these motivations as a starting point for its application, I am sure that today we would have a much smaller number of smaller "protected areas" and "protected areas" that we could really define, consider and present to the world as such!

Seventy years after the birth of our historic national parks, Abruzzo and Gran Paradiso, even the defense, the preservation of their most beautiful, scientifically most cherished corners, is still in doubt! This is the consequence of the continued failure to observe that principle.

We still daily witness the interpretative battle on the why of those institutive laws and how they should be applied to achieve the goals that they were pushing for and promising. We still return to visit these parks always discovering something more anthropic where we remembered to be nature. Less and less nature and more "humanity", a repetitive process spreading from park to park like an unstoppable disease. This is because in our country the principle of which I have said has practically never really been placed as a foundation for the design and establishment of a park or a nature reserve.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, national, regional and other protected areas have been designed, created and set up with an economist rather than conservative principle. Parks were set up as it would have been possible to create tourist structures or "holdings". You tried to give or want to give, with a park, those same things that they gave or would like to give with certain initiatives of tourist promotion such as ski basins, residential centers, marinas, etc. And it is in what is the basic error because, while nothing prevents a tourist center to adapt more and more to meet the market demand, for a park you end up creating around the parks or in the parks themselves, many small towns that produce economy, so that the park also becomes a source of income, jobs, tourist-recreational satisfaction, etcetera; in the end, a park is created that is the opposite of what a park should become. All this because the two principles have always been confused - the conservative and the economic ones - putting them on an equal footing, while the latter should only be subordinate. And even for the subaltern political forces it ended up becoming the first! It is enough to read certain reports, journalistic articles, interviews with politicians and authorities, to understand how in the birth of each new park the first logic is not to preserve a corner of nature for ethical reasons, but to solve the economic and employment problems of a region.

Even today, this logic dominates in absolute terms among the political forces and among those, and is more serious, more politicized environmentalists: a park equal to an economic resource for the development of depressed areas. It is a customary binomial. So here are parks with huge territories to protect areas of low value; here are therefore constraints that do not exist or are so "adaptable" to allow any form of intervention; therefore, this "evil of non-protection" comes to suffer even those central parts of the parks, which, on the other hand, deserve the park and the strict protection that a park requires. Of course, inversely doing would save, preserved, a territory with strict constraints on less space: but in the logic of politicians and politicians would not have allocated billions and billions to "enhance" the park, to make the park a tourist center and great yield economic.

Park as an investment, therefore, not as a guarantee of the protection of something beautiful, unique, or scientific value regardless of the economic price that could have for the company or you could get "enhancing it" ....... .....

One continues to ask what should be a protected area, when this question is almost pleonastic, so simple is the answer: that is, to defend a place so that it never changes in its external appearance.

We continue to closely link the conception of the park to economic policy, the parks as an investment, while the parks are and should remain only culture and inner values as they should always be independent of what they could also give economic.

Here then and why the logic of profit linked to parks. The parks they have to make. So in this logic, to make them return, we go down to the most detrimental compromises if not for them as institutions, at least for the ideological complexes that must preserve, for the beauty of the places, for the expectations of the most sensitive visitors who come to lose in quality of feelings, of emotionality, of joy.

One of the certainties of environmentalists is not to recognize that the parks represent sacrifices for those who live there; that the parks frighten the local inhabitants by the constraints they impose. And it is on this certainty that the logic of the parks linked to profit is then based. But the opposite is true instead! And the problem must be solved not by setting up parks that do not frighten (what we are doing by ourselves): because they are (and are) false parks! It must be solved by establishing parks that are aware of the fact that parks are a luxury, if we want to say it with a bad term. So it is right that this luxury pay the company all doing so that this does not happen only on the shoulders of those who live there, who is "owner" for social roots.

The logic of profit must be opposed to the logic that wherever a park causes damage, an increase, this damage and this burden must be paid, indemnified, thus operating with a logic exactly opposite to that of profit. Only in this way can the parks be democratic bodies inserted in a democratic system without losing their primary function.

That a park can bring wealth to small centers or individuals or even families is a given fact and also extremely obvious, but we must not make this fact, or facts, motivations with absolute and repeatable values to justify the establishment of other parks, because it will never be like this for all the parks, for all the parks centers, for all the inhabitants of the parks.

Parks must be conceived and exist as cultural, spiritual values; if then from these values they also emit tangible interests, but without having to prostitute them for this purpose, then these interests are welcome: but only as a tip is offered for a good service, not to pay the bill!

It is illusory to believe that a park can "pay the bill", bring as much wealth as it would bring the same area left to the normal and entrepreneurial development of the free market. This is the great lie that accompanies the birth of our parks; the dark evil for which we continue to fight first to establish parks, then to save them from this logic of "valorization", of profit, on which they are founded.

Toccasana of this logic is tourism. The French writer Jean Mistler wrote about tourism: "it is that activity consisting in transporting people who would be better at home in places that would be better without them". In this sentence there is the deeper philosophy of the why of a park that "makes" according to the logic of profit, it ends up no longer being that institution whose purpose was to be the preservation of a place, the establishment of something in itself, becoming instead only something at the service of tourism and the economic system.

Parks, on the other hand, must be set up as a priority to save, preserve a place ....... ".

In some Italian regions, paradoxically, councils in protected areas are sometimes associated with tourism and sport. This says a lot! Moreover, the regions present their protected areas not as territorial realities of true and disinterested conservation of nature, but rather as areas destined to "produce" and "make" to be "used". The "productivity of the parks" , one of the slogans that is most dear to the administrators, but also to most of the environmentalists, is fully realized with the regional guides to services and tourist enjoyment. In fact, protected areas are presented according to what they "offer" as humanly as possible: equipped areas, visitor centers, museums, self-guided trails, cycle paths, exercise paths, horse trails, cross-country trails, marked trails, etc. . The logic is once again that of the "use" of nature, perhaps recreational, tourist, but always of use. It should however be remembered that the word conservation is always in contrast with any mass activity of man. A bit of minimalism would certainly not hurt contemporary society.

 

 

Management of protected areas

 

 

"For a moral control and supervision in favor of nature on the management activities of the bodies that administer protected areas; so that the primary interests of nature should never be put aside or diminished to make those of man " (point 5 of the Programmatic Document of the Italian Association for Wilderness).

Many citizens particularly sensitive to the fate of nature draw a sigh of relief when they learn that a new protected area has been established, as they think that in the future that area will no longer run any risk. This belief is often denied by the facts, since it happens unfortunately that areas that have become protected continue to suffer significant injuries and damage. The origin of these damages is not always due, as might be expected, to objective situations of various kinds, but it is sometimes linked to the way in which the wild areas are managed. For these reasons, the actions of "managers" or government bodies responsible for the management of protected areas must be controlled in the same way as any activity that could in any way disturb the ecosystem of the territory. The facts that justify these pessimistic considerations refer to national parks managed more according to the tourist flow that in reference to the true requirements of the protection of nature; reduced reserves for biological experimentation supports; serious alterations of wilderness habitats; unjustified construction or renovation of shelters or similar facilities; picnic areas created in areas of delicate naturalistic value; opening or restructuring of mountain roads motivated by the pretext of achieving better management or more active surveillance; introduction or forced reintroduction of animals not preceded by preliminary investigations aimed at ascertaining whether the reintroduced species was previously present in that habitat and for what causes it then disappeared; cutting of woods, passed through naturalistic management interventions, and management cuts motivated by erroneous and empirical customs; insufficient surveillance activity by the personnel in charge, etc. Not to mention the thorny problem of mountain and wood roads that if they fall into the protected areas at best are closed by bars (with numerous access permits), but never completely dismantled (read environmental restoration). In fact, such a practice does not fall within the logic of "managers" (or even less in people who have only a utilitarian mentality), and is accanently opposed (there are obviously the necessary exceptions). There is always a reason that justifies the continuation of existence. Who knows why a mountain road, within a protected territory, should not be dismantled? If you ask for economic financing to restructure or add something more human in the territory, they are usually always found, if instead, you want to run a real work of environmental restoration, as could be the elimination of a road, funds and interests fall into oblivion. It never happens that one gives univocal advantage to the natural world. What about these "managers" of nature? First of all it would be necessary to change their "forma mentis" which can not escape the "doing" policy, the introduction, the start, the restructuring, the transformation, all with a sort of feverish activism that can not conceive that "not" do ", and in many cases let nature rebalance itself, as it has been for a few million years, it is the best way to save the wild areas of this planet. With this it is not intended to assert that all the interventions are wrong, but we mean however that the nature of the intervention and its intensity must be inspired by a real principle of conservation, respectful of the rhythm and the reasons of nature (environmental restoration in many cases would be extremely useful to restore a bit of wildness to the severely anthropized world). "Many of the objectives of habitat conservation of other species compatible with biocentric equality are summarized in the expression" Let the river live ", where the" river "is a broader definition of living beings, and includes not only the humans or trees that grow along the river but the whole ecosystem of living energy. Another possibility in keeping with the slogan of Naess 'simplicity of means, wealth of ends' is 'do not' " (Devall & Sessions, 1989).

Point 5 of the Programmatic Document of the Italian Wilderness Association states: "...... The management of Parks and protected areas in general, is a complex thing, and is known as the reasons that lead and continue to bring to their constitution, they have not always been, and indeed, except in the past, one can almost never say, those of the protection of natural values, but rather the so-called "enhancement" of environmental goods. various nature consequently act to damage the environmental value that the areas should protect, and also the inner needs of the most sensitive visitors.

The economic and technological and urban development pressures are so many that often the choices of the administrators, for convenience or demagogy, tend to put the interests of nature in the background, precisely because nature does not have the possibility to cry out its needs. , to make them prevail, or to protest when one is wrong or is injured in his rights.

The function of moral checks on these management should be of all protectionist associations, but we know how often this control is 'addressed' or even processed according to who manages the protected areas. Too often we have looked at and not look at the good of nature but for the good of whom nature has the task of managing, and precisely for this reason we have not always made the interest of nature ...... ".

According to logical dictates, the creation of a protected area, park or reserve, should be motivated, as we have just seen, by the real preservation of that place and of all the life that thrives in it. After strictly operating in this sense, any economic and social implications, which positively fall on local communities, internal or adjacent to the area, can also be accepted by a strict logic of protection. But this kind of advantage must be an eventual reflection that the real conservation policy brings with it. In reality, however, in many cases, we operate exactly the opposite: establishing a protected area means primarily "development", "prosperity", "prosperity", "tourism", "productivity", "environmentally friendly" structures and activities. , "Image" and how much more. Then, if possible, if the possibilities remain, we will talk about the protection of the territory. But since this protection comes to an end, it remains very little and, by nature, the fruits to be harvested almost do not exist.

Let us remember then that often the protected areas acquire substantial funding to carry out a series of studies and possible protection interventions on their territories (even if, to be honest, a good part of the so-called studies are only screens to discover at the end "the hot water "because the end results useful for a true conservation had always been known for some time but never implemented, perhaps because inconvenient, or because" needed "further studies to tap into new opulent financing, evidently the" sources "were never sufficient), but, despite the "rain" of millions, almost never, to make just one example, has been implemented a simple when effective intervention: buy, in the true sense of the term, at least whenever possible, territories to be subtracted to the various damages and place them under a strict conservation constraint that is inspired by the dictates of the wilderness of the places (a clear example can be that for salvagu to burn faunistic species at serious risk of survival or peculiar habiat that are about to collapse).

After having enumerated the errors that many times emerge from the management of protected areas, we must ask ourselves a question: who to attribute the paternity of such errors? Certainly to the exasperated bureaucracy, to the lack of preparation, to the disinterestedness, to the misunderstood conception of prestige, to the spasmodic application of "science" to the natural world that often does not cause the latter any benefit because it dissipates energy, finances and time, or even to the environmental aestheticism but, more than anything else, the pragmatic acceptance of the strict rules of economic policy and the strictly anthropocentric vision of the whole natural world. The "human" management of protected areas is in fact a confirmation of that "superficial" vision of the whole mental attitude of Western man.

  

  

The fear of getting lost

 

 

"..... throw a handful of tea leaves and some bread into an old sack and skip the garden gate at home" (J. Muir).

The domestication of the territory has become an inseparable practice from the everyday thought of civilized man.

Rivers are bridged, coasts and valleys are cemented, quarries are opened, shelters and mountain hotels erected, pic-nic areas are built: the list could be long. Unfortunately, from the domestication and the distortion of places, not even the protected areas remain immune, which often, year after year, always present something more human and something less in nature.

The fear of getting lost or of running other risks, has determined, especially in mountain areas, the need to create a whole series of structures: shelters, bivouacs, conspicuous and abundant signs, SOS rescue columns, etc. All this is the result of a mentality that thinks backwards: if a hiker falls into a ravine or a skier falls into a crevice, instead of empowering people not to go to the mountains in dangerous places or to be aware of the risks involved, we prefer to "fence" the edge of the ravine to prevent it from falling, we prefer to alter a place enriching it with a thousand signposts and signs so as not to lose the hiker, we decide to erect mass-produced refuges to "refocere" the "technological" wanderer of two thousand.

In some countries, for example in North America, immense wilderness territory does not present any shelter or human structure, although it contains infinite risks for the person. Those who want to visit such a place must be aware of their limitations and the risks they can run. Nature does not "distort" itself, but the mentality of the individual to the wild and the difficulties that can be encountered is shaped.

Nature itself is never "killer", it is man himself who puts himself in a position to die or to suffer damage!

"The mountains, says the teacher, are walking ...

They are constantly at rest and constantly on the move.

We must dedicate ourselves to a detailed study

of the virtue of walking ...

Who doubts that the mountains move,

he has not yet understood his own movement "

(Dogen, Sutra of mountains and rivers).

An Indian Piedineri wrote: "A man should never walk so impetuously that he leaves such deep tracks that the wind can not erase them".

 

 

  

The concept of Wilderness

a new need for conservation

of areas and natural resources.

 

"Wild nature is both a geographical condition

what a state of mind "

 

"The conservation of wilderness for the value in itself

and for an ecocentric and holistic vision "

 

 

"In every place it would take a place, thus, left uncultivated" (Cesare Pavese).

 

"The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one must be the purpose for which it should be implemented: to preserve the territory as an end in itself" (Franco Zunino).

 

Before the civilized man made his "appearance" on earth the whole world was "wilderness" , an immense wilderness where only natural truth reigned. Then the civilized man arrived and, little by little, he took from the world and himself the unpredictable and "chaotic" harmony of nature that was the spirit of life. Aldo Leopold (1949) writes: "Wilderness is a resource that can diminish but never increase. The destruction can be blocked or limited in such a way as to make an area still usable for recreation, or for science, or for wildlife, but the creation of new wilderness in the true sense of the word is impossible. It follows, then, that every conservation program that regards the Wilderness is a defensive action, by which its degradation can be reduced to a minimum ....

The ability to understand the cultural value of Wilderness is ultimately becoming a matter of intellectual humility. The conceited thought of modern man has detached himself from his roots with the earth, and claims to have already discovered what is important; it is those who cry out of empires, political or economic, which will remain thousands of years behind .... ".

But let us now explain what is the essence of the "concept of wilderness", let's see why it is to be considered a real philosophy from which the protectionist thought is generated and, more generally, the very conception of life. We report in full the laudable words of Franco Zunino founder, as mentioned, of the Italian Association for Wilderness.

"The ever-changing social development is altering every corner of our land, and even the truly wild areas that have been left out of randomness or, as of today, lacking in economic interests or not usable for this purpose, are now being constantly affected by new initiatives to them they give, without ever the economic justifications to their alteration being considered in second order to the spiritual ones, defining such, for brevity, all those demands for which nature is protected everywhere in the world.

The few areas without roads and modern buildings left are considered 'land of conquest' by civilization, and the offices in charge of land planning and its use are always planning new forms of exploitation rather than preserving them in their natural state as ecological rarities such as they are , and also as Eden for the emotional needs of the individual. No one in local social contexts seems to love his land, the landscape in which he was born! Even the recreational use of the environment by the citizens is proving, especially in the National Parks, a last frontier of the conquest of man, because an excessive use in this sense is likely to turn into a more subtle and creeping damage, less conspicuous than a street or a residence, less annoying than hunting on the moral level, but as damaging and deteriorating as everything physical and psychic is contained in the definition of wild nature, that is of 'Wilderness' as it is understood in culture Anglo-Saxon.

Wilderness is a term that can sound obscure to the profane, but whose intrinsic meaning goes well beyond its literal translation, it also defines the dictates of a specific philosophy, which stems from human needs and emotional enjoyment in contact with the wild nature of conservation of those natural territories where these needs can be expressed.

The 'Wilderness Concept' is nothing but the definition of this philosophy; a philosophy that sees in the relationship between man and nature a reciprocal respect that privileges nature in cases of conflict of interests; a philosophy based on the idea of giving substance to environmental heritage to be left to posterity, investing our generations of their responsibility in this sense, that is to decide today the maximum limit beyond which man and his suggestions must no longer go, to leave a perennial space to nature and its wild creatures.

....... We need to prepare the public opinion of today and tomorrow to understand the spiritual need of our and future generations to enjoy even knowing that there are still distant places, in the sense of large and wild; places where nature is left to itself as in the dawn of life on earth, and with lasting guarantees of their preservation over time that takes them away from the evolution of civilization ........

The associations of nature protection have too often ignored the purely spiritual needs linked to the relationship between man and nature, and so those impacts on nature on the part of man who, by satisfying purely material needs of social development or merely physical recreation, prevent their expression; they have underestimated the potential destructive force of the economic spiral of our civilization in its most insidious nuances, as well as those of the needs of man as an individual. It is not a few times that these associations have expressed favorable consents to certain activities, too superficially believed to be educational or necessary and therefore compatible with the reasons for conservation as developed by those who manage protected areas or disseminated and promoted with the aim of improving the relationship with nature by those who actually aim at indirect economic interests (eg camping, hiking, photographic hunting, fake management artifices, when not realizations of shelters, roads and other 'indispensable' structures), which seen from a different point of view are in fact, the embryo of failures that undermine the very basis of what is the 'Concept of Wilderness'. Due to a lack of social security we run the risk of being protectionists who, in the most delicate cases, trigger, one day with difficulty of control (and the history of conservation teaches, for those who want to learn!), Aided by this compact collaboration of the mass media, mostly favorable to the economic discourses that are behind the always new justifications that allow the 'man effect' to become increasingly deeper in the natural environments.

A day will come when even visits to the Parks will have to be planned, and limited will be the artifices to enjoy nature with the inevitable facilities, today more than ever in vogue (and behind which is always the economic spiral): this step will trivialize even the wildest, most remote and most inaccessible places on earth!

Certain natural areas must be saved only because they have the right to continue to last in time as they have come to us, modified only by the slow evolution of the forces of nature or primitive man, and therefore not because they are 'used' by man today as centers of economic production or recreational vent, that is, in a narrow material sense. They must exist instead for themselves; nature must be saved in these wildest areas only for fauna and flora, which must be developed in complete harmony. In these places man must set precise limits beyond which in principle he will no longer allow any further and even modifying intervention or artificial achievements, and must then have the strength and the will to draw back even as a visitor as soon as his presence tends to modify the physical state, or even the psychic state of the visitor himself, who must always enjoy the sensations of a relationship of solitude with the wild nature.

Of course, this is a difficult choice, but it is the only serious alternative to oppose the frightening anthropization of the landscape that surrounds us daily and the vandalization of the natural environments that we do when we become tourists in summer or Sunday ........ the time has come to make this choice of 'use-not use' for the wildest areas ....... If we do not do it today for lack of political courage it will be too late for future generations. Any other decision we wanted to take to their physical protection or even the spiritual values that they enclose and represent, will be a palliative that will only serve to avoid our generations the responsibility of a choice that you know difficult and unpopular ..... "

Thoreau observed that "in the wilderness it is the salvation of the world", and he said he was convinced that a wild nature helps us to know ourselves better, to improve ourselves and to improve the society in which we live. The only thought that an area can remain wilderness, that is savage "forever" , freeing itself from the presence of the conquering and subjugating man, profoundly affects the sensitivity of a person who has his own spiritual life. As we have already pointed out, the concept of Widerness does not only concern the physical space of a territory but also concerns the inner emotionality from which man, only in the face of the wild nature, can be taken. The wilderness philosophy can therefore be summarized in a sentence "Wild nature is both a geographical condition and a state of mind".

Salvatore Veca (1986) writes: "nature is not a pseudo-person towards which human beings are responsible: we are responsible for it because our actions cause alterations in the biosphere and we can no longer, or better, not we have more to be the predators of the biosphere. Obviously, we are part of nature, without having total control of it (we are not responsible for its existence), and yet we differ in some essential aspects from other constituent elements of nature. Unlike other species, it seems that we can change - improve or worsen - the effects of our actions on nature: this causal responsibility generates a moral responsibility .... ".

As a corollary to what has been observed regarding the protection of nature according to the wilderness philosophy, we are allowed to formulate a provocative reflection: if someone proposed to destroy a large work of art, a museum or a precious Romanesque church would certainly be considered a crazy, but paradoxically it is not considered crazy who decides to destroy a centuries-old forest to get through a highway or to build a high mountain sports facility, with all the environmental damage that those works entail.

Man is therefore responsible for providing for the preservation of nature because he is the man who destroys it and it is therefore his duty to protect it, unless one wants to consider it as a simple component of dialectical materialism, to which it would have been entrusted with the task of completely subverting the natural environment: only this could be ironically the essence of anthropocentric philosophy.

Gary Snyder (1992) notes masterfully: "Thoreau says: 'Give me a wildness no civilization can endure' (give me a wild world that no civilization can tolerate). Such a thing is not difficult to conceive. It is more difficult to imagine a civilization that the wild world can tolerate. Yet this is precisely what we must try to do. Wildness does not simply mean preserving the world; wildness is the world. Eastern and western civilizations have long been on a collision course with wild nature, and today, in particular, industrialized countries have the senseless power to destroy not just individual creatures, but entire species, whole processes of the earth. We need a civilization capable of living fully and creatively with the wild world, with the wild being ..... The wilderness is a place where the wild potential is fully expressed, where a variety of beings, living and not, are manifest according to their internal order ..... Wilderness means totality, wholeness. Human beings emerge from that totality; and the idea of reaffirming our participation in the assembly of all beings is by no means a regressive thought ".

Zunino still writes: ".... Who feels the desire for a different relationship with the environment, more linked to the inner needs of beauty and solitude, of reflection, of enjoyment of beauty, of moments of living and of the evolution of nature more easily understand the need for greater respect, will understand that the rights of nature must have the first place and that man must always visit it ready to draw back as soon as the signs of change that his presence brings to them become evident; ranging from environmental degradation to the disturbance of the fauna, to the loss of certain states of peace and solitude (which are a right of the fauna before our own), therefore also ready to renounce nature when it is the case.

Instead, the majority of those who love nature, fauna, flora, or enjoy it through physical recreation in it (naturalists, mountaineers, hikers, hunters, etc.) rarely pose problems of renouncing their pleasures out of respect to its needs ......... In reality every category of users of nature must resign itself to setting limits, because there are no good users and harmful users, and it is in the limitation of all the freedoms the right compromise that allows to guarantee nature the possibility of perpetuating itself in its freedom, because while our needs are adaptable, in most cases it is not those of nature ....... 'there is need of love towards the Earth, not towards the pleasures that derive from it through use. ' Unfortunately, it is almost always the inverse for the vast majority of members of the various interest groups, from the ornithologist to the hunter .... ".

Zunino writes again and completes the speech: "The Wilderness Concept is the hypothetical invisible but impassable barrier against the pressures of the economic needs, and therefore of development, of human society, placed by the man himself to defend nature, or rather to guarantee the its perpetuity, in practice a premeditated renunciation of human rights to guarantee those of nature.This barrier was first codified in the world in 1964 by a special law of the American Congress.The territories delimited by this legislative barrier are forever and in principle protected against any project to change their environmental status.

Today is the time to seriously start fighting for the conservationist concept to be applied around the world.

Saving the salvable of the last wild lands of the Earth is an unmissable priority; we have too many examples of wild places lost in the space of a few years because they were considered enormous or unassailable due to lack or scarcity of resources or the difficulty of operating profitable enterprises. On the other hand, little has been enough because the slow eroding of lands to the great wild spaces has evolved with a dizzying exponential growth (the Amazon is the most current example) as a result of socio-economic developments unthinkable only a few years ago; and so it was for natural resources discovered in unthinkable places, resources of quality and quantity, whose demand has reached the top on world markets (oil, uranium, gas, etc.): and here he teaches Antarctica, considered a barren and desolate land now discovered as an inexhaustible treasure trove for the whole world! It is also the places considered unapproachable due to the technical difficulties of opening up ways of penetration: the engineering sciences in the last decade have practically solved every technical problem: now it's just a question of money. If we want to bring civilization through roads, dams and constructions of every kind, there is no longer any natural barrier that can stop or contain the colonizing will of man.

To such a state of affairs, all based on profit, only a current of thought can effectively oppose it. The will to destroy by colonizing or exploiting can be fought only with the opposite will: that of preserving. No utilitarian belief will ever take the place of that inner and moral need to preserve something we love because we feel intimately our own as the favorite corner of our home. Until we convince ourselves that preserving a place or a territory is like making strangers respect our material properties (who does not rebel against those who smear us the house or the car?), We will not obtain any law, no provision lasting to protect the environment: we will always accept compromises, compromises that we would consider absolutely unacceptable if they concern our material properties. And this is not right. It means that we have not yet reached a social conscience that makes us feel what is ours. That is, we will continue to consider what belongs to everyone as if it were not of nobody or never ours.

It is for these reasons that rather than serious and lasting constraints we continue every day to ask the political forces for the establishment of new Parks and protected areas only for the satisfaction of stamping these definitions on cartographically circumscribed areas that have very little of Park or Reserve. of and for nature, accepting weak bonds to obtain those simple geographical expressions that, in fact, have become the Italian Parks, be they national or regional. The 'Parcomania' put up by hunters exists, it is not a definition to deride the environmental movement!

The Regional Parks established in recent years, and so the many Regional and State Natural Reserves, as well as the National Parks designed, are based on constraints so little binding that beyond the usual obvious and sometimes useless hunting ban, very little defend the environmental heritage defined as 'protected areas'.

We run the risk that, as in the past, it has occurred for all the existing national parks, the better environmental and landscape values are lost just after they have been or will have been, theoretically, protected! We think what great areas of wild nature were the Gran Paradiso or the Abruzzo or the Stelvio at the time of their designation in National Parks: 60,000, 30,000 and 70,000 hectares of Wilderness! Now that little thing has remained of that Wilderness.

Today, what parks or other reserves ensure that no road or shelter works (let alone worse!) Be carried out in their borders after the date of their designation? Few, if not in a rigid sense.

Hence the need for a new stream of conservative thinking about it. A current that discovers and makes the Wilderness Concept its own. It is not a 'Parcomania'. Rather, an objective choice of places worthy of real protection, to be split from those of low environmental value or, worse, with only socio-economic values for which the pseudo-constraints of today can also go well. A choice, therefore, not so much of the places to be protected to be exploited as much as the places to be truly preserved, for biological and psychological necessities; to defend how we defend our gardens, to beautify which we spend money at the sole undisputed end of creating something beautiful to look at and enjoy. Only by acknowledging and acknowledging such an axiom will we be able to fight in order to obtain from us also the binding rules inspired by the Wilderness Concept, rules to be applied in all the existing protected areas and to be envisaged in future institutions, at least at defense of the last wild areas left in the Italian territory. And only in this way will we be able to consider their defense as an unquestionable right, as well as the right to defend our home, our landed property, our material assets in general.

Forever wild can also mean forever ours! ".

John Muir wrote in a letter to his brother: "Sell me 20 hectares of the lawn near the lake and keep it fenced so that it can not penetrate the cattle .... I want it to remain stolen for the salvation of ferns and flowers, and even if I will never see him again, the beauty of his lilies and his orchids will be so much present in my mind that I will only enjoy imagining them ".

Our mind, now atrophied in an artificial, illusory and superficial lifestyle, does not allow us to conceive, even for a moment, the existence of a nature that has not been manipulated and transformed by man. Our thinking of "civil" men no longer includes something that is not human or at least humanized. That's why we appreciate only the things that highlight in some way a human "presence", even minimal, but always human (a wild path, not beaten and unmarked, is considered "abandoned", impractical, not comfortable). Everything must always be subjected in some way to the work of man. It is hoped that the last areas of the earth that are still immune to human "disease" will remain so forever.

"What I have tried to say is that the conservation of the world is in the wilderness ... The way is made of wild spaces. The most vivid and the wildest thing. Not yet submissive to man, his presence resigns it .... When I want to re-create myself, I look for the most intricate, denser and more extensive wood and, for the inhabitant of the city, the most gloomy and swampy. I enter you as if in a sacred place, a Sanctum sanctorum. There is the strength, the marrow, of Nature. In short, all good things are wild and free " (HD Thoreau).

John Mitchell in his article (1998) reminds us, confirming what he said pocànzi that: "When we talk about wilderness is not meant exclusively a physical place, nor even a management system ...... Wilderness is also one mental state. An idea both elusive and earthly: as personal as risk, freedom, solitude and spiritual rest; as concrete as the living land and the waters that draw its profile ". He then adds, quoting one of his interlocutors Charles Little: " The earth is a community , Leopold taught. Its waters, soil, plants, animals, make up a harmonious whole not for our benefit, but for their own ".

It is good to complete and integrate the discourse with the words of the already quoted Aldo Leopold, who is responsible for the designation of the first Wilderness Area in the world, and universally known for his treatises on the "Ethics of the Earth". From the work A Sand County Almanac (1949/1968, translation by F. Zunino): "The Wilderness is the raw material from which man has manipulated the artefact called civilization.

Wilderness has never been a homogeneous raw material. It was very varied and the manufactured artifacts are, therefore, very different. We know these differences in the final product as cultures. The rich diversity in the wildness of which they have come to life.

For the first time in the history of the human species, two changes are incumbent. One is the depletion of the Wilderness in the portion of the most inhabited globe. The other is the hybridization of world cultures through modern means of transport and industrialization. Neither can be prevented; or perhaps it could also be, given that, by some insignificant improvements of the changes that loom, certain values can be preserved before they are lost.

For the hot smith in work, the iron on his anvil is an adversary to conquer. So it was the Wilderness, an opponent for the pioneers. But for the blacksmith at rest, able for a moment to throw a philosophical look into his world, the same raw iron is something to love and cherish, because it gives determination and meaning to his life. This means the preservation of some remains of Wilderness as museum pieces, for the pleasure of those who might one day wish to see them, live them, or study the origins of their cultural heritage ".

 

Although some steps are a repetition of what is written on the wilderness, we report some points (point 1 and 2) of the programmatic document of the Italian Association for the Wilderness, to focus even more the importance of some aspects of this real vision of conservation of nature.

 

Step 1 - Wilderness as a feeling

Like any beauty, even nature in the vastness of its multiple physical aspects and its manifestations before awakening scientific or cultural interests in us or satisfying recreational needs, arouses emotionality. To deny it would be silly; each of us with the reflection can succeed in going back to this first emotion of discovery of the natural world. All the rest of our interests came later, with acculturation. Nature is therefore primarily a spiritual heritage for man, and the most intact and therefore most beautiful environmental complexes according to a yardstick of naturalistic judgment, are the cathedrals or sanctuaries of this spirituality.

In modern society one can be sick of the spirit as much as in the body, and in this case the contact with nature, living in nature in a balanced way becoming members of his community by finding ancestral relationships with it, can be a way, and surely it is for many individuals, to rediscover the state of mind that improves us and improves our civil life with others, our social ethics; it is therefore a way to improve the society in which we live. In this case nature becomes an indispensable component of our life experience. This is the feeling that the Anglo-Saxons have closely linked to the experience of "Wilderness".

In front of a destroyed forest, a defaced mountain, any modification of the landscape states we love or have loved, we feel a spontaneous revolt within us, which is our first reaction to these misdeeds. All other reasons, social, cultural, recreational, scientific and even economic, we list them later, with reasoning. Once again we note, therefore, how both the spiritual value arouses our first and most felt interest. despite this, the common tendency is to place these other reasons at the top of our interests, and to make them the motivations for which we want to protect nature; in practice we also deny ourselves the emotionality that we have inside and that is the first reason for revolt and therefore the real first reason why we have to fight to protect the natural heritage (and this also applies to artistic works, whose sentimental value is always superior to the venal one): sight itself without these feelings would have no sense or would be sterile and cold.

Ultimately, we must protect nature because it is beautiful, because we like it and it gives us emotions, and above all because it has the right to exist. Those who understand this feeling have understood the Wilderness philosophy. Linking this idea to wild spaces alone is limiting: the great wild spaces are only the best places, among the highest ones for beauty and naturalistic wealth, where to guarantee the rights of nature and where our emotionality in relations with it manifests itself more.

The spiritual needs of man linked to nature are increasing, but both capitalism and consumerism are founded on a materialistic society that tends to ignore this human need and which is destroying or at least subjecting every natural phenomenon to its technological and economic needs. ; if there is a possibility of stopping this evolution, it is not in the revolutionization of social systems, but in exalting and advancing the values of human feelings, because it is in them the only force capable of resisting and conditioning it.

The inner motivations are among other things the only ones that can never be subjected to the volubility of politicians and administrators of the territory. Even in the most critical moments of social life it will be more difficult to derogate from the need to safeguard a little of nature; even in the face of serious contingent needs we can oppose, in the limits of the human, to the destruction of nature. Such a force has none of the materialistic motivations.

 

Point 2 - Wilderness as greater respect for nature

Those who feel the desire for a different relationship with the environment, more linked to the inner needs of beauty and solitude, reflection, enjoyment of beauty, moments of life and the evolution of nature, more easily understand the need for greater respect, will understand that the rights of nature, at least in some areas, must have the first place and that the man must always visit them ready to draw back as soon as the signs of change that his presence brings to light, ranging from environmental degradation to the disturbance of the fauna, to the loss of certain states of peace and solitude (which are a right of the fauna even before ours); therefore also ready to renounce nature when it is the case:

Instead the majority of those who love nature, fauna, flora, or enjoy it through physical recreation in it, rarely pose problems of renunciation of their pleasures for the sake of their needs. Usually, every organization, every interest group, tries to set limits to other bodies or groups of people whose freedom of action threatens their needs. You almost always look at others, before doing self-criticism and begin to see what goes wrong with their activities. The most striking example is the rivalry between naturalists and hunters. The former would like to abolish hunting altogether, seen as an activity rival to their interests, but almost never pose problems of limitation to their activity of observation, study or recreation as harmful as hunting in certain situations. The latter, on the other hand, are always ready to take it out on tourism or with polluters, but avoid setting limits to the terrible impact that their category inflicts on the wildlife population. Each category of users of nature seeks on the one hand to limit the freedom of the other antagonists, and on the other to choose alternatives that give only the appearance of limitations to their activities, always finding sufficient motivations to justify their "right" to the environment "and deny that of others.

In reality, every category of users of nature must resign themselves to setting limits, because there are no good users and bad users, and it is in the limitation of all liberties the right compromise that allows nature to be able to perpetuate itself in its freedom, because while our needs are adaptable, more often than not those of nature. The "Ethics of the Earth", or the environmental ethics of Aldo Leopold, is also at the bottom of this.

"We need love for the Earth, not for the pleasures it gets from using it". On the other hand, unfortunately, it is almost always the inverse for the vast amount of adherents of the various interest groups, from the ornithologist to the hunter. A policy of "carryng capacity", ie a rational and balanced use not only of resources but also of the environment as a place of recreation, and in the primary respect for the needs of nature .......

Man must respect nature for its value in itself, and must know how to pull back as soon as his presence affects you negatively, not find quibbles and temporary remedies to justify the necessity or, worse, the "right" of his presence ... ... "

 

Before concluding and passing on to illustrate some practical news we want to make a final reflection.

The high and praiseworthy meaning of the Wilderness philosophy for the conservation of a wild territory has been widely explained and we have seen that an area subjected to that principle represents, in its practical implementation, a concrete and real form of protection / conservation that is expresses at the highest degree to which we can arrive today.

What we want to bring to light (although Zunino has already abundantly spoken about it) is the fact that the concept of Wilderness has within it a very important fundamental aspect, both for the effects that it projects on an excellent protection of the nature, but also a principle so dear to profound Ecology: "the value in itself of nature" . We report again what was said by Zunino at the beginning of the document: "The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one should be the purpose for which it should be implemented: preserve the territory for same " (Franco Zunino).

The value in itself of nature is one of the most profound attitudes that can be worked out. We go beyond the anthropocentric and utilitarian end of nature and we recognize that its existence is independent of that of man. Certainly man, especially in the wild, can find the maximum enjoyment, especially spiritual, to live a true nature and can rejoice knowing that it is an area protected with the highest possible value today desirable (remember, as mentioned , the American Wilderness Act that in 1964 established an epochal turning point for a true protection of natural territories).

This raises, as mentioned, the concept of wilderness outside of any utilitarian logic of nature and, as we know, it imprints to the real conservation of a territory a value that does not allow compromises, that is to protect an environment, but not allowing, or at most minimize, many human activities that eventually distort, at least to a large extent, the initial effects of the protective act (the parks policy in Italy is an example). The concept of Wilderness, looks first at the interests of nature and, later - but in a completely different form to what many believe is good for the environment - to "benefits" for humans, but these advantages are for the more spiritual and very little material.

The wilderness areas are not integral reserves in which it is not possible to access, but the ethic of the wilderness tells us to do it "on tiptoe" , because it is necessary to remember that in a wild area nature is always "mistress" and protagonist. Man must know how to pull back at the slightest sign of disturbance or alteration. An Indian Piedineri wrote: "A man should never walk so impetuously that he leaves such deep tracks that the wind can not erase them".

The recognition of the value of nature in itself leads to another fundamental concept that distorts all the positions that man has always had with regard to nature (and not only): ecocentrism! We abandon the centrality of man (anthropocentrism), and this will lead to a true revolution of all the mental and material attitudes that are expressed. And, taking this step we arrive directly at the conception of holism, the unity of the whole , a vision that puts on the same level every element of mother earth (animated or not): "You can not touch a flower without disturbing a star" (G. Bateson).

Says Hargrove "Beauty is an intrinsic and objective character of the natural entity (which therefore is beautiful for the mere fact of existing), therefore it is released from the perception by a subject ... .." and concludes ".... Wilderness is today the universal symbol of a wild territory not tampered with by the hand of man in whom nature, free to represent itself, manifests itself in all its splendor ".

 

Dedicated ....... to a Wilderness that preserves forever the last wild territories being exclusively on the side of nature, thanks to its vision, holistic, ecocentric, profound and that recognizes, in its highest meaning, the value in itself of the whole nature ".

 

After this long dissertation we now see to summarize the general aims of the wilderness philosophy and to mention some practical applications of the same.

 

The purposes

1 - For a new philosophy that considers nature to be a spiritual value for man, which exalts its moral and beauty value and the emotionality it arouses in the human soul; so that its respect is greater and the bonds taken in its protection are safer and longer lasting.

2 - For a more correct relationship between man and nature and a balanced use of the environment, even if for recreational and enjoyment purposes in the primary respect of its needs: so that it is actually possible to pass on our assets from generation to generation. environmental.

3 - For the maintenance of the absolute territorial and landscape integrity of the wildest natural areas, inside and outside the already protected areas; so that while respecting traditional uses of natural resources and the recovery of cultural values, they will remain unchanged forever.

4 - For the approval by the legislative bodies and other bodies that manage the territory, laws and special measures that protect the values of wild nature; so that the intangibility of the wildest natural areas is guaranteed forever and in principle, and any form of motorization and anthropization is forbidden.

5 - For a moral control and supervision in favor of nature on the management activities of the bodies that administer protected areas; so that the primary interests of nature should never be set aside or diminished in order to make those of man.

6 - For the legitimate recognition of a moral property right on natural beauties regardless of the land ownership of the land; so that every value of nature is no longer considered only from an economic point of view, with the consequent negation of the aesthetic and spiritual value that the same good possesses.

 

The concrete birth of the wilderness

Emerging in America in the last century and spread mainly in this century, until it spread to the rest of the world, the Wilderness philosophy believes, as we have just seen, that nature should be preserved as a value in itself, and considers this value a spiritual heritage for man for what he expresses, on an inner level, in every individual.

The Wilderness Concept has above all a profound protectionist implication, meaning a lasting bond over time with the maximum guarantees that the company can give. Codified in the USA in a special law, it allowed to designate those protected areas known as "Wilderness Areas" that have the same in the wide range of Parks and other similar reserves for the defense of nature. They aim to preserve the wildest corners of the Earth in their most primitive state, and for this they represent a fact of unsurpassable quality in the territory protection policy; this not only to ensure the survival of the fauna and flora in their original states or as close as possible to these states, but also to allow humans to enjoy them in an uncontaminated nature, and above all to enjoy them in balance and harmony.

 

The Wilderness Act

1964 - On September 3, 1964, the American Congress approves, after twenty years of discussions and revisions of the texts, the Wilderness Act , the first world law that recognizes, defines and protects the value of the Wilderness, designating simultaneously a long series of such areas. It is the most rigid law in the field of environmental defense ever approved by a government, and still never equaled. The defense of the Wilderness value is preceded by any other requirement; the territories so protected, completely wild and without roads, are removed forever from any manipulation and reserved exclusively for the free development of natural forces. But man can visit them as a participant member of the living community, that is, in a balanced way, without interference or forms of environmental wear.

1980 - With another law intended to remain a milestone in the history of world conservationism, the US Congress designates in one fell swoop 40 million hectares of new protected territories in the State of Alaska, of which about half immediately classified Wilderness and subjected rigid wing of 1964 law.

It is symptomatic to note that this very strict law is also a unique example of conciseness and legislative clarity: the best form of environmental protection has been codified with only 35 articles of 12 typewritten pages!

Currently, more than 500 areas are subject to the Wilderness Act, for a total of over 40 million hectares.

"However, - notes J. Mitchell (1998) - in the places I was able to visit, I observed and felt enough to say that after almost 35 years the National Wilderness Preservetion System still holds pretty good. Not that the problems are missing. As well as the forests, parks and national shelters that surround them, even the integral reserves are exposed to pitfalls: improper use, actual abuse, and then the lack of funds, the erosion of the paths, the invasive alien species, political bickering and local interests opposed to government regulatory intervention. So far, however, in most cases, ingenuity has prevailed over difficulties.

Of all the issues that harass those responsible, perhaps none requires such a waste of money and time as the impact of visitors on the paths and camps. In the last thirty years, the recreational use of wilderness areas has multiplied by seven times compared to the past .... ".

 

The wilderness in the world

The concept of the defense of the last great wild areas of the earth from the United States is extended to the rest of the world, and in particular to the countries of Anglo-Saxon origin. At present the nations that have a specific law on Wilderness areas are: United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Kenya, Finland.

 

"I will not be younger, but I'm happy if there is not a wild country in which to be. What is the use of all the freedom of the world without an empty spot on the map? " (Aldo Leopold).

 

"If you knew the wildest territories as you know love, you would never want to part with it. It is of the body of the beloved being that we speak, not of land ownership " (Terry Tempest Williams).

 

"The re-evaluation of the wilderness is one of the most extraordinary intellectual revolutions in the history of human thought about the attitude towards the earth ... From the terrestrial hell, the wilderness has become a refuge of stillness where visitors can approach, happy, to the dimension divine on the wave of the words of environmentalist John Muir and the melodies of John Denver ... " (Roderik Nash).

 

"We human beings must return to an understanding of the earth and the air in the moral sense of the term. We must live in harmony with an ethic of the earth. It is the only possible alternative to die " (N. Scott Momaday, Kiowa - in AA. VV., 1995).

 

"I was born on the prairie where the wind blew freely and where there was nothing to block the sunlight. I was born where there were no fences and where everything breathed freely.

I want to die there, and not inside these walls " (Ten Bears, Comanche Yanmparika - in AA, VV., 1995).

 

"The Wilderness has never been as important as today. But not as important today as it will be tomorrow " (Vance G. Martin).

 

"Let someone show me a place whose sight is unbearable to any civilization" (Henry D. Thoreau).

 

"The preservation of the natural world lies in its state of wilderness" (Henry D. Thoreau).

 

"The Wilderness is much more than lakes, rivers and forests along the banks, much more than fishing or camping, it is the sense of primitive, of space, of solitude, of silence and of the eternal mystery" (Sigurd Olson).

 

"The answer to any question you will always find in the wild nature"

( Mario Spinetti).

 

"Nature will be saved only if man will show them some love simply because it is beautiful, and because we need beauty, whatever the form to which we are sensitive according to our culture and our intellectual formation. Because this sensitivity is the best and the most complete expression of the human spirit " (Jean Dorst).

 

"Wild nature is a spiritual need that each of us carries within us and that goes from the simple love of beauty to the overwhelming need for solitude that some feel. It is the sense of annoyance that we experience in nature in the face of the work of man, even when this work is minimal or has purposes of conservation or study. The wild nature is water free to flow, to erode, to swell and overflow; it is the freedom to fly and run animals; they are the intact horizons of mountains or flat marshes; it is the immensity of the sky on a grass landscape; it is the silence of nature and the roaring of water in the mountain valleys; the cry of the storm in the forest; the hiss of the storm and the fearful roar of the avalanche; the slow flight of the eagle that cancels the space between the mountains; it is the game of waves on the cliffs. The wild nature is to turn around the eyes and not to see the sign of a man; it is listening and not hearing man's noises "(Franco Zunino).

 

"The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one should be the purpose for which it should be implemented: to preserve the territory as an end in itself. And to preserve it means, or it should mean, to make sure that it is not intentionally altered, it means deciding to remove it from the logic of development (which is the logic of profit) that is purely human.

Deciding to preserve a place is to decide to hold ancestral, animal behavior for that place, which is our origin, which is the only way to define ourselves in balance with the environment: no deer, no wolf, no bear has ever been able or required to "develop" or "enhance" or "produce" its habitat. They have been using it for millennia for what it spontaneously offers them and leaving it unchanged for other generations. It is only man the only animal species to have emerged from this "circle of life" (Franco Zunino).

 

 

For a deep Wilderness

 

 

"There is only hope of rejecting the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer every place on earth. This hope is the organization of the peoples most sensitive to the values of the spirit, so that they fight for the free continuity of the wild nature "(Robert Marshall)

 

"Like the winds and the sunsets, wild life was considered safe until the so-called progress began to take it away. Now we are faced with the problem of whether an even higher level of life is worth its dreadful cost in all that is natural, free and wild "(A. Leopold)

 

"The battle for nature conservation will continue indefinitely,

because it is part of the universal battle between right and wrong "(J. Muir)

 

"Nature must be respected and safeguarded for its value in itself. He is the man who has to adapt to his needs and not vice versa. If it is possible, we must make sure that the wild world lives in its free continuity and its pride, that freedom and the pride that man, a prisoner and slave of his own conventions, perhaps unconsciously envies "

 

 

In this document we want to highlight the deepest part of the Wilderness Concept or the value in itself that recognizes the elements of nature. So we emend the aspects of surface ecology, stuffed with anthropocentrism to which the various wilderness movements (including the Italian one) land very often. In fact Franco Zunino, practically the Italian "father" of this movement, with a typically "Western" thought, writes: "In my opinion we can not ignore man. Like it or not, man is at the center of the world and it will never be possible to avoid it. And since we men are gifted with conscience and intelligence, it is inevitable that whatever is done is always done for man. So the preservation of nature is nothing but a reaction to the part of man who is destroying it. But even those who want to defend it, always for the man wants to do it. To say that we must preserve it for ourselves and that in doing so will still serve to man is almost pleonastic, because in reality always for us that we love it we do it, whether for material, scientific or spiritual purposes. So we do not try to deny a reality that maybe we do not like but that is such, in the illusion of a nature that lives in itself (but that certainly does not self-appreciate!). If man were not there, not even nature itself would make sense. I am happy to know that the nature of Papua Island exists whole by itself, but it is nevertheless an in itself that satisfies me and satisfies as a man. So it is always for the man that we desire the preservation of places for ourselves that we will never see in our life, but that as long as we live, it pleases us to know that they exist. It is a concept that is difficult to explain, but in the end always return to man. Otherwise, before we oppose the destruction of the nature of our planet we should do it to prevent man from discovering others, who certainly exist and live by themselves. But does it make sense to think like that? Will we ever be able to satisfy the idea of a natural world that lives by itself but that we do not even know if it exists? I do not think so. To satisfy ourselves we must know that it exists, and in the moment that we know it exists, behold that man returns to the center, to that navel which deep ecology would like to deny ". Zunino himself, in another passage of his thought, seems to have defeated himself, when he says: "the protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one must be the purpose for which must implement: preserve the territory as an end in itself . " And then again: " .... Who feels the desire for a different relationship with the environment, more linked to the inner needs of beauty and solitude, reflection, enjoyment of the beauty, moments of life and the evolution of nature, more easily understand the need for greater respect, will understand that the rights of nature must have the first place and that the man must visit it always ready to pull back as soon as they become evident signs of the change that its presence brings them, ranging from environmental degradation to the disturbance of the fauna, to the loss of certain states of peace and solitude (which are a right of the fauna before ours); therefore also ready to renounce nature when it is the case " .

 

Continuing with Dalla Casa he responds to Zunino saying that "I was quite amazed to see that the wilderness philosophy, according to Zunino's vision, is completely anthropocentric.

The wilderness areas would be preserved in the completely natural state, but for the spiritual regeneration of man and not for a value in itself or for their intrinsic spirituality. In essence, the wilderness philosophy adapts itself to the principles of surface ecology and current thinking, except for the (laudable) fact of asking for a completely different management of the protected natural-wild areas, which in any case remain islands in a sea of "progress" ".

The statement that seems to me really unsustainable is that deep ecology would be "materialistic" and the wilderness philosophy would have more "spiritual" aspects. Indeed:

- the wilderness philosophy, as shown by Zunino, sees the spiritual-mental-mental part only in man: the wilderness areas must be preserved, but for the spiritual improvement of man;

- deep ecology sees a deeply mental-psychic-spiritual aspect in all natural entities and in their relationships. He sees our species as an interrelated component in these relationships and therefore also endowed with profound spiritual value as an inseparable part of this Nature, of this Soul of the world.

How do you say that deep ecology is more "materialistic" than wilderness philosophy? To me it seems the opposite. In the wilderness philosophy the spirit is the prerogative of only one species, in deep ecology it is everywhere.

Moreover, in my opinion the concept of "primitive" is meaningless. It seems to me instead that Zunino substantially follows the current ideas that bring the current industrial civilization to the top of the so-called "progress": at most it asks for some corrective. I understand that it considers "Christianity", clearly understood as the current Jewish-Christian tradition, as a "progress" compared to the animist-pantheist visions of many other human cultures.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic vision, on the other hand, is only the fruit of profound rifts, irreconcilable dualisms between God and the world, spirit and matter, man and nature. It becomes so easy to switch to pure materialism, just remove one of the two terms, already well separated. There is no "superiority". It is perhaps superfluous to add that this vision has practically nothing of the teaching of Christ, of which we know almost nothing. It remains only the impression that this teaching recalls very much "compassionate love towards all sentient beings" of Mahayana Buddhism.

As a detail, there are a hundred intermediate fossil species with other Primates, from the Australopithecia to the Neanderthal and then to the Homo sapiens. I would like to know where these sentient beings are placed by those who support the human-animal rift.

And then I add, we are not talking about two oppositions between the wilderness philosophy and the deep ecology. One is inherent in the other and, above all the deep ecology, contains a universal vision that includes our every positive perspective of things. Finally, it is a grave error to frame the importance of wilderness philosophy in a merely anthropocentric view (it would be more logical and meaningful to give it an ecocentric and holistic peculiarity) ".

 

On the other hand, it is important to reaffirm the concept of the value of nature itself so that an intimate bond can emerge even more between the concept of classic Wilderness and profound Ecology, which brings with it a new environmental ethics integrated by the Manifesto for the earth. ; all this produces fundamental elements that universalize the concepts of conservation and therefore of all ecological thought. It is not enough to commit only (though obviously it is already a laudable act) to the preservation of territories (wilderness and non), but we must also set up a new form of thought so that the protection of nature becomes a single thing with everyday life. Extinguish dualism and embrace the holistic and bioregional view of the whole. In this way the concept of Wilderness purged by the marked refluxes of the surface ecology that, as we have mentioned, too often belong to it, will expound principles not only of direct and real safeguard of the wild areas, but also of thought.

This is a fundamental point because thinking of preserving a place as wild as possible without going to affect even a new conception of the world, is certainly an important fact, concrete and commendable, but has at the base of the feet of clay, as stopping at a Myopic vision and aimed at a single "superficial" conservative element, in a future projection will inexorably be engulfed by a system of thought that is firmly rooted in the centrality of man and always in the exploitation of nature, in every sense that this conception intends. In fact, seeing the Wilderness as a function of man, even if in a predominantly spiritual form, is also a true form of utilitarian use of nature. In this case it is less serious, since it is a utilitarianism aimed at fundamentally extolling the spiritual aspects that man takes in living the Wilderness (even if there are no lack of material ones), but has a "cancer" inside if, because it raises the question in a sense of protecting a territory for the umpteenth benefit of man. It is true that the classic view of wilderness recognizes the value in itself of a territory, but this comes to life only if man can "benefit" in some way. Instead we remember the fundamental precept that says "nature must be safeguarded for its value in itself and not for our material, spiritual or ethical interest" ; then, at this point and with this vision if even man will find a good benefit, it is desirable, but this must be exclusively a reflection, not the purpose of that "rescue". It is necessary to understand that if we do not change the utilitarian mindset, the free unfolding of nature will never find space, because it will always be "curbed" by the direct interests of man. And without a holistic, ecocentric and universal vision, in the future everything will sink into the total destruction of mother earth, since being at first totally possessed by man, it is consequently annihilated. No one doubts that the "original" man saw in nature almost exclusively useful elements, but in this case we talk about "survival" and, like the rest of life on earth, "exploited" what he found available , but he never came to destroy what was his bread. But the man we are talking about is a man who has developed an excessive, indeed I would say, the only way of exploitation / utilization of natural resources that, having gone beyond subsistence ends, has reached "economic" interests and is destroying everything, just because now he sees in nature an immense "cableau of a bank" to which "steal" as much as I can, all the money he finds there.

"When we talk about ecology and the protection of nature, dealing with 'visions of the world' seems more abstract, or less practical, than giving advice on waste disposal or conservation of forests, but it's only because we talk about 'visions of the world 'has effects to a much longer duration. However, these are aspects that touch behavior and attitudes much more in depth, compared to the most immediate practical suggestions of petty ecology " (G. Dalla Casa).

It is certainly true that wanting to change the forma mentis, moving it from the current centered vision-on the human to a centered-on-Earth, is not easy and immediate, but to develop this renewed vision (renewed since the origin of the times was so lived) is essential because over time, albeit long, if established, will lead to universal, unique and unavoidable results. "Man is an outdated philosophical phenomenon. The universe is far too vast for man alone to dwell there " (HD Thoreau) and, quoting J. Muir " Nature has many other purposes, certainly not the interests of men " or " " Nature may have destined the earth fertile also for other purposes than for the nourishment of human beings ".

 

From the House, recalling the figure of Arne Naess writes in this regard: "In reality, as a philosophy of background and behavior, the deep ecology was well known to the Hopi or Lakota shamans, to other native cultures or to some philosophies of Asian origin. , but Naess was the first to define it in Western scientific-philosophical terms. In that article that became famous, Naess distinguishes between a "superficial" ecology, which fights for the preservation of nature, but which remains a resource at the service of man, and a "profound" ecology, which supports the intrinsic value of natural reality. If all that exists is interrelated, that is, "everything depends on everything", the human being is no longer separated from the natural world but is only a part of it, which interacts with the others and towards which he must assume an empathic attitude.

The great merit of deep ecology is to shift the consciousness from centered-on the human to centered-on-Earth. Naess defined the movement of superficial ecology, much more widespread than that of deep ecology, as "the battle against pollution and the depletion of resources, which will move humans to the so-called developed nations". The surface approach takes faith for technological optimism, economic growth, science-based exploitation and the continuation of current industrial societies. This is how Naess expresses himself: "The supporters of surface ecology think they can change human relationships with Nature within the structure of the existing society".

"The major driving force of the Deep Ecology movement - Naess writes - when compared to the rest of the ecologic movement, is identification and solidarity with all of life". The primacy of the natural world is considered "an intuition" and not a philosophical or logical derivative. In principle, every living being has the right to a free, independent and dignified life. For Naess, individual organisms, ecosystems, mountains, rivers and the Earth itself must be included among sentient beings.

The book by Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" (1962) had struck him deeply. Living beings, Arne Naess thought, have a value in themselves. Like the birds of increasingly silent American campaigns, they need to be protected from the invasion of billions of humans. We need to look for a new ecological harmony between the living beings that inhabit planet Earth. This renewed balance passes on a theoretical level through the renunciation of any form of anthropocentrism: the right to life of every living being is absolute and does not depend on the greater or lesser proximity to our species. On a practical level, the new ecological balance passes through the reduction of the human population, the use of technologies with low environmental impact and the lack of human interference in many ecosystems ...... ..

Finally, the meaning of Naess's work was also to present a way towards the discovery of a pre-industrial, animistic and spiritual relationship with the Earth, with respect for all species and not just the human species. This is the message our time needs, that the Earth is not just a "resource" for humanity, something that must be commercially exploited.

Unfortunately the most well-known figures of the ecological movement have never publicly nominated deep ecology, nor talked about its great importance: it is not by chance, since its principles would involve changes considered too drastic to society and above all to the economic system ".

 

"You can not touch a flower without disturbing a star" (G. Bateson).

Says Hargrove "Beauty is an intrinsic and objective character of the natural entity (which therefore is beautiful for the mere fact of existing), so it is released from the perception of a subject ... .." and concludes "... the Wilderness it is today the universal symbol of a wild territory not tampered with by the hand of man in whom nature, free to represent itself, manifests itself in all its splendor ".

 

DEDICATED ....... "To a Wilderness that preserves forever the last wild territories being exclusively on the side of nature, thanks to its vision, holistic, ecocentric, profound and that recognizes, in its highest meaning, the value in itself of the whole nature".

 

"Civilization can not be separated from wilderness,

the wild and uncorrupted nature! "

(John Muir)

 

***

 

But to elaborate the profound disagreement of man with nature is a task that is anything but easy, even if one simply wants to reach the pure awareness of the fact. It is partly like trying to recompose a complicated puzzle made up of many unequal elements without having a leading image in front of them. This is also due to the fact that it is necessary to eradicate a form of thought that in recent centuries has been progressively directed towards an all-encompassing disjunction where the mental monocultures, based on the deep groove of dualism (man on the one hand and nature, well distinct, on the other), they are strongly perched in a vision unilaterlally turned towards the only truth and existence of mankind. A new thought, libertarian and broad-minded, must therefore face a double obstacle; the first is to eradicate globalized thinking on the dominance and one-sidedness of man (thought that even in the unconscious form is now inherent in the minds), the second will be to unsaddress the false certainties so strongly set to glimpse, albeit in the distance, a holistic view of everything. How many authoritative figures with their saying and their actions have tried to carry out this immense task, but, at least in the first instance, they have seen themselves in the difficulty of being metabolized by "mental monocultures" to the exact opposite. But perhaps one day what for now, in some respects, still seems distant, will be understood and practiced in total awareness and understanding. At the beginning the acute "prophets" (Aldo Leopold, John Muir, HD Thoreau, etc.) of a profound change have not been understood or even completely ignored, but even if the time is very limited, a cautious optimism about even partial inversion of the route, it could hang in the air (?!). Understanding, understanding, self-examining seem to be terminologies and concepts difficult to digest, but it is not excluded that they instead make their right path in order to eventually be acquired. Hope, even if weak, is always the last to die. But for the moment until exploitation, looting and destruction of the planet earth (on all fronts) will still represent a huge economic advantage, extremely difficult will appear the way to proceed to the right operation and vision of things. So far the man from his blindness has begun to see something, but only the smoking remains left behind his devastating path and will be so wise and far-sighted to reverse course? The doubts remain many and largely unresolved. Many actions that now seem positive are still a small drop of water in a large ocean that is excessively dirty with "oil"!

 

"The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many purposes, but I believe that only one should be the purpose for which it should be implemented: to preserve the territory as an end in itself. And to preserve it means, or it should mean, to make sure that it is not intentionally altered, it means deciding to remove it from the logic of development (which is the logic of profit) that is purely human.

Deciding to preserve a place is to decide to hold ancestral, animal behavior for that place, which is our origin, which is the only way to define ourselves in balance with the environment: no deer, no wolf, no bear has ever been able or required to "develop" or "enhance" or "produce" its habitat. They have been using it for millennia for what it spontaneously offers them and leaving it unchanged for other generations. It is only man the only animal species to have emerged from this "circle of life" (Franco Zunino). 

 

Wilderness: the "wild side"

and American non-conformist

 

by Eduardo Zarelli

 

There is a karst river linking American ecological thought to the permanent prophetic role in the history of the United States: that of those who think, practice and re-propose the good custody of the earth (steawardship) as an essential component of human freedom and social justice. From the civic virtues of Thomas Jefferson to the "transcendentalism" of Emerson and Henry D. Thoreau, from the pioneering naturalism of John Muir to the conservatism of Aldo Leopold, there is part of the cultural background from which the "rural virtues" of Wendel Berry draw; the bioregionalism of Peter Berg and Kirkpatrick Sale; the return to wildness (wildersness) of Gary Snyder; the "holistic paradigm" of Fritjof Capra and Gregory Bateson. Perhaps the vastness and the profound beauty of the landscapes combined with the wisdom of the Native American culture have crept from the beginning into the American spirit - Promethean exaltation of the conquering modernity of an "eternal" West transposed in the ideal type of the Frontier - a particular inner call to nature as a substantial reference to civilization. Since the US hedonistic lifestyle has become the major factor in the destruction of natural balances, the role of these thinkers has become more burdensome and contradictory than that of their predecessors. Since American culture has betrayed its original vocation, they are critical of that vocation.

Aldo Leopold - founder, among other things, of the Wilderness Society and died 50 years ago while trying to control a fire in the prairie that threatened his farm - in his Almanac of a simple world he reproduces simple and essential images taken from the experience of the world natural. His is a moving description of the changes that nature undergoes over the course of a year, with the flowering and fading of vegetation and the consequent behavior of animals: the cyclical nature of the four seasons as an analogy of the spiral of human existence. This narrative part then flows into reflections on the relationship between man and nature, outlining that original biocentric perspective, in which ecological knowledge is allied with ethics and aesthetics; This perspective has had a decisive influence on the ecology of the profound. Leopold, highlighting the failures of environmental "protectionism", starts from the assumption that the "Earth is an organism" and that, only feeling it as a "common home" to which we belong, we will be able to use it with due respect. The degradation of the beauty of nature corresponds to the reduction of its complexity, diversity, stability: that equilibrium, which deeply substantiates its vital and symbolic fullness.

Wendell Berry, a poet, writer, essayist, professor of literature at the University of Kentucky, but above all a farmer, is the heir to this interior attitude. His approach to the sudden environmental, cultural and human degradation of the industrial society began in the early sixties, when the demonstration of ecological damage became evident to the general public thanks to works such as Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Unlike many thinkers and writers of that era, most of whom are linked to the Beat Generation, some of whom (like Gary Snyder) are very close friends, Wendel Berry does not wander the country on Easy Rider. His protest against consumerism does not pursue an "escape from the system" or the severing of the roots; on the contrary, his contribution is aimed at the rediscovery of the sources of Western culture, which progressive industrialism has suffocated. Revisiting the great works of European literature, from the Odyssey to the Divine Comedy to Milton's Lost Paradise, along with the Old and New Testaments, Berry traces the presentations of the tragic Western destiny. His poetry and his literature have nothing aesthetic or intimistic, but they still address the contemporary soul torn by a lack of personal and social identity. They do not indulge nostalgia but provide politicians, economists and men of the street with practical indications and technical and historical intelligence sedimented by the sober communal civic virtues.

With his feet on the ground is the emblematic title of his collection of texts (also translated in Italy); the arguments range from the improper primacy of the industrial economy, to the "specialized" failure of university education, to our relationship with the tools of technology and with wild nature. The problem of the coherent and practical application of personal and community consciousness in everyday life is the central problem of every man. When a society denies this need, separating itself from its own tradition, it regresses into individualistic anomnia and cultural degradation, despite the glossy garb of technological prodigies and the material successes it covers. Berry refers, in countertendency, to a perspective of ethical anchoring of which the economy can, and therefore must, be a mere instrument. In interpreting the evolution of the US economic model, he imagined rhetorically what society would have been like, if after the war the rural communities had been given the right weight compared to the exponential growth of the gross domestic product, if they had invested in the quality of life with the same commitment used to deploy the world's most powerful military-industrial complex. Question today as ever relevant and dramatically current.

The localistic fallout of Wendel Berry's thought is taken literally by the American bioregional movement. The word bioregion is made up of semantically bio, the Greek word meaning life and "region" that derives from the Latin regere, that is to govern. Life that is self-governing in the biotic boundary of a territory. An inhabited territory, a place defined by the forms of life that take place there, rather than the artifice of rationalization; a region governed by nature. All this is credible only by cultivating a renewed sensitivity to the specificity of places and cultures, a political loyalty to the territory in which we live, combined with sustainable economic and social practices, ie rooted in the particularity of the territory and its traditions, expressed by the sensitivity of local communities. The plurality of community identities avoids the risk of centralization of power and therefore of colonialism or imperialism. The complementarity and development of a dense network of inter-community relations - including subsidiarity and interdependence - can sufficiently define the intent of an "ecological federalism". The basic problem is to pluralistically rethink the world out of monistic universalism and western ethnocentrism, with respect to which everything becomes barbarism, retrograde periphery.

In this naturalistic perspective, the thought of Fritjof Capra is better known in Europe. Thanks to the originality and the importance of his contributions - including the international bestseller Il Tao della Fisica - the American physicist is today considered one of the most credible intellectuals among those who advocate a new holistic "paradigm" to interpret and favor the change of tecnomorfo development model. The author's debt to the ecology of the deep is clearly recognized, when he defines the "new paradigm" as a vision of the world that is based on the awareness of the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and affirms that, as individual and social beings, all of us we affect and at the same time we depend on the cyclic processes of Nature. In his works, Capra, similar to Bateson, combines contemporary physics and the wisdom tradition by observing how, unconsciously, contemporary science moves further and further away from the frame within which it was born, which is the Cartesian one of a split between mind and nature. Thus, ideas such as that of the "substantial interconnection of nature" - the foundation of much of Eastern thought - or mythical archetypes such as the "dance of Shiva" that is of matter as energy emanation, begin to acquire a precise meaning in the language of Western physics; in fact the theories of quanta, quark and the so-called bootstrap come to describe analytically the "interpenetration" of the existing. The scope of this vulgate, which goes beyond the fields of scientific thought and invests the categories of "whole modernity", is understandable.  

 

Capra envisages a radical change taking place in the field of knowledge. The linear and deterministic models inherited from Newton and Darwin are proving increasingly unsuitable to favor the understanding of the world and of ourselves: a new synthesis of the universe is needed, to which, from different fields, scholars are contributing on fronts. apparently distant, which are called Gaia's theory, systemic theory, complexity and chaos. Capra attempts a global synthesis of this "insensitive" revolution, seeing the outlines of a new / ancient thought, which sees in nature and in living beings not isolated, mechanistic entities, but always and in any case "living systems" where the individual is holistically in a close relationship of interdependence with his peers and the whole system. The sum of these relationships, which bind the universes of the psyche, of biology, of society and of culture, is a network: the web of life. Rejoining the plot of life means building and sustaining sustainable communities, where our needs and aspirations can be met without compromising the overall balance. Among the human communities, cultural diversity plays a role similar to biodiversity in the ecosystem. Diversity means multiple relationships given by different approaches to similar problems. Diversity is the vital resource against the suicidal uniformity of which Western unilateralism is epochal epoch-making.

 

Experience the spirit of the Wilderness

 

by Franco Zunino

 

Most of us nature lovers, nature does not live it; but the visit. It is not easy to explain the feeling that transforms an experience in wild nature into something that is not thematically scientific, as almost always happens to ornithologists or botany enthusiasts (but also to most game and wildlife biologists in general) or those who consider the natural world as a blackboard for didactic notes and knowledge (everything becomes the purpose of education, and we end up assuming the simple function of schoolboys or teachers), or for epic satisfactions (they enjoy most of the mountaineers and other practitioners adventurous activities) or physical recreation (when fitness and health or well-being are our real motive). So, however, we are far from the spirit of the wilderness. To look for the natural scenery only as a thing or a place to satisfy one's own interests or to satisfy egocentric desires is far from a wilderness spirit. When, instead, really, do you live the spirit of the wilderness? And who really approaches the understanding of the wild that is in us, which has remained in us because it is an inseparable part of our ancestral DNA? As absurd as it may seem, it is often the individual without culture that succeeds, or who has the ability to put aside his base of knowledge and interpenetrates in the world of nature becoming a member and a participant of the whole, stripping of the substratum that has given us the civilization, a rind of knowledge and needs that are often indispensable. We often find the existence of this spirit in shepherds or mountaineers in general, when not in hunters or fishermen, ie individuals who live nature not in a virtual way as we naturalists but returning "ancient". In fact, can a natural world be considered subjugated to man for his manual needs? Nature transformed into a vegetable garden, tamed, in all its forms, even in its function (if we can define it) to preserve itself by direct human commitment? But Nature exists and lives by itself, and only by returning with our ego to that state that civilization has suffocated within us can it discover the spirit of wilderness, sense it and live it.

It is more intuitive a state of wilderness during the emotion of a moment, when all our knowledge is canceled in front of events that prevent us from the notional reflection that is not in so many pages of essays, and hours and hours of naturalistic culture lessons or philosophical books, they are heard in conference halls or read on Internet sites. So yes, we become an integral part of what we see or live, which can be only the sudden thunder of a storm that forces us to burrow under a rock in the forest and then feel the world around us return primordial and we take part with that simple instinctive act of defense. So yes, we understand the true spirit of wild nature, we understand the right that it can continue to perpetrate at least somewhere, the right to us to be able to be part of it, not to be just visitors. And this happens because at that moment we become part of that whole and no longer strangers to the natural world ......... 

A dedication to some authoritative

figures of the Wilderness spirit

 

Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Sigur Ferdinand Olson,

Robert "Bob" Marshall and Aldo Leopold *

 

 

 

1. HD Thoreau

 

"Here, here is Walden, the same lake in the woods that I discovered so many years ago; where a forest was destroyed last winter, another is rising near the shore, and more luxuriant than ever " - HD Thoreau.

Before Thoreau others spoke of the wild nature from a philosophical point of view, but Thoreau was the first to speak explicitly of the wild nature as "Wilderness", virgin and unknown land, and especially the first to feel the need for conservation to be done. with acts of the political government of the countries. Many know Thorea Walden's essay; or, Life in the Wood, translated and published perhaps in every part of the world ........

The wild nature, and above all the simplicity of life in it, far from the consumerism and the thousand needs of civilization, are the cornerstone of his widespread reflection in Walden, an essay that, although contemplates sublime pages of conservationist topics and the environmentalist reader can be enraptured. to read them, discovering how much current they are today, and in the description of nature we can guess how much love Thoreau brings to them, the naturalist can also turn out to be prolix and boring like any philosophical treatise.

In my opinion, however, the true naturalist and conservationist essay in the modern sense, where the true roots of philosophy and the Idea Wilderness are expressed, are contained in another book in which Thoreau's conservational thought and his instinctive connection with the wild nature, ...... a book that deals with the naturalistic narration of its explorations for delight in the wild woods of the North East of the United States: Maine Woods (The woods of Maine).

It is in this volume that one can better understand the naturalist and environmentalist Thoreau, ethnographer and geographer; here he has brought back his most profound reflections on the wild nature and on the need for its conservation through laws before it disappears altogether; here he wrote that In the wilderness is the preservation of the world, the phrase that made him most famous among environmentalists; here he already speaks explicitly of conservation, coming to propose the establishment of the National Parks, to "invent them" I would dare to say, to defend wild forests from development and to preserve the Indigenous people who still lived there and who had already largely extinguished in that area of North America with the pressing advance of the white civilization that he saw as harmful ........

Henry David Thoreau, naturalist, philosopher and land surveyor (as presented in biographies) was born in Concord, Massachusetts, on July 2, 1817. He graduated in literature in 1837. After his studies he became a disciple of the then famous philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, another of the so-called philosophers of the wild nature, in the dwelling of which then settled for a certain period, becoming a kind of butler. On July 4, 1845 he moved to the shores of Lake Walden (just over a pond) just a few kilometers from Concord, owned by Emerson, where he built a hut and where he will live in a kind of hermitage and more or less permanently for about two years; stay and reflections of this period will then become the subject of his most famous book, Walden, which will be released in 1854.

Meanwhile (in 1846), already accustomed to travel to explore the world of nature that surrounded him ......., and also later in 1853 and 1857, will make some excursions in the woods (but it would be better to say forests, given their composition and extension) of Maine, from whose travel notes will then draw what is his book more prone to wildeness as a philosophical perception, maturing even the first ideas for its conservation through government acts as the only possibility to prevent the civilization.

After suffering a cold from a cold December day to count the rings of two American walnut and white oak stumps, after a last naturalistic and healing trip to Minnesota, she died on 6 May 1862 , leaving behind an undeserved reputation as a failed writer.

It is not the case here to add more on this father of an idea that only in a century would have found its greatest supporters. Thoreau passed, but left an indelible mark behind him, a trace that, like the forest he mentions in the sentence that is reproduced in the subtitle of this initial note, will still win over the invaders of man; because the seed of his ideas has sprouted and the forest of thought he has created not only lives today, almost a hundred and fifty years after his death, but is firmly projected into the future.

 

 

2. John Muir

 

In fact, John Muir can certainly be considered the first true conservationist in America and the world. Before him there were great and emeritus naturalists, natural scientists and travelers, explorers and geographers, etc., but no one ever made that leap in quality that pushed John Muir to become such a fervent conservationist as few then saw on the end of the 9th century and in the first half of the 20th century. If he did not conceive of the concept of a National Park, he was certainly the one who most interpreted the preservationist function as an "island" of the natural world to defend against human invasion. Suffice it to recall that already in 1869, although pleased with the interest of the people towards the beauties of nature, he seemed to be concerned with the negative aspects of the nascent tourism phenomenon he witnessed, while even today we insist on considering tourism as a positive factor for the Parks only for the the fact that these institutions are considered companies capable of creating economy and jobs (as if there were any need for a Park for this!). The author of the integral protection of the Sequoia and Sierra Nevada woods, as an inestimable naturalistic value, he wrote about the tourist phenomenon that was already taking place in that sketch of the Park called Yosemiti Valley: "Curious spectacle these people proceed in single file in the middle of the forest in gaudy clothes, scaring wild animals; it would seem that even the big pines are disturbed and moan with dismay ".

He was born in Scotland in 1838, moved very young to the United States, about thirty began to travel as a researcher of nature, after an accident at the workshop where he worked (and where, new Leonardo, also invented mechanical equipment) was to lose the sight; that fact transformed him, making him realize how important the beauty of Creation was, and prompting him to decide to dedicate the rest of his life to it.

As a scholar of the natural sciences, he traveled throughout the United States, from Winsconsin to Florida, to California, and to faraway Alaska and also to South America, observing and annotating flowers, plants, animals, rocks and glaciers; yet more interested in the emotions that all this gave him than in scientific data: "part of the beauty of the world is constantly under our eyes and it is enough to make our every innermost fiber quiver; we know so many of them, even if the nodes of creation are beyond our comprehension ". A love for the things of creation that had a climax when he visited California and he was literally fascinated by the beauty of some of the valleys that later became famous, like that of Yosemite, with their high rock faces carved by glaciers, thunders of waterfalls and shaded by Sequoia forests. Such was his fervor in their defense, to finally convince the US government to establish one of the first National Parks, extending the pre-existing protected core of the Yosemite valley - which even before the Yellowstone Park had already been subjected to its beauty to protect in 1861. And here he would have thrown the milestone of modern environmentalism when, after obtaining the establishment of two other National Parks, only a few years later, he had to fight against all the powers and men who had also helped him to establish them, which yielded to the flattery of the advancing civilization and gave permission to build a dam in Yosemite's twin valley, Hetch Hetchy, flooding it to supply the increasingly demanding San Francisco city with booming water. It was a losing battle for John Muir, the last one because he would die the following year, in 1914, at the age of 76.

In support of his ideas he founded the Sierra Club, the still today known association between environmentalism and mountaineering, the first that in America began to fight for the preservation of wild nature, and still today one of the most emerite ones. If Thoreau was only a philosopher of Wildeness, Muir was the first to specifically fight for his preservation. For him the great spaces of America that until then everyone tried to conquer were the house in which to live ("going to the mountains is to go home") and the cause for living: "the battle for the preservation of nature will continue indefinitely . It is part of the universal battle between right and wrong ".

"... (his sketches, ed) in fact can tell those who have not seen so much wild nature, and how a language has learned to decipher it. These blessed mountains are so full of the beauty of God that there is no room for our petty hopes and personal experiences. To drink this water, to breathe, breathe this air that shudders with life is pure pleasure and the whole body perceives the heat of the fire and the sun's rays not only with the eyes, but with all the skin. But we can not explain in words this aura of ecstatic and passionate pleasure in which it moves. One has the impression in these moments that the body is homogeneous to it and solid as a crystal ".

 

3. Sigurd F. Olson

 

Son of Swedish emigrants, he was born in Chicago in 1899 and died in Minnesota in 1982. He was one of the historical leaders of the Wilderness movement, but he is also considered the greatest writer / naturalist of America ...... .. Olson had a hut on a promontory in one of the many lakes that dot Minnesota on the border with Canada; there he wrote most of his books. That promontory, which he had baptized Listening Point ("listening promontory", literally translated, even if the true sense - and now philosophical - that Olson then wanted to give him is rather that of "listening post"), became the place where he retired to live and listen to the world of nature ...

If Aldo Leopold had a sense of ecological ethics of the Wilderness, Sigurd Olson's idea was based on a "feeling of beauty". This definition embodies the whole spirit of Olson ... ... ..

It grew in the great lakes area between Wisconsin and Minnesota, but "was the vast region of dark forests and intricate series of lakes and rivers of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) which eventually became the home of his heart and the outburst of his Passion: During the years of my wanderings in the great Canadian North, he remembered, I discovered the importance of open spaces. In those expeditions there was the time to think during long hours of uninterrupted paddling, and I learned that life is a series of open horizons, without ever ending one before another already appears in the distance ".

"For almost sixty years, from what he had known (the BWCA area, ed), Olson would have fought to keep it free of roads, dams, motor boats, hotels, and its skies without airplanes ". He had that love for the natural world that can only feel those who grew up inside, almost never a visitor in the sense that today comes to an end, as an integral part of those great spaces where he loved to get lost for long periods in endless journeys, almost always by canoe, through rivers and lakes in northern Minnesota and Canada. In those places he lived on a par with all that surrounded him, united to them, grasping not only the vision of landscapes, places, animals and flowers, but also appreciating the vision of a deer or a squirrel as the sound of the wind or the roaring of the rain, the brightness of the stars, or the silence of those wild immensities; seizing what he called "singing wilderness" in his first book: the sound, the voice, the music of wildeness, his song: the harmony of wild places, which is the same for everyone who knows how to listen, because, as he he wrote, "everyone has a listening point somewhere" (everyone has a place to listen somewhere).

This is his biggest lesson, the one he has spread in his many writings and books: his legacy for all of us.

He was a "prophet of joy", a poet of the Wilderness ". And, perhaps, for those who knew him intimately, the latter could be the most beautiful definition of his character ......

Where everyone spoke naturally in technical and scientific terms, he had filled the pages of his books with emotional description, letting the reader live those places and moments he described.

"Without love for the natural environment, conservation is devoid of meaning or purpose, because only a deep and intrinsic feeling for the environment can justify its preservation" (Sigurd Ferdinand Olson).

 

4 - Robert "Bob" Marhall

 

The story of Robert "Bob" Marshall, considered "one of the Americans who most influenced the evolution of the conservation of the Wilderness", founder of the American Wilderness Society, the first organization in the world totally dedicated to the preservation of the Wilderness, begins where the "Forever Wild", the "Concept of Wlderness, the wild forever, found its first application: in the Adirondack Forest Preserve. It was there that he discovered his great passion for open spaces and made his first experiences of life in the wilderness, above all true maniac of the excursions that today would be called mountaineers and long walks. For the rest of his life he suffered from not being born a hundred years before, at the time of the great explorers Lewis and Clark ... but he did exceptionally look for the boundless spaces of Alaska.

Robert Marshall was born in New York on January 2, 1902, the son of a well-known constitutional lawyer and a convinced conservationist. His father's conservationist endeavor obviously ended up influencing Bob Marshall's lewdness, as he was one of the major promoters of the Adirondack Forest Preserve (ogg in the Adirondack State Park) of the state of New York. In fact, it was his father Louis who "invented" what would later go down in history as the Concept of "ferever wild" or Concept of Wilderness; that is, legislative commitments for a protection that is as lasting as possible of at least some wild areas .......

But it was his legendary passion for walking to start the Wilderness ...... He graduated in forest science and in 1933 entered the National Forest Service. He was sent to Missoula, Montana, where he made his first experiences as a young forest and assistant. There he spent his most joyful years, where he was able to satisfy his passion as an instinctive walker in the wild nature of the surrounding state forests. Today those places are part of one of the largest Wilderness Areas of America, dedicated to him ....... He was then appointed Forestry Director of the Indian Affairs Office, then his activity in the public sector expanded in 1937 when he was moved to head the Division for Recreation and Land, an assignment that was practically created especially for him.

Marshall was a practical man, and a convinced conservationist, who fought not so much for the diffusion of the philosopher Wilderness as books and other writings (which also made him famous, with titles such as The People's Forests, Artic Village, Alaska Wilderness) when obtain the protection of the remaining US Wilderness areas. With a wealth of precision he prepared an inventory as complete as possible of the potential Wilderness Areas and when, in 1939, the Forest Service finally took into consideration his idea and that of Leopold to recognize as protected areas Wlderness, was proposed from the list of Robert Marshall who were extrapolated and protected the first Primitive Areas, Wild Areas and Wilderness Areas .......

But the great merit of Robert Marshall remains his decision to give birth to an association that was dedicated to the protection of the Wilderness ... .. and so was born The Wilderness Society ... .. It was, in fact, thanks to the commitment of this Association and of Marshall's friends and comrades, if in the course of almost thirty years the American Congress was able to approve the famous Wilderness Act, finally giving an official national recognition to the Wilderness Areas, with a law that provides for a bond between the safest and severe in the world.

As he said his great love was Alaska and had recently returned from one of his four trips to those wild lands when Robert "Bob" Marshall suddenly died, on November 11, 1939, for a heart attack. He was 37 years old.

Sigurd Olson called Marshall "one of the best scoundrels of the wlderness of the continent, with in his blood the love for the great outdoors; one of the great champions that the cause of the wilderness had lost, a man whose love for the wilderness was deep and sincere, a man who had the courage to fight for the things he believed in ".

 

5 - Aldo Leopold

 

Aldo Leopold was born in 1887 in Burligton, Iowa, the son of immigrants of German descent. He began to take care of the environment as a naturalist and hunter, finally convinced of conservation: "Conservation is a state of harmony between man and nature", he said. To deepen his interest he enrolled in what was the first faculty of American forest science, opened at the prestigious Yale University. In 1909, just graduated, he was hired in the Forest Service of the United States of America. In an era that had just left behind the myth of the Frontier, he was sent to serve as Supervisor of the New Mexico State Forests. Down there he discovered the value of the wild areas by realizing the wealth that they were included in the federal lands and how they were rapidly shrinking. But in those years Leopold had the opportunity to live an experience that marked him deeply when he shot a she-wolf and seeing her die had the sensation of reading in the eyes of that animal a condemnation of what he had done and was still doing in to support the extermination of the pradatori, everywhere considered harmful. On this experience he wrote then one of the best known essays, titled "Thinking like a mountain" ... ... thoughts that were the turning point of many of his knowledge, which then led him to the concept of Ethics of the Earth where nothing is useless in nature and everything is connected.

However, it was only in 1919 that Aldo Leopold gained the conviction that at least a portion of those wild areas had and could be preserved, at least stopping development somewhere, putting aside the commercial value of forests seen only as lumber suppliers ... matured then in him the idea of leaving particular places to wilderness, because Wilderness was the term used in America to indicate the places that remained wild, unexplored, virgins, or communiqués not manipulated by man .......

But if the commitment to disseminate and preserve more and more areas of Widerness was made by his friend Robert "Bob" Marshall, Aldo Leopold then preferred to deepen the philosophical aspect of conservationism, ecology and biology of game. In 1933 he left the Forest Service to become a Management Staffman at the University of Wisconsin .......

Through a multitude of experiences and analysis of his interests, he ended up discovering, but perhaps could be said to "invent", modern ecology, the study of the set of factors and things, animate and inanimate, which form the vital scenario that finally brought him to that Ethics of the Earth for which he became famous ...... .. The "Land Ethic" is considered his deepest essay, composed by bringing together three that he had already written about conservation and ecology: for a biographer, this essay "was, and remains, an extraordinary document, the cornerstone of Leopold's geographical and spiritual journey".

But the greatest fame Aldo Leopold owed it to the last of his works, and exploded after his death, when the volume to which he had worked in endless revisions in the last years of his life was finally published: "A Sand County Almanac". A work that encompasses themes ranging from poetic environmental literature, to the natural sciences, to the preservation of Wildderness, to hunting, to the emotions that drives man to the world of nature. A work more born from the heart and the spirit than from the technical-scholarly knowledge that it had reserved for the other volumes; a cry of love towards the natural world for which he had lived and that he had in the Widerness its foundation ...... An ecological Bible still unsurpassed today and continuously printed in new editions. As written, it must be remembered that Leopold was the "inventor" of the Wilderness Areas and creator of the first of them. But he was also a convinced hunter, but this did not clash with the principles of conservation because he practiced an almost philosophical hunting activity, rich in agnostic, ancestral elements, spiritual sensations, paretet with the prey, far from it, in most cases, from the current way of practicing sport hunting (he wrote numerous treatises dedicated to the hunting aspect of nature).

Aldo Leopold ceased to live on 21 April 1948, for a heart attack (on Aldo Leopold also read what is written in the chapters: ecology, the concept of wilderness, ethics of the earth).

 

* (extrapolated from the writings of Franco Zunino taken from: Wilderness documents year XI n ° 4 October / December 1996, year XIV n ° 4 October / December 1999, year XV n ° 4 October / December 2000, year XVII n ° 1 January- March 2002, year XX n ° 4 October-December 2005)

 

Deep ecology

 

 

"Deep ecology is radically traditional as it connects a very ancient stream of religious and philosophical minorities to Western Europe, North America and the East, and also has strong ties to many philosophical and religious positions of native peoples (including Indian Indians). 'America). In a sense it can be considered as the wisdom that preserves the memory of what men once knew " (Devall & Sessions, 1989).

After deepening the great thought of the wilderness philosophy, we could not exempt ourselves from treating, albeit briefly, the thought of deep ecology that focuses, more than any other, the value in itself of nature and the global value of all things, also because "The imprecision on the 'origin' of deep ecology is little compared to the summary judgments, denigratory, ironic that are read very often in the mass consumer print" ( Salio, 1994). The explicit initiator of this vision of natural and vital reality is the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess who in the seventies through a specific and revolutionary article categorically distinguished the ecology in superficial (Shallow ecology) and in deep (Deep ecology) . Deep ecology, as implied by its own literal definition, goes well beyond the superficial and aseptic analysis of the environmental problems typical of classical ecological science, demonstrating, on the contrary, only a complete and totalizing vision of the world. "It is the idea that we can not make any net ontological division in the field of existence: that there is no bifurcation in reality between man and non-human realms .... when we perceive boundaries, the our deep ecological awareness is less " (Fox, 1983 in Devall & Sessions, 1989). However, the essence of deep ecology is well antecedent to the ideas of Arne Naess as already in the remote historical epochs (Indian culture, animist, etc.) we have highlighted mental attitudes and practical unifications where each element had value in itself and was universal . "I am a stone, I saw life and death, I felt happiness, pains and worries: I live the life of the rock. I am part of Mother Earth, I feel her heart beating on mine, I feel her pain, her happiness: I live the life of the rock. I am a part of the Great Mystery, I felt his mourning, I felt his wisdom, I saw his creatures that I have sisters: the animals, the birds, the waters and the whispering winds, the trees and all that is on earth and everything in the universe " (Hopi Prayer).

"While superficial ecology can be considered predominantly inspired by an instrumental value ethic, although understood in a" reformist "(conservation and preservation) and not as a pure and simple exploitation, deep ecology supports theses of the intrinsic value of objects natural " (Salio, 1989). Also excellent is the definition of the term made by Capra (1997): "The superficial ecology is anthropocentric, that is, focused on man. It considers human beings above or outside of Nature as the source of all values, and assigns to Nature only an instrumental value, or of 'use'. Deep ecology does not separate human beings - or anything else - from the natural environment. It does not see the world as a series of separate objects, but as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. Deep ecology recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and considers human beings simply as a particular thread in the plot of life ". Naess declares that "the essence of deep ecology lies in asking more radical questions", that is, in asking questions that question the "superficial" certainties of our conception of the world, a concept that sees man as the absolute protagonist of the Earth, ruler of all creatures. Deep ecology passes this paradigm and flows into the impersonal shifting man from the central engine to the simple element of the "plot of life of which we are a part" (Capra, 1997). Deep ecology reconditions the style of human life, poses questions about every attitude of everyday life and attempts to ground into thought a new universal and all-encompassing ethic. In other words, a profound ecologist will have a positive attitude in any sector of social and "natural" relations because it universalizes a principle which, from the outset, is based on a monistic, radical and equal vision. Capra writes again (1997): "The power of abstract thought has led us to consider the natural environment - the plot of life - as if it consisted of separate parts, which different groups of interest can exploit. Furthermore, we have extended this fragmented vision to human society, dividing it into different nations, races, political and religious groups. The fact of believing that all these parts - in ourselves, in our environment and in our society - are really separate, has alienated us from Nature and our peers, and has therefore degraded us. To regain our full human nature, we must reconquer the experience of connection with the whole plot of life. This reconnection, religio in Latin, is the true essence of the spiritual foundation of profound ecology ".

Capra continues (1997): "For deep ecology, the global question of values is decisive; in fact, it is the central characteristic that defines it ....... It is a vision of the world that recognizes the intrinsic value of non-human life forms. All living beings are members of ecological communities linked to one another in a network of interdependent relations. When this deep ecological conception becomes part of our awareness of every day, a radically new ethical system emerges.

Today the need for such a profound ecological ethic is urgent, especially in science, given that much of what scientists do is not used to promote life or to preserve it, but to destroy it ......

In the context of deep ecology, the idea that values are inherent in all that is a living part of Nature, has its basis in the profound ecological or spiritual experience that Nature and the I are one. This total dilation of the ego to the identification with Nature is the foundation of deep ecology ....

It follows that the relationship between an ecological perception of the world and a corresponding behavior is not a logical but psychological relationship . From the fact that we are an integral part of the plot of life, logic does not lead us to rules that tell us how we should live. However, if we have deep ecological awareness, or experience, to be part of the web of life, then we want (and we will ) be prone to have respect for all that is living part of nature. In fact, we can not help reacting this way. "

 

The basic principles of deep ecology can be summarized as follows (from Devall & Sessions, 1989):

 

1. The well-being and prosperity of human and non-human life on Earth have value for themselves (in other words: they have an intrinsic or inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness that the non-human world can have for man.

2. The richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Men have no right to impoverish this richness and diversity unless they have to meet vital needs .

4. The prosperity of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial diminution of the human population: the prosperity of non-human life requires this diminution.

5. The current interference of man in the non-human world is excessive and the situation is getting progressively worse.

6. Consequently, collective choices must be changed. These choices influence fundamental ideological, technological and economic structures. The state of things that will result will be profoundly different from the current one.

7. The ideological change consists mainly in the appreciation of the quality of life as an intrinsic value rather than in adhering to an ever higher standard of living. The difference between what is qualitatively large and what is quantitatively will have to be clear.

8. Those who share the previous points are obliged, directly or indirectly, to attempt to implement the necessary changes.

 

Livingston (in Devall & Sessions, 1989) rightly states that the arguments inherent to the protection of nature have always been set towards direct and indirect human interests, so that without an integral mutation of awareness and depth of the spirit, it is not possible to connect in truth with the natural world and therefore "there is no hope of overturning the situation and of protecting the woods and wild animals from human destruction".

For example, the establishment of a protected area is a classic intervention of superficial ecology, always, as mentioned, in an anthropocentric key. Never question the "certainties" of society and modern science, but only criticize the apparent negative aspects of the surface without ever going to the heart of the matter. It is dutifully just a protective intervention, mind you, but it must be complemented by that "profound" vision of natural reality where man is an indistinct element in a single whole and where every attitude is always spontaneously in harmony with the other .

Let's pause for a moment to reflect. We try to change our life. We enter into the deep spirituality of nature and lose ourselves within its strength, without thinking of a goal or our particular interest. They write Lombardo & Olivetti (1991) "One step after the other. The important thing is not to anticipate, not to think about 'how much is missing to arrive'. Walking, inside one's shoes, without considering external time. Those who have learned to do it, in the mountains or more generally in the natural environment, know it well ..... Walking is, in the first place, going in search of lost time .... Time is lost because the full present does not it exists more, in our life, not even in moments of leisure and disengagement. We live in a dimension where the past is canceled ..... but also the present is dead, replaced by a continuous anticipation of what we will do in ten minutes, an hour, two days. A limit continuously moved forward ".

So let's try to rejoin the nature, try to reach the essence of things in their depth, even in the depths of ourselves, and finally quench the greed of external feelings. "In the long run, to participate joyfully and wholeheartedly in the movement of deep ecology, one must take life very seriously. Who maintains a low standard of living and cultivates an intense, rich, inner life, is able, better than others, to have a deep ecological vision and to act accordingly. I sit down, breathe deeply and feel exactly where I am " (Arne Naess).

Writes From the House (1996): "In the thought setting of deep ecology, our species is not particularly privileged. Living beings and ecosystems, like all elements of the Cosmos, have a value in themselves. All of Nature has an intrinsic and unitary value, just as it has a value in itself every component, formed in a billions of years process. The human species is one of these components, one of the branches of the tree of life ........ The natural world is not 'the heritage of all, but it is much more: it is billions of years before our species . If we really want to talk about belonging, it is humanity that belongs to Nature and not vice versa ........ In this picture the western-biblical idea about the human position appears more or less like a curious delirium of greatness.

While in the ecology of the surface the Earth must be respected because it is of all present and future generations, in the deep ecology the human species is neither custodian nor owner of anything ".

However, as previously mentioned, surface ecology is also important, especially for interventions that must be immediately reflected in the field of conservation. Also taking into account that in order to achieve a profound vision of ecology it is necessary to start a radical change in one's own thought; it is not excluded that the mental acquisitions of surface ecology are one of the fundamental stages towards the deep ones. Hoping that the surface ecology is not yet another spectacle of Western "civilization"!

"For the deep ecological perspective, living wild nature means:

a) develop the sense of place;

b) to redefine the role of man in the natural system: from conqueror of the earth to a person who experiences full contact with nature;

c) cultivating modesty and humility; and finally,

d) understand the life cycle of mountains, rivers, fish, bears ........

As a deep ecologist ........ Muir investigated nature and did not just admire it. He began to understand that locusts or pines and stones should not be understood as separate entities because they were closely connected " (Devall & Sessions, 1989).

 

Finally, it must be remembered that an idea, even if supported by a minority, can produce substantially positive effects over time. Kaczynskj (1997) writes: "Before the final struggle revolutionaries should not expect to have the majority on their side. History is made up of active and determined minorities, not the majority, who rarely have a clear and precise idea of what they really want. In the time necessary to reach the final effort towards revolution, the task of revolutionaries will be to build a small group of deeply involved people rather than trying to win the favor of the masses. As for the majority, it will be enough to make it aware of the existence of the new ideology and to remind it often ... ".

"What matters is not only the idea, but the ability to believe it to the end" 

(Ezra Pound).

 

   

Deep Ecology

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

The alleged lack of rights in animals, the illusion that our actions towards them are unimportant or there are no duties towards animals, is a revolting crudity and barbarity of the West.

                                                                                                                Arthur Schopenhauer

 

If you can not even get in touch with your spirit, how can you hope to get in touch with the spirit of a tree?

                                                                                                                                            Rarihokwats

 

In contrast to the Cartesian mechanistic conception of the world, the world view that emerges from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic and ecological. It could also be designated as a systemic vision, in the sense of the general theory of systems. The universe is no longer seen as a machine made up of a multitude of objects, but must be represented as an indivisible, dynamic whole, whose parts are essentially interconnected and can only be understood as structures of a cosmic process.

                                                                                                                                            Fritjof Capra

 

To relate all value judgments to humanity is a form of philosophically indefensible anthropocentrism.

                                                                                                                                            Arne Naess

 

This world is really a living being furnished with soul and intelligence ... a single visible living, containing all the other living beings, all of them by nature are congeners ...

                                                                                                                                                          Plato

Foundations of deep ecology

In the thought setting of deep ecology, our species is not particularly privileged. Living beings and ecosystems, like all elements of the Cosmos, have a value in themselves. All of Nature has an intrinsic and unitary value, just as it has a value in itself every component, formed in a billions of years process. The human species is one of these components, one of the branches of the tree of Life.

So instead of talking about "environment" as if Nature were a stage for human actions, we will use expressions like "the Living Complex":

- "environmental impact" will become "alteration made to the Complex of the Living";

- the "environmental advocates" will become "people worried about the health, harmony and psycho-physical balance of the Complesso dei Viventi".

The natural world is not "the heritage of all", but it is much more: it is billions of years before our species. If one really wants to speak of belonging, it is humanity that belongs to Nature and not vice versa.

Instead of ambition, success, personal affirmation (or group or species), knowledge, mental serenity, ego attenuation and perception will be considered values: ultimately a sort of identification with the Universal Mind, of tune with the cosmic vital rhythm.

In this context, the western-biblical idea of the human position appears more or less like a curious delirium of greatness.

While in the ecology of the surface the Earth must be respected because it is of all present and future generations, in the deep ecology the human species is neither custodian nor owner of anything. This idea recalls Red Cloud's response to European invaders who wanted to buy the best part of Lakota and Oglala territory: "The earth is of the Great Spirit; you can not sell or buy ". It is a pity not to know the Amerindian languages, because probably the real meaning was "the earth is the Great Spirit". Naturally the whites occupied those lands with violence.

Even the idea of "progress" implies a certain cultural conception and a certain vision of history that are not shared by all of humanity. Much of human culture is experienced in Nature without worrying about progress and history. Even if nothing is static, everything is dynamic and fluctuating, this does not mean that the concepts of progress and regression are necessary: the improvement or the deterioration refer only to parameters and values of a particular model and have no universal meaning.

The concept of progress is an invention of the West to destroy other human cultures and remain the only culture of the planet: it only makes sense if we take as reference a particular scale of values, which is always relative and arbitrary.

The term "development" actually means the degree of overwhelming our species over other species and industrial civilization over other human cultures.

In contrast, there is no privileged model in deep ecology. The global balance and the variety and complexity of living species, ecosystems and cultures are values "in themselves". The terms "growth" and "decrease" are complementary, in dynamic equilibrium, without positive or negative connotations.

Consequently, the concepts of resources and waste are not necessary: they presuppose the idea that processes or modifications are carried out that take something fixed - the resources - and download something else - the waste, which means non-functioning. cyclical, incompatible with the equilibrium condition.

With these premises the so-called "production" is - ultimately - a waste production. The same term "civilization" is useless and dangerous, because it implies a merit judgment based on a particular scale of values, considered obvious.

In fact, "Civil" today means "conforming to the principles of the West" and nothing more. There is no reason to consider Western civilization as the best of the Yanomami, Papua, Eskimos, Dogon, or a thousand other cultures on Earth. In the same way in deep ecology it makes no sense to speak of "useful", "harmful" or "harmless" species, since anything in Nature has its justification in itself and in the Complex it belongs to. It does not have to serve someone or something.

Basically in the deep ecology the concept of "environment" is overcome to make room for the perception of being part of a much wider psychophysical Entity, that is of Nature, which manifests itself in the greatest variety and harmony, in the greatest dynamic balance of species ; it is a self-correcting system with Mind.

To use the words of Fritjof Capra:

 

The new vision of reality is an ecological vision in a sense that goes far beyond the immediate concerns of environmental protection. To underline this deeper meaning of ecology, philosophers and scientists have begun to make a distinction between "deep ecology" and "superficial environmentalism". While superficial environmentalism is interested in more efficient control and management of the natural environment for the benefit of "man", the movement of deep ecology recognizes that ecological balance requires profound changes in our perception of the role of beings human beings in the planetary ecosystem. In short, it will require a new philosophical and religious basis. (8)

 

 

Some aspects of the current crisis

In deep ecology it is not a question of "combining development and the environment" but of realizing that ecological drama originated in industrial civilization and invaded the world following the tumultuous expansion of this model. The myth of industrialization arose in Western culture only two or three centuries ago.

The problem is not only practical, but above all philosophical. In fact, just as an example, the fundamental practical discoveries to "start" the technology were already known in Chinese culture for several centuries. But in China they did not give birth to the process of industrialization, which was imported only in very recent times, returning from the West. Evidently the background of Chinese thought - largely inspired by the philosophies of Tao and Buddhism - could not direct those knowledge on the path then followed in Europe: the motivations were therefore essentially cultural. The official explanation that the Europeans were "ahead" is just a turn of words. Even the Indian culture three thousand years ago had probably more refined concepts than the European one in the fifteenth century: in India at that time there was certainly no lack of ability to make certain discoveries, but there was the precise perception that it was impossible and inappropriate to follow a certain path.

In fact, with the conception of a world made up of complementary and equivalent polarities (Taoism) or of a world devoid of any individual or collective "ego" (Buddhism) it would have made no sense to "dominate" something, as we will see in Chapter 6.

On the other hand, the inspirational foundation of Western or Jewish-Christian culture is the Old Testament, and here one of the causes of our attitude towards Nature must be sought. We'll talk about it in the next chapter.

But there have been other successive evolutions, above all the extension in the general thought of the philosophy of Descartes and of the physics of Newton, right in the centuries that immediately preceded the birth of the industrial civilization .....

...... All our "nineteenth-century" culture of today is permeated by the antithesis, by the contrast with nature: life is seen as "struggle against the forces of nature". In other philosophies this would mean "struggle against the organism to which we belong", which is meaningless and causes neurosis and conflict. Not for nothing where the environment is more degraded there is also more human crisis, with high rates of crime, psychopathies, suicides. The division between "man" and "the environment" is artificial and fictitious.

If the cancer cells could express themselves, they would probably have an idea of "development" very similar to that of industrial civilization, which invades, making them uniform, the other species and other human cultures, with a similar trend to that of tumors that progress to expenses of the other cells of the organism, whose behavior is based not on permanent growth, but on dynamic equilibrium.

There are many examples of petty life that highlight the collective unconscious of the current industrial civilization.

Many people, if they move away from the cities, are especially concerned with things such as vipers and landslides, but they are quietly put on the highway. We do not need too many statistics to realize that the car is thousands of times more dangerous than any natural event: not enough sixty thousand deaths per year and one million injured in road accidents, only in Europe, to perceive this fact.

How many would enter the Amazon forest? Yet it is clear that it is much more dangerous to go through some neighborhood of New York or Sao Paulo at night. Our unconscious conceptions, that is cultural, push us to fear natural events much more than those due to machines or our like, against any numerical evidence.

This is a technological, non-scientific civilization: the desire to know, but to manipulate, does not prevail.

Moreover, everything that touches the foundations of our culture can not even be studied: it is simply denied or set aside and left without investigation of any kind. For example, any study on the possibility of "reincarnation" or "rebirth", or anyway on psychic phenomena in the vicinity of death, or on interference or spirit-matter identity is in fact rejected a priori by the official world.

The so-called "movements for life" consider it obvious to be concerned only with human life, but they are not concerned at all with the torture inflicted on many forms of life and the state of health of the Complex of the Living.

In our culture happen the most hallucinatory genetic manipulations on all living species, with the creation of hybrids and strange beings: very few worry about it. Instead, at the only distant hint of giving birth to a chimpanzee-man (apart from its impossibility), there was the disdainful revolt of official scientists. Any manipulation of that kind is an absurdity. But at least the chimpanzee-man, if left free in some surviving forest or savannah of this poor planet, would have reminded us that we are of the same, identical nature of other living beings.

The basics of Western culture on this subject are extremely fragile. Beings such as the Australopithecus or the Homo erectus have become extinct for a few hundred thousand years, an insignificant time in the overall scale of Life. The fact that these hominids are extinct is completely contingent. If they were alive, our culture, depending on the opinion of some institution, would take one of the following attitudes:

- consider hunting these beings as a sport;

- close the hominids in the cages of the zoos;

- restore slavery;

- consider the killing of a hominid as a voluntary homicide punishable by life imprisonment.

It is perhaps because of this that there is always a subtle "fear" of finding some Yeti alive on the slopes of the Himalayas. All to continue to oppose "man" to "animal": so we lose sight of the spirituality of life.

But even if we limit ourselves to the species now living, we can see that: the more our knowledge about primate behavior increases, the more the differences between human and non-human primates diminish. For example, the difference in genetic information between our species and the chimpanzee is one or two percent.

From an expert's article:

 

Our closest relatives are chimpanzees. The genetic difference is only about one percent. We are more closely similar to chimpanzees than two frogs are likely to meet each other. (9)

 

In other words, the Judeo-Christian culture has not yet managed to conceive an ethics of life and remains anchored to a morality that is exclusively concerned with the human species.

The idea of man, in the thought of the West, is constructed in opposition to the idea of an animal: humanity and animality appear as antithetical terms, both in the biblical conception and in the scientific idea of Baconian derivation. But this is a largely mythical and scientifically unsustainable contrast.

 

Ethics and law in deep ecology

The studies of an ethic not only limited to our species and a jurisprudence that does not see humans as the only subjects of law have just been born in recent years, apart from isolated exceptions of precursors.

Among these we can certainly remember Aldo Leopold who, in his A Sand County Almanac stated that "one thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity and beauty of the biotic community as a whole (by biotic community we mean the complex of all beings living and their habitat). One thing is wrong when it shows the opposite tendency ". Leopold's concept is holistic , since Nature is understood as a whole, having its own life and value.

If we feel that we use terms such as soul , dignity , rights , and moral domains for elements of Nature , we must not think that we are speaking in an analogical or poetic sense, or that we are dealing with daring combinations. As well as more respect, we could have a more complete spiritual enrichment in Nature.

"The spirit of the tree, of the mountain, of the river" are not hazardous analogies, but reflect the soul of the world, which was well recognized by those human cultures that spent most of their time on magic and the sacred.

Furthermore, by comparison with the concepts of surface ecology, we recall that respecting the natural non-human only to the extent that it is similar to us is a very poor conception of respect, which should instead be based on a philosophy that recognizes the rights of non-human as entities that are worthy of it.

Even respecting the Amazon forest because "belongs to the Indians" is already a concept of surface ecology and is very simplistic, because it reiterates that - for the West - Nature is worth something as it belongs to someone. Probably the statement would rather amaze local native cultures, for which it is clear that they are "to belong" to the forest, as a larger whole. The forest must exist intact because it has an ethical right, as it has a value in itself.

 

The famous response of the Indian chief Seattle to the President of the United States (1854)

How can you buy or sell the sky?

the heat of the earth?

The idea for us is strange.

If we do not have the freshness of the air,

the glitter of water,

how can we buy them?

Every part of this land is sacred to my people.

Each pine needle that shines, every sandy beach,

every vapor in the dark forests,

every insect clearing and buzzing

it is sacred in the memory and in the experience of my people.

The sap that flows through the trees

brings the memories of men ...

We are part of the earth and it is part of us.

Our fragrant flowers are our sisters;

the deer, the horse, the big eagle,

these are our brothers.

The rocky peaks, the sap of the meadows,

the warm body of the horse, and the man:

everything belongs to the same family ...

The rivers are our brothers, and they quench our thirst.

The rivers carry our canoes and feed our children.

If we were to sell our land,

you should remember and teach your children

that the rivers are our brothers, and yours;

and you should from now on give the rivers kindness

that you should give to every brother ...

there is no peaceful place in the cities of the white man.

There is no place

to hear the unfolding of the leaves in spring,

or the rustling of an insect's wings.

But maybe there is, because I am a savage and I do not understand.

Only the noise seems an insult to hearing.

And what it is to live

if a man can not hear the whimper of a caprimulgo

or the conversations of the frogs around a pond at night?

I am an Indian and I do not understand.

The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind

that vibrates on the surface of the pond,

and the smell of the wind, clean from a midday rain,

or perfumed by the smell of pine.

The air is precious for the Indian,

for all things have the same breath;

the animal, the tree, the man,

share the same breath together.

The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes.

Like a dying man,

for many days, it is insensitive to the stench.

But if we were to sell our land,

you should remember that the air is precious to us,

that the air shares its spirit with every life it supports.

The wind that was given to our grandfather at his first breath

he also welcomed his last breath.

And if we sold our land,

you should keep it apart in a sacred place,

as a place where even the white man can go

to feel the wind softened by the flowers of the meadow.

Under these conditions we will consider your offer

to buy our land.

If we decide to accept, I would put a condition:

that the white man must treat the animals of this land

like his brothers ...

What is the man without the animals?

If all the animals went away,

man would die for the great solitude of the spirit.

Because anything happens to animals,

it soon happens to man.

All things are connected.

You could teach your children

That the earth beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandparents.

In order for them to respect the earth,

tell your children

that the earth is rich in the lives of our friends.

Teach your children

what we have taught our own,

that the earth is our mother.

Whatever happens to the earth, it happens to the children of the earth.

If men spit on the earth, they spit on themselves.

We know this: the earth does not belong to man;

man belongs to the earth.

This we know.

All things are connected

like the blood that unites a family.

All things are connected.

Whatever happens to the earth, it happens to the children of the earth.

Man has not woven the fabric of life:

he is simply a thread of it.

Whatever he does to the fabric, he does it to himself ...

We can be brothers, after all. We'll see.

There is one thing we know,

and that the white man will one day discover:

our God is the same.

You can think now that your "He" like you

you wish to own our land; but it is not possible.

He is the God of man and His compassion is the same

both for the redskin and for the white man.

This land is precious to him,

and to damage the earth is to despise its Creator.

Even the white man will pass.

But in your descent you will shine brightly,

inflamed by the power of God who brought you to this earth

and for some special purpose

he has given you dominion over this earth and over the red man.

This destiny is a mystery to us,

because we do not understand when the buffaloes

they are completely slaughtered,

wild horses are domesticated,

the secret corners of the forest are burdened

with the smell of many men

and the view of the hills in bloom

ruined by the wires of the telegraph.

Where is the grove? He has gone.

Where's the eagle? She's gone.

The end of life is the beginning of survival. (10)

 

Some examples

To recall the difference between surface ecology and deep ecology we take up, for example, the problem of forests:

- the surface ecology wants to save the forests because without them humanity can not live and the Earth's atmosphere remains altered;

- the deep ecology wants to save the forests, as well as for the previous reason, because they are sacred , they are a mind : the forest is above all a spiritual entity.

Some Amazonian cultures had the cosmic tree, around which the universe was organized, both physical and metaphysical.

Today, westernized humanity is increasingly closed in itself: anthropocentrism can no longer see, outside man, other than objects. Once upon a time, nature had a meaning that everyone perceived in his intimate, in his unconscious. Lost this perception, man destroys nature and thereby condemns himself.

Naturally, deep ecology thoughts are also produced in our culture, such as those written by the incomparable Ceronetti pen:

 

There are heroes, heroes will continue to be there, someone who goes to cover himself with sores to pour sand on the Chernobyl reactor, or the impressive Gulf firefighters who in a year managed to turn off the wells thrown by Saddam to the attack of biosphere, or the Chico Mendès killed by the branches of condemned forests that turn into killer guns, or those of Greenpeace that defy radiation, hatred and beatings to document the environmental crimes of the governments: but all these heroes are children of disasters, their number will increase only in proportion to disasters, a heroic vocation calls only from pain and fire ...

The others are authors or accomplices of the disasters, we are a few billion on this scale, and we have all left to do, indeed we are still somehow all active earth-mother exterminators, Cybele's deicides, even if we gobble up consumption that are nails planted in the flesh of life ... It is enough to hint at reducing them because they are frightened by panic: Bags with a heart attack, mad crowds, the empty wall of blind protests.

... The ethical and mental devastations produced by dollars-machines-medicine in the obscure human substantia , are much more to consider than any stagnation of an economy that carries in itself, in its fatal idolatry of percentage and expansion, the whole genius , virgin, of destruction. (11)

 

However, we remember that deep ecology - as a philosophy of life - was not born in the Seventies from the ideas of Arne Naess or some minority movement of today: three thousand years in India, and even longer in many animist cultures, ideas that were different from those that shaped Western civilization had spread through the collective mind, as demonstrated by these ancient Indian texts: "Every soul must be respected and soul means every order, every vitality that the substance can take: the wind is a soul that imprints itself in the air, the river a soul that takes the water, the torch a soul in the fire, all this must not be disturbed ". In one of the sutras one praises those who do not hurt the wind because they show they know the pain of living things and it is added that to harm the earth is like striking and mutilating a living being.

Even in our classical world there have been rumors in this sense, like Pythagoras, but the mainstream of the West has led to the current anthropocentric and materialistic mentality, has brought today's industrial civilization, and with it pollution, deforestation , the population explosion, undernourishment, drug addiction and crime.

Our society is unable, for numerous reasons, to solve these problems.

The first reason depends on our fragmented knowledge in water-based disciplines and compartments and the reductionist methodology of official science, both factors that contribute to making us see our problems isolated from each other.

Another reason is to consider problems in light of the very brief experience of our industrial civilization, a small fraction of the overall human experience on our planet.

But perhaps the main reason is that we should face the unacceptable conclusion that our problems are inevitable concomitant factors of what we are accustomed to call "progress", and that therefore can only be resolved by reversing this type of development: "putting progress on opposition".

Therefore, our political-economic system must be transformed and, in order to apply real solutions, it is then necessary to identify the main characteristics of the traditional societies of the past which proved capable, for thousands of years, of avoiding the terrible problems that now we are facing.

Postulating an ideal society for which there are no precedents in human experience, as many of our political theorists have done, is very similar to postulating an alternative biology without reference to the biological structures of the kind that have so far proved to be vital.

We do not want to sterile try to repeat the past, but to identify the indispensable characteristics of stable societies able to solve current problems we must draw inspiration from the traditional societies of the past.

 

From a living being far from us

When a bee finds a source of nectar, it returns to the beehive and communicates its discovery to the other bees by explaining where the food source is located, through the so-called "dance", ie forming a figure composed of a circle in flight. its diameter. In this dance:

- the angle formed by the diameter traveled with the direction of the sun is a function of the direction of the flowers;

- the value of the radius of the circumference is proportional to the distance of the flowers.

In other words, the bee gives its companions the position of the flowers in polar coordinates. After this communication, the other bees are able, on their own, to easily find the flowers and therefore the nectar.

              Any consideration on the meaning of this fact remains open: that is, if bees are able to "measure" distances and angles, also in relation to our concept of measurement. Probably this observation, given also its geometric aspects, would have made Pythagoras happy.

 

-------------

 

Note

(8) Fritjof Capra - The turning point - Ed. Feltrinelli, 1984.

 

(9) From an answer by Dr. Milford Wolpoff reported in the article The Search for Modern Humans by J. Putman - National Geographic , October 1988.

 

(10) This is the speech given by the Indian Chief Seath, better known as Chief Seattle, during the tribal assembly of 1854, in preparation of treaties between the federal government and the Indian tribes of Oregon and the state of Washington, where federal authorities promised a reserve, revenues and services in exchange for land transfers. Chief Seattle always spoke in his native Duvamish language, and Dr. Smith, who took note of his speech, insisted very much that his English was inadequate to render the beauty of Seattle's thought and imagination in translation. In fact, every language is able to fully express only the vision of the world of culture that produced it.

The Seattle speech is reported in many publications about ecology or native populations. This translation has been published in the periodical Paramita n. 42, April-June 1992, with the title This land is sacred .

 

(11) Guido Ceronetti - Clinton, so you will not save the Terra Madre , published in the Corriere della Sera of November 23, 1992.

  

 

Arne Naess, the philosopher 

of deep Ecology

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

Arne Naess, the greatest Norwegian philosopher of the twentieth century was the founder of deep ecology.

 

"To refer all the value judgments to humanity is a form of philosophically indefensible anthropocentrism"

Arne Naess

 

On January 12, 2009, Arne Naess died in Oslo at the age of almost 97 years.

 

Arne Dekke Eide Næss is considered the greatest Norwegian philosopher of the twentieth century: his youth formation was based above all on thinkers like Spinoza and Gandhi, as well as on Buddhist philosophy. It is generally recognized as the founder of deep ecology. He was appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Oslo at the age of 27.

Naess was also a renowned mountaineer and in 1950 he led the first ascent to Tirich Mir (7708 m), in the Hindu Kush chain. His most famous refuge has always been that of Tvergastein he was particularly fond of, so much so that his philosophy is often called "Ecosofia T" right from the initial of that shelter, located in the South of Norway.

His "putting into practice" of deep ecology was what he called friluftsliv, translatable more or less as "life in the open air" .

 

The act of origin of deep ecology is considered his article "The Shallow and the Deep, the Long-Range Ecology Movement" published on Inquiry n. 16 of 1973 and based on a conference of 1972. In fact, as a philosophy of background and behavior, the deep ecology was well known to the Hopi or Lakota shamans, to other native cultures or to some philosophies of Asian origin, but Naess he was the first to define it in Western scientific-philosophical terms. In that article that became famous, Naess distinguishes between a "superficial" ecology, which fights for the preservation of nature, but which remains a resource at the service of man, and a "profound" ecology, which supports the intrinsic value of natural reality. If all that exists is interrelated, that is, "everything depends on everything", the human being is no longer separated from the natural world but is only a part of it, which interacts with the others and towards which he must assume an empathic attitude.

 

The great merit of deep ecology is to shift the consciousness from centered-on the human to centered-on-Earth. Naess defined the movement of superficial ecology, much more widespread than that of deep ecology, as "the battle against pollution and the depletion of resources, which will move humans to the so-called developed nations" . The surface approach takes faith for technological optimism, economic growth, science-based exploitation and the continuation of current industrial societies. This is how Naess expresses himself: "The supporters of surface ecology think they can change human relationships with Nature within the structure of the existing society".

"The major driving force of the Deep Ecology movement - Naess writes - when compared to the rest of the ecologic movement, is identification and solidarity with all of life" . The primacy of the natural world is considered "an intuition" and not a philosophical or logical derivative. In principle, every living being has the right to a free, independent and dignified life. For Naess, individual organisms, ecosystems, mountains, rivers and the Earth itself must be included among sentient beings.

 

The book by Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" (1962) had struck him deeply. Living beings, Arne Naess thought, have a value in themselves. Like the birds of increasingly silent American campaigns, they need to be protected from the invasion of billions of humans. We need to look for a new ecological harmony between the living beings that inhabit planet Earth. This renewed balance passes on a theoretical level through the renunciation of any form of anthropocentrism: the right to life of every living being is absolute and does not depend on the greater or lesser proximity to our species. On a practical level, the new ecological balance passes through the reduction of the human population, the use of low environmental impact technologies and the lack of human interference in many ecosystems.

 

On January 12, 2009, Arne Naess returned to Earth. The thought of Arne Naess is undoubtedly very radical and full of pessimism on the human ability to realize the ecological harmony he theorized. However it is certain that he has contributed a lot to a more conscious environmental culture.

He is the author of about fifty books and a huge number of articles: the main book translated into Italian is entitled "Ecosophy, Ecology, Society and Lifestyles" (Ed. RED, 1994). Among the other books we can mention Freedom, Emotion and Self-subsistence (1975), Ecology, community and lifestyle (1989), Life's philosophy: reason and feeling in a deeper world (2002).

A complete overview of Naess's writings is found in the ten-volume work "The Selected Works of Arne Naess" , published in 2005 by Springer.

 

The great merit of deep ecology is that of shifting the centered-human consciousness to centered-on-Earth and telling us what the relationship with the natural world should be in the 21st century.

This is truly a great result of the life and work of the Norwegian philosopher. Finally, the meaning of Naess's work was also to present a way towards the discovery of a pre-industrial, animistic and spiritual relationship with the Earth, with respect for all species and not just the human species. This is the message our time needs, that the Earth is not just a "resource" for humanity, something that must be commercially exploited.

Unfortunately, the most well-known figures of the ecological movement have never publicly called deep ecology, nor talked about its great importance: it is not by chance, since its principles would involve changes considered too drastic to society and above all to the economic system.

 

Now Arne has returned to Earth.

 

I am sure to pay homage to the great philosopher, who has often also inspired my thinking, reporting here the eight principles of profound Ecology.

 

Deep ecology platform, ecocentric-synthetic version

 

1.- The well-being and the flowering of the living Earth and its innumerable organic / inorganic parts have a value in themselves.

 

2.- The richness and diversity of the Earth's ecosystems, as well as the organic forms that nourish and sustain, contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

 

3.- Humans have no right to reduce the diversity of the Earth's ecosystems and their vital, organic and inorganic constituents.

 

4.- The flourishing of human life and culture is compatible with a substantial reduction of the human population. The creative flourishing of the Earth and its innumerable parts requires this reduction as necessary.

 

5.- The current human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is getting worse rapidly.

 

6.- Current policies must be changed. This change concerns the fundamentals of the economy and the technological and ideological structures.

 

7.- The ideological change is mainly to appreciate the quality of life rather than adhere to the illusion of an ever higher standard of living.

 

8.- Those who subscribe to the points listed above take the commitment to participate in attempts to implement the necessary changes.

 

  

The Ecosofy T by Arne Naess

 

by Mariella Guarraci

 

 

The introduction by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess of the expression "Deep Ecology" expresses the awareness that the simple fight against pollution and waste of resources is useful but limited, as it is not supported and supported by an overview that conceives Man as part of that organic whole that is the Environment. According to Naess, in order to overcome environmental crises, Man must be able to rediscover his position in Nature that reductionism and mechanism

they have lost and in order for this to happen it is necessary that "every adult person assumes the responsibility of elaborating his own answer to the current problems of the environment according to a global perspective". Each subject is therefore called to become aware of ecological ideas and to develop his own proposal, his personal Ecosophy, or an individual code of values that orientates his choices:

"An echosophy is nothing more than a global philosophical vision inspired by the conditions of life in the ecosphere. It should therefore constitute the philosophical basis that allows an individual to inform his action of the principles of profound Ecology. "

The Ecosophy of Arne Naess, which he defined Ecosofia T, where T stands for Tvergastein, the mountain refuge in Norway where it was elaborated, proposes to redirect our civilization by acting from within the political system, seizing what is positive and changing what is not. In fact, Ecosofia T does not align itself with any classical ideology and does not spare criticism from the Christian religion and the Western economy. The biospheric egalitarianism affirmed by the philosophy T does not however represent an extremist perspective: it does not deny the great capacities of homo sapiens but "proposes to use them to develop an attitude of universal responsibility that the other species can neither understand nor share".

The philosophical rules are clear: Man must limit the killing of other living beings, he must not inflict them useless suffering and must never use them only as means. Man must cultivate a new holistic concept where all living beings are considered part of Nature, remembering that:

"Distancing ourselves from Nature and from what is natural means distancing ourselves from what is a constitutive element of the same ego. In this way we demolish our identity, what the individual is, and therefore the sense of identity and dignity. Some environmental factors, for example the mother, the father, the family, the first friends, have a role ". [....]

Naess writes: "if a mouse was placed in absolute emptiness it would no longer be a mouse. The organisms presuppose a "central environment in the development of the ego, and the same can be said of the home and the environment that surrounds it. Ecological and psychological research have highlighted the relationships that our self establishes, in the course of its development, with an infinite wealth and variety of natural phenomena, especially with organic life, but also with inorganic nature. [...] The grown up child, the naturalist in a philosophical sense, extends his positive feelings to all of Nature based on the intuition that everything is interconnected. "

Every living being has an intrinsic value and has the right to life, to the unfolding of one's own potentialities, therefore Man has the right to realize himself, but in doing so he must take into account the achievements of others. Naess clarifies that: "The equality of the right to realize one's own potentialities, affirmed in principle, is not a practical norm which imposes on us an identical conduct towards all forms of life. Rather it suggests, as a guiding criterion, to limit the killing of other beings, and more generally to eliminate the obstacles to their realization. "

For example, Naess rejects the statement: "I kill you because I'm worth more" but not: "I kill you because I'm hungry". It is as if the second statement contained an implicit request of excuse: "I'm sorry, but I have to kill you because I'm hungry." This does not imply a classification of the living according to their value but somehow justifies the fact that it acts differently towards different living beings.

This also leads us to get used to distinguishing mere desires from real needs and satisfying them with the least impact on Nature.

One of the aspects that can greatly influence the change in mentality promoted by deep Ecology is represented by the ability to identify with other living beings. Identification depends on the environment, culture and economic conditions in which we live and is at the basis of the perception of Nature as a complex unit. Ecosophic perspective tends to develop such deep identification processes "that the boundaries of one's self are no longer adequately indicated by the personal ego or the organism. Then one feels deeply part of the totality of Life. [...] This also implies a transition from an I-him attitude to one of the I-you type. "

On the contrary, the inability to identify leads to indifference, leads to relegate objects or events away on a background of no importance and consequently not to intervene until a problem will not affect us directly, perhaps be too late. Naess writes: "The more we understand the bond that unites us to other beings, the more we identify with them, the more we will move carefully. In this way we will also become capable of enjoying the well-being of others and of suffering when a disgrace hits them. We seek the best for ourselves, but through the expansion of the self what is best for us is better for others. The distinction between what is ours and what is not survive only in grammar, not in feelings. "

Once again Education is called into question to promote empathy, the expansion of one's own self, the perception of interdependencies on which life is based and the identification with Nature. This does not imply the renunciation of the modern man to his own cultural heritage but the recovery and enhancement of his tendency, or better, of his need defined as life in the open air.

In Norway, to express this concept we use the word friluftsliv which indicates "a sort of positive state of mind and body in contact with Nature that brings us closer to some of the many aspects of the identification of Self-realization in Nature that we have lost. "

Promoting friluftsliv means increasing healthy entertainment that recalls the occupations of pre-industrial man and allows you to spend more time in contact with nature. Thanks to these activities it is possible to promote respect for nature and to educate oneself in fighting waste, making the most of available resources, recognizing the beauty and value of diversity, developing intuitive and identifying thinking, experimenting the interconnections between and with all that there surrounds, criticize the human interventions of greater environmental impact after having personally experienced the aggressiveness towards the landscape. Spending more time immersed in Nature also allows us to discern the concrete needs from the superfluous ones and to begin to consider the quality of life rather than looking only at the quantity of what it can offer. Only by living all this concretely, on one's own skin, one can develop one's own Ecosophy, internalize the principles of profound Ecology and modify one's lifestyle, not to follow yet another new-age proposal but because one understands its value.

It will not be easy to reach this result because it often expects the situation to reach critical levels before intervening for improvement. It can be very useful to get in touch with political and economic institutions, NGOs, but above all with teachers and mass communication specialists who can convey the new ecological values and push each person to support a less myopic lifestyle that favors the whole ecosphere of which it is a part. 

Surface Ecology

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

Preconditions

In this chapter I will briefly describe the type of "ecology" usually referred to and which is accepted by a still small but rapidly growing number of people. I will use for this purpose the language that is most frequently used by the media when dealing with the ecological problem.

According to this ecology, in which the distinction between "man" and "the environment" is maintained, the Earth must be kept clean and pleasant because it is "the only one we have", it is "our home", it is a planet done for us. It is necessary to "defend the environment" so that humanity can live better: the changes must be made "on a human scale".

In essence, the global conceptions of the West are never undermined, the dominant paradigm remains the same. Both the ecology born from the problem of the "limits of development". Both the one that tries to keep the environment "beautiful" and habitable the Earth do it above all for the wellbeing of man, whose central and particular position is not in the least shaken.

Even the idea of preserving the Earth in a good state for future generations gives value to Nature only as a function of our species: anthropocentrism is not questioned.

 

The limits of development

              The kind of ecological thinking I will mention now was born in the early seventies with the publication of the famous report of the Club of Rome "The limits of development", a title in which the setting of the study is already evident: development must be stopped slowly because it has physical, objective limits. So we can not help but stop it: we must stop for the man, even if with great displeasure.

              It does not affect any principle of the West, indeed the world is considered an extraordinarily complex mechanical system: the mechanistic conception is not in the least questioned. The push to global balance is a physical necessity, the Earth must be respected because otherwise it will not allow the life of man.

              The relationship was set by simplifying the world system with five dimensions: natural resources, human population, food, pollution and industrial production. The types of interaction between these quantities on a world scale were then outlined and future trends were studied, extrapolating the trends that occurred since the beginning of the industrial era.

              As known, the result of the study was that the system would collapse around the years 2020-2030, of course if the trends and interactions, ie the way of life , had not changed . Around 2030, when the five diagrams of the study "go crazy", the Earth will have intolerable levels of degradation: but this fact was not taken into account as a disaster "in itself".

              To those who no longer care about that relationship because nothing has happened so far, even though the previous trend of the quantities in question has been continued, it is worth remembering that there is still a gap of thirty or forty years before something macroscopic should be noticed. On the contrary, the indexes examined are proceeding according to the output curves then from the computer.

              The scientist Paul Ehrlich has proposed a parable in this regard which seems to me very informative. Suppose, writes Ehrlich, to find us to get on a plane and see that there is a person who is quietly snapping the rivets, which are a special kind of nails that hold the sheets of the wing together. Naturally, we are alarmed to cry out to the man to stop: but he replies to be calm because it is not the first time he does it (he sells them to a company) and nothing has ever happened; indeed he is about to leave on the same flight, there is nothing to worry about. Obviously, the man does not realize that he will come to remove the bolt that marks the maximum resistance threshold of the private wing of the bolts, and at that point the catastrophe will happen. The same thing happens for our planet: we continue with the greatest unconsciousness to eliminate one species after another, and apparently nothing happens in the global ecosystem. But at some point it will jump everything.

              Recall also the comparison of Bateson with the frog boiled in a pot with cold water: if you slowly increase the water temperature, the poor frog will not be able to notice when it is time for her to jump out and end up boiled.

              The relationship of the Club of Rome had basically three big advantages:

- to introduce the problem with a scientific-mathematical language, which is usually quite accepted by official circles, even if only as a method;

- to highlight the idea of exponential growth, that is to invite to meditation on what the phenomena that have a similar trend over time mean;

- to draw attention to the gravity of the demographic problem: if the current explosion of the world population does not stop, every other measure becomes useless; today humanity increases by one million individuals every four days .

              In this regard it is good to remember that the most overpopulated area of the world - even if it does not grow any more - is Europe, with high density and with very high impact, given the unsustainable level of per capita consumption of its inhabitants.

 

Exponential growth

              I think it useful to recall with a couple of examples what the exponential trend means, which is the way of proceeding of industrial civilization.

              The first example is an anecdote:

 

An Indian Maragià, to pay a debt of gratitude to one of his wise subjects, promised to satisfy his desire.

              The sage asked for a certain quantity of wheat: what is obtained by putting a grain on the first square of the board, two grains on the second, then four, eight, sixteen, and so on doubling. The maragià was amazed by the modesty of that request and ordered that a chessboard and a sack of wheat be brought. The person in charge of depositing the beans soon became aware, already in the second row of boxes, that trouble was being prepared and that the bag would not have been enough, even if the first row had gone away with very modest quantities of wheat.

              To have the total number of grains, it is enough to multiply two by itself sixty-four times; try and you'll have fun: with the calculator on the market you'll do very soon, but the number will be out soon from the digits viewer. The resulting number on the last box on the board has about twenty zeros and corresponds to the world wheat crop for two thousand years! According to the anecdote, the maragià was in the alternative of not keeping his word or cutting off the old wise man's head. (2)

 

              Another classic example can better illustrate the type of rapidity over time of the phenomena that progress with the "doubling" trend, which is equivalent to increasing the already achieved value by a constant annual percentage.

              Suppose that an exponentially growing microorganism with daily doubling "kills" the surface of a lake and takes sixty days to do it all out. If a group of experts, noting the multiplication of the microorganism, went to visit the lake on the 56th day, ie four days after the total death, would see only one sixteenth of the lake already "dead" and all the rest nice quiet: probably if it would only propose some mild corrective and hurl itself against the "alarmists" who considered urgent a remedy.

It is perhaps instructive to follow the trend of this phenomenon (the values are rounded):

              If the microorganism has a surface of one square micron (3) and the total surface of the lake is one square Km, one has:

- initially the area covered by the microorganism is one square micron;

- after 20 days the microbe has infected a square millimeter of surface, ie after one third of the total time the phenomenon is not yet perceptible;

- after 40 days, ie two thirds of the total time, the surface covered is one square meter, that is, the phenomenon can only be detected with great difficulty; however no one would give importance to the thing;

- after 56 days, as we have said, a sixteenth of the total is covered, that is, the phenomenon is visible but for many "not yet worrying".

              After four more days it's all over.

              In light of this exponential trend of the phenomenon "industrial civilization", it seems perfectly logical that for a couple of centuries the true destructive nature of this civilization has not been noticed. In fact, its real effects on Life can not be highlighted if not a very short time before its end: returning to the example of the microorganism in the lake, who could actually notice a polluted square meter if it is spread over a square kilometer surface, ie a million times bigger? Yet at that moment the phenomenon has already "worked" for two thirds of the total time at its disposal.

              So the persistence of the current model for two centuries, fact on which the idea of continuation of the ever-growing industrial civilization rests, is instead a further proof of its imminent end: as we have seen, the model can exist without manifesting its true nature for a time almost equal to that of its total existence.

              It is useful, however, to remember that the approach to the ecological problem given by the "limits of development" has not been substantially challenged on the scientific level, it has only been ignored by the official world, unable to stop a push that has lasted for two or three centuries. because you can not change the way of life without changing philosophical thought.

              At this point one wonders what sense has a cultural model that can not last indefinitely, that is, has in itself the certainty of its own end.

              According to the growth priests, "something" will happen that will allow it to always grow. Except that you do not understand what it may be, one wonders why these economists do not immediately bring into the bank a thousand lire and leave it on an account at seven per cent of interest, since - for the exponential phenomenon mentioned above - after about five centuries the sum deposited will become a million billion lire that will make some direct descendant happy, not too far. The beauty is that - according to the same priests, who adore growth as a deity - if one hundred thousand people do the same operation, they all find their million billion after five centuries. Yet only a few more years, and the amount of money of those "bank accounts" exceeds the volume of a sphere that encompasses the entire solar system.

              They can not notice this absurdity precisely because growth is considered untouchable, that is, a deity.

              It is instructive to report the conclusion of the update of the famous Club of Rome report performed twenty years later:

 

We have repeated many times that the world is not facing a preordained future, but a choice. The alternative is between models. One states that this finite world has, for all practical purposes, no limits. Choosing this model will take us further beyond the limits and, we believe, to collapse.

Another model states that the limits are real and close, that there is not enough time, and that human beings can not be moderate, responsible or supportive. This model is such as to confirm itself: if the world chooses to believe it, it will make it look right, and again the result will be collapse.

A third model states that the limits are real and close, that there is exactly the time it takes but there is no time to waste. There are exactly the energy, the materials, the money, the environmental elasticity and the human virtue that are sufficient to complete the revolution towards a better world.

The latter model could be wrong. But all the testimonies we could consider, from world data to global computer models, indicate that it could be corrected. There is no way to make sure, if not by putting it to the test. (4)

 

It is however evident that the third model involves a profound and radical modification of the current values of Western culture, that is a very different life system.

 

 

 

The natural parks

One of the policies of surface ecology is to keep some natural areas of the planet isolated, saving them from the invasion of so-called progress. This practice, while not undermining the foundations that cause the ecological drama and sometimes leaving the suspicion that any kind of exploitation is allowed outside these areas, is in any case to be supported. In fact it is one of the concrete ways in a short time to save species and ecosystems otherwise destined to extinction: they will be able to recover in the suitable areas of the Planet when the dominant paradigms will be changed.

Often the publicity purpose for the Parks is rather anthropocentric, that is they would be created for the "enjoyment of man", but this is the only way - given the premises of the dominant culture - for such Parks to be accepted.

Let's take a few examples:

A swamp must be saved because it is the lungs in the floods, because it is rich in life and therefore provides us with a good sustenance (taking as long as it does not affect the balance of the ecosystem), because we can recreate it by seeing it, and so on.

The forest must be saved because it gives us oxygen, because we still have so many things to learn about it, because many species can one day give us new agricultural crops, for new medicines and for recreational and knowledge purposes.

Already the reasons to save large areas of desert appear less evident. However, some deserts are needed to study the species that have adapted and why this environment can serve as a gym for our daring, seen as a significant "sporting" value.

Ultimately the central and very special position of the "man" is not questioned.

 

The ethical question and the problem of "rights"

              If we bring the problem into legal terms, in the surface ecology nature must be protected because it is "res communitatis" and it is not "res nullius". It remains however always "res", it is a matter of property, of common heritage , something to be safeguarded, but that can and must be used or enjoyed by someone or everyone. Man is always at the center, he is the reference of everything, living or non-living.

              Ecosystems, animals, plants are not moral or legal subjects, but have value only in human function (owners, groups, communities, etc.): the animal or the ecosystem are evidently considered "unconscious" or " non-sentient ". It is not clear just how the border is established, or what is the characteristic that gives the title of "moral subject" or "subject of law". If it were any form of "intellect" or intelligent faculty - apart from the usual difficulty of establishing the "threshold quantity" - one would not understand exactly how precise rights are assigned (as subjects ) to a fistful of cells or to the impaired or severe brain injury, or people in a coma, as long as they are exclusively human .

              The biblical and Cartesian derivation of these attitudes is evident: the distinction arises from a metaphysical prejudice, which will be discussed later.

              The religious ethic of the West has reserved little attention to non-human beings, excluding them from any moral consideration, or simply humanitarian, and relegating them, as they have no soul, in the sphere of means at the service of man. The rise of the philosophy of technological scientism, which degrades everything to an object, has further worsened the collective attitude.

              Instead there is nothing to prevent being a moral subject and endowed with rights not only to an animal, but also to a river, a mountain, a swamp.

Today, however, we know from ethology - but also from common sense - that at least the animals experience pleasure and pain and have preferential interests: in short, there are no significant differences between humans and other animals. Neurobiology studies also do not reveal qualitative differences between human and other animal structures. So there are no plausible reasons for excluding them from ethical considerations.

Moreover, since it is not possible to establish borders between animals and plants, or between individuals and the "surrounding environment" and in any case with the holistic and systemic view we will see, there is no reason to exclude any natural entity from being an ethical and juridical subject.

Also for surface ecology, let's start to see what "environmental ethics" means. It has been defined as the set of principles that regulate the relationship between man and the environment: principles that determine specific duties to man. By natural world we mean "the whole complex of the natural ecosystems of our planet, together with all the animal and vegetable populations that make up the biotic communities of the individual ecosystems". It is therefore clear that when talking about the protection of endangered species, it is also necessary to talk about the conservation of the environment in general; also because unfortunately the threatened species are not few, do not limit themselves to some exotic bird, some big carnivore or to animals with particularly valuable fur or to other sporadic cases of the kind. There is now talk of thousands of animal and plant species that have disappeared over the last few years, and tens of thousands in immediate danger of extinction. One arrives to hypothesize their disappearance in the immediate future at the rate of one per hour. It is difficult to quantify precisely, but it is clear that we are dealing with a phenomenon of dimensions such as to ultimately coincide with the disappearance of the natural world itself.

 

The illusion of the two systems

              Our western world is almost always split in two in all fields, given its premises. Let us take a few examples, pointing to the substantial equality of attitude towards Nature of certain currents of thought that are believed to be "opposite", but actually hide the same basic conceptions.

              Both the metaphysical believer-atheist dualism and the economic capitalism-collectivism are not relevant to the effects of the ecological problem. All parties say they "defend nature" and accuse the "opposite" pole of being the cause of evil. Until a few years ago, a slice of the West has flaunted the illusion that the ecological drama was due to profit, despite having materialism and progress even as absolute and metaphysical values.

              To bring a practical example, the disastrous environmental situation of the former socialist countries is known: the drying up of Lake Aral and its dramatic consequences, the pollution of Lake Baikal, the crazy plans of planetary alteration programmed for the Siberian rivers.

              Western culture holders in the West have exterminated the Amerindians, in the East they have destroyed all Asian and Arctic cultures. The West has shown the same face to the East and West, to Nature as well as to other human cultures.

              It is not clear what difference implies - even on a theoretical level - the fact of pursuing "development" to obtain profit or to achieve the expected results in the five-year plan.

              In both cases, the primary objective is economic expansion, which inevitably brings with it the destruction of nature. The problem arises from the foundations of industrial civilization and not from the details of the economic system.

              For example, it is very simplistic to think that the destruction of the Amazon forest or the Siberian taiga is due to "the multinationals" or the Brazilian or Russian governments. The reality of the phenomena is that it is a continuation of the process by which the West devours the Earth and destroys traditional civilizations for some centuries.

              We can not get by giving "blame" to someone.

              The cause is the very concept of economic expansion, the pillar on which our current civilization rests.

              Even the believer-atheist opposition has no substantial differences, as we will see more extensively in the following chapters.

              Every ecologic movement that derives from Marxist, Catholic or Protestant conceptions falls within the category of surface ecology. These positions are daughters of the West, they give great value to man and "history" and have "progress" as their myth.

              As a metaphysical background, these conceptions believe that the universal (that is, the "matter" or the "physical world") is a kind of clock that man, the only different being, can and must modify to his advantage.

              The fact of believing that there is a Watchmaker (the God of the Old Testament) or that does not exist (materialism) causes differences that are not very relevant. With both positions one behaves towards Nature almost in the same way. On the one hand it is believed that the right-duty to change the world comes from God, on the other from a sort of "selective merit" that has made us, in essence, the only "spirit" holders; but the effects are practically the same.

              Both positions are inspired by the philosophical conceptions of the seventeenth-century French thinker René Descartes, commonly known as Descartes, as well as the exasperated idea of man's dominion over Nature, typical of the English philosopher Bacon, just to give some examples .

              In the imagination of the West, the Universe is a huge, complicated machine that can be dismantled, with the option of the Great Engineer.

              Almost all the ecological movements existing today, being children of Western culture and its conception of the world, are inspired by the principles mentioned here: after all, if not, they would probably have a smaller numerical sequence.

              This position is quite similar to the idea of an organism seen as the "environment" of nerve cells or of any organ considered as central (man): this organ, or group of cells, would have the right to modify the body, keeping it alive, to take advantage of it, that is, to achieve its balanced expansion and development.

              Since surface ecology is part of the general thinking of the West, the idea that the logical aspiration of every individual and every community is "affirmation" or "success" is not questioned. Basically, everything can continue as before, installing filters and purifiers and saving some island of nature around the world.

              From the surface ecology comes the illusion of "sustainable development", a term that sounds like "climb downhill" or "dry rain", having in itself a contradiction of terms.

              The only clear conclusion but that is not said because it is intolerable to Western civilization (not wanting to change its premises) is that development is not sustainable, it is an impossible phenomenon on Earth, it is incompatible with the global biological system.

              Cradling yourself in the illusion that we are about to discover the path of sustainable development can be dangerous. On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to speak of "sustainable society", meaning itself as a system in dynamic equilibrium, ie without any permanent material growth.

              Finally, even this thought, of Amerindian origin, is part of the surface ecology:

 

When the last tree has been knocked down, the last poisoned river and the last fish caught, you will find that you can not eat the money deposited in your Banks. (5)

 

Some notes from the imaginary

              If we read some fictional or cinematic anticipation, we notice a greater degree of anguish in the stories set in a world imagined as extrapolation of current trends compared to those in which the world has collapsed that has arrested the phenomena of today, and therefore finds itself in the "Day after" of a traumatic event.

              In the former there are expanses of deserts instead of forests, the heat is suffocating, water is rare and hoarded by the rich, the species are few, there is resignation and there is "mandatory" consumption.

              In the latter you can count on the rebirth of a changed world, there is at least hope. Life can recover, even if it takes a long time.

              Even in the imagination, the optimists are those who foresee the end of industrial civilization, or a radical change of the paradigms of thought and therefore of the ways of living.

              Finally, a note from the anthropologist:

 

Perhaps we must seek in nature, around us, the explanation of the destiny of the West and also the forebodings for our future.

The Lemmings are small rodents North Europe and Asia similar to our voles. In certain periods they leave the Scandinavian Alps in large groups, as guided by a mysterious flute player, and head towards the North Sea or the Gulf of Bothnia. Along this journey, which is their sense of history, they suffer the attacks of carnivores or predatory birds that destroy them by the thousands. In spite of everything, they continue on their way and, having reached their destination, they throw themselves into the sea and drown them.

The locusts also have a similar sense of history. Many species, including migratory locust , live in nature without committing damage: individuals are lonely and scattered. At a certain moment, for a reason still unknown, these species are swarming; the young grasshoppers that are born and grow in thick populations have different color and shape: they are larger and lighter in color, often of a beautiful green.

The naturalists have made it a different species: the gregarious locust . They gather in large groups and, when they are adults, they all fly together, forming the clouds of grasshoppers that Mediterranean farmers fear very much; they advance in huge leaps, in the same inexorable direction for many days. They can devastate every vegetation in a few hours, or fall on a steppe to rot in heaps in the sun or rush to clouds in the sea.

What could lemmings say if they could write the story of one of their migrations? "We are marching towards a happy tomorrow, our highly structured nation grows from hour to hour, and despite various attacks, we are progressing in the same direction, preserving our organization which, alone, allows the individual to march towards that progress that we already see , all blue, at the foot of the mountains ".

The locusts would sing a song of triumph: "We proceed forward. The universe will be able to nourish us for a century, since we are heading towards the "planetization" of our species ".

History makes sense for locusts, for lemmings and for Western civilization: it results in a collective suicide, before the "planetization" of a species. However, every individual sees in this last moment a march towards a better situation. The more the lemmings move away from the starting point, the naturalists say, the more excited they are; nothing can stop them; in front of an obstacle they hiss and grind their teeth for anger.

We too, far from our origins, deeply feel that nothing must hinder our march towards what we call Progress.

In fact, we men of the West do nothing but run towards the sea, towards death, in tight rows. With each war, the vortex in which we are gripped sinks more and more, increasing our material progress, diminishing our last spiritual values, annihilating humanity to the heart of man.

Pride makes us see in this fall the desired fulfillment of our earthly existence. Like the Prince of this World, the West attracts all humanity to itself, promising material goods and knowledge of techniques but chaining it forever, replacing every thought with eternal desire, to better drag it with it.

The scene of temptation is renewed every time the West meets a traditional civilization. Every time men become aware of their own nudity, of their own material underdevelopment. With their flanks bound with cotonine, they must work to the limit of their strength and, when the sweat of the forehead is no longer enough, they must give the balance of their soul and all the harmony of the world. Then the West drags a new damn into its fall, while the doors of a paradise, lost once more, are closed.

If the Western civilization disappeared, humanity would not be affected, since it has not been in solidarity with it for a long time: an empire will have ended up existing, adding to its ruins those of its own pride. Our monuments will be enigmas for the archaeologists of the future, because it will seem strange that men have made constructions for the sole purpose of massively amassing the materials, without trying to lock them, with the key of their thought, the numbers of the universe.

The peoples who will replace us will perhaps speak of divine punishment, without imagining that we have been the judges and the executioners of ourselves, writing each of the letters of our condemnation with the consequences of each of our acts. (6)

 

----------------

 

Note

(2) -The reported anecdote is found, with some variant details, in many texts of mathematics and population dynamics (see those of P. and A. Ehrlich) as an informative example of exponential trend.

(3) thousandth of a millimeter

(4) D. and D. Meadows - Beyond the limits of development - Ed. Il Saggiatore, 1993.

(5) This expression of an Amerindian native was published in the magazine "Il Panda" of the Italian WWF and is also reported in a periodical "Verdi News".

(6) Jean Servier - Man and the Invisible - Ed. Rusconi, 1973

 

Bioregionalism: the sense of place

 

 

"When you find your place where you are, practice takes place" (Dogen).

Our daily frenzy and our aseptic and materialistic lifestyle leads us more and more to ignore the knowledge of the place in which we live, alienating from the mind all natural manifestations and always craving a constantly changing but never dynamic and creative status. Living in harmony with the place according to a balanced, harmonious, deep existence. It is not necessary to go back to the "caves" but simply to a lifestyle that is aware of the spirit of its place. J. Muir "to live the wild nature and a real life" gave great importance to the development of the sense of place.

Bioregion can rightly be defined as the best natural organization in the relationship between the individuals who cooperate with each other and the intimately integrated and unitary space that surrounds them. They write Devall & Sessions (1989): "In an era in which governmental bodies and economists discuss the 'world economy system' and the military uses of outer space, turning attention to our bioregions is an act deeply linked to tradition . Bioregion is the best place to start gaining ecological awareness.

The notion of bioregion is not new at all. For Jim Dodge, ..... 'was the cultural principle that has animated the history of humanity to ninety-nine percent and is at least as old as consciousness'.

A second element of the bioregion is self-regulation. As Dodge says, anarchy does not mean being out of control, but not being subject to the control of others. Local communities inspired by a common interest for bioregion, for the free growth of local plants and animals, can make decisions about individual and collective actions while respecting the integrity of the natural processes present. Taking care of a place means avoiding exploitation.

'A third element that makes up the notion of bioregion is spirit,' explains Dodge. There is no single religious practice for this meaning of bioregional spirit ... ... based on deep ecological insights it can be expressed in a variety of ways ".

In North America the vision of the bioregion is very developed so much that many environmental movements were born aimed at the affirmation of the "sense of place". The Planet Drum Foundation , founded in 1973 by Peter Berg based in San Francisco, deserves particular mention . He regularly publishes a newspaper (Raise the Stakes) for the diffusion and deepening of the bioregional philosophy. Here is a brief excerpt (Welcome home!) Of the opening document of the 1st Bioregional Congress of North America in 1984 (taken from AA, VV., 1994): "Ever-increasing consensus is receiving the idea that, to ensure the goodness of the air, water and food that allow us to survive, we must become the custodians of the place in which we live.

We begin to feel how impoverished we do not know our neighbors, nor the nature that is closest to us. It turns out that the best way to think about oneself is to pay attention to what concerns us, to protect and, together, recover our region.

Bioregionalism recognizes, nourishes, supports and celebrates local ties: land, plants and animals, sources, rivers, lakes, groundwater, oceans, air, family, friends, neighbors, communities, native traditions, indigenous systems of production and trade.

Bioregionalism states that the time has come to know the potential of the place.

To pay full attention to its nature and its history, and to share aspirations to ensure a sustainable future.

Support us, that is, using renewable sources of food and energy .....

Bioregionalism ensures the satisfaction of primary needs through local resources.

Premises must be education, health care and in general all that may be a matter of self-government.

The bioregional perspective recreates a feeling of participation in the local identity, based on a renewed critical awareness and respect for the integrity of our ecological communities .......

The safety of life begins with the assumption of responsibilities at the local level .... ".

It is now entrusted to the pen of Giuseppe Moretti (1991) - a deep connoisseur and sincere lover of bioregionalism - the task of completing and presenting the basic concepts of this philosophical vision of local reality. "Nowadays it seems that modern man has rediscovered nature; the need for contact with it is constantly increasing; National Parks and protected areas see the number of visitors increasing year after year.

The gravity of the environmental problems has set in motion a frenzy in support of a thesis that would want each of us loving and respectful of nature, in all sectors; economic, social, environmental.

Suddenly, activities, products, tasks have become ecological.

Of course, there are sincere people and praiseworthy initiatives, but definitely those who care about the fate of the Earth's ecosystem have more than one reason for bewilderment.

The protection of nature and the so-called 'ecological' practices in our economic / social system seem more like an eco-business than a real attempt to place the relationship between man and the environment in which he lives in the right dimension.

The luminaries of the technological / industrial culture seem to be waving in the quicksand of their philosophical convictions; politicians, perennially prisoners of the performance of the "gross domestic product".

Nature is conveniently defined in a utilitarian way, giving value and the right to existence to all that is useful for man; it completely lacks the humility that distinguishes the primary, native, aboriginal cultures, for which nature, and all living beings that dwell in the ecosystem, have value in themselves.

Of course, we are neither Hopi, nor Sioux or Kayapo, nor Dayak.

So, however inconsistent this approach to nature may seem, it is wise not to be negatively pessimistic, but rather simply and humbly to make its own contribution so that the work to be done finds the right path. The work to be done is much deeper and more complete than one might imagine. The following is a very modest contribution to re-connecting ourselves with NATURE. The basis of this concept is the belief that there can not be real, effective, lasting re-connection without the awakening of the wild inside.

This is not an ephemeral work, Platonic but dynamic, which enriches the man with a new vision of life.

It is not something that can be learned by reading a book, even if very useful and stimulating are the experiences of what they have written, from David H. Thoreau and John Muir, from Aldo Leopold to the contemporary Gary Snyder.

The theater of this research is the place where we live, no matter how natural it is left; having a Wilderness situation behind the house is a privilege for a few by now, the advantage of these should not discourage, it is understandable to think of distant places where the processes of life can be better understood, as in the Wilderness precisely, but you can learn the same in your place focusing on what is around us; certainly, in many cases it is a hidden world where only natural fragments remain of the natural equilibrium.

It is about understanding ourselves in relation to the natural community of which we are intrinsically part.

Re-tuning with the wild inside can not happen separately from the understanding and appreciation of the Spirit of the place, which is nothing fanciful or mysterious: 'it is nothing but the verse of the woodpecker or the Coyote, or the jay or wind that moves the fronds of a tree or acorn that falls on the roof of the garage, as Gary Snyder wrote in Good Wild Sacred.

Do not join the spirit of the place standing in front of the TV or lazing at the bar; we must live in the place and live there long enough, to pass from a mere visitor to an occupier and pertecipante.

Getting in touch with the wild world you learn to look around paying attention to the complexity of the relationship of the landscape, from watercourses to plants, from the climate to prevailing winds, where the Pendolino has its nest or the Faina its own den.

It is not a purely scientific exercise, a list of how many species of birds are present or how many and which species of plants or flowers, as much as cm. of rain falls in the month of March etc .....

It is a matter of attention, of a deeper, more intimate degree of attention, sometimes in relation to a plant or an animal, to a river or to a particular rock.

The Earth and its creatures speak to us if we know how to listen.

'The local ecosystem speaks to us, if you know how to listen, but you must first learn to listen well in one place, then you can go to other places and the Earth will cointinuerà to talk to you; the Earth will never really talk to you if you have not learned to listen well in a particular place "(Gary Snyder, quoted in the Earth Festival of Dolores LaChapelle).

This kind of relationship leads to a moral identification based on the responsible use of the life forms necessary for our sustenance.

'By getting our food directly from the earth we have as a gift the knowledge from where it comes, cleaning it and preparing it we know how it came to us, through the work of our hands and our body, we know that care and respect are shown towards the animals that feed us.

There is a special pleasure in taking this responsibility for our livelihood and accepting the bond of familiarity with the animals that give us life "(Richard Nelson in The Island Within).

Rediscovering one's identity, the deep self, the wild within places man decisively out of considering Nature in utilitarian terms, of turnover, of capital. This produces an expansion of one's awareness, beginning to learn directly from Mother Earth.

To think in terms of harmony rather than of prevarication, of conservation rather than of exploitation, of stability rather than of short-sighted progress, of diversity rather than of monoculture; consequently behaving in relation to the place where you live, to your own Bioregion and in relation to the other Bioregions. 'In the Wilderness is the preservation of the world' (HD Thoreau) ".

A clear example of total loss of the sense of the place, we are offered by the tourist, who, hastily and disharmonically, moves from one place to another without really perceiving "the place" and without experiencing it. Immersing oneself in an environment, understanding it, experiencing it to the full, appreciating its "breath" are all sensations that only time, calm and reflection offer us. The North American natives represent, unlike tourists, one of the best examples of bioregionalism. The loss of the sense of place is perhaps one of the most serious shortcomings of contemporary man. No being completely and consciously destroys the source of one's nourishment!

Gussow's reflection is very beautiful (1971, from Devall & Sessions 1989): "Today there is much talk about safeguarding the environment. It has become a duty, because it is precisely the environment that gives us the means of subsistence. But as men we also need spiritual nourishment and some places fulfill this function. Experiencing a direct and profound encounter with nature is the catalyst event that converts a piece of land - an environment, if you want - to a place. The place is a part of the whole environmental system that has been claimed by feelings. Considered as a simple system of support for life, as a resource for the benefit of man, the earth is instead an environment, a set of places. It is indicative of the fact that, for example, we do not talk about an environment that we have known, but we remember places and places. We miss places, we keep them in our memory, and they are still the sounds, the smells and the images of the places that press us and that we often compare with our present ". Or that of Vincent Vycinas (in Devall and Sessions, 1989): "The original meaning of living is not to reside but to create and take care of the space in which something takes possession of what is due and developed. Abitare basically means saving, in the most ancient sense of giving freedom to something, of becoming itself, of becoming what is essentially (...). To live is to pay attention to things so that their essence is detected (...) ".

 

"How difficult it is to get away from places. For how much attention we do, they hold us back. And we leave bits of ourselves on the fence posts, little rags and shreds of our lives " (Katherine Mansfield).

 

Female sensitivity and deep ecology

 

 

"Everything that gives life is feminine. When men begin to understand the secret harmony of the universe, of which women have always been aware, the world will change for the better " (Lorraine Canoe, Mohawk - from AA, VV., 1995). The wild wolf reminds the woman of her wildness and even if the masculine social structures have imposed her a mask and absolute dominion, the strength of the wild instinct can come back to light to give the woman back her true essence and to reaffirm her deep ecological and unitary vision of nature. "It is not hazardous to state that the primary schism between nature and humanity (a schism that perhaps originated from the hierarchical subordination of women by man) has generated enormous fractures in daily life, as well as in our theoretical sensitivity" (M. Bookchin in AA.VV., 1987).

The feminine sensibility is much more inclined to perceive the overcoming of the dualism between the human world and the natural world and if man had not imposed his arrogance and his dominance, the mutual relationship between the living being and the universe would not have immediately the split that instead led us to the abyss and led the condition of women towards the loss of their dignity and their wild breath. But the howling of the wolf reminds the woman of his being deep, free, in his intimacy, from the petty parameters of domination that are instead deeply rooted in the male being. The woman, freed from the chains that have enveloped her for centuries, can return to run, free and unified with the wild world that recognizes her, in an absolute spirit, her value and her participation in the multiform concert of nature. It is necessary that its rebellion takes the upper hand so that it cancels in one stroke, from the foundations, that cage in which it has been imprisoned, alienating it from the dialectic of unitary elements. The howling of the wild wolf will remind the woman that she can do it, she can throw the imposed mask, she can get rid of the yoke that oppresses her and make her adorn her head with the sense of the profound truth of things. The wild wolf reminds the woman that the man, in his infinite sadness, has darkened his own existence tearing his life partner, renouncing to live in harmony with it and renouncing the joys of unitary living. From here he also destroyed himself, because by destroying the woman he took from himself that wise and profound sense of the savage that led him to his miserable and anguished existence. With absolute domination, man has forgotten and suppressed what the woman had to teach them: the profound equality between men and women and the profound equality and unity with all the elements of the universe. "Reply. At the voice of the wind. At the invitation of nature. To the questions of the heart. Answer the call " (N. Evans, 1998).

"Ecofeminism considers the patriarchal dominance of men over women as the prototype of all domination and exploitation in their various forms: hierarchies, militaristic, capitalist, industrial. In particular, he emphasizes that the exploitation of Nature has gone hand in hand with that of women, who in each era have been identified with it. This ancient communion between woman and Nature links woman's history with that of the environment, and is at the origin of an obvious affinity between feminism and ecology. Consequently, ecofeminism considers typically feminine empirical knowledge as one of the fundamental principles for an ecological vision of reality " (Capra, 1997).

"In fact, some feminists argue that deep ecology is an intellectual formulation of the insights that many women have for centuries .....

Feminists expand the sense of wonder in our lives and commitment to a role in active, nonviolent and creative society, since they invite us to take care of our personal relationships and to examine more deeply the prevailing ways of thinking that are the cause of egoism, competitiveness, abstraction and domination. Furthermore, feminism has unveiled the existence of a 'voice for nature' as such, rather than exclusively for human beings " (Devall & Sessions, 1989).

No dominance should exist in the man-woman relationship and therefore in the unitary relationship with nature, but since a domination has occurred (that of man) in the paradox it would have been better if the parts were reversed, that the woman had the "upper hand" "Because now, even if such an attitude can be equally questioned, we would not be on an arid beach without water where we have landed. The unitary relationship with nature and the relationship of interrelationship between human beings would in any case certainly be better and sincerely profound!

We give space to Judith Plant that in addressing the intimate relationship between ecofeminism and bioregionalism, clearly points out, among other things, the domination of women (from AA. VV., 1994 pp. 48-51): " Ecology is the study of interdependencies and the interconnection of all living systems.

It is starting from the observation of the serious environmental consequences that derive from it, that the ecologists are obliged to stand in a critical position with respect to current social behavior.

Since the natural world is thought of as a resource, it is exploited without regard for its role of support for all living species.

Social ecology tries to oppose this dominant attitude, indicating in the harmonization between nature and the vital needs, which society has to face, the main road to a just society .....

In human culture, the idea of hierarchy has been used to justify the practice of social domination; it was then projected into nature, leading to the concrete affirmation of an attitude of domination also towards him.

The awareness that in nature there are no real hierarchies, the recognition of the value of diversity and a non-hierarchical view of things, are strictly shared by ecologists and feminists .....

Historically, we have never had social power, beyond domestic borders, nor role in intellectual life.

If ecology speaks in favor of the other, understood as Earth, feminism speaks instead of the other in the unequal relationship between man and woman.

Ecofeminism, thus, speaking for both the other originals, tries to understand the roots common to both types of domination and oppression and to indicate the modes of resistance and change.

The task assumed by ecofeminism is to develop the ability to identify with others, when one is considering the consequences of one's actions, and the awareness of being each part of the other ......

Before the world was mechanized and industrialized, the metaphor to explain the Self, the Society and the Cosmos was the image of the organism.

This is due to the fact that most people were in daily contact with the earth and lived an existence based on it.

The earth was seen as a female in two respects: a passive, of a nursing mother; the other, wild and uncontrollable.

These images had the function of cultural archetypes. The earth was alive, sensitive, and therefore it was against ethics to use violence ...

When the society began its change (...) the image of a passive, kind earth vanished.

The anger, the fury of nature, always seen as a woman, became its new symbolic traits, hence the 'necessity' of domination. And thanks to new technologies, man, he thought, would be able to really submit it. (...)

The battles for the life of nature ... become feminist themes, if placed within the perspective we have assumed: by participating in these struggles against those who arrogate the right to dominate the natural world, we contribute to create a conscience of domination in at all levels.

But ecofeminism also creates common interests between women and men.

We have been, yes, compared to nature, but also educated by society to think in a dualistic way: so, just like men, we feel alienated.

The social system is not good, neither for us nor for the males.

It is therefore necessary to identify a common field from which to move to create a critical consciousness, which makes it possible to influence the deep structures of the society / environment relationship. Non-violent forms of resistance - such as civil disobedience - against the environmental destruction, can promote, support and develop a cultural life, which enhances the many differences present in nature and draws its consequences in terms of interpersonal relationships .....

Woman and nature, but we should say humanity and nature, need to be seen in a new light, on the basis of which it is possible to mend the slender bonds between individuals, and between these and the Earth ... " .

 

"We are pervaded by nostalgia for the ancient wilderness. Few are the antidotes authorized to this yearning. They taught us to be ashamed of such a desire. We let our hair grow and we used them to hide our feelings. But the shadow of the wild woman still fits behind us, in our days, in our nights. Everywhere and always, the shadow that trots behind us undoubtedly goes on all fours .....

Wild fauna and the Wild Woman are endangered species.

Over time, we have seen looting, repelling, overloading the instinctive nature of the woman. For long periods it has been devastated, like wildlife and wild territories. For some thousands of years, it is enough to look back because the vision is represented, remains relegated to the most miserable territory of the psyche ....

It is no coincidence that the ancient wild lands of our planet disappear as the understanding of our intimate wild nature vanishes .....

So the word savage here is not used in its modern sense of pejority, with the meaning of uncontrolled, but in its original sense, which means living a natural life, in which the creature has its innate integrity and healthy boundaries .... " (Pinkola Estés, 1993).

It should be remembered that it is not by chance that in this book, when we mention the word "man", we almost always refer to the literal meaning of the term, thus deliberately excluding women. The human world also in terms of terminology is unfortunately essentially aimed at the masculine! Let's take a small example about it. If you write a book about the wolf and titled "The Wolf" anyone would interpret the subject on a discussion of the life of the female of the wolf even if the publication intends to deepen the life of the species in its entirety. This says it all too long. It is clearly evident that even in simple terminology the world tends "racially" to the masculine. This is not a supposition but a raw real fact, absolutely one-sided, but absolutely unjust. Yet nature has taught us another universality !!

The writer apologizes if this serious discrepancy did not clearly show right from the outset.

   

Manifesto for the Earth

Ted Mosquin & J. Stan Rowe

A contribution to the dissemination of the message

 

 

preconditions

 

Many artistic and philosophical movements have published their own Manifesto, in which they were exposed truths that for the authors were as evident as the five fingers of the hand. This Manifesto also presents truths that are self-evident, so obvious to us as the five parts of the wonderful world that surrounds us - earth, air, water, fire / sunlight and organisms - and in which we live and move: from it we feed the our existence. The Manifesto is centered on the Earth: the central value is focused by shifting it from humanity to the Ecosphere that includes it - that network of organic / inorganic / symbiotic processes and structures that make up the Planet Earth.

 

The Ecosphere is the matrix that envelops all organisms and gives them Life, it is intimately interconnected with them in the history of evolution from the beginning of time. The organisms are formed by air, water and sediments, which in turn carry the formations and organic traces. The composition of the water of the sea is kept stable by the organisms, which also maintain an atmosphere in a stationary situation that would otherwise be of unlikely composition. Plants and animals have shaped the limestone rocks whose sediments form our bones. The false divisions we have made between living and non-living, biotic and abiotic, organic and inorganic, have put the stability and evolutionary potential of the Ecosphere at risk.

 

The experiment of humanity, ten thousand years old, of adopting a way of life at the expense of Nature and culminating in economic globalization, is failing. The reason before this failure is that we put the importance of our species above everything else. We have mistakenly considered the Earth, its ecosystems and the myriad of its organic / inorganic parts only as our resources, which are valuable only when we serve our needs and desires. A courageous change in attitudes and activities is urgently needed. There are legions of diagnosis and prescriptions to restore the relationship between humanity and the Earth, and here we want to emphasize that, perhaps visionary, which seems essential to the success of all the others. A new vision of the world based on the planetary Ecosphere shows us the way.

 

Conviction declaration

 

Each seeks a meaning in life, and to lean on convictions that take various forms. Many turn to faiths that ignore or take away all importance from this world and do not realize in the profound sense that we are generated by the Earth and sustained by it throughout our lives. In today's dominant industrial culture, the Earth-as-community is not a perception that is self-evident. Few people pause daily to consider with a sense of wonder the enveloping matrix from which we came and towards which we will all eventually return. Because we are a product of the Earth, the harmony of its lands, seas, sky and its innumerable beautiful organisms brings rich meanings rarely understood.

 

We are convinced that, until it is recognized that the Ecosphere is the indispensable common ground of all human activities, people will continue to put their immediate interest first. Without an ecocentric perspective that firmly maintains values and goals in a reality far greater than that of our own species, the resolution of political, economic and religious conflicts will be impossible. As long as the narrow focus on human communities is not expanded to include the ecosystems of the Earth - the local and regional situations in which we live - programs for sustainable and healthy ways of living are doomed to fail.

 

A confident attachment to the Ecosphere, an aesthetic empathy with the surrounding Nature, a feeling of reverent wonder for the miracle of the Living Earth and its mysterious harmonies, is a largely unrecognized human heritage today. If they are again emotionally recognized, our connections with the natural world will begin to fill the void that has formed by living in the industrialized world. Important ecological purposes will re-emerge that civilization and urbanization have hidden. The aim is to restore the diversity and beauty of the Earth, with our species still present as a cooperative, responsible and ethical component.

 

BASIC PRINCIPLES

 

1 - The Ecosphere is the Center of Value for Humanity.

 

2 - The Creativity and Productivity of Earth's Ecosystems depend on their Integrity

 

3 - The Earth-centered world view is confirmed by Natural History

 

4 - An Ecocentric Ethics is based on the awareness of our place in nature

 

5 - A Vision of the Ecocentric world gives value to the Diversity of Ecosystems and Cultures

 

6 - An Ecocentric Ethics supports Social Justice.

 

PRINCIPLES OF ACTION

 

7 - Defend and Preserve the Creative Potential of the Earth

 

8 - Reduce the size of the human population

 

9 - Reduce the Human Consumption of Parts of the Earth

 

10 - Promote an Ecocentric Way of Governance

 

11 - Spreading this Message

 

Why this Manifesto?

 

This Manifesto is centered on the Earth. In particular it is ecocentric, which means centered on the complex, rather than biocentric, which means centered on organisms. Its purpose is to extend and deepen the understanding of the Ecosphere and of the primary values of Planet Earth, which gives and sustains life. The Manifesto consists of six Basic Principles that establish its fundamental reason, plus five Principles of Action that derive from it and highlight the duties of humanity towards the Earth and the geographic ecosystems that the Earth understands. The Manifesto is offered as a guide to ethical thinking, behavior and social policy.

 

During the last century there has been some improvement in scientific, philosophical and religious attitudes towards non-human nature. We appreciate the efforts of those whose sensitivity to a rapidly degrading Earth has expanded their outward vision to recognize the intrinsic value of land, oceans, animals, plants and other creatures. However, due to the lack of a common ecocentric philosophy, much of this goodwill has spread in a hundred different directions. It has been neutralized and rendered ineffective by a single, profound, given-for-sure cultural creed that assigns the first absolute value to Homo sapiens sapiens and then, sequentially, to the other organisms based on their type of relationship to the former.

 

The recent profound knowledge that the Earth, the Ecosphere, is something of supreme value is derived from cosmological studies, from the Gaia hypothesis, from photos of the Earth from space and especially from the understanding of ecology. The central ecological reality for organisms - about 25 million species - is that they are all Sons of the Earth. No one would exist without the planet Earth. What we call Life, which constitutes a mystery and a miracle, is inseparable from the evolutionary history of the Earth, its composition and its processes. Therefore the ethical priority must move from humanity to the Earth, which includes it. The Manifesto is a trace of what we consider an essential step towards a sustainable relationship between the Earth and humans.

 

BASIC PRINCIPLES

 

Principle 1. The Ecosphere is the Center of Value for Humanity.

 

The Ecosphere, the globe of the Earth, is the source that generates the creativity of evolution. From the inorganic / organic ecosystems of the planet the organisms have been generated: in the beginning the bacterial cells and finally those complex systems of cells that are human beings. Therefore, dynamic ecosystems, which are expressed in a complex and interconnected way in all parts of the Ecosphere, have greater value and importance than the species they contain.

 

The reality and the value of the ecological and external essence of each person have had very little attention compared to the philosophical thought dedicated to the inner essence of humanity, an individualistic focus that has diverted attention from ecological needs and has neglected the vital importance of the Ecosphere. Extended to society as an interest only for the well-being of the people, this homocentrism (anthropocentrism) is a doctrine of egocentrism-of-species that leads to the destruction of the natural world. Biocentrism that extends empathy and understanding beyond the human race to include other organisms is an ethical advancement, but its purpose is limited. He can not appreciate the importance of global ecological "surroundings". Without attention focused on the priority of the Earth-as-context, biocentrism risks becoming easily a chauvinistic homocentrism, because who among all animals is commonly considered the best and the wisest? Ecocentrism, emphasizing the Ecosphere as the primary system that gives life rather than a simple support for life, provides the model to which humanity must recall itself as a guide for the future.

 

We humans are conscious expressions of the generative forces of the Ecosphere, our individual "livability" is experienced as inseparable from the heated-sun-air, from the water, from the earth and from the food that the other organisms supply us. Like all the other living beings generated by the Earth, we have been "tuned in", through a long evolution, with its resonances, its rhythmic cycles, its seasons. Language, thought, insights - all come directly or metaphorically from our physical being on Earth. Beyond conscious experience, each person incorporates an intelligence, an innate wisdom of the body that, without any conscious participation, makes it suitable to participate as a symbiotic part of terrestrial ecosystems. The understanding of the ecological reality that humans are Sons of the Earth moves the center of values from the homocentric to the ecocentric, from Homo sapiens to Planet Earth.

 

Principle 2. Creativity and Productivity of Earth's Ecosystems Depend on Integrity

 

"Integrity" refers to totality, completeness, and the ability to function fully. The model is given by the ecosystems of Nature that receive energy from the Sun when they are not damaged; as examples, a productive section of the continental marine shelf or a temperate rain forest in the time before exploitation, when humans were above all collectors. Although these times are beyond memory, the ecosystems of that period (as far as we know today) still provide us with the only sustainability models for agriculture, forestry and fishing. The current serious problems in all three of these industrialized activities show us the effects of the deterioration of integrity; in particular, loss of productivity and aesthetic appeal in parallel with the progressive disruption of the vital functions of ecosystems.

 

Evolutionary creativity and continuous productivity of the Earth and its regional ecosystems require the continuity of their basic structures and ecological processes. This internal integrity depends on the preservation of the communities with their innumerable forms of developmental cooperation and interdependence. Integrity depends on intricate food chains and energy flows, from land not degraded by erosion and from cycles of essential elements such as nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus. Furthermore, the natural compositions of air, sediment and water are essential for the processes and functions of Nature. The pollution of these three elements, together with the extraction and exploitation of organic and inorganic constituents, weakens the integrity of the ecosystems and the normal functioning of the Ecosphere, which is the source of the evolving Life.

 

Principle 3. The Earth-centered world view is confirmed by Natural History

 

Natural History is the history of the Earth. Cosmologists and geologists describe the beginning of the Earth more than four billion years ago, the appearance of small sea creatures in the first sediments, the emergence of terrestrial animals from the sea, the Age of Dinosaurs, evolution, through influences reciprocal, insects, plants with flowers and mammals from which, in geologically recent times, the Primates and then humanity came. We share the genetic material and a common origin with all the other creatures that are part of the Earth's ecosystems. This knowledge we place puts humanity in the natural context.

 

The history of the Earth that takes place through the aeons shows us our coevolution with myriads of fellow organisms through the agreement, and not only through competition. All examples of organic coexistence reveal the important roles of mutualism, cooperation and symbiosis in the great symphony of the Earth.

 

The myths of the various cultures and the stories that shape our attitudes and values want to tell us where we come from, who we are, and where we are going in the future. These stories were unrealistically homocentric and / or otherworldly. Instead, the evidence-based, outward-looking development of the natural history of humanity - made of star dust, endowed with great vitality and sustained by the natural processes of the Ecosphere - is not only credible but also more marvelous of traditional myths centered only on the human. Since they show humanity-in-context as an organic component of the planetary globe, the ecocentric histories also reveal a functional purpose and an ethical purpose; more precisely, with the human part at the service of the greatest totality of the Earth.

 

Principle 4. An Ecocentric Ethics is based on the Awareness of our Place in Nature.

 

Ethics concerns those actions and non-egoic attitudes that come from profound values; that is, from the sense of what is really important. A deep appreciation of the Earth results in an ethical behavior towards it. The veneration for the Earth is easily born with outdoor childhood experiences and, in adulthood, is strengthened by "living in one's own place", so that the forms of earth and water, plants and animals become familiar as close acquaintances. The vision of the ecological world and the ethics that find its first values in the Ecosphere derive their strength from living in the natural and semi-natural world, in a rural context rather than in an urban context. The awareness of our condition in this world is a source of wonder, of religious admiration and of a determined intention to restore, conserve and protect the ancient beauties of the Ecosphere and those natural ways that have stood the test of time for very long periods.

 

Planet Earth and its various ecosystems with their essential elements - air, earth, water and the organic world - surround and nourish each individual and each community, cyclically giving life and recovering the gift. An awareness of oneself as an ecological being, fed by water and other organisms, and like an animal immersed in the air that lives in the productive interface and warmed by the sun where the atmosphere meets the earth, gives us a sense of connection and reverence for the abundance and vitality of sustaining Nature.

 

Principle 5. A Vision of the Ecocentric World appreciates the Diversity of Ecosystems and Cultures

 

The major revelation of the centered-on-Earth perspective is the surprising variety and richness of ecosystems and their organic / inorganic parts. The surface of the Earth presents a diversity, of considerable aesthetic appeal, of arctic, temperate and tropical ecosystems. Within this global mosaic the very diverse varieties of plants, animals and humans are dependent on the varied mix of land forms, soils, waters and local climates. In this way biodiversity, the diversity of organisms, depends on the maintenance of eco-diversity, the diversity of ecosystems. Cultural diversity - a form of biodiversity - is the historical result of humans who have adapted their activities, their thoughts and their language to specific geographical ecosystems. Therefore, anything that degrades or destroys ecosystems is a danger and a misfortune both biological and cultural. A vision of the ecocentric world gives value to the diversity of the Earth in all its forms, both non-human and human.

 

Each human culture of the past has developed a unique language that has aesthetic and ethical roots in the visions, sounds, smells, tastes and ways of feeling of that particular part of the Earth in which it flourished. This cultural diversity based on the ecosystem was vital, as it made sustainable ways of living develop in different parts of the Earth. Today the ecological language of the aboriginal peoples, and the cultural diversity they represent, are in grave danger like tropical forest species, and for the same reasons: the world is going to be homogenized, ecosystems are going to be simplified, diversity is in decline, the variety is being lost. An ecocentric ethic is opposed to today's economic globalization that ignores the ecological wisdom embodied in different cultures, and destroys them for a short-term profit.

 

Principle 6.-An Ecocentric Ethics Supports Social Justice.

 

Many of the injustices of human society come from inequality. They constitute a subset of the greatest injustices and iniquities performed by humans on ecosystems and their species. With its extended concept of community, ecocentrism emphasizes the importance of all the interactive components of the Earth, including many whose functions are largely unknown. In this way the intrinsic value of all the parts of the ecosystem, organic and inorganic, is affirmed, without prohibiting its careful and careful use. "Diversity with Equality" is an ecological law based on the functioning of Nature which provides an ethical guide for human society.

 

Social ecologists rightly criticize the hierarchical organization in cultures, which constitutes discrimination against those who have no power, especially towards women and children, who are disadvantaged. The argument that the road to sustainable living will be prevented until the cultural model reduces the tensions resulting from social injustice and gender inequality, is certainly correct at least to a certain extent. What is not taken into consideration is that the current rapid degradation of the Earth's ecosystems increases tensions between humans while it precludes the possibility of sustainable living and prevents the eradication of poverty. Issues of social justice, however important, can not be satisfied until the destruction of ecosystems is stopped, putting an end to homocentric philosophies and activities.

 

PRINCIPLES OF ACTION

 

Principle 7.- Defend and Preserve the Creative Potential of the Earth

 

The creative powers of the Ecosphere are expressed through its resilient geographical ecosystems. Therefore, as a main priority, the ecocentric philosophy requires the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems and their component species. Apart from the remote possibility of collisions with comets and asteroids, capable of almost destroying the planet, the evolutionary inventiveness of the Earth will continue for millions of years: it is only prevented where humans have destroyed entire ecosystems exterminating species or poisoning sediments, water and air. Continued and dangerous extinctions remove threads from the plot of life, diminishing the beauty of the Earth and the possibility that unique ecosystems emerge in future with related organisms, perhaps of greater sensitivity and intelligence than human ones.

 

"The first rule of the set is to save all the pieces." (Aldo Leopold - Almanac of a Simple World, 1997). Actions that endanger the stability and good health of the Ecosphere and its ecosystems must be identified and publicly condemned. Among the most destructive of human activities are militarism and its enormous expenditure, the extraction of toxic materials, the production of biological poisons in all forms, the industrial way of conducting agriculture, fishing and the exploitation of forests. . If they are not arrested, such lethal technologies, justified as necessary to protect specific human populations but actually serve the profit of large commercial companies and to satisfy human desires for possession rather than needs, will lead to ever greater ecological and social disasters.

 

Principle 8. Reducing the Dimension of Human Population

 

A primary cause of the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of species is the explosion of the human population which already today largely exceeds any ecologically sustainable level. The total world population, today of 6.5 billion, rises dramatically and inexorably by 75 million units a year. Every human is an ecological "consumer" on a planet whose ability to keep all his creatures is quantitatively limited. In all corners of the Earth, human numerical pressure continues to undermine the integrity and ability to generate terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. Our human monoculture is overwhelming and destroying Nature's polyculture. Nation by nation, it is necessary to decrease the human population by reducing the number of conceptions.

 

The ecocentric ethics that values the Earth and its evolving systems, above the species, condemns the social acceptance of an unlimited human fruitfulness. The current need to reduce the number of humans is greater in rich countries where the per capita use of energy and the resources of the Earth is greater. A reasonable goal is to reduce the existing population levels before the use of fossil fuels is widespread; that is, a billion units or less. This will happen either with the implementation of intelligent policies or inevitably with epidemics, hunger, war.

 

Principle 9.- Reduce the Human Consumption of Parts of the Earth.

 

The main threat to the diversity, beauty and stability of the Ecosphere is the ever-increasing appropriation of the planet's goods for exclusively human uses. This appropriation and excessive use, often justified by the increase in population, steal the livelihoods of other organisms. The omocentric and egocentric vision that gives humans a right over all the components of the ecosystem - air, earth, water, organisms - is morally condemnable. Unlike plants, we humans are "heterotrophic" (eaters of others) and we must kill to feed, dress and cover ourselves, but this does not give us permission to rob and exterminate. The accelerated consumption of vital parts of the Earth is a sure recipe for the destruction of eco-diversity and biodiversity. Rich nations armed with powerful technology are the main cause of trouble: they would be able to reduce consumption and share goods with nations whose level of living is the lowest. However, no nation is innocent.

 

We must renounce the mercantile ideology of perpetual growth, as well as the perverse industrial and economic policies based on it. The thesis of the Limits of Development is to be followed. A rational step towards the end of economic expansion of exploitation is the suppression of public subsidies to those industries that pollute water, land or air and / or destroy organisms and soils. A philosophy of symbiosis, of life in accordance with the position of member of the communities of the Earth, will ensure the restoration of ecosystems capable of evolutionary production. For sustainable economies, guidelines are qualitative, not quantitative. "It preserves the health, beauty and stability of earth, water and air, and productivity will be the natural consequence." (EF Schumacher - Piccolo is beautiful).

 

Principle 10.- Promote an Ecocentric Governance Mode

 

The homocentric conceptions of government that encourage the super-exploitation and destruction of the Earth's ecosystems must be replaced by those that privilege the survival and integrity of the Ecosphere and its components. It is necessary that there be valid defenders of the vital structures and functions of the Ecosphere in the positions of influential members of the governing structures. These "ecopolitics", with good knowledge of the Earth's processes and human ecology, will give voice to those who do not. In the current centers of power, "who speaks for the wolf?" And "who speaks for the temperate rainforest?". These questions have a more than metaphorical meaning; they reveal the need to legally safeguard the many non-human essential components of the Ecosphere.

 

It is necessary to enact a body of environmental laws that gives legal value to the structures and vital functions of the Ecosphere. Nation by nation, ecologically responsible persons must be elected or appointed in governmental structures. Appropriate advocates-custodians will be the defenders of ecosystems and their fundamental processes when they are threatened. Issues will be examined on the basis of conservation of ecosystem integrity, not of pursuing economic gain. As time passes, as practical consequences of the ecocentric philosophy, new visions and doctrines will be highlighted in the law, in politics and in administration, and will result in ways of governing ecocentric. Implementation will necessarily take place slowly and step by step over the long term, as people experience the practical ways to represent themselves and ensure the well-being of the essential non-human parts of the Earth and its ecosystems.

 

Principle 11. - Disseminate the Message

 

Those who agree with the principles listed have a duty to disseminate them through education and guidance. The most urgent initial task is to make everyone aware of their functional dependence on the Earth's ecosystems, as well as their links with all other species. It follows a shift of importance from homocentrism to ecocentrism, and this leads to an external ethical regulator for human actions. This shift tells us what we must do to preserve the uninterrupted evolutionary potential of a marvelous Ecosphere. This reveals the need to participate in the activities of the wise community of the Earth, where each plays a personal role in supporting the splendid reality that surrounds it.

 

This Ecocentric Manifesto is not anti-human, yet rejects chauvinistic homocentrism. Promoting the search for permanent values - a culture of condescension and symbiosis with this unique Living Planet - makes a unifying vision develop. The opposite perspective, which looks inwards without the understanding of the outside, is always a danger, as the religions, the sects and the humanistic ideologies, in constant conflict between them, clearly demonstrate. The diffusion of the ecological message, which emphasizes the external reality shared by humanity, opens up a new and promising way towards international understanding, cooperation, stability and peace.

 

Ethics of the earth

 

 

"We were eating on a rocky ledge, at whose feet a turbulent stream bent to one side. We saw what we thought was a deer wading, submerged up to the chest in the white water foam. When he climbed the bank on our side and shook his tail we realized our mistake: he was a wolf. Another half-dozen, evidently already grown up, jumped from the thickets of the willows, gathering to welcome, wagging their tails and arguing playfully. In short, a real bunch of wolves stirred and tumbled in the open just below our boulder.

In those days we had never heard that someone missed the opportunity to kill a wolf. In a moment we were unloading lead on the herd, with more excitement than accuracy .......

We reached the agonizing animal, which was a she-wolf, in time to see a fierce green fire extinguish in her eyes. I realized then, and I never forgot, that there was something new to me in those eyes, something that only she and the mountain knew. At that time he was young and his finger was on my trigger; I thought that less wolves meant more deer, and therefore no wolves were equivalent to hunter's paradise. But when I saw that green fire go out, I felt that neither the she-wolf nor the mountain shared that point of view ......

Perhaps this is what Thoreau's saying means: 'The salvation of the world lies in the wilderness'. Perhaps this is the meaning hidden in the wolf howl, which mountains have known for a long time, but which men rarely perceive " (A. Leopold, 1949-1997).

In contemporary society for a real preservation of natural spaces and to be able to fulfill a sustainable development of the human community it is necessary to put into play many practical acts, but that start from the acquisition of a new mentality that, even if still in shape embryonic, it meanders to some extent in the world. Hence the need to express at best and with the utmost clarity a new ethics of the earth in which, the summation of several aspects, must lead to the rooting of a knowledge that can reveal itself in the reality reality of things. In fact it is not enough to talk about the preservation of nature or of a new way of life that is disjointed only on what should be done, but it is fundamental to bring to light numerous questions that concern above all politics, society and the most profound philosophy. In other words, if a holistic vision of the whole is not rooted in the mind of mankind, every discourse that is vehemently stressed to affirm the right path, finds no concrete basis for its implementation. "What does philosophy have to do with ecological problems? Is it not better to speak chemistry, biology, geography, engineering or sociology and politology? The incombere of the ecological catastrophe provokes reactions of resignation or of cynical hedonism and finds its roots in the fragmentation of knowledge and its techniques which is also at the base of the current philosophical crisis. The task of philosophy then appears to ask how man has come to threaten the entire planet and what sense, in this perspective, the traditional idea of progress. But not only: philosophy must identify new values and categories to restore the relationship between man and nature in order to train human beings capable of facing the crisis. Ecology is, literally, the doctrine of the house. But beyond the material abode, the Earth, it is necessary to rebuild the spiritual abode (and with it a new idea of politics) that will guarantee the survival of the planetary house " (Hosle, 1992).

At this point it seems fundamental to remember the concepts, more faces mentioned in this work, that expressed Aldo Leopold (symbolically his awareness started from the day that he saw that "green fire" of the eyes of the wolf disappear ). In fact in his "Ethics of the Earth" contained in his masterpiece "A Sand County Almanc" (1949, 1997), a book that represents a milestone for the conservationist mentality, Leopold goes beyond anthropocentrism and elaborates the "ethics of the earth" "; all ethics are based on a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts ... once you recognize this it is difficult to deny the rights to the various parts ... the man being a member of the biotic community of the earth can not deny its rights to this. A decision is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to the opposite (Pagano, 2001). With this simple and acute reasoning Leopold is considered the most important source of modern biocentrism and holistic ethics. Pagano (2001) always writes: "... .. nature was not just an object that man could dispose of at will. Leopold understood that remaining anchored to the daily banality, the thought becomes unable to perceive the grandeur of nature ....... No, until then, had thought of an ethic that operated at the level of species, habitats and even ecosystem processes. In that brief reasoning Leopold argues that human ethics imposes limits on the individual man as part of a community of interdependent parts: human society. But, by broadening the reasoning, if the human species recognizes its role as an integral part of ecological communities it must also automatically recognize the rights of nature. The awareness of being 'traveling companions' of the other natural beings implies that nature has its own value independent of what the human being gives it. In this regard, Leopold writes: 'In short, an ethic of earth changes the role of Homo sapiens as the conqueror of the earth to a simple member and citizen of his community' ".

But as we mentioned earlier, the affirmation of a new ethic of the earth must confront itself, in order to be really metabolized, with numerous social, political and philosophical events. "The problem is no longer if environmental problems are better solved through ethical action or political action, but if these problems can be resolved through a complementary action at both levels.

For this dual approach to solving environmental problems to work, as Leopold himself saw clearly, the democratic state must educate citizens about the environmental values that are necessary for both ethical and political action ... ... The objective the teaching of values should not be indoctrination, but clarification ... .. " (Hargrove, 1990).

The concept of clarification is very important because it raises the question on a fundamental point: a biocentric and holistic land ethic must not be taught as something born from a philosophical and metaphysical attitude detached from reality, but simply as something that is already in being, since the formation of the planet earth, something that only in the course of millennia the path of man has lost it from its dimension and that now does not see it anymore or at most it perceives it very faintly. In other words, one must not say something invented by a new vision of life, but rather "clarify" that non-anthropocentric precepts are already in place in the reality of mother earth, both biotic and abiotic. Here then is the appeal for the new ethics of the earth (it must be said new because if it was once present, walking, as we said, we have completely lost), you reappropriate your being and return triumphant in the vision of the whole by the mankind.

The task of this clarification is not at all simple, even if we are talking about something that already exists, because contemporary man has thrown himself headlong towards precepts that see him more and more at the center of things with the claim that every element is his exclusive property and uses it to his free but senseless pleasure. "There may be countless scales of values, but from what has been mentioned it is clear that the first value should be to allow the life of the Biosphere, on which we depend: the survival of the Earth is essential.

The ethics of the Earth is not just a philosophical position, it is above all a necessity to keep alive and in health the organism to which we belong, together with other species, ecosystems, the atmosphere, the sea, the rivers, the mountains " . (Guido Dalla Casa).

A schematic summary of the basic principles of a real ethics of the earth are similar to those presented in the chapter on deep ecology , but for greater clarity and completeness it is good to re-examine them with further additions and clarifications (from Devall & Sessions, 1989, modified):

 

1. The well-being and prosperity of human and non-human life on Earth have value for themselves (in other words: they have an intrinsic or inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness that the non-human world can have for man.

2. The richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Men have no right to impoverish this richness and diversity unless they have to meet vital needs .

4. The prosperity of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial diminution of the human population: the prosperity of non-human life requires this diminution.

5. The current interference of man in the non-human world is excessive and the situation is getting progressively worse.

6. Consequently, collective choices must be changed. These choices influence fundamental ideological, technological and economic structures. The state of things that will result will be profoundly different from the current one.

7. The ideological change consists mainly in the appreciation of the quality of life as an intrinsic value rather than in adhering to an ever higher standard of living. The difference between what is qualitatively large and what is quantitatively will have to be clear.

8. Anthropocentric religious cultures must radically change their vision and spread the ecocentric principle of the earth.

9. The forces that must promote a holistic view of the whole must operate with synergy and involve a multitude of sectors: sociology, politics, economics, philosophy, science, etc.

10. The concept of the value of life must not be referred to in the dissertations only in the human sphere, but must include every form of living being.

11. In the current diffusion of globalization it is necessary to universalize holistic and ecocentric concepts of value and not just aspects of economic and liberalistic utility. It is also necessary to spread at the world level precepts of sobriety, thrift and simplification of lifestyle.

12. The fundamental parameters of a state should not be measured only from the economic point of view (so-called unlimited growth, development, GDP, etc.), but above all from the environmental, social quality and the absolute preservation of natural spaces.

13. We must think that the necessary changes must start from the individual and not only from the whole society, otherwise with the excuse that in general nothing changes, even the individual does not work in any field. It is recollected that the multitude is made up of the sum of many individual units.

14. Always remember to protect and maximize biodiversity on earth.

15. Those who share the previous points are obliged, directly or indirectly, to attempt to implement the necessary changes.

 

The ethics of the earth must therefore be celebrated not according to relativistic priciples and pigeonholed in dogmatic archetypes punctuated by unilateral and short-sighted visions, but we need to put in place a wide range of models that lead with extreme clarity to that clarification that we could also translate with the term " awareness " . It is fundamental to make the citizens of the world aware to bring them back, albeit by degrees, to those ethical and practical values that were once inherent in the vision of everyday life. Join forces, multiply efforts, but every action must firmly endure the affirmation of a holistic ethics of the earth. Perhaps the task and the intent may seem arduous and almost utopian, but at least one attempt must be made before the world degenerates into the catastrophe that is already in place and is one step away from being completed!

"When we talk about ecology and the protection of nature, dealing with 'visions of the world' seems more abstract, or less practical, than giving advice on waste disposal or conservation of forests, but it's only because we talk about 'visions of the world 'has effects to a much longer duration. However, these are aspects that touch behavior and attitudes much more in depth, compared to the most immediate practical suggestions of petty ecology " (Dalla Casa, 1996).

WA-SHA-QUON-ASIN once said: "This is not the voice of Gray Owl speaking, but the voice of a powerful and ever-increasing army: the defenders of wildlife, whose voices must be heard. Let your ears be open " (Dickson, 1999). And then, as already mentioned in this book, to conclude, one of his bellissma as eloquent statement: "You are tired of these years of civilization. I come, and what do I offer you? A single green leaf ".

 

Appendix

 

Reflection by Albert Schweitzer on ethics and respect for every form of life

 

Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)

Missionary and statesman, Nobel Peace Prize in 1952

In Here's Harmlessness: An Anthology of Ahimsa, compiled by H. Jay Dinshah (founder of the American Vegan Society) are quotations from Schweitzer, including the following: "I am aware of the fact that eating meat does not agree with the noblest sentiments of the soul. human and for this I avoid doing it whenever I can ".

From The Vegetable Passion, by Janet Barkas (New York, 1975): "... Schweitzer considered vegetarianism as a sort of reverential respect for life and complained that it could not fully achieve that goal, at least not as it would She wanted. During his last years of life he became a more coherent vegetarian: it seems that Barkas received this information from "Anita Daniel, who shared many lunches and dinners with Schweitzer, in his residence in the village of Gunsbach, in Alsace".

Quotes:

Man will not find inner peace until he learns how to extend his compassion to all living things. - The Philosophy of Civilization

Quiet consciousness is an invention of the devil. - The Philosophy of Civilization

Towards the end of the third day, at the very moment when, at sunset ... the phrase, "reverential respect for life" flashed through my mind, unexpected and sudden.

A man is only ethical when life, as such, is sacred to him, when he respects the life of plants and animals, as well as that of his neighbor, and only when he devotes his whole self to the work of support of all those forms. of life that need help.

Any religion, or philosophy, not based on respect for life is not a true religion or a true philosophy. - Letter to a Japanese animalist organization, 1961

What most of all makes a human being a real man is his empathy for all living creatures.

When I help an insect in distress I do nothing but try to expiate a part of the guilt due to the crimes [of human beings] against animals.

This is my personal ant. I will hold you responsible if you break your legs (to a ten-year-old boy).

Happiness? An excellent health and a bad memory, nothing more.

We can not allow anyone to consider the weight of their responsibilities as light. As long as so many ill-treatment of the animals is perpetrated, until the groans of thirsty animals, imprisoned in freight cars, continue not to be heard, until so much brutality prevails in our slaughterhouses ... we are all guilty. Every living being is precious precisely because it lives, because it represents one of the evident manifestations of that mystery that we call life.

According to modern European thought we are experiencing a real tragedy: the original ties between a positive attitude towards the world and ethics are slowly but irreversibly loosening and will eventually be completely cut off. - Out of My Life and Thought

The spirit of man is not dead. He continues to live in secret ... He has come to believe that compassion, upon which all moral philosophies must be based, can reach the maximum extent and depth only if it concerns all living beings, and not just human beings. - Speech delivered to the Nobel Peace Prize: The Problem of Peace in the World Today.

Our civilization has no human feelings. We are too little human men! We must recognize it and try to find a new spirituality. We have lost sight of this ideal, occupied as we are thinking about the affairs of men, rather than the fact that our goodness and compassion should extend to all creatures. Religion and philosophy have not insisted enough on the fact that we should be good and compassionate with all living beings. - Letter to Aida Flemming, 1959

Our duty is to take part in life and take care of it. The reverential respect for all forms of life is the most important commandment in its most basic form. That is, expressed in negative terms: "Do not kill". We take this prohibition so lightly that we find ourselves grasping a flower without thinking about it, beating a poor insect without thinking, without thinking, horribly blind, not knowing that everything takes its revenge, not worrying about the suffering of our neighbor, who we sacrifice our earthly goals to our petty ones. - Reverence for Life

To affirm life means to make the desire to live and exalt it deeper, more internal. At the same time man, who has become a thinking being, feels obliged to grant to all beings endowed with the desire to live the same reverential respect that his own existence invests in. He perceives life as something similar to his own. It understands what is good: to preserve life, to maximize life that can develop; and includes what is bad: to destroy life, to harm life, to repress life that can develop. This is the absolute, fundamental principle of morality and is a necessity of thought. - Cited in A Treasury of Albert Schweitzer, ed. Kiernan.

Various pieces from 'Memoirs of Childhood and Youth':

I remember having always suffered because of the great misery I saw in the world. I have never known the joy of spontaneous living proper to childhood and I think that many children feel this way, even if often, seen from the outside, they seem completely happy and without worries.

What made me suffer the most was seeing poor people forced to endure so much pain and so much deprivation. The sight of an old and limping horse dragged by one man while another struck him with a stick as he was taken to Colmar's abattoir haunted me for weeks.

It was a terrible proposition [that Albert, aged eight, spent time with a little friend killing birds with a slingshot] ... but I did not dare to refuse, because I was afraid he would laugh at me. Then we went to a tree, still almost completely bare, where the birds sang merry in the morning and they were not afraid of us at all. Then, like an Indian bent over prey, my partner put a stone in his slingshot and pulled. Obeying his authoritarian gaze, I did the same, not without frightful regrets of conscience, solemnly swearing to myself that I would shoot when he too had done so. At the same time the church bells began to play, merging into a single melody with the birds singing in the sun. It was the warning bell, which sounded half an hour before the actual bell. For me it was like a voice from heaven. I threw the slingshot to the ground, causing the birds to flee, who were so safe from my companion's sling and flew home. Since then, every time the bells of Holy Week ring among the trees without leaves, under the sun, I remember with immense gratitude the way in which, then, the commandment Do not kill resounded in my heart.

Only an irrelevant part of the immense cruelties committed by men can be ascribed to cruel instincts. Most of them are due to superficiality or to established habits. The roots of cruelty, therefore, are more widespread than they are strong. But the day will come when inhumanity, protected by habits and superficiality, will succumb to humanity defended by reflection. Let us work to ensure that this day arrives.

 

Various pieces from 'Civilization and Ethics'

What is the nature of this degeneration, which prevails in our civilization, and why has it been created? ... What makes our civilization a disaster is the fact that it is much more materially developed than spiritually. There is an imbalance ... Now the facts invite us to reflect. They tell us with terribly crude words that a civilization that develops only on the material side and not on one's own spiritual sphere ... leads to disaster.

The ethics of reverential respect for life drives us to share what disturbs us and to talk and act together without fear to lighten the responsibility of what we feel. It keeps us united in the search for an opportunity to help the animals in some way, to compensate them for the immense misery caused to them by men and so for a moment we run away from the incomprehensible horror of existence.

I have to interpret the life that surrounds me in the same way I interpret mine. My life is very significant for me. The life that surrounds me must be meaningful to itself. If I expect others to respect my life, I must respect that of others, strange as it may seem to me. And not just human life, but the life of all beings: the higher-level life forms, if they exist; those of a lower level, which I know exist. Ethics, as understood in the Western world, has so far been limited to relationships between men. But this ethics is limited. We need a broader ethic, which also includes animals.

Man is truly ethical when he respects the obligation to help all forms of life he is able to help, and when, to avoid harming a living being, he changes his plans. It does not ask to what extent this or that living being merits sympathy, or whether it is capable of feeling. For an ethical man, life is sacred to itself. If, after a storm, this man goes out into the street and sees a lost worm, he will surely think that the worm will die dehydrated in the sun if he does not immediately give him the damp soil where he can crawl, so he takes him away from the deadly stone pavement. it deposits it in the green grass. If, passing, he had to see an insect fallen into a puddle, he would lose some of his time looking for a leaf or a stem on which the insect could climb and thus be saved.

Man, having become a thinking being, feels the duty to give every desire to live the same reverential respect for the life he gives to himself. He perceives this other life in his own.

The thinking man must oppose all cruel practices, however deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by an aureole of sanctity. When we have the possibility to choose, we must avoid causing torment and damage to the lives of others, even that of the smallest creature; to do otherwise would mean renouncing our being men and taking upon ourselves an unjustifiable fault.

Destiny of every truth is to be ridiculed the first time it is pronounced. In the past it was considered crazy to suppose that black men were human beings like any other and that they should be treated as such. What was once madness is now a recognized truth. Today to proclaim constant respect for all forms of life, in the context of a serious demand for rational ethics, is considered an exaggeration. But the day is approaching when people will be amazed that the human race has lived a long time before understanding that harmlessly harming life is incompatible with true ethics. Ethics is, in the broadest sense of the word, a sense of responsibility extended to everything that has life.

 

  

The ethics of the earth

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

Preconditions

Today we know quite well what man is: he is an animal, he is a part of the whole of natural cycles, he feeds, develops, reproduces and dies like other mammals. Even his behavior is qualitatively traceable to that of other similar animals. The difference in genetic information compared to a chimpanzee is just over one percent.

The perception of the belonging of our species to Nature should have been welcomed with great serenity; it was like getting rid of a useless weight. Instead it was not so, or maybe not yet, at least in Western culture. In current language, in ethics, in law, man is still considered as opposed to the idea of an animal. Incidentally, the foregoing does not necessarily mean that man is merely an animal.

In Western culture, and therefore now all over the world, even today our species is not in fact considered a part of the Biosphere, but as an external element with respect to which every value is measured. So much so that the expression "the environment" often implies "the human environment", which remains the only reference for all ethical considerations. Even the so-called environmentalists usually speak of "keeping our home clean", preserving the "heritage of all", delivering the Earth in good condition to future generations. The constant reference, considered obvious, is man. But today we know that man is not in the position of "inhabitant of a house", but it is like a group of cells of an organism, on which it depends totally. In fact, the global ecosystem is an organism and not "the environment of man": this position of our species has yet to be understood by Western philosophical currents, as well as by all institutions.              

The "external" position of man, exported all over the world on the wave of the tumultuous expansion of the West, is the background of thought that has caused the big trouble in which we find ourselves. Considering man above or outside the ecosystem has also caused the dramatic increase in the human population and the appalling growth in consumption that has characterized the last two centuries.

             

 

 

The functioning of the Biosphere

To use the language of systems theory , a living being is a system that remains in a stationary situation far from thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, it lives as long as a flow of energy continually passes through it without altering its general conditions, if the small oscillations around standard values are ignored. The living being is a homeostatic system , that is, it is able to maintain itself in the vital conditions by self-correcting the accidental variations that are not too great through interactions between all its subsystems, components and energy flows.

The Biosphere as a whole behaves like a living system, even if in general over longer times. It should be noted that this discourse is independent of considerations, of a metaphysical nature, whether it is a living being ( Gaia ), whether it is the seat of mental phenomena and - in this case - to what extent it is conscious .

Even an ecosystem, for example a fairly large and unaltered portion of equatorial rainforest, behaves like a stationary system far from equilibrium, that is, as a living being .

When one of these systems loses its capacity for homeostasis for too drastic external intervention, one has the death of the living being, or at least the end of the system as such. The timing and the gravity of the interventions able to provoke phenomena of this type are naturally very different depending on the system involved.              

Western culture, considering man outside the Biosphere, has made possible the aggression to Nature that began a couple of centuries, that is, when we gave the technical power to do it. Because of the functioning of this cultural model that is invading the whole Earth, the overall homeostatic capacities of the planet are no longer able to bring it back to stationary conditions. Moreover, many ecosystems are destroyed and can not be replaced with other "artificial" ones, because the latter often depend on permanent external interventions to be kept in vital conditions. As an example, we can not delude ourselves that reforestation brings the original forest back to life: it is better than nothing, but it can not replace the richness of life and spirituality of a natural forest.

In reality, the Earth is stationary only if we consider times of the order of decades, or centuries, it is no longer if we consider times of the order of millions of years: the problem lies in the fact that the changes caused by industrial civilization in natural cycles they have speeds ten-hundred thousand times larger than normal, which allow life to adapt gradually to new situations. Using a non-rigorous language, in nature it is as if one passed from one stationary situation to another, without "dangerous" transients. However, to the effects of the considerations outlined above, it is as if the Earth were living in a truly stationary situation.

Today we find ourselves during a "fast" transition: the current procedure can not last long. So it is likely that many parameters that now characterize the global system can not be maintained if the Earth returns to a vital situation. In particular, it is quite evident that the current human population on the planet is excessive to allow the Biosphere to function, with an average level of consumption per capita equal to the current one.

 

Economic system and human population

The economic system, that is, the process of producing-selling-consuming , can be traced back to a single variable, money. The economic subsystem can not function in a complex and stationary system far from equilibrium, like the Biosphere, which depends on a large number of variables. In essence, the economic process prevents the homeostasis of the Biosphere: the overall system ceases to be stationary. In a living this corresponds to the death of the organism. If we then consider that the current economic system to maintain itself must be growing , a fortiori it is clear that it is incompatible with the functioning of the larger system to which it belongs.

An overall growing economy can only be a transitory, a pathological phenomenon in the Biosphere, which necessarily leads to a "catastrophe" point. This is an element of optimism: the real pessimism is to foresee the continuation of current trends, which lead to a degraded world, to the disappearance of biodiversity, to psychopathies and criminality, to the end of the variety and beauty of the world.

Man never avoids catastrophes, but heals them : let's hope it is true.

 

It is surprising to note that there is very little research on a problem such as the maximum number of humans that the Earth can bear: for example, in the study reported in the book Assault on the planet Pignatti and Trezza ( Bollati Boringhieri , 2000) we talk about a population eligible for less than two billion individuals, according to the values of a research carried out at Cornell University. In one of the projections hypothesized in the famous ratio The limits of development , a steady state situation was reached only by stabilizing the world population around 1975, which corresponded to a number of human beings of just under four billion, with an average level of consumption less than the current one. Six billion humans can stay on the planet only for very limited times, because they live and consume "devouring" the Earth.

Beyond numerical considerations, it is however quite evident that, if we want to increase consumption per capita, it is necessary to decrease the density of the human population.

It may be a task of science to assess if a product can be achieved and in what quantity without endangering the vital functioning of the Earth. As an example, it is likely that, if we want to build and circulate private cars with an internal combustion engine, the world population must be much less than one billion people, assuming a car per family.

 

 

Competition and selection

One of the basic concepts of our society is the idea that competition and selection are a sort of "spring of progress", indeed they are even the way of life's evolution. When, in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of biological evolution appeared, the struggle for life and survival of the fittest were put in great evidence, as almost exclusive factors of evolution. Instead the main novelty was the belonging of our species to Nature, with all the consequences that this entails. The idea of survival of the fittest as a factor of "progress" was not a biological finding, but a need for the nascent industrial civilization. Recent studies by Lynn Margulis have shown that biological evolution has been largely the result of cooperation and symbiosis between single-celled organisms during at least a billion years.

This does not mean that competition in nature does not exist: it is a factor among many.

The sacredness of the Earth

Along with the operation of having pulled out of the Biosphere, placing itself "above" it, Western man has taken the soul out of the world . But today, even without leaving our culture, some thinkers have expanded the concept of mind to make it independent of the support of a central nervous system: the mind would simply be the result of a certain complexity ( Gregory Bateson ). Even the Jungian psychiatrist James Hillmann often insists on the idea of "Soul of the world". From different ways the mind reappears in Nature, even if for now it is a matter of little diffusion, always limiting itself to Western culture.

Recall that, in addition to the philosophies of more or less isolated spirits, there are religions, which have a much greater influence on the multitudes.

One of the main tasks of religions could be to provide a vision of the world in which to frame the phenomena and to give moral prescriptions that do not concern some immediate or short-term problem or just human issues, but which preserve the health of the Earth, as well in itself: this task can not be entrusted either to politics or to "practical" institutions.

Religions, rather than thinking about what "the truth" is, could spread feelings of empathy and love towards all sentient beings, that is, towards all natural entities.

In this regard, the philosophical-religious traditions that have been most concerned about the good of the natural complex at an indefinite time have been some traditions of oriental origin (Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism) and some animist cultures, especially those native to the American continent. Often the perception that these were "ecological" prescriptions was not very obvious, at least to Europeans.

I mentioned some western thinkers beforehand, to which I will add the biochemist and philosopher Rupert Sheldrake, who writes:

What changes if we consider nature alive rather than inanimate? First, we put into crisis the humanist hypotheses on which modern civilization is based. Secondly, we establish a different relationship with the natural world and acquire a different perspective of human nature. Third, a new sacralization of nature becomes possible. ( The rebirth of Nature , Ed. Corbaccio , 1993).

 

I have limited myself to the most recent writings: they are isolated cases, which have not had much follow-up, but which nevertheless exist.

If nothing else, they are able to emphasize that, in order for the sense of the sacred to be present , it is not absolutely necessary to postulate the existence of a personal God who is external to the world and who deals exclusively with humans, as in the original Middle Eastern traditions. and spread in Western culture.

With regard to these religious foundations of the West (also of the secular part), a positive change in the attitude towards the natural world would have been recognized if the Indian-Buddhist, and not Judaic, matrix of Christ's teaching was recognized .

 

Conclusions

There may be countless scales of values, but from what has been mentioned it is evident that the first value should be to allow the life of the Biosphere, on which we depend: the survival of the Earth is essential.

The ethics of the Earth is not only a philosophical position, it is above all a necessity to keep alive and in health the organism to which we belong, together with other species, ecosystems, the atmosphere, the sea, the rivers, the mountains.

 

If instead of systemic logic we want to hear the voice of the heart or of the soul, here is an expression of a native culture of the American continent (ethnìa Wintu , which was located in the north-west of the current United States):

 

When we Indians kill, the meat we eat it all. When we extract the roots we make small holes: when we build houses we make small holes in the ground. We do not cut down trees: we only use already dead wood. But this other race of man is plowing the land, cutting down the trees, killing all the animals. The tree says, "Do not do it. You hurt me. Do not hurt me". But the white man breaks it down and cuts it into pieces. How can the Spirit of the Earth love this man? Wherever he touched, the Earth was hurt.

  

Holistic view of the world

of Guido Della Casa

 

 

When we talk about ecology and the protection of nature, dealing with "worldviews" seems like a more abstract, or less practical, than giving advice on waste disposal or forest conservation, but it's only because we talk about "visions of the world" world "has effects to a much longer duration. However, these are aspects that touch behavior and attitudes much more in depth, compared to the most immediate practical suggestions of petty ecology.

 

preconditions

Let us summarize some foundation of current knowledge incompatible with the Jewish-Christian cultural background and with Descartes dualism:

 

- Neither the Earth, nor the Sun, nor anything else are at the center of something: the stars are all equally grains in the sea of Infinity. There is no center of any kind.

 

- Humanity is an animal species appearing on one of the many planets only three million years ago, against the three or four billion years of life on Earth and the fifteen or twenty billion years since the presumed birth of the Universe, assuming that the Everything is not something that has always been cyclically pulsed. So the alleged "King of Creation" would arrive a little late, while his so-called "kingdom" was waiting for him with little impatience.

Moreover, it takes a good presumption to think of "improving" what took four billion years to become what it is. Humanity is part of everything in all of Nature. The vital phenomena are the same in all species.

 

- Western culture is only two or three thousand years old, industrial civilization is two hundred years old: these are completely insignificant times. Even the concept of progress has a very short life, no more than two or three centuries; obviously we can live even without this fixed idea.

The division between prehistory and history is only a mental scheme of our culture, which serves to nurture a certain vision of the world. There is no reason, nor any scale of privileged values, to consider a culture better or worse than another. Note then that it is used to call "history" what has happened in the last five thousand years to Western civilization and the entire life of the Earth, ie four billion years and five thousand human cultures, is liquidated with the only "prehistory" label.

 

- Essential mental functioning, behavior, are essentially similar in all animal species close to us. Most of these are non-conscious phenomena.

 

- Quantum physics has demonstrated the intrinsic impossibility of describing material or energetic phenomena without considering observation; this means that, without the mind, matter-energy is meaningless, it is in no way describable, it is "devoid of reality", it is only a kind of wave of probability. Newton's mechanistic physics remains only the practical function, even if in our basic schools there is no trace of the profound change that has taken place.

 

From this picture a very ancient and widespread conception is born: animism. A form of "mind" must be everywhere, it is inherent in the universal, if we want to avoid the paradox of the "observer" that determines the so-called reality. The distinction between spirit and matter falls completely. The Great Spirit and the spirit of the tree, of the Earth, of the river, of the bison return to the memory.

There is another legend to be debunked, that of the so-called neutrality of science, or the independence of science from metaphysical conceptions. The official science often resorts to real intellectual acrobatics while not leaving the Cartesian paradigm, which it considers "obvious" and "acquired". Thus it finds itself in way without exit, and sometimes it is forced to deny or not to consider the facts not framed in that conceptual scheme, in order not to question the premises: and then it must make whole categories of phenomena of macroscopic interference disappear, or non-distinction, between spirit and matter, with the excuse that they would not be "repeatable".

The serious difficulties of physics come from the desperate insistence in wanting to frame modern knowledge in the Cartesian paradigm.

Yet even today, to appear "modern", many people love to call themselves "Cartesian" or "rational", not knowing how to defend the thought of the nineteenth century. The ideas of the French philosopher are accepted by the great majority of people simply because what we breathe from birth appears obvious to us, which means that it does not appear to us at all. But the primacy of the rational on the emotional and on the intuitive is only a prejudice of today's western culture.

 

The opposites

Western culture sees everything split in two: this is already a source of anxiety; not only, but he considers the two parts "opposite" and he lives them in a schizophrenic way, he does not consider them two indivisible poles, two sides of the same coin, two aspects of the same thing.

He thinks that a "pole" is better and he wants to make the other pole disappear.

Some scientists are even desperately searching for the magnetic "monopole", that is, they want to "discover" a north pole without the south pole, which has been impossible until now. But perhaps even the monopoly will be a creation of the mind. Even in magnetism it seems that someone considers the north pole "a little more beautiful" than the south pole.

If we want to use the terminology of Taoism, the West wants a Yang-only universe: the Yin must be abolished; as if this made sense. However, in this way only anguish is caused. The West wants the serene without the rain, the one-way time and not the cyclic one, it wants the competition, the supremacy, the affirmation of the ego, the progress towards the future like a semirect. He wants life without death, Being without the Nothing, activity without passivity, doing without meditating, growth without diminishing.

Journalists of the economic world do not even mention the decrease, they want to exorcise it by calling it "bending", which is another thing. As if it were possible to have the mountains without the valleys.

This view of the world as a complementarity of Yin and Yang and not as a pursuit of a single pole is basically the philosophy for which it was very difficult for technological progress and industrial civilization to be born a thousand years before in the West.

 

As for death, let's see how it came.

Two or three billion years ago, the Earth was populated with microorganisms that reproduced dividing into two: so they did not die.

There was a genetic heritage available that could be renewed only very slowly through some mutation. It was very difficult to create new organisms.

To allow the emergence of variety, beauty and spirituality in life you had to have many new forms and organisms: then mix everything in a much quicker and more creative way.

So Nature - which you can also call God - invented sex and death.

That is why, since then, death has become useful and necessary to allow Life. Death is just the other side of life.

Today the images born of the computer prevail, which some greet as non-mechanical, as holistic. But even if they introduce non-mechanical ideas of information and relationship, they are based - on an elementary level - on a binary logic, still on a SI-NO or full-empty dualism, then on a contrast. They also perpetuate the Cartesian division, renamed hardware and software.

A vision of this kind can hardly be a starting point for merging or integrating the so-called two cultures, or an approach to integrate opposites.

Quantum physics, on the other hand, admits a logic "YES and at the same time NO", "empty and at the same time full", and can accept non-quantitative and non-mechanical positions. With the universal indeterminacy one can integrate opposites by seeing them as complementary and co-present. This is not a trinary logic YES-NO-I DO NOT but of an indeterminate multiple possibility. Even distinctions as real-imaginary, discovery-invention, and so on, lose meaning. With the new approach we could emerge from the tangle of innumerable particles that are gradually "discovered": otherwise we will end up finding everything we are looking for, in order to find it in a certain way, that is, we can invent-discover who knows how many others " particles "in an endless sequence. By now all these "entities" have a mental content barely concealed by mathematical language.

With a possible non-Cartesian conceptual refoundation, there would no longer be just a "physics" in the materialistic or prequantistic sense, but something more, making the distinction between physics and metaphysics, between "material" and "spiritual" knowledge even more evanescent. . Above all, in this sense, the new physics can be the bridge to connect the so-called "two cultures" and lead to a progressive disappearance of their distinction.

 

Visions of the world

Among the many "visions of the world" present in humanity is absurd that there is the "true" or "right" because this would be an inexplicable asymmetry.

Therefore the idea of "truth" is a characteristic that derives from the Cartesian view of the "objective" or "real" world that "is" in a certain way.

The visions of the world are all equivalent and real as such and as manifested in some system of thought. There can not be the "true" or "right" one of the others. Otherwise, how could so many different visions occur and also continuously vary in time?

Even religions (essential components of the world view) are all equally true or untrue. They constitute our relationship with the Invisible.

We have already mentioned the concept of truth. The questions are very stimulating, so-called "definitive" answers only bring trouble. It is not a matter of asking oneself "Will not the other be right?" Because this presupposes that there is a "reason". Nor is it a matter of "always being in doubt" because this presupposes something certain and real on which to doubt, it means that one is in doubt about some "truth".

The concept of doubt presupposes that of truth. It is different to abolish the true-false antithesis, considering the two terms as complementary and co-present. Thus the distinction between "the facts" and "the opinions" is illusory, because what are called "objective facts" are only the opinions of a human cultural model: in our world the opinions of Western culture are called real facts. In every culture a truth is formed, which however is as valid as any other.

However, the concept of "absolute truth" and the consequent need to "discover it" can be assimilated to a cage, to an oppression.

The universal appears as a spirit or a subject, depending on what is sought. As the physicist finds particles or waves depending on what he is looking for, so materialist cultures find matter, animist cultures find spirits.

Any dispute over what is "right" interpretation is meaningless: it is this dualism, created by us, which gives rise to the problem, otherwise non-existent.

Only in the absence of the concept of truth can one see something absolute, or non-differentiated. Truth is changeable and elusive, while variability is universal and incessant.

Descartes condemned us to the truth, but already four centuries ago Montaigne had written: The concept of certainty is the most solemn stupidity invented by the human being.

Moreover, these are not even news, if you think of ancient statements, such as:

 

- "The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao" (Lao-Tse);

 

- "What I have to teach can not be taught" (Buddha);

 

- Finally, to Pilate's question: "What is the truth?", Christ answered with silence.

 

With regard to the integration of opposites such as "one who acts" and "the matter on which one acts", note that the same European languages prevent us from thinking of a process that occurs spontaneously, that has in itself its reason d'etre.

We always think of "someone" acting, something "external" that causes events. We are not psychically equipped to conceive immanence; likewise we translate the term Taoist wu-wei, which means "spontaneous action according to the nature of things", as non-action.

Every verb must have a pronoun by subject, an agent: so we are used to thinking that something is not in its place if there is not someone or something that assigns it to that place, if there is not a manager. The idea of a process that happens totally by itself almost frightens us: it seems to us that there is no authority. The idea of the God of the Old Testament and Cartesian dualism reappear everywhere.

 

Stability and movement

The ancient metaphysical divergence between Heraclitus and Parmenides, that is, the contrast between becoming and being, is also a matter of complementary visions. Apparently, with the perennial and unpredictable flow, with the becoming and the laws of chaos, the dispute seems "resolved" in favor of Heraclitus, after 2500 years. The universe appears an incessant flow if we keep time as an autonomous variable.

By adopting a four-dimensional approach, that is, by understanding time as a variable interconnected with spatial ones, we find ourselves in a different framework, which appears "immobile". In a Minkowsky universe - the mathematicians would say - the world seems parmenide, "immutable".

But this is not about right or wrong vision.

The dilemma is insoluble because it is inherently non-existent. These are complementary modalities that attract each other, not opposing positions.

In one of the fragments of the same Heraclitus, it is written that the incessant change presupposes a motionless background without which movement could not be appreciated.

 

Conclusions

Let's try to sketch some conclusions.

There is a reductionist approach aimed at studying the primary elementary causes of a phenomenon, which always assumes decomposable into simpler parts, and there is a holistic approach, which starts from the global properties of a system, which can not be reduced to the whole of its elements.

The physicist constantly refers to the elementary particles, the DNA biologist, the sociologist to the individual, hoping to reduce the complex to the simple, and this is done for ecosystems.

But the recent notion of complexity is different. Everything is worth more than the sum of the parts, because there are mutual correlations. Not only that, the way of choosing the components (which individually have no autonomous reality) is arbitrary, because it presupposes a preconceived conceptual framework, a prejudice.

Reductionism arises from the dominant paradigm of the West, that is, from the idea that it is possible to break down anything, or event, into separate parts.

The reductionist approach has been that followed above all in the last centuries and that has brought to the vision of the world and to the current way of life of the people of Western culture, or that have absorbed the values of this culture. The holistic approach is difficult for those born with the fundamentals of the first and is just beginning to manifest itself today in individual form or little more.

So for now we can also consider ourselves free to imagine, or to hope. The passage necessary to implement and make habitual a new way of thinking is very difficult, even for those who were intellectually convinced. Each one can imagine in his own way the consequences that may derive from a possible statement on a general scale of the holistic approach.

 

As an exercise, let's try to imagine a world in which:

 

- opposites are only complementary aspects of the same thing;

 

- death is simply the other side of life: Nature is made of both as inseparable aspects of the same phenomenon;

 

- there is nothing to fight, nothing to prove, no competition to win or lose, there is no need for rankings or records. The very concepts of victory, defeat and challenge are useless;

 

- there is nothing to conquer, manipulate, alter;

 

- the concepts of reason and wrong, merit and guilt, are only dangerous superstructures of the mind, which excite violence and extinguish the smile;

 

- there is no distinction between spirit and matter, between humanity and nature, between God and the world. The mind is widespread, universal, indivisible. We are not anything special or central.

 

Since the idea of "objective reality" has disappeared, the concepts of truth and certainty become useless: with everything in continuous dynamism, the concept of truth tends to coincide with that of Nature and therefore, in a pantheistic vision, with the idea of divinity.

It is good to clarify that this is not a static vision, a world in which the absence of the concept of "progress" involves an unchanging way of life, always equal to itself, or "waiting". In a sense, it can be compared to a river: it seems similar to itself, but instead flows, maybe even quickly.

In the torrent there are never two moments in which the same water passes, which is continuously moving. The stones are there in the middle: they are not attacked or split, but left where they are. The water bypasses them, passes equally and descends towards the plain and the sea.

It is not a matter of "not doing", but of acting according to the natural course of things, according to Nature. Thus one can continue to swing a pendulum by hitting it rhythmically, as long as the blows are synchronous with its frequency.

Moreover, today in our world there is an obsessive invasion of terms such as struggle, battle, supremacy, competition, race, challenge, victory, defeat and the like: just read a newspaper to realize how many facts are interpreted with this scheme.

In the new vision, we try instead to favor the cooperative and universalizing aspect towards the competitive and self-assertive one, today exalted in an abnormal way by Western culture; with other language, it is about recovering the "feminine" aspect of the world ... ...

There is no need for "battles", but above all we need to understand, accept and smile. The "struggle for peace" is an ambiguous expression, because peace is a condition of non-struggle: it is an attitude. It is about making it universal. I repeat, this does not mean "doing nothing" or "letting go": the most useful action is perhaps that of spreading ideas, that is to oppose preconceived current ideas, perhaps with a smile. To actively contribute to making the idea of non-struggle universal is in any case an action.

 

The world is not something to be conquered, but it is the whole of which we are a part. If we then have to try to "grow" something, let's try to improve our perceptual qualities to achieve a better harmony with the vital rhythm of the Cosmos. It is not that in a world of this kind there is "nothing to do" or "nothing to think about": you can admire the flowers and the trees, watch the moon and the stars, watch the birds fly and feel in tune with them , and above all to think, to participate in the universal symbiosis.

If we abandon the mania of success and enjoy the pleasure of non-competition we will reborn the taste for life.

In the conception that sees mind and matter as the only indivisible expression of Nature, we are certainly quite far from the idea of "brute matter" moved by something "external", from the idea of a world made for us and manipulated to our advantage (! ) and liking. The reality of today, due to the affirmation of a particular way of thinking in a human culture, the Western one, shows that the disasters caused by our species to the Global Equilibrium are of infinitely greater severity than those eventually caused by other living beings, but it is not just ethical considerations, because if the cultural premises do not change, the already enormous disasters will become irreversible. Even if Nature manages to restore a balance (as it does with other species, but on a much smaller scale), it will result in a much "poorer" situation of Life and Mind.

The fact of not considering ourselves "special beings" or "in a central position" should not induce pessimism; on the contrary, it is a reason for happy serenity.

Instead of the God-Person distinct from the world and judge of human actions, we find the immanent God-Nature in all things, and therefore also in ourselves, that we participate in it. Divinity observes itself even through the eyes of a marmot, or an ant, or the fascinating and mysterious sensitivity of a tree.

 

The cultural origins of the 

ecological problem

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

 

Preconditions

Normally ecological problems are treated as distinct and separate from each other: for example, we talk about the problem of energy, of water, of the greenhouse effect, of air pollution, of deforestation, and so Street.

It could not be otherwise, since this type of splitting is the normal way of proceeding with our culture. Moreover, we usually try to suggest some "remedies" to the individual problems, that is to propose solutions, also for the opportunity to give a practical cut to the single treatment of problems related to ecology.

In reality, this simply means that solutions are proposed in the short or medium term, usually without asking the question whether by chance the ecological problem is not a single problem, insoluble in the long term, unless one agrees to question one of the foundations of our current civilization, that is, the idea that it is essential to pursue the continuous growth of material goods, taken as an index of well-being, or of human "happiness".

If we examine in depth the solutions normally proposed to the individual issues, we realize that they often consist in moving the inconveniences from one environment to another, usually with a notable reduction of the negative consequences, which makes some solutions useful and acceptable. However, almost never do we hear proposals that constitute - even in theory - a solution to the ecological problem, that is, the realization of processes that leave the natural world unchanged, or in stationary conditions, of which we are an integral part.

If one examines the ecological problem in its entirety and with the orders of magnitude that make it evident, one realizes that it arises from the fact that a human culture - industrial civilization, which is the current expression of Western culture - has begun to function with processes of an open type, that is, to take something fixed from the outside ( the resources ) and to pour still something fixed ( the waste ); it has ceased to function like the rest of Nature and like most other human cultures. This corresponds to a certain extent to having created the concept of "environment" of man, proclaiming himself "at the center" of something. As if this were not enough, this model has started to work in such a way as to consider the indefinite growth of such processes as not only desirable but even necessary.

In fact, Nature has a type of functioning that can be defined as dynamic but stationary , at least if we do not consider very long times. In other words, industrial civilization has forgotten to be part of a much larger body.

In a river the same water never runs, and therefore it is a dynamic phenomenon : however, if its flow remains fluctuating around stable average values, it is a stationary phenomenon . Industrial civilization is a non-stationary process; it wants to be like a river whose reach grows forever.

It is easy to realize that the ecological problem will always exist, and will sooner or later lead to the cessation of the industrial civilization phenomenon as defined above, as long as it will not be brought back into stationary conditions .

In other words, continuous economic growth is an impossible phenomenon on Earth.

 

Optimism and pessimism

The considerations presented in the premises are generally considered as an example of pessimism, but only because it is obvious that all humanity aspires to economic development, that is to say essentially to the endless increase of material goods, which would give greater well-being, ie increase human "happiness".

This derives from considering the values of current Western civilization as "natural".

But it is not possible to make considerations that are not affected by the "prejudices" of the culture in which we live that make up that grid, the distorting lens through which we are forced to make every consideration. In this sense the culture in which we live is that background of ideas, seen as evident, which has been called "the invisible elephant". It is hardly necessary to remember that in this case the term prejudice has no negative connotation.

If, however, the cultural premises from which the desire for consumption developed, would change, there would no longer be any need for the spiral to produce-sell-consume , and the ecological problem would cease to exist. This means that the way of life should change, as a consequence of a profound change in the way of thinking.

Then it makes no sense to speak of pessimism , because you can also live with a scale of values very different from the current, without pursuing that spiral of eternal desire that is the food of ever-growing industrial civilization. Five thousand human cultures lived with scales of completely different values, and - in analogy with biological diversity - could coexist in symbiosis with the rest of the planet.

 

An example: the problem of energy

The energy problem is normally set as the search for the least harmful way to produce the energy needed to cover the world's needs in the coming years, assuming this need as an independent variable , a necessity to be met at any cost. This is equivalent to saying that the way of life of the whole world will be that of industrial civilization, considered a priori as desirable.

Just a few quantitative considerations to realize that, if set up in this way, the problem becomes insoluble within a few decades: even if it were solvable, the production of similar amounts of energy would bring such catastrophic consequences on the planet to cause then the arrest of the process.

If so-called renewable sources are excluded, any way of producing energy accumulates waste somewhere. But even renewable sources do not constitute a truly closed cycle, unless all the components used to build the plants are also recycled. It must also be remembered that complete recycling is impossible, as there is a kind of entropy of matter.

However, another question remains: where does all this energy go? To fuel other consumption, construction of other plants, disappearance of resources and accumulation of waste. Roads, cars, cities, instead of swamps, forests and grasslands. If the famous nuclear fusion came out, what could stop this process?

The growth of consumption is the cause of problems: without touching this taboo, one can only gain time, which is nevertheless a very useful result, because it can make it possible to achieve the long time necessary for the change in the cultural foundations mentioned above.

Just as an example, let's do a little exercise: suppose that industrial production and energy consumption increase with exponential law with a doubling time of twenty years.

We then make the hypothesis to obtain an exceptional result, that is to reduce the energy consumption per unit of product by 50%: this means consuming half of today to obtain the same industrial production. In this case, for twenty years, energy consumption remains the same, and then starts to rise again with a new relationship with respect to the industrial product, but with the same trend as before. We only gained twenty years to find ourselves with the same problems. The real cause of trouble is the taboo of growth. Note that we have not taken into account the fact that all the industries that manufacture the energy-related components have made their own good plans for expansion and perhaps would find themselves in trouble in those twenty years, when they should close.

The various protocols of Kyoto, Rio or other international conferences, although animated by the best intentions, can never be respected. If the emissions of carbon dioxide decrease, some other pollution or some other problem will grow if we do not want to touch the growth! Since no government will ever speak in this sense, those commitments can not be respected even if they are taken in good faith. It is clear that a government that does not praise "economic development" does not remain in office for an hour.

The energy problem does not consist in finding the most appropriate sources to satisfy the needs imposed by the model, but it is one of the signs of the impossibility of persisting over time of the ever-growing industrial model.

 

Energy is just one example: it is clear that the same considerations can be made for the needs of water, for the accumulation of waste, for the destruction of forests, and so on. Note that we have avoided moral considerations.

 

Origins of the ecological crisis

Up to a few centuries ago about five thousand human cultures existed on Earth; almost all of them maintained dynamic and stationary conditions with regard to the Earth itself.

Very few of them had the indefinite increase in material goods at the top of their scale of values ; in the presence of a value of this type it is not possible to maintain a dynamic balance with the terrestrial ecosystem. Incidentally, even the increase of free time and the decrease of physical work are illusory phenomena propagated by this civilization because it only compares with its own past: now that physical labor has greatly decreased, we are forced to "have fun" for a fee in gyms. It is a way to increase consumption, justified only by psychological reasons.

In many vernacular or traditional cultures no more than three or four hours a day were devoted to activities related to material survival. It is perhaps superfluous to recall that cultures called vernacular or traditional are usually labeled as primitives.

The origin of technological civilization is to be found in the form of thought that has spread in the masses of Western culture some centuries ago: it was not born of technical discoveries, which were the consequence. It is from a philosophical background that a way of life is born. In China there were many discoveries already, but the ever-growing industrial civilization could not develop in a world inspired by Taoism, where the universal is seen as an action of complementary and non-opposing forces, where there is no right and wrong pole . . Wanting growth without the reduction would have been considered as wanting the mountains without the valleys.

It was the spread in the West of the ideas of thinkers such as Descartes, Bacon, Locke and others who gave birth to industrial civilization: the ideas of the machine-world and of man's exclusive dominion over nature were considered inert and at the service of our species, to arrive without any problem to unlimited exploitation. For the French philosopher only the human mind is res cogitans ; the whole world, living and non-living, is res extensa , so it can be manipulated at will without problems, it is worth nothing. And Bacon, in affirming that the purpose of man is to dominate nature by bending it to his will, simply forgot that we are Nature.

 

The main objection that is usually advanced to the ideas that criticize the development, is that "even the Third World countries want to reach our level"; but let us not forget that this affirmation makes sense only by taking for granted the conceptions and the scale of values of the West: already the idea of nation and the concept of "Third World" are almost exclusive of our culture. Because of the fact that there are countries and governments it already wants to say that we are in the realm of Western culture, that is, of that model that started to completely invade the Planet around the sixteenth century, ending the work in our day. Even the idea that one wants to "arrive at our level" implies already all the prejudices of a way of thinking, because the concept of a level to be reached involves the need to accept a given scale of values, considered the "good" one. But no scale of values can be absolute.

More than worrying about increasing consumption, we should realize that six billion human beings in stationary conditions can not stay on Earth, at least indefinitely.

Even the idea that one should be in continuous competition, which would be a kind of "spring of progress", is not a general characteristic of humanity.

I conclude with a quote (J. Servier, L'uomo e l'Invisibile , Rusconi, 1973):

No moralist has ever posed the problem of the responsibility of the West in this creation of artificial needs, which we mask under the name of "civilization" or "standard of life", which has the sole purpose of making our factories work .

 

(published on DirigentIndustria, monthly magazine of ALDAI, September 2000)

 

 

What is development

Analysis of a myth

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

Preconditions

We see what meaning is usually given to the term development , especially in current language and in mass media.

The concept expressed by this word is usually the increase in the flow of material goods through the process of producing-selling-consuming . It is evident that, with this meaning, development requires an increase in consumption . In other words, the term development today means economic growth, as also demonstrated by the more frequent English translation ( growth ). The usual indicators of development are substantially quantitative .

Generally it is thought that this growth increases the well-being of humanity, regardless of the values and culture that expresses them. Furthermore, until now the possibility has never been taken into consideration that the increase in consumption is incompatible with the functioning of the Biosphere, also because the perception that man is an integral part of the Biosphere is missing.

The discussions on the difference between growth and development certainly have a profound meaning, but in fact the two terms are used as synonyms by the official world and by the economic, political, industrial and trade union components.

 

The Biosphere

To use the language of systems theory , a living being is a system that remains in a stationary situation far from thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, it lives until a flow of energy passes through it continuously without altering its general conditions, if the small oscillations are neglected: the Biosphere as a whole behaves like a single living organism, even if in general over very long times . If we consider times of the order of decades, or centuries, and not geological, the Earth is stationary: the problem lies in the fact that the changes caused by economic development in natural cycles are ten to ten thousand times larger than normal, which allow life to adapt gradually to new situations.

Continuous economic growth is a process that prevents the functioning of the Biosphere because it disarticulates the cycles: it is therefore an impossible phenomenon . An overall economy in growth can only be a transitory, a pathological phenomenon that - if not quickly arrested - necessarily leads to a "catastrophe" point.

Even the idea that development is always an improvement does not have valid foundations: it is probable that, if we could draw a diagram that shows the trend of psychophysical wellbeing (even just human, or of a particular culture) as a function of material consumption or of the available objects, one would not have an always-increasing function, but a kind of bell-shaped curve. At a certain quantity of material goods, the function reaches a maximum: the corresponding consumption value has already been abundantly surpassed throughout the Western world. A further increase worsens the quality of life. If we also take into account the beauty of the world and the well-being of other sentient beings, the situation is further aggravated.

One can realize this fact if one thinks of any place revisited at a distance of a few decades: one will find it inexorably worsened, both on a natural level, both from an aesthetic and human point of view. The variety of the living has always diminished.

It is perhaps superfluous to recall the total ecological failure of the "development of state" once pursued in Eastern Europe, in which materialism was even brought to the rank of official metaphysics.

 

The sustainable development

Recently, the concept of sustainable development was formulated , defined by the UN Bruntland Commission as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the possibility for future generations to meet their needs".

Subsequently, the concept of sustainability was further analyzed and divided into two different positions (K. Turner and D. Pearce - Environmental Economics ):

- Weak sustainability , which is achieved when, in the face of environmental deterioration, equal or higher compensation is obtained in other forms of capital.

- A strong sustainability , where natural capital is required to never decrease, while other forms of capital can grow or remain constant.

These definitions of sustainability are decidedly inadequate: they also take for granted an absolute centrality of our species, on which we can have justified scientific and philosophical questions: the definition of "capital" given to the Complex of the living, or the Biosphere, already or to the Earth itself, denotes the starting position, even in "strong" sustainability. It seems to me that we can establish sustainable only a form of development that allows indefinite Biosphere life, that maintains the overall steady state.

Basically, if we do not deeply modify the meaning of the term, the term sustainable development is contradictory and makes no sense. The only "development" that can last indefinitely is a stationary process.

If we then also make moral or philosophical considerations, development has so far always started from the dogmatic idea that the only subject of rights and the only being able to experience "well-being" is man, relegating other sentient beings, ecosystems and the whole natural world to the rank of "matter" at our disposal.

But today we know that man is not in the position of "inhabitant of a house", but it is like a group of cells of an organism, that is the global ecosystem, on which it depends totally: this position of our species has yet to be received from all the institutions.

Summing up, as an overall phenomenon seen "from the outside", development - in the meaning of the official world - appears as a process that:

- sanctions the overpowering of our species on all other living species, on ecosystems and in general on the natural world: it destroys biological diversity;

- requires all of humanity to live according to the Western model;

- replaces inert matter instead of living substance; it puts roads, machines, plants, where there were forests, swamps, savannas.

 

The work ethic and the ethics of the Earth

Usually in our world has formed the idea that work is always something positive, to be rewarded regardless of any other consideration.

So you think that those who work more should automatically earn more, which is essentially better than those who work less: the work has acquired an ethical value in itself, even if it is work that damages the entire Earth organism or contributes to some pathology of the Biosphere. Only recently it has begun to consider at least the production of pollutants negative, but limiting the examination to each individual local process, as if it were possible to isolate it.

The preservation under vital conditions of the Earth's biosphere or of the ecosystems of which the process is part has never been held as an ethical value. We have not even considered the damage, except in very recent times and limited to "rare" species, caused to other living species or natural processes. In essence, the perception of the non-separability of every human working process from the global ecosystem has been lacking.

It is instead essential to always have this perception in mind, to keep the ethics of the Earth as its first value .

 

The consumption

Today we witness macroscopically, even without words, to a phenomenon that makes clear the nature of what is called development : the whole economic-industrial-trade union world does its utmost to increase consumption. It has come to distribute, even if indirectly, money to potential consumers to invite them to "buy". If by chance this continuous pressure does not succeed, it would be the only positive sign: if consumption does not increase, it may be that we begin to have enough of material objects that in reality do not bring any improvement. Perhaps we are tired of consumption, despite an intolerable advertising bombardment that invests all the moments of life. The official world has come to propagate purchases, even without saying what should be purchased! We invite you to "scrape", that is to throw away perfectly functioning appliances into the mountains!              

A few days after a terrorist event of the gravity of the Twin Towers collapse, the US president has publicly called on American citizens to resume consumption, to increase purchases as much as possible!

In cities no longer turns, mobility decreases as the number of cars increases, the air is unbearable, and the official world can not think of anything other than "reviving the car". Furthermore, road safety calls will hardly have the expected results when all the media are a continuous exaltation - even unconscious - of speed as a value . In the Western world the first causes of death among young people are road accidents and suicides, but the greatest concern of those responsible is the Gross Domestic Product.

Perhaps the time has truly come to diminish material consumption and to arrive at a stationary economy. Naturally, employment must be freed from growth, but this is a problem that concerns only the economic system and not the natural laws of the planet: it should therefore be resolvable.

Someone will object that the development brings improvements "to those who do not", but just take into account that the gap between "rich" and "poor" has always expanded: with economic growth, the furrow increases and does not decrease. Incidentally, the concepts of wealth and poverty are often only an export of the West.

It is also quite clear that the discussion is valid in general terms: theoretically, per capita consumption could increase, provided that the number of consumers decreases proportionally.

 

Some quotes

From the book La Terra bursts by G. Sartori and G. Mazzoleni (Ed. Rizzoli, 2003):

For people of normal common sense the problem is that the Earth is sick of overconsumption: we are consuming much more than nature can give. Therefore the dilemma on a global level is this: either we drastically reduce consumption, or we reduce consumers drastically.

Note that Sartori and Mazzoleni start from completely anthropocentric positions and do not pose the problem of the moral legitimacy of the destruction of ecosystems and damage to other sentient beings. In fact, they use the terms man and nature as if they were distinct or in opposition, customary in our culture. Even so, the two authors have no doubt that it is absolutely necessary to reduce consumption.

 

In the book Assault on the planet S. Pignatti Trezza and B. (Ed. Bollati Basic Books, 2000) is highlighted overtaking, which occurred at the turn of 1970, the energy of technological origin than that of photosynthesis, but "It is not just of a question of quantity: in fact the output of the photosynthetic process is made up of oxygen and biological molecules, completely compatible with the processes of living and recyclable. The output deriving from the use of industrial energy, on the other hand, consists of waste and atmospheric pollutants. The production of technological energy continues to increase according to the exponential model.  

A chapter of the same book is dedicated to the risks involved in accepting the myth of sustainable development. On p. 267 reads: " Treating sustainability as a problem of scarce resources is therefore a misleading approach that, being easily refuted, can even be used as an excuse by those who want to deny the problem". The book contains an accurate analysis of the impossibility of the continuation of the development process, as it disarticulates the vital cycles of the Earth.

 

From an article by Guido Ceronetti, published in La Stampa on March 9, 1993:

... The only voice that is universal, concordant, up and down, shouts that no industry stops or closes, whatever it produces, even if it is very useless or very deadly, even if destined to remain unsold; the only unconvincing voice calls for the opening of construction sites on construction sites and the investment of finances in new industrial projects: at the cost of any pollution and ugliness, even at the cost of running for the immediate moral retaliation that affects those who welcome similar projects, furies of intensified violence. And if you must, on the sea of the voices all the same, glide a reassuring promise, it is always the same: there will be the "recovery", you will have a triple of this stuff ...

                                                                                   

From the book by Edward Goldsmith Globalization Process (Ed. Arianna, 2003):

Economic development, despite its devastating effects on society and the environment, remains the main objective of international agencies, national governments and transnational corporations, which are naturally its main supporters and beneficiaries. This is justified by the fact that only development, and of course the free global trade that fuels, can eradicate poverty. Today almost none of those in positions of command seems willing to question this thesis, although it is not supported by theoretical, empirical or serious evidence.

To begin with, consider that shortly after the Second World War, when world trade and economic development were indeed underway, it increased nineteen times and this was no less than six times - an unprecedented performance . It seems clear that if these processes truly provided the answer to world poverty, then this should now have been reduced to little more than a vague memory of our barbaric and underdeveloped past. Instead, the opposite is true.

Numerous quantitative data follow these statements.

Note that this book does not come out of anthropocentric positions.

 

From the Journal of Physics n. 2, 1979 ( Energy and Stability of Luigi Sertorio):

The merits of a stationary economy have been illustrated with words that today appear very fascinating, perhaps for the somewhat archaic, serene and profound language (1858), by John Stuart Mill. This beauty naturally struck rare isolated spirits, while the rest of humanity, if it was able to do so, right from the age of positivism, started on the path of the growth economy .

 

Conclusions

Continuous economic development is an impossible phenomenon on Earth, because it is incompatible with its functioning. The only "development" that allows the life of the Biosphere is a completely non-material process, something that means the evolution of culture, art, spirituality, thought, information, and so on. But in that case, given that the current meaning of the term has been consolidated for a couple of centuries, it would be better to change it.

Summarizing at most, there are two causes of the world's troubles: the excess of human population and the excess of consumption. Both factors can not remain in growth for a long time.

But what can happen? Let's try to formulate some hypotheses:

- Economic development continues to the bitter end: in this case we arrive at a terribly degraded world, with disappeared natural ecosystems, thousands of extinct or degenerate species, destroyed forests, the unbearable atmosphere, up to macroscopic manifestations of life impossibility;

- Economic development continues to a point of "collapse", after which there is the rebirth of human cultures with different values from the current ones;

- Economic development gradually stops due to the progressive near-disappearance of the philosophy that constitutes its foundation ( materialism ).

The most pessimistic hypothesis seems the first, the most probable the second; the hope remains that the third occurs.

 

In the modern world, development is seen as an untouchable taboo, a divinity, but precisely for this reason some consideration against the trend is appropriate.

              After all, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the "priests" of development were convinced that economic growth would end hunger and wars, that an era of endless prosperity was opening up to humanity and that crime would soon be become a thing of the past. So it seems to me that there are no doubts at least that there is something wrong with this "development".

 

                                                                                                               

(published in the October 2004 issue of Managers of Industry)

 

 

Scientific reductionism

and the ecological problem

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

preconditions

 

The ecological problem arose from the vision of the world that has been affirmed in the West in the seventeenth century, which - grafting onto the Judeo-Christian tradition that is the foundation of Western culture - gave rise to the so-called modern science, which, in its official version , remains anchored to the Cartesian-Newtonian vision from which it was born. In fact, in this vision our species is above nature, which is completely at our service. The whole universe - the living nature on Earth, which is part of it - is similar to a gigantic demountable and recomposable machine: this is what is called in two words scientific reductionism . As a consequence, nature is devoid of any moral relevance. From here came the aggression to Nature, and therefore the ecological problem.

Incidentally, it is only for this vision and for the strong influence of Bacon's thought that - in the collective imagination - science is practically identified with the technique and held well distinct from philosophy.

To highlight the Cartesian-Newtonian view that dominates official science and hint at a possible nascent change in minority currents, a dialogue between the dominant science and the scientific method has been imagined, in the form of an "entertaining" dialogue, to do not weigh too much the discussion.

As stated above, it is evident that questioning and gradually succeeding in modifying this Cartesian world view on a large scale would have a strong positive impact on the ecological problem.

 

Report from the book by Roberto Germano Cold fusion (Ed. Bibliopolis, 2000):

 

The problem is the vision of the mechanistic world which, despite everything, is unfortunately still imperative. From the new Physics does not emerge a vision of the world as constituted by separate objects that interact bumping more or less strong, but a vision of the world, instead, which discovers as a "tuning" and interrelation, cooperation, can "evoke" ", Almost magically, unusual correlations, unimaginable potentialities so far.

 

DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE MR MS ( scientific method ) AND THE LADY SU ( official science ) THAT MEET EVERYTHING

IN THE ARCH OF THREE CENTURIES

 

SU Let's start with the discovery of how the world is made. We begin to experiment and based on these we will build theories that will help us to get more and more an idea of how nature works. If the subsequent experiments deny a theory, we will discard it and replace it with another. Nature stands before us : explore it.

 

MS - Pay attention: you are already starting from something that is not accepted by all of humanity, but only from a specific human culture. If you think you can be accepted by everyone, you must start from something certain, universal. Most human cultures do not think that there is an external nature that we can "explore".

Since there is nothing that is accepted by everyone, you will have to start completely from scratch .

 

SU . - But how do you start from scratch? One zero comes just a zero ! And then I start from something obvious and obvious.

 

MS . - What we consider obvious and obvious is only the philosophical background of the culture in which we find ourselves. If you start from these bases, you will never be able to find something universal. But we can do this: let's start from what you told me, but always remember that it is only a working hypothesis : you must be ready to abandon them as soon as you find something that contradicts them. You do not have to force yourself to bring back what we will find in your frame of departure, which is made only of assumptions that do not give any guarantee .

Let us therefore start from the hypothesis that there exists a world constituted of matter-energy independent of any non-material factor, if it exists. Let us also suppose that this world proceeds according to its own laws; then we take temporarily for good the impenetrability of the bodies (ie the empty-full dualism ) and the logic that " A is not non - A". Also, be careful before breaking down every problem, every thing, every process into parts, because any subdivision is affected by some "prejudice" and can not be neutral and valid for everyone.

Then we will meet again for some time to take stock of the situation.

 

SU - You saw how many beautiful things I found! I have safe principles and universal laws : I have the principle of energy conservation, I know the structure of matter, the functioning of the body, and so on. I know pretty well how nature works and I continue my work actively.

Moreover, as you certainly remember, at the beginning we found together that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.

 

MS - As for this last discovery, you know well that we are winking, because we both know that it is simply a change of the reference system: in a reference system that is solid with the Earth, it is the Sun that turns. The only difference is that, in the solidarity system with the Earth, the description of the motion of the other planets is monstrously complicated and practically unmanageable. It was therefore above all a matter of elegance and convenience of calculations. The system in solidarity with the Sun is much more comfortable and more "beautiful". But then we had done a good shot.

 

SU - OK, but you have to admit that the principle of conservation of energy - matter is a universal principle of nature and has been confirmed by innumerable proofs.

The theories that contradict these proven principles are inexorably eliminated as impossible . Everything is strictly controlled in the laboratory.

 

MS - Actually, it seems to me that you have just called the entity that is conserved in energy and that, to bring it back, you have invented the concept of potential energy . It is certainly a very convenient artifice, which has simplified the accounts and given other advantages, but it seems excessive to consider it a universal principle .

Besides, does it seem right to borrow energy from the void, even if you return it within a short time? If the time is infinitely small, the loan can be infinitely large. For a universally valid principle, it is a forcing: it seems to me rather a convention , even if convenient.

 

SU - However, I have a good picture of the structure of the subject to my credit. I always check everything in the laboratory: everything that is not confirmed by repeatable and always successful tests is discarded, and perhaps derided. So they learn to try to cheat me.

I've already discovered a few hundred particle-waves , and the search is not over.

 

MS - In reality you have discarded all the phenomena that contradicted our initial work hypothesis! The fact that you can not repeat them in the laboratory under strictly controlled conditions is a pretext, because you start from the unprovable hypothesis that the installation of laboratory equipment does not influence the possible causes of the phenomena that do not belong to the energy-material world, ie to consider an impassable dogma that which was only a working hypothesis! Keep repeating the experiments until they give you the results you expect, at least when it comes to basic issues.

Moreover, if you repeat an experiment that gives you certain results in nine out of ten tests, discard the one you do not like considering it to be an obvious mistake of some instrument .

Regarding the structure of matter, I have seen that you have described some particle-wave through matrices with infinite number of rows and columns: it seems to me one of the many interferences of a mental nature. The time has come to review the starting hypotheses. You can no longer hide, even with the mathematical language, the mental content of all your so-called particles.

It seems to me that one of your problems is not being able to treat non-quantifiable and non-measurable entities : so you are forced to deny them . But we did not agree like that: you should give yourself some tools to treat them. You have plenty of time to do it, or at least try it.

 

SU - Have you seen how many discoveries I have made on the functioning of the body? And how many drugs have I found to cure diseases? Have you seen how much the average human life has increased?

 

MS - This is also an interesting point. Actually you can do an excellent emergency treatment, starting with saving life to those in imminent danger. And so you have lengthened the average human life . But you did not get much to heal the "chronic" ills (the distinction - as usual - is not clear and only serves to mean). You also refuse to examine or consider all methods of treatment, which are based on non-material causes, especially for these chronic ills. Even if these cures work, more or less like your medicines, you do not like examining them, perhaps because you do not have the necessary tools. Lately you have made the great effort to tolerate something, baptizing it psycho-somatic medicine , a term still quite reassuring to save your premises, but consider this field with great suspicion.

 

SU - You know that the drugs I provide are all rigorously tested in the laboratory.

Everything else is devoid of proof.

 

MS - The drugs you produce are often tried at the price of terrible suffering to other sentient beings. After all, you have no proof that suffering does not remain imprinted in the unconscious (or in the mind ) to later generate new suffering. Yes, I forgot that the term unconscious , especially if not linked to an individual, does not have a priori any meaning for you. We do not speak then of the term soul .

Will you not continue to treat other living beings by an excess of trust in your old master ( Descartes )? If you remember, it seems that he threw a cat from the window to prove his belief that "he could not suffer". Konrad Lorenz has amply demonstrated the absolute groundlessness of the Cartesian thought of the animal-machine. The other animals suffer, they feel emotions, they think.

However, the average human life has increased, but the average degree of health has not improved at all. How do you explain the vertiginous and continuous increase of psychic illnesses (depressions and suicides) and degenerative type (cancer) even in young people?

 

SU - Just as an example, we take homeopathic medicine. But do you know that in many homeopathic medicines there is not even a molecule of the drug? It is impossible that they have any effect!

And the acupuncture meridians do not correspond to any material or energetic "channel"!

As for depressions, these are substance deficiencies in neurotransmitters, or neurons, or in any case other material causes in the individual.

 

MS - Do you really think that millions of people continue to treat themselves with fresh water?

And that the Chinese had fun for three thousand years to take the body for a pincushion? You should examine things with more serenity and less pride. It is very unlikely that humanity has always been stupid (in five thousand different human cultures) and has suddenly become intelligent in one culture in the seventeenth century.

We also agreed not to use the impossible term as a sign of caution.

It seems to me that even and especially in medicine the time has come to abandon the working hypothesis that the body has its own functioning independent of the mind. This hypothesis is now largely denied, even by psychoanalysis. The treatments you have labeled as non-scientific are often based on the study of the mind-body-society-nature complex and sometimes give good results, especially in "chronic" evils.

Even the matter of the "molecules" could be reviewed: nothing is certain and immutable. After all, your various "particles" have then revealed themselves as constituted by other so-called particles that finally resolve into the quantum vacuum , that is, into an all-nothing .

I understand that there is a recent theory on the cohesion of matter, which would explain both the memory of water (homeopathic medicines) and cold fusion. Does not it seem to you that it should at least be examined and subjected to what you call "evidence"? In this theory, to explain the cohesion of the matter, the Maxwell equations are taken into consideration more than the Coulomb's law: therefore always material that is welcome to you.

And, as far as depressions are concerned, how do you explain the enormous numerical increase in the same period - in recent decades - of many material causes that should occur in each individual nervous system , independently of each other? You will not want to "explain" everything with the case . The odds are practically zero. It is much more logical to think that the collective mind or the soul of the world are sick .

In addition, your drugs only serve in the acute phase, after they constitute a kind of maintenance, but they do not solve the problem, evidently of a non-material nature .

 

SU - It is my constant concern not to leave my field. After all, you know that I'm dedicating myself to the mind-brain problem , which is still very difficult.

 

MS - The fact that you want to limit the study of mind-matter dualism to the mind-brain problem is a further demonstration of attachment to the ideas of Descartes, who placed in his gland at the encephalous his allegedly unique meeting point between what he considered to be two distinct and separate worlds: but this limitation is not justified by anything else. Among other things, this was only for him in the human brain . And you yourself have found that the differences in functioning with other living beings are minimal and quantitative in nature. Not to mention that three or four centuries have passed.

Only recently and with great effort have you begun to talk about the mind-body problem , no longer understood only as a brain . It is a small extension, to which it opposes a certain resistance, but it is better than nothing.

But you should take at least one more step, because the question is far more extensive. It is now time to review the initial working hypotheses, which are faltering on all sides. I'll give you another example.

There are numerous rigorous experiments (not the ideas of some Hindu philosopher!) From which it appears that, even by isolating and shielding within them termite groups of a termite from all known known fields , those insects are able to realize the termitaio structure with ultramillimetric precision, from every part of the screens. It is as if there were only one specific plan, not supported by any energy field of any kind. In addition, each termite instantly perceives any disturbance being given to the termite at any distance and beyond any type of shielding. And this happens even if the individual termites originally come from different termites, provided that, at the time of the experiment, the new termitaio - as an entity - has already been established. The most logical hypothesis is simple: the termite has (or is ) a mind - or, if you prefer, a soul . In other words: the termites of a termite nest are emotionally connected by continuous instantaneous telepathic exchange . That way, it irritates you, but it's just different words . You have unnecessarily tried other explanations that would save our initial work hypothesis , then transformed into a dogma , then you have relegated all these experiments in the field of the impossible and you put the label of mysticism to all the theories that you do not like.

We did not agree so when we started!

The termite is just one example that you can apply to many other entities (or perhaps all), such as a society, a culture, a species, an ecosystem, a cell, a tree, the Biosphere, and so on.

We need tools to deal with these entities, which can be minds , which does not necessarily mean that they are conscious, at least on a certain level.

The real problem is that you do not want even to hear about the mind, the psyche or soul if not in structures related to an individual nervous system.

 

SU - This is an evolving subject, but I do not want to go out of my field, from the field that I gave myself initially.

 

MS - In this case you must at least renounce the universality and the idea of considering yourself "objectively valid": you must recognize yourself simply as a phenomenon born in a single human culture at a given moment in its history.

Would it not be now instead of re-examining the initial work hypotheses ? After all, the logic " A is not non-A" and the impenetrability of the bodies ( empty-full dichotomy ) are wrecked in the quantum vacuum . Non-repeatable phenomena could have explanations also considering non-material causes: of course after having worked out the tools I mentioned earlier. And do not forget Popper's turkey.

The laboratory experiments only prove the fact that you consider them a priori always a valid tool: but when you install the equipment, you already have in mind what you want to try or not-try! The questions that you ask the experiment are never neutral, because they can not be, but they already presuppose the kind of answer that has to come out.

You can not "prove" that Galileo's conceptions are better or " more real " than those of Alce Nero by using the consequences of Galileo's ideas! That way you already have in mind that Galileo's ideas are "good"!

If you then enter values scales, you automatically place yourself in a relative position.

We started by considering the strength of humility , that is, the willingness to question any hypothesis, as soon as doubts were expressed about its "validity", that is, not even considering the starting points as "certain". Now it seems to me instead that you consider "acquired" and therefore dogmatically valid some premises; in essence you behaved like the other fields of activity we tried to limit the claims.

It is now time to revisit the foundations without prejudice, trying to learn something from all human cultures, as long as there is still some trace.

I hope we can meet again soon.

We and the other animals

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

 

Man and other animals

The idea of humanity has been "built", in our culture, in antithesis with the idea of animality, and this is unsustainable from all points of view, especially scientific.

Even the habitual language is improper, because man is an animal.

              We are animals in all respects, even easily classifiable: this does not necessarily mean being materialistic. However we are an integral part of the Ecosystem, the Biosphere, the Earth.

Our culture is inspired by a story of "Creation" that makes us "metaphysically" different: on Earth there were about five thousand human cultures, up to a century ago, and each had its own "myth of the origins". It makes no sense to rely on just one of these myths.

 

     - Position of our species in nature.

The anthropocentric position, which values everything only in human function, is the most widespread in our culture. Instead a biocentric world view assigns "value in itself" to all living entities, an ecocentric vision gives value to all natural entities and their relationships.

Humans, their cultures, the relations between them, are undoubtedly natural entities, and therefore also worthy of "value in itself".

Man is to Nature as the part to the Whole, as a type of cell is to the psychophysical Organism of which it is a part. A group of cells has greater "value in itself" if one sees it as an integral part of a larger organism than it has if it is considered isolated.

Giving a value "in itself" to all natural entities and to the relationships that bind them means giving a profound meaning to life and the world, accepting and understanding its immanent spirituality.

Much of the current positions of Western culture derive from the religions that originated in the Middle Eastern region and invaded the world, often with violence, spreading monstrously anthropocentric ideologies. The institutions that represent them continue this work: apart from the amenities on the concept of "soul", also on the practical level are stirred not a little for four frozen cells (as long as human) and do not say a word about the appalling suffering inflicted on so many sentient beings . The materialist thought has not changed anything by keeping the man "at the center" through a sort of "selective merit", which has preserved the exclusive mental-spiritual. To all these ideologies the perception that our species is closely connected from the inside to the rest of the natural world is totally missing.

In fact these religions have tried to perpetuate the idea that man is metaphysically different from the other living and have always shown a total disinterest (at best) for the natural world. But the drastic differentiation or the human-animal contrast are scientifically unsustainable today.

 

- Free will

The traditional position of our culture, of Judaeo-Christian derivation but further reinforced by the Cartesian-Newtonian view, that man is endowed with free will while the natural world (including all the other animals!) Is subject to the immutable "physical laws" ", It no longer has any meaning.

Total Laplace-like determinism, pleasing to "official" science, is also largely outdated.

Every natural entity, every process, every complex system, has a pinch of free will, being able to choose the path to be taken at every bifurcation-instability. In fact, attributing "the case" to the path taken after the bifurcation in every complex system and to "a free choice" when the human brain is involved is a pure cultural prejudice.

Only the "quantity" of this faculty is different from case to case. According to the vision of "dog on a leash", all entities (including man) have a leash, more or less long, in the hands of systemic forces, which are not only "physical" or energy-materials, but also mental.

The dog can sometimes completely change the direction of the leash, if at a crossroads he heads from one side rather than the other.

The possibilities of choosing animals such as mammals and birds are quite evident: in any case the differences with human choices are only quantitative.

Furthermore, the degree of unpredictability that occurs in different communities of insects, mammals or birds is not very different from that of human groups. Furthermore, societies of many species are considerably structured.

 

- Ethics and rights of other animals

If there is any difference between humans and other animals, it is only quantitative. Man is an animal: ethics must also take this into account when dealing with other living and sentient beings.

The studies by Konrad Lorenz, and numerous other scientists, were not enough to recognize a profound subjective life to other animals. Other recent ideas, for the time being of minority, attribute an immanent mind to all complex systems and therefore to all natural entities.

The other animals suffer, love, they are conscious. What is the right to attribute "subjective rights"? If it were some form of conscience or awareness, it is not clear which logic one recognizes rights to people in a coma or to human embryos and does not consider a conscious and sentient being as an orangutan, a dolphin or a wolf worthy of subjective moral considerations.

 

                           

 QUOTES

 

No truth seems to me more evident than that animals are endowed with thought and reason like men. The arguments are so clear in this regard, that they do not escape even the stupid and ignorant.

( David Hume )

 

              I spent a lot of time talking about these topics with Konrad Lorenz, father of modern ethology. When asked whether the animals are aware, with the passionate and fascinating tone that distinguishes it, he replies: " No serious person should doubt this. I am fully convinced, I say fully, that animals have a conscience. Man is not the only one to have a subjective inner life " . And he adds that man is too presumptuous, too self-absorbed. Of course, says the great scientist, the fact that animals have a conscience "raises problems" . Perhaps man is afraid to take other steps in this logic: recognizing an inner life to animals, he would be forced to horrify by the way he treats them.

              Lorenz also spoke to me of the infallibility with which animals immediately know the intentions of those in front of them. But there is no need to bother such authority, to comment on the episode of the gorilla in question. Only a rough mind or sick with dogmatism could doubt the good intentions of the animal. And the dogs of Vienna, including those of Lorenz, are never threatening by instinct or because they understand that people love them and would never hurt them?

              After all, ethology is confirming what Giordano Bruno had guessed with his philosophical genius, namely that all living things are different phenomena of a single universal substance. They draw from the same metaphysical root and their difference is quantitative non-qualitative or, to use Kant's language, non-noumenical phenomenology. The intellect, which serves to intuit the relationship of things between them, is common, albeit proportionate to needs, to all living beings. This is taught by great thinkers, starting with Schopenhauer, and this ultimately supports Lorenz.

              It would be pure blindness to consider man as something completely divorced from the rest of the animal kingdom. The discovery that animals lie - for example the alpine and coral choughs, but Lorenz also spoke to me about other animals - and therefore they are capable of abstraction has even drove down the dogma that only man had the ability to reflect in abstracto .

              Western philosophy is too impregnated with theology. Even Nietzsche recognized this, even though he spoke and preached like an upside-down priest. Evil is already at the beginning: " Grow and multiply, and populate the earth, and subjugate it, and master the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and all the animals that move on the earth. "Master, that is, oppress, torment and kill all other living beings: do you speak like this, a God? And could he not even spare himself these words, after having created an evil being like man? Lorenz, even after an examination of a historical nature, defines such a commandment as " satanic ".

What a painful contrast to the sublime words that Buddha addressed to his horse when he left him free: "Go! You too are destined for nirvana one day ".

              This episode made Schopenhauer and Wagner tremble with emotion, but it does not at all impress the cerebral cortex of our philosophers-theologians. Descartes, who considered animals as simple machines, is more congenial to them.

              Near Lorenz you can breathe better both scientifically and morally. Precisely because it has plumbed the inner life of animals like no one else, it also knows what moral responsibility this entails ...

(Anacleto Verrecchia, La Stampa, 8 September 1986)

 

A tribute to the memory of Gray Owl

(WA-SHA-Quon-ASIN)

 

 

"Gray Owl, an Indian of the Ojibway tribe, fascinated the world with its message in defense of the nature and traditions of the Indian people. In America, as in Europe, enchanted crowds followed him when he spoke of ancient harmony and the destructive tide of civilization.

But only after his death in 1938 did he discover his true identity.

His first name is Archibald Belaney. Raised in the rigid English society of the end of the nineteenth century, unable to accept the hard constraints, Archibald flees to Canada at the age of 17 to finally crown his great dream: to live among the American Indians. It denies its origins, becomes more Indian than an Indian, takes the name of Gray Owl. With her side, the young Anahero (who played a very important role in the highly conservative vision of Gray Owl - NDA) finally finds her true mission: to defend nature from the aggression of the white man.

The story of Gray Owl's life is more fascinating than a novel. And it brings us a profound message of freedom and respect for life ...... Gray Owl was a poet. From his words came visions of distant forests, blue lakes, green hills and pure skies where animals roamed free and men still knew the harmony of the whole " (from the presentation of the book on the life of Gray Owl by L. Dickson, 1999) .

This short chapter is a brief reminder of Gray Owl, a man who dedicated his life to the conservation of the wild world and to a coherent life style perfectly in harmony with the spirit of nature. Much of the following passage is taken from the presentation of his best-known book "Pellegrini della foresta" (Pilgrims of the Wild) published in Italy in 1940, the note of which was very well and deeply edited by Mario Ghisalberti (published by Corticelli, Milan).

"Gray owl died on April 13, 1938 ........

The story of Gray Owl consists in the effort of a man to achieve spiritual unity, inner peace, harmony between himself and the world.

Child, in Hastings, is already a solitary, a foreigner. The house, the city suffocate it. He does not dream of the immense virgin expanses of the colonies, the contact with uncontaminated Nature in all its manifestations. At sixteen, with five pounds in his pocket, he embarked for Canada. His thirst for adventure has what to drink. Become a canoe rower on the ravishing rivers and the immense lakes, hunter of fur animals for the deep snowy forests, bearer, guide, in a defeated country, where the distances are counted hundreds of kilometers, and the man is alone with his courage, like a wild beast, in the face of virgin and hostile nature.

But Gray Owl is a poet, even if he has not yet picked up his pen. The grandiose environment, the harshness of the climate, the massacre marches, the solitudes, the privations, the violence, the continuous uncertainty of tomorrow that must be earned with one's physical and mental dexterity, instead of breaking it down, act on his imagination, they exalt it, they are composed in an epic myth, that he limits himself to living tumultuously, waiting for the day, in which, contemplating from the fixed point of his attained self-consciousness, he will sing it as a poet. It is the pànico affair of the Forest, the unity of Life in all its forms, which invests it: that Forest with the uppercase F which will become the guiding theme of all his work, the Selvatico in which there is no nothing narrow or mean, not even in his crimes, be it concentrated in a giant fir tree, or in the roar of a waterfall, or in a beast, or in an Indian who adjusts his prey.

The War recalls it in Europe. When he returns to the Forest, his health is undermined by the wounds. He spends five years together with a tribe of Ojibway Indians who adopt him and impose him the name of Wa-Sha-Quon-Asin, Gray Owl, because he loves to travel at night.

The long intimate contact with these true sons of the Forest determines in him the resolutive crisis.

From the Anglo-Saxon civilization ...... it feels more and more distant. He concludes that Progress is not always identified with civilization, nor is Prosperity so praised with common well-being, nor even abundance with the wholly inner richness of the spirit. The heroic and simple existence of those primitive comrades seems to him closer to inner peace, to the covenant agreement between the individual and the universal, than to the hysteria and the monstrous jerks of a civilization that, by dint of adoring the machine, has mechanized herself, she has risen in a tower of rigid steel completely losing the sense of the earth without approaching the sky a palm. And rightly or wrongly, he is convinced that the man's mechanical nature, making him a part of himself in the universe totally divorced from everything else, with power in his environment despotic, superior to the Laws of Nature and all 'Supreme Order, is an absurdity, a folly that can perhaps allow him to move in the blink of an eye from one point to another of his domain, to communicate and see at enormous distances, to build to heal to subvert to kill with power unthinkable, but it will not make him move a step towards happiness, harmony, peace of mind, balance to which every effort fatally strives.

For his companions instead, for these so-called savages, man is only a part of the whole, an element of a team. More modest, and according to him even more wise, they do not try to dominate their environment, but to intonarcisi; they feel the rhythm of universal life and try to accord their particular existence on this. The law of the strongest is valid for them as for all other creatures; only they do not claim to be the monopoly of man; they pass with religious humility where others burst with demonic pride; they worship while others blaspheme; they deepen in the spirit while the others clash against the matter.

In the spiritual field the choice of Gray Owl is already made: his brothers are these, even if his skin is white; their culture is his.

But there is more. The grandiose and wild environment in which this rhythmic life can take place and therefore has reason to be, the Forest is disappearing. The progress of Progress destroys it. Wild fires paved the way for railway sleepers and factories. Primeval heroes, sylvan mystics must become laborers and workers, or die of hunger. Unable to renounce a way of life that is typically theirs and to adapt to a mentality that is at the antipodes of their world's concessions, Indians withdraw, life is stricter in more and more circumscribed islands of forest, are subject to terrible diseases, they die like tuberculosis and alcoholism flies, they go into agony together with the environment they gave and from which they gave their lifeblood.

And then, following a generous impulse, to which there is to be a hat more than any certificate of birth, Gray Owl is no longer content with a mere spiritual brotherhood with the victims: he also wants a blood brotherhood, if he girds like a crown of thorns, and shares martyrdom with them ...

The message that "Forest Pilgrims" bring us consists of this Spirit of the Forest who is about to disappear forever. It is the invocation, launched before it is too late, by a civilization that still has something to say and teach us, and which by disappearing would leave us spiritually poorer. It is Pan's protest against Hermes's artificial prepotence.

This book does not condemn only the ruthless and useless extinction of a species of wild animals, nor the ruin of the last patches of Forest; but the destruction of the universal Principle, of spiritual heritage, of the absolutes that are incarnated in these aspects of Life. It makes the fresh scent of some wild flowers feel in the gas fumes; pointing out, between the geometric shots of the mechanical devices, the harmony and the beauty present in the movements of a wild animal or of an Indian in their grandiose environment; shows, between shabby concrete faces and metal beams, backdrops of ancient trees and mountains and lakes and rivers, and green and white silences, and clear and uncluttered horizons, and simple and strong men as heroes of legend ...... ..

... Speaking of himself as a writer, Gray Owl declares: For me the rifle has always had more than the pen. The edge of the canoe against the hip, the splash of foam in the face, the rhythm of the march with snowshoes, the call of mountains and distant valleys, the majesty of the storm, the calm and taciturn presence of trees that seem to meditate in their silence, the naive trust of the little living creatures, the company of simple men: this is my inspiration and guides me ... ".

Gray owl also testifies to the effort and strength of the individual for the protection of the wild world, beginning to avidly protect the lives of the beavers victims of hunters and poachers whose species was rapidly extinguishing. It was a veritable forerunner of nature conservation, a precursor who spontaneously matured this necessity and who tried to communicate to the world everything both with his direct messages (lectures) and with beautiful and participated writings.

This brief chapter on Gray Owl could not be almost concluded without mentioning two beautiful passages as eloquent as real depths. From the world of beavers, the call he felt for the disappearance of two of his dear "friends": "Talvolto we hear it in the midst of the storm, or in the silence of the evening, at dawn in birdsong, or in the call of an owl, in distance in the night. It resounds in the cadences of an Indian song and rises in the deep notes of an organ played by the light hand of a master, whispers in the sound of drowsy streams and murmurs in the river noise, in the incessant roar of the waves against the shore of a lake. Each of these is a note of the complex harmony of nature, they are strings played randomly by the majestic symphony of the infinite that resounds forever in the vast halls of time ".

And then more generally on the wild world: "An uninterrupted forest extends from all sides of the hut in which I write, flows before us, in a gloomy wave, towards the north, up to the Arctic Ocean. No railroad crossbar, to burn and destroy, no colonizer ruins it with fire and ax. From every eminence, you can contemplate innumerable leagues of Forest, which will never feed the hungry jaws of commerce.

This is a different place, it's another day.

Nowhere does the sight of the stumps and the noble fallen peaks offend the eye or sadden the spirit; nor the strange, wild, unimaginable beauty of these Nordic sunsets is disfigured by rows and rows of skeletal and horrendous trees ......... Back to the origins? Maybe yes; but they brought us luck.

All dreams have become true, and even more. Disappearance is the nagging fear of a vandalism. Wild life in all its many varieties, animals thought to be timid and elusive, now pass almost close to hand, and sometimes they stop at the hut and observe. And birds, and small and large beasts, and small and large creatures, have gathered around here, and frequent the place, and fly and swim or walk by their nature.

Piomba la Morte, as it must also sometimes, and life rises in its place. Nature lives and proceeds and flows all around in its harmonious and methodical order.

The scars of the ancient fires slowly disappear; tall trees become even bigger. The cities of beavers re-flock. The cycle continues .... ".

And in respect of the deep feelings that Gray Owl had for her beavers, we can not forget the deeds of McGinnis and McGinty, two beavers torn to death and who were at the origin of his awareness and that led him to the undesirable action of protection of the species. A greeting also to "Pellaccia", to the beloved Jelly Roll and, as a whole, to all the beaver people poetically proclaimed by Gray Owl in his beautiful opera "Pilgrims in the wild".

Goodbye and thank you Gray Owl and that your message resounds in the spaces of infinite time. When he died at the age of fifty, the apparent cause seemed to be pneumonia, but he wrote Dickson (1999) "The cause of death was consummation: consumption of the hopes and goals that arise from the imagination and ultimately signal to the heart when to stop . "

WA-SHA-QUON-ASIN once said: "This is not the voice of Gray Owl speaking, but the voice of a powerful and ever-increasing army: the defenders of wildlife, whose voices must be heard. Let your ears be open " (Dickson, 1999). And then, as already mentioned in this book, to conclude, one of his bellissma as eloquent statement: "You are tired of these years of civilization. I come, and what do I offer you? A single green leaf ".

 

 

The downsizing of anthropocentrism

 

 

"Man is an outdated philosophical phenomenon. The universe is far too vast for man alone to dwell there " (HD Thoreau). It is sad to have to admit it, but the impact that man exerts on the territory is in dramatic contrast with the needs of the natural economy. It would be desirable to arrive at a drastic reduction in population pressure, but such an auspice is unfortunately colored by mad utopia. "To drastically reduce the demographic pressure: a great act of altruism towards nature" ; this is the precept that each of us should learn by heart, but we know well that the invocation has little chance of being heard. It is useless to discuss the reduction of consumption, the reversal of trends or the control of pollution: these are just words that go away with the wind. Reality is a raw aut-aut, or man or nature is reduced. He is the man who must adapt to the needs of nature and not vice versa. Nature must be saved and respected for its value in itself, not for our interest, material, ethical or spiritual. The binomial between man and nature must definitively free itself from the conflict that has distinguished it over the millennia, and must emanate from the inveterate anthropocentric vision of the universe, to finally give rise to the re-establishment of a harmonious and unitary relationship between man and nature and to reaffirm the value in itself of things. Aldo Leopold wrote (1949 in Devall & Sessions, 1989) ".... we are only traveling companions of all the other creatures in the odyssey of evolution .... Acquiring an ecological awareness changes the role of homo sapiens from conqueror to a simple member and citizen of the community-land. This implies respect for one's companions and also for the community as such ".

We are all guilty: those who write more than others . With our current needs even the most peaceful life is destructive to nature.

As long as humanity perseveres in the current pattern of development, wild animals will see their living space reduced day after day to make room for the "lord man" king of creation.

J. Passmore (1986) writes: "... I think it's true that men need a new genuinely non-anthropocentric metaphysics ..... The elaboration of the new metaphysics seems to me to be the most important task of today philosophy ..... the rise of new moral attitudes towards nature is therefore connected to the emergence of a new philosophy of nature seen in its total and all-encompassing globality. This is the only adequate basis for effective ecological sensitivity ". The Devall & Sessions discourse completes well when they say: "The dominant ideology is the system of values, opinions, customs and norms that form the frame of reference for a community, for example a nation ..... We rarely hold debates on general assumptions of the conception of the world. There are excuses for the various problems, while the different positions are not openly addressed. Those who questioned the basic theses of the dominant ideology are often accused of heresy . The new heretics of the 21st century are precisely those who question the certainties of the dominant anthropocentric ideologies. In the introduction to his excellent work Dalla Casa (1996) he writes that: "the ecological problem arises from the attitude of the dominant culture, from the basic thought of industrial civilization, from its collective unconscious. It is a philosophical problem, much more than a practical and technical problem. If the vision of the world is not profoundly modified, only transient results are obtained, as well as the effects of time displacement, although very useful, of insoluble problems. In order to change a vision of the world, that is a culture, we usually require times of the order of a couple of centuries. But Mother Earth will not be saved without such an overturning, ie without the end of industrial civilization, which is the current expression of Western culture and the practical application of materialism. Instead, once the Western worldview has disappeared or changed profoundly, the ecological problem will no longer exist ........

....... One of the objections that is moved to deep ecology is that it would not involve concrete actions: it is good to underline again that cultural changes do not seem to be concrete just because they take place over a long period of time. But they are much deeper and more radical ".

Giuseppe Acerbi, an Italian explorer of the eighteenth century, after the experience of a long journey in the great northern Finland he wrote (in Francescato, 1988): ".... He will not go there to admire the works of the civilized man; but rather to contemplate the nature, the order, the harmony prevailing in all the productions of creation, the immutable bond of the chain of things ... with what design these aurora borealis are placed in the economy of nature, those shows yes brilliant of the air ...; qué lakes, qué rivers, those cataracts ... as long as he believes that he is the king of created things and will abandon himself to the presumptuous idea that all the things placed on this globe exist for nothing else but for him. ...

it is a truth proven by daily experience, both for individuals and for whole societies, that their happiness diminishes in proportion to their distance from nature ".

Only the total disappearance of anthropocentrism will save life on planet earth! Any other compromise will be doomed to fail. For the sake of clarity it is good to refer to the term "anthropocentrism", as Hargrove writes (1990): "There is also much confusion provoked by the two conflicting meanings of the term anthropocentrism used in environmental ethics. As we have already noted, the word is often used to mean 'utilitarian', but also, just as often, 'human' or 'conceived in terms of human awareness'. Non-anthropocentrists, on the one hand, often require the recognition, or discovery, of non-anthropocentric value, so that natural things are no longer treated in a purely utilitarian way. The anthropocentrists, on the other hand, who do not want to treat all natural things utilitarianally and define the term in the second sense, respond that even if we attribute non-anthropocentric value to animals and natural objects, the values will always be anthropocentric or 'human', as they are always values created by men who value ". We believe that this is true only if we forget the "value in itself of things", independent and autonomous value that disregards human perception.

Writes From the House (1996): "... It is not possible to think of saving the world from ecological catastrophe without analyzing the concept of development and without remembering that this concept is the product of a single human culture at a given moment in its history: Nature is destroyed by the demon of doing that devours the West and its eagerness to change the world.

The West, prey to the demons of having and doing, has forgotten the living, knowing and being ... ".

The native peoples, as repeatedly expressed in this work, are an enlightened example of environmental integration and ecocentric spiritual development, far from anthropocentric concepts. JD Hugues (1983 in Devall & Sessions, 1989) writes: "(...) The cultural patterns of American Indians, based on careful hunting and agriculture and in accordance with the spiritual perceptions of nature, have effectively preserved the life on earth and the earth itself (...). The Indian conception of the universe and of nature must be seriously examined as a valid way of relating to the world and not as a superstitious, primitive and non-evolved vision .... Perhaps the main intuition that can be drawn from the Indian legacy is the great respect for the earth and life (...). It is important for us to learn from nature how the first American Indians did, keeping our ears on the ground, and regaining our perspective by often experimenting with direct contact with the non-artificial world, with animals and wild spaces ... In the traditional vision of the Indians, the people, an interdependent social group, live in harmony with nature (...) ".

 

The anthropocentric error

of Guido Dalla Casa

 

Preconditions

The movements that are inspired by deeper environmental ideas than the usual means of communication and environmental associations (resources, waste, cleaning, pollution, parks, etc.) are fortunately multiplying. As examples: Deep Ecology, Happy Decrease, Ecopsychology, Bioregionalism, the study of native cultures, the critique of civilization, spirituality outside of organized religions, and others.

Some of these movements can not completely free themselves from a background of thought that for Western civilization is more than a thousand years old: anthropocentrism. Everything is referred to man as the sole depository of values. In my opinion, if we do not get rid of this basic idea, ecological action is bound to fail.

Of the above mentioned movements, Deep Ecology has ecocentrism as its foundation: the abandonment of the anthropocentric idea is its fundamental premise. Of the others, someone does not deal specifically with the problem or does not show full awareness of the negative aspect of anthropocentrism.

According to the critique of civilization, the humanity of gatherers-hunters was spontaneously seen in an interconnected network of living beings, with room for other sentient beings equal to the human. As regards ecopsychology, the ecological unconscious includes humanity and places it within the community of the living.

These two movements are therefore aware of the need for profound criticism of current anthropocentrism.

If we refer to institutions, official documents or political instances, anthropocentrism is always present, but it is considered obvious.

As an example, let's take a look at the text of the European Commission The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, which is also a document with the best intentions. Language is strictly economic. Some examples: "our stock of natural capital", "natural capital of the earth", "expand our concept of capital to include human, social and natural capital". The concept of capital is repeated several times, even that of "natural" capital!

The ever present idea is the location of humans outside the world of Nature: this is absurdity from all points of view. The human being appears as a foreign element, above all: it is the aim and the end user of all services.

Even in documents with pro-ecological intentions, it is called "heritage of humanity", not just for something like the pyramids of Egypt or a work of art, but for the Dolomites or the Grand Canyon of Colorado, which are there for hundreds of millions of years, while our species is only two or three million years old! Even keeping the world in good shape "for future generations" is a strongly anthropocentric expression.

 

Science

It is now known to science, since the days of Lamarck, that is, for a couple of centuries, that man is an animal species in all respects, also easily classifiable: Mammals Class, Order Primates. Our species fully participates in the life of the ecosystem complex, our cellular and physiological functions are the same as the other mammals, even the behavior does not have particular qualitative exceptionality. The other animals, especially Mammals and Birds, suffer, love, reason, take care of their children, have a structured social life, transmit culture.

So two centuries have passed in vain.

The genetic differences between a human and a bonobo chimpanzee are in the order of 1%. However, the "official" reductionist-mechanistic-materialist-Cartesian science forgets its own knowledge: in order not to have to speak of respect for Life and to avoid the consequences on ethics, it has replaced the previous "divine right" with a kind of "merit" selective "and has not only legitimized and continued the work of exploitation of the natural world and extermination of the living, but also justified" experiments "that entail terrible suffering to many sentient beings.

Recently a book by a Dutch scientist has been published in Italian (R.Corbey - Metaphysics of the Apes - Bollati Boringhieri, 2008), in which, in addition to other considerations, we research what the characteristics that divide the human from the animal can be . In the recent past this boundary has always had to be moved, as new discoveries and new studies accumulated, but finally the attempt to maintain a division anyway failed: the border does not exist. The other animals play, suffer, love, have deep emotions, keep a behavior that is completely comparable to the human one. Anthropocentrism is devoid of any scientific-philosophical basis.

The other animals certainly communicate with each other. If the criterion of division was writing, we should relegate "on the other side" almost all human cultures, in which knowledge is transmitted orally: but orality and writing are only different modes of transmission, there is no "progress" from one to another. Otherwise we would be forced to describe the "history" within the usual paradigm that leads to the West and then to industrial civilization as the summit of "progress", something that has now been overcome by all points of view.

I remember very well having read, some thirty years ago, that a scientist had carried out an in vitro fertilization experiment that involved two gametes, one of which was human and the other was chimpanzees. In one of the attempts, fertilization was successful and an in vitro embryo had developed in a very initial phase. I have no guarantee of the truth of the fact, but it would not seem so strange to me. However, Western civilization could not bear such news: so it is no longer heard of it. It was more evidence of our complete belonging to Nature, even if it was needed.

All this in the face of the scientific method, of enlightenment and of reason.

 

Recent studies

The following excerpts are given in the article "Minds of their Own" by Virginia Morell, published in the National Geographic March 2008 issue. The article is a summary of the results of thirty years of studies on the mind, behavior and learning abilities of many non-human sentient beings by Irene Pepperberg and other scientists. Pepperberg started her project in 1977: a parrot named Alex was brought to the laboratory with the intention of teaching him English. But let's read a few pieces of the article:

 

"Alex counted, recognized colors, shapes and sizes, had an elementary notion of the concept of zero".

"Chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas are able to learn sign language and use symbols to communicate with us. The Bonobo Kanzi brings with him a blackboard full of symbols that allows him to "talk" to the researchers, and he has invented, to express himself, new symbolic combinations ".

"Azy (an orangutan) has a rich inner life. In addition to communicating his thoughts with the symbols of a keyboard, Azy also shows a "theory of the mind" (that is, includes the point of view of another), and makes logical choices that demonstrate considerable mental flexibility ".

"Today, a large number of studies indicate that intelligence is a flexible gift, and its roots in the animal world are extensive and profound".

"We are not the only ones who know how to invent, to plan our actions, to have an image of ourselves; and not even the only ones to lie and deceive ".

"Intelligence is a tree with a thousand ramifications: it does not have a single trunk that only points in our direction".

"Equipped with a big brain and agile tentacles, the octopuses can block their burrows with rocks, and they have fun shooting water at targets such as plastic bottles or researchers."

"Kanzi, a bonobo, as a child, learned to communicate spontaneously observing the scientists who trained his mother. At 27, this bonobo "speaks" thanks to more than 360 keyboard symbols, and understands the meaning of thousands of words spoken aloud. Kanzi can formulate sentences, execute new instructions, and make stone tools, changing technique according to the hardness of the material. Create tools like those of the first humans ".

"The jays can reason: knowing they are thieves, they move food supplies if another jay looks at them; they plan future meals, and in making provisions they take into account future needs rather than hunger of the moment. "

"Dolphins have excellent memories, creative flair and linguistic skills; they are versatile, both from a cognitive and behavioral point of view. They have a great generalist brain, just like us. They change their world to make new things possible. "

 

It is also evident that we reason on the averages: the most intelligent of the bonobos has (or is) more mind-psyche-spirit of the less gifted of humans.

Another excellent article by Mary Roach (Almost Human: National Geographic, April 2008), reports sentences like "It is impossible to spend some time with the chimpanzees and not be struck by the observation of how similar they are to us): there are interesting considerations on the different cultures of chimpanzees, even in a limited area, depending on the habitat in which they live.

Again from National Geographic, October 2010, here is a statement by Jane Goodall: "You can not live together with any animal with a brain developed without realizing that every animal has a personality).

If we then venture to study the mind of a termite nest or the behavior of collective beings, we become even more aware of the absurdity of the current mechanistic conceptions.

 

 

The environment

When it comes to problems related to ecology, it is very often used the word environment, a misleading term, because it conveys the idea that it is an inert entity, "not living".

It is used to call "environment" a complex of:

- over twenty million species of sentient beings;

- all ecosystems that, according to recent scientific-philosophical theories, can also be considered sentient beings;

- substances in continuous exchange and movement;

- relations between all the elements and the entities within the complex.

The term derives from the idea of the environment of man, that is, impregnated by the very strong anthropocentrism of Western culture. Man remains the only point of reference. Basically it is used to call "environment" a total living-sentient organism, as if it were a "outline" of some of its cells (our species).

The Earth is not "our environment" or "our home", but it is the organism of which we are a part: we are its own tissue, we are like a type of cells integrated into a biological organism, and that depend totally on the its possibility of homeostasis, that is, the ability of the planet to self-regenerate while remaining in stationary conditions.

 

Religious traditions born in the Middle East

Carried back from the Catholic version of the Bible published by Marietti in 1970:

 

God said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, on the cattle, on all the beasts of the earth and on all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth" ( Genesis, 1/26).

... and God said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, on the cattle and on all the beasts that crawl on the earth". (Genesis, 1/28).

God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: "Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you both in all the beasts of the earth and in all cattle and in all the birds of the air. As for what crawls on the ground and all the fish of the sea, they are put in your power ". (Genesis, 9 / 1-2).

 

Here there is not the idea of "custody" entrusted to the good administrator, who would already be a strongly anthropocentric position, there is much worse.

Perhaps some institution would still have us believe that a pithecanthropist, or an australopithecus, woke up one morning and realized that he had something that he did not have before (the "soul"), or that a baby of these living beings was suddenly born " human". And the Neanderthal, who lived with the Sapiens in Europe for tens of thousands of years, "had" or "had not" the soul? I hope no more similar amenities are told, not even for children! Perhaps it is easier to think that all these sentient beings have always been immersed in the Soul of the world, to use an expression of the Jungian psychiatrist James Hillmann.

But there were some different ideas in some human cultures, as evidenced by these thoughts, taken from ancient Indian texts:

 

"Every soul must be respected and soul means every order, every vitality that the substance can take: the wind is a soul that imprints itself in the air, the river a soul that takes the water, the torch a soul in the fire, all this must not be disturbed ".

 

In one of the sutras one praises those who do not hurt the wind because they show they know the pain of living things and it is added that to harm the earth is like striking and mutilating a living being.

 

The intrinsic value of Nature

Authorities, governments, "the people who matter" all have the same god: the development, the indefinite increase of material goods, which involves aggression to the rest of Nature, considered in our service and without any value "in itself ". All in human function, as an obvious thing! Until we get rid of this background, every action in the long run will be useless.

Also to say that Nature (or a natural entity) is "patrimony of all" or constitutes a resource implies a strongly anthropocentric conception; as well as saying that we want to save a "natural environment" in order to transmit it "to future generations". They are all expressions that consider the centrality of man as obvious.

According to a type of thought worthy of every consideration even if very rare in the West, values do not exist only in man, but also in other animals and plants. The most natural starting point for finding values is to look for them in other animals, which certainly have emotions and feelings, as well as the ability to suffer.

For a wolf, the moose has an instrumental value, as a prey that supports the life and well-being of the wolf. The wolf himself can consider the members of his pack as beings with an intrinsic value, and he does not treat them only as instruments. Other beings create values regardless of what human beings think of them.

There are also the values of plants. All organisms have their own "mind": human beings can both promote and damage this quality, which however remains independent of man. Whether a house plant grows luxuriant or not can depend on humans, but its well-being or malaise is a quality of the plant. The problem arises from the affirmation of the lack of identity in plants, an affirmation without any foundation.

We must then ask ourselves whether systems, or "collective beings", can have values that are not attributable to individuals. Tradition links values to individuals and therefore does not understand that a mountain can have an intrinsic value. We must also ask ourselves whether Nature as a whole can be a subject with a mind, and whether a mountain or a river can experience. Current research on consciousness and artificial intelligence could shed new light on these problems.

The writings and considerations of the Finnish scholar Leena Vilkka, professor of philosophy at the University of Helsinki, are very interesting on the topics mentioned above.

 

We are the Earth

We are immersed in the Soul of the World or, if you prefer, in the collective Unconscious, in the ecological Unconscious, the Mind of the Earth: we are the Earth! This is one of the approaches above all of ecopsychology. We are the most "conscious" part of the Earth, there is no man-nature detachment. The repression of the ecological unconscious is the root of the evil inherent in industrial society. Rediscovering access to the ecological unconscious means rediscovering the path to the psychophysical health of the individual, of society and of the ecosystem.

It is necessary to emancipate the ecology from a simple branch of biology from which it was born to a science of relationships and of the whole.

We are an integral part of the world in which we live as much as the rivers and trees, interwoven with the same intricate flow of matter-energy and mind.

 

Is religious feeling a human prerogative?

I leave the floor to Jane Goodall, who has spent 40 years among the chimpanzees:

 

Deep in the Gombe forest there is a spectacular waterfall. Sometimes, while the chimpanzees come closer and the roar of the falling water becomes more intense, their pace hurries, the hairs stand on end with excitement. When they reach the watercourse they put in place magnificent scenes, standing up, swaying rhythmically from one foot to the other, beating their paws in the low water and running, collecting and throwing large stones. Sometimes they climb up on the lianas that dangle from above and make the swing in the spray of the falling water. This "waterfall dance" can take ten or fifteen minutes, after which a chimp may sit on a rock, with the eyes following the path of the water. What is this water? Keep coming, keep going away, but it's always there.

Probably the chimpanzees feel an emotion similar to a marvel or a reverent respect. If they have spoken language, if they can discuss the emotions that trigger these magnificent scenes, it means that they have a "primitive" animistic religion.

The waterfall has always been the most spiritual place in Gombe, and we now know that it was considered a sacred place by the people who once lived there, a place where the medicine-men performed ceremonies once a year. I wonder if they have ever observed, as rapt, the wild chimpanzee dances. - Jane Goodall

 

Conclusions

If we do not emerge from anthropocentrism, so rooted in Western culture and the underlying philosophy of Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought, all attempts to reintegrate into the natural world are bound to fail: it will be very difficult to get the end of the myth of growth and the salvation of the Earth by continuing to think that everything is done for man. If we insist on that basic idea, it will be the total Ecosystem to provide for a downsizing of our species, probably with an unpleasant transient.

We must pursue the welfare of the ecosystem, because if we continue in the illusion of the so-called well-being of man without taking into account the totality we behave like pathological cells of an organism.

The ideological vision that makes us believe unique and unmistakable among all the other living beings on the planet, is only a delirium of greatness.

 

And if we tried to look

the world upside down?

 

 

Our existence is marked by often rigid and immutable categories based on structural archetypes that can belong to the most varied origins: religious, ligislative, mental, cultural, traditional, etc. These categories place the way we see things in completely partial sectors because they are always referring to models "constructed" by the varied and artificial conventions. But a simple analysis immediately shows what governs all this: the relativity of the whole. To clarify, let's make some examples. Hannu (they are fictitious names) remains fascinated when he sees a naturally dry, twisted, leafless tree about to fall. Then comes Karen who says that the dried plants do not like them because it is nice for her to observe a large lush tree that grows in the splendor of a wood. Then comes Igor who says that his life is in the city and is very well because he has friends, places to meet and spend happy evenings. Then arrives Arrigo who says that for him the city is unbearable and would like to flee to the countryside in the company of birds, crops and vineyards. Then comes Alfred who says that everything has been created by God and everything is available to man to be able to enjoy its fruits and collect its joys. Then comes Dolores who says he does not believe in any god and wants his life to be free from his alienating labor in a fabric factory and he likes to ride a bike. Then comes Alexander who claims not to accept that he is forbidden to shout in the street against the manner of doing others. Then comes James who says that it is very nice for him to drive the car, while Sebastian says that he hates the car and prefers to go on foot. Then comes Sigmund who remembers that for a correct public morality everyone should be contained in a thousand ways for the decent "civil" living. Then comes Francoise who goes through a period of crisis and sees everything uphill and unbearable. Then the same Francoise, in psychological recovery, notes that the elements that seemed impossible to him now sees them easier to approach and it is not so difficult to deal with them. Then it arrives ... .., then many others arrive, hundreds, thousands of others who say more ... .. this is good; no answer Antoine, I do not like it ...... In short, we must stop with the examples otherwise we could cover the pages of an endless encyclopedia. Let us now insert a little passage by Erasmus of Rotterdam taken from his famous work "Elogio della follia" (1994 - chapter XLVII.) Happiness ... is what is believed): ".... for example that one goes crazy for the badly brined fish, in whose smell all the nose is stopped. That man is certainly happy eating his fish, but it would not be if they gave him sturgeon, judged excellent by everyone, but to him it gives nausea ... .. And if someone buys a cheap crust, and if he is satisfied with it as if it were a painting by Apelles or Zeusi, is he not happier than someone who really owns a work of such fame, perhaps costing a patrimony, but does not feel any real pleasure in contemplating it? ... ".

But in all this there is something that does not fit. Because on many similar and similar arguments there are those who see them in one way and some in another? As mentioned in the introduction, the answer is too easy: they are the categories of reference that guide the judgment and the thought of a circumstance, personal categories or, more often, categories artificially constituted by the social communities. So that everything becomes relative because everything has a value only if it is translated to some reference scheme, that it is mentally codified and accepted until it becomes unconscious or that it is imposed, not accepted but equally applied. In other words, the categorization of all the elements of life, and then, if a parameter falls, then the view of the circumstance related to that parameter falls. We are therefore all caged in patterns and beliefs that make us appear reality in a certain way, whose reality with another scheme could appear very different. And then for further understanding it is good to include here a passage by Anna Corbella Ortalli in her presentation in the aforementioned work "Elogio della follia" by Erasmo da Rotterdam (1994): " 'No society and no union could exist without a bit of madness' . Looking at the world always from the same verse does not make it change, on the contrary, it makes dogmatically obstinate in doing so at all costs to correspond to the representation that human wisdom has given. And, however great and authoritative it may be, it is always a smallest wisdom in the world. Watching it then reverses, as do the fools, can reveal unsuspected, surprising, stimulating aspects, or at least reveal the one-sidedness of the rules governing coexistence among men ".

Coming out of the dualistic schemes of Cartesianism is a fundamental step in structuring a holistic conception to recompose itself outside the conceptual dichotomies. We try to act following "already pre-established schemes", not realizing that those "concepts" are nothing but artifices that have an absolutely relativistic value. We are mentally used to accepting them and measuring things only by following those parameters. If we were born over time, we will now be discussing other concepts. But even in this case we would be trapped within a relative and universality-free vision. Only the interpenetration of the opposites and the annulment of the divisive and dualistic visions brings the argument we are dealing with into the right measure. By positioning ourselves to see the world in a holistic dimension, it places us in a situation without precise and defined points, without dominant aspects of observation, but simply within a universal dimension devoid of defining parameters. And in this case, even if we look at things upside down they will be equally as good as if we did it to the starboard, because they became one thing.

 

  

Wildness mind

 

 

...... the wild wolves go away. The spirit of the savage goes away. The breath of the wild goes away. Silent and endless forests go away. Everything, free and wild is going away. Time flows and the wild goes away. The light that illuminates the wild transcends. All that flows without time is going away. Perhaps the same memory of the savage is going away. We are losing our true essence. We are migrating into the void of life and we are, little by little, quietly extinguishing ourselves. We are always poorer than the truth of the savage, we are always poorer than the same life, we are even poorer than the wolf's lurid. A distant and feeble melody wants to sing us the world of wilderness, but we are playing notes of infinite sadness, because we are portrayed before the absoluteness of the wild. Sing well or melody and wake up the dormant soul of our spirit that now no longer contemplates the world of nature. Goodbye, a proud and kind wolf, goodbye, proud and indomitable wolf, goodbye, wild lights of the spirit that, in dissolving, lead our hearts towards the gloomy obscurity and, melancholically, towards a dead-end road without any soul or hope. Forests look at us astonished as we search in vain for a world that is less and less wild, free from the truth of the wolf's howl. I cry strongly against all this, because I know that by losing the wild, losing the last frontier of nature also means losing life and leaving behind a world of infinite beauty and silent forests. No, I do not accept it! The savage must return and, if it can happen, we must at that point reacquire it and relive it in all its splendor. But now, in the face of this abyss, on the wolf's wailing we will be able to reflect for a long time and write many words and perhaps we will say many things, but our rhetoric will never bring us to the essential! And 'this is precisely what we lack: the essential and then we find ourselves suddenly alone. A solitude we wanted, strongly desired because we no longer have the hearing to hear the howl of the wolf. The howling of the wild ......!

 

* * *

 

A lake unfolded before the sight of the heart. A sense of life lay in the air, but in my mind something seemed to be missing, something profound that alienated me from the surrounding world. I was like a ghost moving in a beautiful atmosphere but almost unreal and opalescent to me.

I understood that it was not the environment that determined my deep intimacy, but my spirit, which everywhere wandered, brought with it something obscure and incomprehensible. I felt sadness, a sense of not belonging to anything, of being out of the real world even if so beautiful and unrepeatable.

I was devoid of inner life, I did not know anything, and everything seemed meaningless and not vital. I felt I loved death, but basically I did not want it because I had only one fear: to lose forever the possibility of being able to sink into the wild world.

The day, at the first light of the northern dawn, everything went on like this. I was empty, I did not recognize life with its strength and only sadness and melancholy seemed to manifest itself. My mind wandered between nothingness and total emptiness and nothing seemed to satisfy me. I was too sad and inwardly alone. Nothing stirred and energized me. It was pure non-life mental madness!

A pleasant walk in the forest alternating with lakes and swamps. But my spirit was elsewhere. I did not feel the breath of life even if the environment spread in abundance. I felt the lack of something essential in my soul. Why this mental madness? Maybe I did not know or maybe I was fully aware of it but I did not want to reveal it to myself. I felt the breath of my body but I continued to breathe non-life. An ugly and empty feeling. Not living while living is something hallucinating and indescribable.

I probably had inside me the secret of this sadness, of this incurable melancholy, but nothing seemed to shake and enliven me. I lived as an alien, as if I belonged to a world not mine in which I could not adapt. But I did not speak of a foreign world from the external point of view, but only and exclusively of an inner world.

Living life is beautiful, but you have to really live it and consume it. You do not have to die inside little by little and feel nothing. It is better to immediately sublimate yourself bodily, it is better to perish spiritually to cancel oneself in the emptiness of true and inalienable death. I have always loved you or life but unfortunately I did not live you yet.

Why did not I hear your breath or your heart button? I missed you. I missed you a lot, too much to continue living without experiencing you. I felt so much the unexpressed world of the savage.

The next day was a fatal day. Tension, irascondia, sadness, harshness. A strange light overshadowed my day. There was no possibility of harmony. Only sectarian and mean lies. The wind fed my anguish and nothing cheered me if not the thought turned to the possibility of connecting with the wildness of the soul. I felt a deep love and an ungraspable sense of loss. I knew that I could lose something beautiful forever, for eternity and this was for me fatal and unacceptable. I was looking for a mediation, a healthy madness, but I could find nothing but ashes and the worn remains of things.

I did not have the strength to react, to counteract and let things go so contrary to my true will. It was yet another sad, dense and gloomy day that finally turned me away for the umpteenth time from my true self. I felt madness, the sense of loss and nothing could comfort me, nothing, nothing. But oh inspiring nature, give me the strength to react, to rebuild my being, even a little at a time.

Be happy or my beloved wolves. That everything always smiles at you and that the evil man with his ax is a thousand miles away. I was happy for them, while my life was dying out! I did not dare to think of them, but at the same time they were inside me. It hurt too much not to be able to symbolically hold them in my arms because they were disappearing little by little. But I felt their occult presence and this relieved my sadness at least a little. I felt their scent, their breath, and I felt that their heart, unaware of everything, was beating with hope. The sudden tears streaked my face, the sadness expanded within me, and everything was lost in the nothingness of my void existence. Perhaps these were my last lines, but a strange feeling made me react and hope again. But I was equally pessimistic, I could not see anything around me that could give me the strength to react. I no longer belonged to anything, the emptiness around me. I was always absent, I did not listen to anything, and nothing seemed to be able to listen to me. Goodbye sad day, goodbye revolving world. I wanted so much to leave the scene, forever and with certainty.

A few days later the day still began with an anguish in my heart after a night full of nightmares and deep emotions. But perhaps it seemed to me that the fresh morning air could bring some comfort and "optimism". Will it be true? I would have checked it later.

The anguish in the evening, however, had the upper hand, because I had to do what I never wanted. Find me in front of a fork and have to choose which way to go. It was absolutely not the right time and perhaps it would never have been. I preferred to find alternate events, even uncomfortable but always on a single path to go. Instead, the case of my life seemed to reserve this serious ambassador for me. What a pain in the chest, deep inside. Loving tears ran through my face and drops of blood came out of my heart.

The next day was a day with alternating phases, but the sadness was still still mistress of me. A nice hike through the woods was not at all enough to lift me up at least a little.

I was now going along a path because even though reluctantly, it probably seemed that I had preferred it to another. How many beautiful things I knew to lose for eternity. It was certainly not a good feeling. It is true, probably no way leads to any part, but I bitterly suffered and burned ardently in my deep self. I knew that I was forever losing something "special", something unrepeatable, and yet it seemed that I was doing it and moreover my fault. I was in fact losing unity with nature, I was losing the wild spirit forever. But I realized that I should not have had to choose. What madness. This would have been the worst madness.

The light around me did not illuminate me in the slightest, but deepened within me, it grew more and more intense.

The anguish was still my mistress, but on the one hand I understood a little the meaning of my intolerances. After all, I deserved it because in my life my behavior had been too disharmonious with nature and the image I had given to other beings probably did not answer at all to my true essence. You can not always take things from life in their own way and according to their "domestic" needs. I had understood that if relationships with the world and with other beings were born it was necessary to activate a more universal and less selfish behavior.

One day I made another useful reflection. It is not possible to live life by projecting it only into the future. Always walk moved forward. Or doing things by pretending to forget others. It was useless because at every corner the anguish and the disappointments would always reappear. How much incurable sadness was still inside of me. How much distrust! I felt like a prince who had previously had a lot, but a lot of reveries, unexpressed relationships, continuous and rich thoughts; then suddenly the emptiness and here the prince finds himself poor and devoid of real things. I had become really poor. I had lost or maybe I was losing my dreams, the most beautiful things, the strongest feelings, my only truth: the wild side of oneself. I was probably furrowing the wrong path away from the wilderness of life.

The environment around me was strongly in unison with my ego, at least in appearance, but a constant unease gripped me and the disharmony made my heart melt. I could not control it and not make it belong to my spirit. I did not know how long my life would last, but in that way it was impossible to continue it. I could not do it. No, I could not do it.

Even that day had therefore begun in the blackest negativity!

One day I decided to reflect more on my state of being.

Finally I was perhaps reacting a bit 'positively to cross that tunnel of negativity that now seemed endless.

The light around me seemed a little clearer and a feeble optimism seemed to present itself to my heart. Perhaps a liberating dream had helped me and in those decisive moments I finally managed to glimpse something. Yes, actually on that day, maybe I was able to raise my spirit. I felt the return of truth and interests for things, at least in a small way. Surely it was the right moment to start changing course and taking the "master" way of nature. I would have seen the actual consequences in the following days. I was strongly hopeful. A certain help certainly came to me from the quiet existence of the places in which I moved even if at times everything seemed to me to be strongly foreign.

After the cautious optimism of a few days, anxiety returned to me probably because of the difficulties not yet overcome on the structure of my inner future. I still felt the wild life escape me and nothing appeared clear and restful. But I should not have rowed the boat because with a little perseverance and patience I could have done it. On the other hand it was almost normal that suffering belonged to me and I knew that if I wanted to build something new, I would never have to look back!

One day a crucial moment came. I found myself again in front of a path that suddenly changed course. Is it perhaps the right one and is not it really a question of the route?

I thought of my dreams of the wild and of lightness, and a wolf of the woods appeared before me like a vain phantom. I saw the features, the graceful features and at times lost his vision. Because?

The stars fell into the sky and my hidden desires multiplied in my mind. I listened to the silence while my suffering vestigies brought me company.

An emptiness spreads in the air and transmigrates among the souls of the eternal. I smell the will and I understand the freedom ......

When the moon appeared in the late sky it was an evening of remembrance, the evening of my quiet certainty. I was perhaps moving away from a senseless perdition. The moon was reflected on the lake filtered by a magical opalescence of the mists. The sense of calm and mystery suddenly strengthened even if I lost my emotional control ... ... The falling stars came down in clusters and I always expressed the same desire for each of them ....... At that moment I was so to speak happy, joyful and I wanted to stop the time, but what was holding me back?

Then suddenly I finally understood something: I could not close myself in my inner sufferings, live in nature, love it, but be far away because darkened by some kind of gloomy thoughts, always being fearful of everything and continually succubus of my mind prisoner of herself, being overwhelmed by an anguish born of the booming existential threats, by not being able to really deal with things, not to cultivate and bring to light my wild side, turn off little by little at the time of consumption ... .. but at this point I can not, in truth, proceed in the speech because the great dilemma remains: will I really deal with the reality of the wilderness of life? Will I be governed by wisdom and due courage? Will I stupidly dominate the domestic side of the wild? I do not know what I will do, or rather I know what I should do to be in truth, but only if I realize it will I be able to see its marvelous positive effects. Meanwhile, I thank that mysterious and surely metaphorical wolf of the woods, for its essence, its truth and its beauty; I will be with his spirit, in any case, forever united and irrevocably inseparable! My spirit will never cease to dream it even if he is far from me. The savage if you've lost it or you've lost it, you always feel it inside, anyway.

May I find you a wolf-lover one day to be able to caress the thick fur so soft for the incipient winter, even in another life ......

 

* * *

 

I'm alone in the hut. The snow falls copiously and everything seems to be sublimated in the beauty of matter and spirit. I'm choosing a different life, but I have to commit myself to live and breathe the new. I do not have to be afraid of changing and joining everything. I have to transfigure myself into myself. I have to walk in the night, fly in the mind and savor the hidden meaning of natural truth. I'm alone in the hut and I have to draw water from the well and warm up with the wood I've collected ... It's really true. It is difficult to return simple, it is really difficult to do it and above all to feel it inside. I become inebrained with the inner lights and transfigured into infinity, but I breathe deeply and feed myself with my new thought. I feel sometimes the hidden truth that little by little comes back to light. Light, a beautiful word that contrasts with darkness, not those of the night, but those of the spirit when it is busy searching for the ephemeral and the vacuous. The light brings me back to life, perhaps even united with death itself, but the truth gradually penetrates me into solitude and the lost way. I'm alone in the hut. The wind brings with it swirls of snow, icy sensations, but also transfers in the air the call of the wild and clear visions that the rustling of the fronds of the trees amplifies theatrically. I lock myself in my I, I try to look at myself from inside and I see my mistakes, my indecision, my transience and I push myself further, beyond my limit and, with surprise, I begin to glimpse the right bank where everything is like must be and as always will be. Dear wolf alone, come back to my mind, help me to open me to the wild world so that I can find again the load of truth and beauty. Thank you spirits of the woods. Your voice announces freedom, announces the right path and I, at the mercy of true life, slowly transmit towards the absolute, an absolute that in an opalescent form I remember that a distant time was in me, in every human being then ... ... the 'magic' word civilization took it away from me and I got tired, it's true, I got tired of it. I recognize all my mistakes, one by one, and I hardly try to find some kind of wisdom in between. Then suddenly I find one: awareness, being aware of something. It is a great possession, because it is the first step towards the right way. But at this point I do not have to go back. It's too good to lose it again. I can not afford it. Forgive me all if one day you can. I feel petty and ephemeral, but I began to be really aware now and now I can not help but go on for an enlightening and omnipresent path. I can hear the wolves. Finally I understand it in the right and undisputed way. But above all, now I really live it. I go out of the hut and I join that piercing sound because in my heart I finally feel that I can start again, really start again.

 

* * *

 

In the middle of the Nordic winter I find myself gathered in the hut surrounded by the infinite taiga that in the apparent sleep gives you the life and the 'breath' of the blood. The feeling of free freedom always returns to me, with the metaphorical watchful gaze of the wild wolf. I no longer understand the weight of falsehoods and masks, I feel the truth emerge from my skin and nothing, just nothing can distract me from this state of mind. Being in the wilderness means always being oneself, stripped bare with its own weaknesses and with all the limitations that each existing brings in one's own burden of life. Every action of the members and of the spirit is essential, and listening, knowing how to listen to silence and loneliness is now something to be learned and no longer to be seen. Nothing can take away from us the desire to breathe the truth, and nothing can prevent us from freeing ourselves from the useless chains that we have gradually imposed upon ourselves. But we must want to do it.

Listening to silence, the silent silence that gives reflection, calm and true serenity. The alienation of a man alone within the walls of civilization is strong and leads him slowly towards his ruin and his perdition. It extinguishes itself, it takes away the breath from itself and there is nothing that can wake him up from the deep sleep of his own spirit. I have learned to listen, by now very well, the calm and the voice of my inner part that in the end is perfectly intertwined with the great breath of the essence of wild life.

I was a prisoner and a slave to anguish and anxiety, and I was not at all master of myself. I was a sort of puppet whose threads were moved by the yearning of apparent life, and I no longer knew the secrets of my hidden truths.

In order to do so, I went to the margins of the voracious great circle of civilization, which assembled everything uniformly and reduced everything similar to a "machine" that produces, gains and above all consumes. To come out of it substantially outside, or at least to put oneself on the margins means to have understood that inside every life pulsates something else that is not money, power and ephemeral chimeras. The simple and simple sociality could lead to a multiform, harmonious and wise relationship, but the great, global and senseless sociality, or rather 'asociality', transforms things differently even if apparently unites them and leads, I would say, suddenly towards the abyss and the end of knowing how to listen to 'silence'.

The inner vision of life no longer seems to belong to contemporary man, and all the ailments of such a state come to light. The man therefore degenerates believing that with his work he is always doing better to 'step out' from a life that seemed to him intolerant and devoid of 'useful' things. He is therefore falling into the trap of himself, in a trap that may not allow a way back.

I reflect on the meaning of my life and I recognize that it is not a choice, but a duty, a duty that must be honored in the best possible way. If I cancel myself to spend meaningless existence it is as if I refuse to live, and this is not good. I have to react to the negativity that I impose on me or that sometimes indirectly imposed on me. I have to release my positive energy to dedicate it to the quality of existence.

From around the taiga seems to sleep, but it warns me, the sense of me awakens me, and leads me directly to the path of essence. So I take my spirit and let it flow through the river of life. A life of quality and essence where the vacuous and the nullities no longer find a place. I have finally understood that dream and reality merge into one single substance where the beauty of what is nature breathes within me and inside things.

I truly feel in my being the wilderness of life, the call of the wild. It is useless to hold great speeches if you kill nature. We all leave. Instead we must reject our selfishness and accept the universal beauty that the simple howl of the wolf can already well represent. Because what offends the sense of things, the sense of nature, offends the whole of the whole in one fell swoop. I feel like I want to love life with nature, because nature is love and life itself. For me everything that offends nature was inconceivable and from this point of view my clear tendency is, or all white or all black. My mind gave no nuance to the destructive work of the natural world by man.

I find myself in the hut in the heart of the taiga and I write these lines, the story of what 'said and did not say' the wolf, the story of love. And I hear a song, a song of sorrow, when man spontaneously wants to remove and annihilate what he believes does not belong to him anymore. He sings his error, his evil error, and I try to recognize the right, in harmony and in peace. Then I listen to the song of nature and cry for the joy that emanates, but I also cry for the hand that offends her. Oh man, why do you offend your mother? I believe I understand your gesture. You have simply lost the sense of reason and you no longer have a soul of universality and love. And then you destroy yourself and the things of nature which then, in the end, are the same thing.

But the wise words are not heard, do not enter in the soul in the now hardened even in the limbs. You do not listen, you can not see, you do not hear. It's not good. Why, man, do you escape the truth? I ask, I ask and I never get an answer.

In my past, as I have already announced, I too was blind and deaf and I had fallen into existential anguish and the sadness of life. But the spirit of the forest, the spirit of the Great North awakened me, made me understand and gave me the hope of existence. So I started to move away from the 'certain' certainties of false everyday life and I started to distance myself from that strange existential malaise. And slowly, listening to the howling of the wolf, I gave back to myself what belonged to me.

When something ends, it is not important what ends, but what starts. All things are united, even when they are different. It is up to one's own wisdom to understand which path to follow.

Time seems to pass slowly, but the taiga has taught me many practical things, and I would say above all the essential ones of the spirit. My long follow the life of the wolves has confirmed to me and at the same time unveiled many things of their witty existence. The herd is exceptionally compact, clean, perfectly adapted to survive in an environment that, especially in the long winter, is anything but easy. The dynamic of its members, extremely active and multiform, inspires a lot to always resist in life, because we must fight to the end. We must never give up and must penetrate, the tasks of survival, with the stimulus of their energy. The sharp look of a wolf or its true, but also symbolic howl, always reminds us that there is still an indomitable and wild nature, although I believe we can not fully understand all the messages, because there are many things that we do not perceive because there is less what the wolves can not tell us directly!

But anyway, we do not want to learn anymore, we do not even want to listen and we obviously do not want to understand. Now I ask myself: if we do nothing of these things, who will hold up the world? Man lives continuously on credit, but his fund is ending: nature. Think about it before continuing ..........

 

Lupa blanca

(White wolf)

 

 

That morning was a traumatic awakening. And to think that the night before I lay down full of confidence and optimism knowing that the next day I would have to leave for a long excursion.

The awakening was traumatic because the night I had a surreal dream in itself extremely beautiful and full of reflections, but full of hidden and inexplicable meanings; these were in fact the first sensations I perceived. This situation brought me, in fact, upon awakening, to a sort of strange disquiet which did not give me, so to speak, peace.

As all dreams with the passing of the hours they tend, especially in detail, gradually fading, I decided immediately to write it down in my notebook, "coloring" inevitably with the transpositions and licenses that allows writing, adding above all the feelings that I had tried inside the story, but without altering its basic development in any way. Taking the right concentration, I wrote ...... ..

"It was like a sudden shock. A sincere and profound feeling was born for an elusive wild she-wolf called by me "Lupa blanca", this for the indissoluble bond of symbolic love that immediately joined me after meeting her in a silent forest north of my hut. I called her "blanca" because her coat was candidly white and, as in every non-human being, her heart was devoid of masks and lies. A special love came on, I would say indescribable and very deep. Perhaps it was his pure and absolute wildness, his continued neatness, his loving kindness, his elegant posture, all en bloc .... I do not know. What I know is that in any case I got madly in love with her. Lupa blanca was, for me, a unique, unrepeatable being that, with graceful leaps, vanished among the shady forests of the taiga as if to remind me of the evanescence of our ephemeral and false "certainties". It emitted a kind of sublime attraction. I felt a sincere bond that united me with his deep soul. The days spent with his spirit continually reminded me of his being. Sometimes I came to "associate" with her many events, finding her features and loving kindness in the most disparate recesses of reality. I came to conceive of time in another dimension, so much so that I felt I had always known and lived it. I had been with her in indescribable significant moments and I do not think I fall into rhetoric if I say the most beautiful of all. It was all very intense, passionate, infinite and there was, among us, a sort of elective affinity. It was something undefinable to me. Lupa blanca was always in my spirit and, thanks to its existence, my life could continue its pleasant course.

One evening, standing near a fire, Lupa blanca approached, clung to me with her white cloak and sent me a lot of telepathic energy so intense that it caused me a fervent vital thrill. Then he turned around the fire, looked at me, howled briefly and with an agile leap he passed the trunk where I was sitting and quickly returned to his forest. That great love for Lupa Blanca was teaching me many things, perhaps the most important things in life and that brought my heart to rise to the highest peaks of feeling. I reflected at length, at times I thought bitterly what Lupa blanca also wanted to make me ideally understand. The destruction of the earth, the end of the forests, the alienation of feelings of love and understanding. With his direct example and with those he electively transmitted to me, I gradually began to understand better and more deeply the many warning signs on the destruction of the earth's wilderness.

Lupa blanca was the absolute sublimation of pure wildness, and it also made me perceive that harmonious melody that could vibrate between the spirit of peoples, between the unitary spirit between man and nature. He seemed to want to reconnect a brutally severed bond between man and the soul of life. Lupa blanca created with me an indissoluble feeling also because I read in her deep eyes a passion of great truth and, when I seemed lucid, I imagined that they were also moved for me. A tireless transpersonal love was practically born where Lupa blanca recited the part of the sensory spirit of the feminine and I, obviously, the masculine one, whose sensitivity could only be taken as a gift. In fact, it was precisely this: the female soul generally allowed to transmigrate into the masculine one that sense of goodness that can reign in the soul of being.

One evening, tired and weary, after a long day of walking and working, I fell exhausted next to the fire I had barely managed to light to cook something; in the following dormancy I had a whirlwind of dreams, many of which I did not remember at the following day, but some scenes in which Lupa and I were running free and graceful in the fir-tree forest, I found them all clear and broken in the morning's restful mind and it was a whole act, within myself, while my thought was always for Lupa blanca, a beautiful Inuit song of love that I had known for many years ... .. "I dreamed of you tonight. In the dream you walked on the pebbles of the shore, and I walked with you. I dreamed of you, and you seemed to be awake: I pursued you, I desired you, and you were desirable ...... So I dreamed of you, so you were desirable ".

Many moons passed and, except for a few breaks, I often met the gaze of Lupa blanca, even if at times the events of life took us far or made us change our paths otherwise almost always joined. When we met again after some time his leaps of joy and my tears of joy were the most exciting moments of the meeting; then Lupa often took to running on the banks of a lake or seemed to play hide and seek among the colonnades of the centuries-old fir trees in the forest. I tried to follow her, to observe her, to rejoice with her and, sometimes, to be honest, even in those moments of positivity she gave a sort of failure in my inside because I thought I'd better remember that Lupa blanca was a she-wolf wild and sooner or later he could also take his own path that would take him to shores far from mine. Those moments of sudden pain lost me a lot, even if I understood the real possibility of the event. I remember one day, while the rain with great force came down, Lupa blanca passed near my hut, sniffed the air, turned to me that in the meantime I had crashed on the door and, as if to make it look like a sort goodbye, he turned away without paying any attention. I remember my moments of panic when I saw her vanish in the forest ...... I turned around, shouted her name, ran into the woods and Lupa blanca was gone .... I returned sadly into the hut and picked myself up in an intrinsic pain. I thought I would never see her again. I do not know why, but I had that feeling. Weeks of suffering, sad sadness, abandonment of myself passed ... ... then suddenly one night, it was a starry night, I heard her howling not far from the hut. I rushed out, I ran almost without direction, and under the great shadows of the trees illuminated by the clear light of the moon, the whiteness of Lupa blanca appeared like an angel wrapped in a symbolic phosphorescent cloak. He ran to meet me, I ran to meet him and, when he got to a meter from me, he raised himself with his hind legs and placed the front ones on my shoulders. I hugged her with all the strength I had and I could not hold back the emotion and long lines of tears came down my cheeks. It was yet another moment of joy that Lupa blanca offered me in the most total spontaneity.

After a few weeks, then one day, what I had been thinking for a long time, I felt more vigorously in my heart. I thought: Lupa blanca is a free being, why do I hold her bound to me that perhaps I no longer possess my wild side? It was certainly not a bond of strength, it was a "pact" of love, but what did I actually give him? Nothing. Just nothing. It was Lupa blanca that gave everything to me and from me nothing ever. I entered a tunnel of profound bewilderment, of quiet resignation, and I thought that perhaps it was better for me to disappear from her to let her fly on the wings of her freedom. It was also true that my presence was strongly accepted by the she-wolf who in her way certainly loved me, but who knows if in all this she found any suffering or impediment in the unfolding of the rhythms of her existence? I had doubts, uncertainties, existential contortions ... but then I made it all down because it was always Lupa blanca that spontaneously presented itself to me.

A few weeks passed and there were many events that happened. One day, Lupa Blanca had caught a black grouse and found it near the river bed, while she tenaciously dismembered the flesh. I approached her and she, but, completely ignoring me, went on with her. To counterpoint, I went to get the fishing rod and, once again reached the river, in less than a quarter of an hour, I caught a trout of a couple of kilos. I cooked her right on the bank of the river, while Lupa blanca, about ten yards away, having finished her meal, lay down on her side, and occasionally glanced at me. When the trout was well cooked and partially smoked, I threw a piece of it to the she-wolf, who, without too much enthusiasm, ate it very calmly. Probably he was satisfied or unwilling to give me the satisfaction of eagerly devouring a bite offered by me. Obviously these were joking thoughts, but they did nothing but contribute to increasingly unite our bond of particular friendship.

A few days later a fact happened, just for a change, rather strange. It was early morning and I was near the lake to observe with the telescope the strolaghe and the wild swans that enriched, with their pleasant and harmonious presence, the beauties of that mirror of water, mirror of water lapped in all its perimeter from a majestic forest made of pine trees, spruces, birches and alders. While he was intent on that pleasant task, Lupa came out blanca, with a course so plush, so that I did not notice his coming. He carried with his mouth a twig of birch adorned with gems and, coming to me, he deposited it on my left side. Then, moving away a few meters to enter the undergrowth, he picked up a pine cone and made the same gesture. Then, back in the woods, after a few minutes she brought me a fir cone. And he always did the same gesture. I left my ornithological observations and, amazed at that behavior, I called to me Lupa blanca and asked her, obviously fictitiously (I did not really think she could understand my speech), what she wanted to make me understand. As revealed I did not manifest any reaction to my saying and lay down quietly a meter away from me. I meditated a few minutes, then I got up, took the three "findings", and instinctively went to bury them at the edge of the woods. Obviously my fantastic interpretation was that the gesture wanted to symbolize the renewal of the life of the forest and at the same time the preservation of its existence. I was spontaneous to ask myself how Lupa blanca conceived something like that, but I easily came to the conclusion that all of her ritual gestures, perhaps did not mean anything, but I liked to think that instead they were a warning, a subtle warning, on the destruction of forests that proceeded, in the world, at an incalculable pace. Obviously the immense taiga was full, like the tropical forests, subject to that uncontrolled annihilation and day after day, immense giants of that immense green sea, came down under the "ax" of modern buldozer trees.

It was an unpleasant feeling, but unfortunately all too truthful. The wild world had not been more present in the human mind for a long time, and the immense gifts that nature offered us were seen only as something external to exploit for the most basic necessities of an unbalanced society, a society that saw only and exclusively the so-called "development". The unhealthy mind of man always conceived of it in ever-increasing growth, or else the system would go into a blockage.

At that point, mine was a double interpretation. The first, the symbolic one of the behavior of Lupa blanca, probably the result of my imagination, the second, the realistic and unfortunately unstoppable which tended with extreme diligence the human race, now exaggerated by an incommensurable globalization. It was born, already long ago, a unique, but unequal society that spared no part of human beings and the entire planet earth!

Another small event caught my attention. I was warming up the soup the night before, when I heard the door rasping at the door of the house. It was Lupa blanca, probably long since arrived, but with my work in the kitchen, I had not noticed the presence. I opened the door and, taking the mess tin with steaming soup, I went to sit on the outside bench, while Lupa blanca, after approaching me, went to the neighboring fire where she had laid a white hare, recently captured . I looked at her, laid the mess tin and told her that now she also wanted to take care of my food menu. I was a little puzzled, then I took the hare, I cleaned it as I used to make and light the fire. Before cooking it on the grill, I cut a nice slice and gave it to the she-wolf. He did not hesitate for a moment and vehemently took his well-deserved portion. I gave up my soup (it seemed to me a rude to the she-wolf not to accept his lunch) and willingly ate that delicious morsel that was given to me.

Another beautiful example of fraternal friendship profusami from Lupa blanca, I was offered one day when on the setting of the sun she presented herself to my hut with a dynamic and full of energy. In itself there would be nothing strange because its life force was always clearly expressed in its global way of acting. But the mystery was that on that very day I felt deeply melancholic, I had an anguished feeling within me without any apparent triggering cause. I was down and nothing more. Lupa blanca, on the other hand, arrived with an extremely dynamic look, more dynamic than her normal behavior. I turned around several times and, howling in a questioning tone, seemed to wonder what was happening to me. There was practically a telepathic connection between us. I remained motionless, observing it with a mixture of curiosity and wonder. The she-wolf came up to me, pulled me lightly by the pants as if to invite me to follow her. I interpreted that event as a "delayed burst", so much so that after that attempt by the she-wolf to shake me out of my torpor, she hesitated on her continuation, since there was no reaction on my part. But shortly after she wolf insisted on his intent to "drag me" somewhere and, in the end, I took the event. I followed her along the short path that led us to the lake and stopped abruptly, looking towards the other bank. A ball of fire illuminated the area of a purple red, while a fresh and crystalline air spread around. I witnessed those two simple events: Lupa blanca looking at the setting sun and the light that quietly colored. Lupa blanca began to howl, while the sun was going out behind the "great wall" of the firs. I remained at that moment without thought, and my previous melancholy, perhaps because I was distracted by those particular events, moved away slightly. Then, when the sun set and Lupa blanca ceased to howl, a great silence dominated the scene, but by now the concert to which he had been invited to listen was about to manifest itself in all its forms. A sudden wind yearning shook the immature stasis of the trees, while the tyrants in the lake uttered their questions and wailing lupins. The declining brightness made the landscape increasingly opalescent and at that point the she wolf turned to me and then turned her gaze back to the dying lake of light. We remained in this state for about half an hour and I was feeling a sort of restlessness, when, as if it were a sudden apparition, the fullness of the moon joined the ecstatic concert. At that point, things became clear to me: Lupa blanca wanted to show me that life is structured with a variant and multi-faceted pattern and there is no time that the change in situations is not full of strong and varied forms and contrasts. In similitude, even the life of the individual had these dynamic connotations and there was a single space that was not allowed to enter, because it was a space that could not exist: it was the renunciation of the dynamism of life, was to be melancholy and pessimistic , was to see things from one and questionable point of view. It was a clear warning, made clear by simple and common events that are manifested each day, renewed, in life.

I took a breath, I looked at Lupa blanca and once again I noticed her particular sensitiveness in getting hold of my sometimes too frequent states of abandonment and quiet sadness. I understood then that in life, even if a moment of loss or lost joy occurs, it, joy, is always around the corner and awaits us with the maximum of its splendor. Pessimism, sadness or resignation may come, but if we listen to the free unfolding of wild life, the joy and positive force of life will always have the upper hand. In nature, terms such as melancholy, sadness, pessimism and others, never find any space to manifest themselves, because they are in deep and unbridgeable antithesis with the gift of everyday existence. The strength of the individual is felt when he has to deal with an act of courage and robustness. Lupa Blanca had taught me that what is negative sometimes comes within the soul, it is very normal, but it is only a very brief moment of contrast on what is the real life and on what is the only path to follow. With the refreshed soul, in the height of the night, I returned to the hut.

In short, as mentioned, all these small events, although not explained rationally, I approached more and more to the dear Lupa dear and seemed to me extremely remote, perhaps for a sort of froidiana removal, that one day that friendly friendship could suddenly stop . There were too many signs and teachings that the wolf gave me and I tried to see in each attitude, even if it was small, what meaning was hidden, if meaning had to be there.

On another occasion I began to walk along the woods with the she-wolf that followed me like a tame dog. That confidence of hers always seemed so strange to me, so much so that once I did a trial. As we proceeded on the edge of a swamp spaced about thirty meters, I stopped and called it to myself; immediately, with a military obedience, he quickly reached me and was caressed as if nothing had happened. A real apparent domesticated behavior.

In the maze of events one day I finally came to think that Lupa blanca was not a wild she-wolf, but perhaps fled from some presumed "owner" who, having taken her from a puppy, was now accustomed to human companionship. But his way of doing easily unmasked my unconvinced thought. She was a skilled hunter, disappearing for weeks to suddenly reappear as she pleased; maintained, even in its apparent docility, an expression and a way of acting that gave her all the connotations of being wild and, even if I tried to describe her behavior, in the depths I never found the right attributes. I was inevitably limited by my concepts of being humanly tamed.

In short, the days spent busily and I always felt enthusiastic and proud of me to have as a companion, though not constant, a savage she-wolf. In fact, I sometimes wondered if everything was true or the simple fruit of my "stubborn" fantasy. From time to time I wondered if Lupa blanca was a solitary being, as I saw her, or she belonged to some herd that she frequented when she was often absent from my hut. Probably, given her strength and her character, she was an alpha female and at her will decided, when she had the opportunity, to move away from her group to come to me. I did not know, but I was dubious about his total solitude compared to his fellow men. But, in any case, I never saw her together with another wolf.

However, as a whole, my tangible link with Lupa blanca, as already mentioned, at times seemed extremely strange to me and I did not see it again, the meaning of the situation above all by the behavior of the wolf.

Several weeks passed and it was at least six months that Lupa Blanca often came to stay with me. But with the passing of time, even if I felt myself resting on my laurels, I fell back into that crisis, perhaps unjustified, but in any case pervaded my whole being. Was it really good that Lupa blanca all that time with my mediocre domesticity? The doubts became more concrete even if I did not notice anything strange in the behavior of the beloved she-wolf. But, after an absence of five days, when she returned she found me, in a strongly absent state of mind, sitting on the bench that surrounded the fire. Lupa blanca, as was his usual, turned around, gave a little yelp followed by a brief howling how to say "wake up" and I, in that circumstance, I showed a sort of coldness, even if the term was a po'esagerato. Then, perhaps caught by a deep sense of guilt, I do not know, I looked at her with the intention of pushing her away violently, but I held back, because my spirit did not feel like pushing her away ... ... But some time later, suddenly on a spring day when the last snows melt, while Lupa blanca after a two day absence came towards me, in a kind of shemale, I shouted at her, intimidated her, waved her a stick and continued to scream excess. The she-wolf, obviously with wonder, was frightened not a little and, even with a trot not overly supported, went away, taking the direction of the forest ...... The next day of the wolf there was no trace and then I took advantage to fill my travel bag with the intention to arrive, temporarily, in an extremely remote place where Lupa blanca could not reach me .......... Time would have done the rest ... ...! "

Thus the dream was dissolved and this is what I wrote about it. But I wondered: why did I renounce the savage in that beautiful and at the same time disturbing dream? Why did it seem to me that I rejected the evidence of the end of the earth made me understand by Lupa blanca? Because unlike events now I wanted to find before my eyes and daydreamed Lupa gray and embrace her with the maximum of love and union? Was it my refusal to admit that I could no longer reconnect with the wild world? I asked myself these and other questions, but, after an indescribable disturbance, I preferred in conclusion to no longer think about anything and to leave buried in my unconscious what I was trying to reveal. In fact, I thought that perhaps the best things had their maximum splendor when they remained unexpressed.

And so it was that in the end everything remained virtually unfinished, hoping that the development of my life led me, in its course, to find it, to truly understand, without failings and perhaps without having consciousness, what was hidden behind the fairy tale of Lupa blanca. "My friend, now I can not believe that because of me the time is over for us, no, because I can not survive your loss. My soul dies ......... ..

But I remember that every wild flower, even if it fades quickly, before dying gives the wind infinite seeds ... ".

 

 

The listening point for one

spirituality of nature

 

 

Suddenly, one day I decided to leave, but perhaps it was more a journey of the mind and of my imagination than a physical departure, I do not know; it would have led me to new shores, to open the doors to a very different reality, partly unexpected, but unconsciously wanted by me and perhaps already known. I raised the "sails" and took off, even if the navigation could have been anything but easy. I should have composed a complicated puzzle without having a guide image.

I found iridescent lights, musical auroras, unusual voices and, in the end, a long and indecipherable listening to something hovering above the tops of the spirit.

My search had begun, a search that was without subject or characters, an ethereal search where the flow of silent and inseparable souls led to a life obituary.

I went on with difficulty at times, because what is deeply true is not always that easy. I opened my heart, opened my openings and listened in silence to what I did not hear. The lights, after their decomposition, rejoined, but seemed to escape like leaves moved by a strong wind.

I went through tree-lined dunes, outdone disharmonic boulders, walked along a path I could not see, but finally I came to a sudden and pleasant clearing: I opened my chest and let the tears leave flowing without hindrance. It was sailing without wind, but a hard, truthful reawakening of the limbs.

So it was that I started inside myself to find what was left of nature, a dying nature that was about to be buried, but that I still wanted to see and especially hear before the last handful of earth was poured on its remains. And, something not secondary, I still wanted to understand and say something. I would have had to travel a long time, long to reconnect with a world now lost from which I myself, perhaps, wanted to be excluded. I had to find a place, a listening point, where to feel a "wind", a spirituality that could probably teach me something.

I was forced to travel with my mind because the silence of spring forced me to do it. Not a step, not a shudder, cut the still air and nothing, nothing seemed to want to give word.

I approached a fallen trunk, now transformed into humus, the bread of life; a thousand-year-old trunk that contained in its vanescent remains the story of a decline. Not his - that tree had only been a witness - but that of our self that slowly died out with the determination to do it.

I reached a crossroads. Two paths almost imperceptible, but clearly outlined. I chose one by chance, but the route I thought was alternative was short. Only a hundred steps and the paths suddenly overlapped. It was perhaps a warning to a false choice where the obligation to proceed seemed to offer a diversion. The sign was clear: the path had to be traveled in one direction devoid of deviations and free from corruption. Then I saw an imprint in the mud, an imprint of an ethereal, plastic, vanescent, sublime animal. It had just passed and in that daguerreotype of image I easily saw the author: a wolf. I saw in that footprint an infinite world, a world of howls, escapes, races at breakneck speed and luxuries of extinct joys. I paused, I reflected, I photographed with my thoughts and then I understood: how many meetings I could have done on my journey and what right way to follow without a guide? So I decided, in one breath, to make myself spiritually "carry" by that symbol of the wilderness of the earth. I took that guide, I mentioned it several times in my "I" and I was so reassured that I would surely find my place of listening! But my listening was not only conceived as a hearing, but above all to perceive messages, symbols, ethereal understandings, deep sensations that would have transcended the spirit above a manifestly tangible mechanism.

My voyage was turned to the north, the great north of the mother earth where the cold of the physique that stung the soul was opposed to the light of clarity. I now had at least one point of reference, a clear and definite cardinal point. And above all, I had my spiritual guide.

I knew to step on my shadow, now frozen for its ineluctable vanity. I trampled my pain and my inertia before the change of the seasons of the soul. In the meantime I was following the track of the wolf, and I saw, at the edge of the path, the inevitable deviations to which the mind tended. Existential distortions, emptiness of things and, above all elements, the fleeting spirit that loses the moment to understand the meaning of the earth. The bare earth beneath my feet and, in front of the clear sight of things, the dark shadow of myself, full of selfish and centripetal hopes.

The day was long, the journey incessant, but my goal, the point of listening in the great north, had to be reached. It was only there that I perceived that I could hear the absolute and the stainless wind of magic where every parameter would disintegrate to recompose itself in the right direction of the spirituality of nature in an uncompromising elective affinity.

Ignore follies, certain sadness, real hallucinations and, in the middle, my shadow now unified to that of my guide. The desire to have, to possess, slandered what was most pure in the mother earth. I, my shadow, my whole was well perched on one side and, distinct and distant, nature seemed to observe me dismayed because I "deliberately" disjoined. I had severed what was indivisible, I had removed that which was immovable and had entered, classically and with bravado, in my divisive mind renouncing that unicum that was the feeble but incessant wind of the origins.

I was a stone, a stone thrown into the void and I moved all my madness towards the nothingness of duality. I had the inseparable SCISSO, I had dissolved the indissoluble and I had shouted to the world, perhaps unaware of the grave error, my success in doing all this ..........

I walked a lot, days and days, leaving behind me latitudes after latitudes. He changed every element, the forests of conifers took the place of those of the hardwoods, and the animals, always new, led me to the north. A brown bear in the thick of the forest, a moose somewhere, a big dam of a beaver that implacidated the going of the waters and, my guide, the wolf, who, even if I did not see, indicated the way to me every day. I was sometimes tired, but I knew I had to do it.

Many moons passed and, day after day, I gained hundreds of miles. I did not know where I should have stopped, but I trusted in my inner sense. Meanwhile in my mind the images of mine and especially of the whole life of man with his "quiet existential desperation" and with his progress towards an undefined but very clear place: the total disintegration of the chaotic order of the mother Earth. A disintegration that carried with itself, but, even if not completely unaware, proceeded with extreme determination, like the flow of a rushing stretch of river: "the West is a ship that is sinking to the peak, whose flaw is ignored by everyone. But everyone is busy making the journey more comfortable ". (Emanuele Severino) Those images flowed one after the other and all had one common thread: severely severing the sense of unity with the earth. It was the same feeling that I had in myself, but on this occasion it was translated to the entire human race, at least that large part that runs after nothingness and division. But on the whole, even if I could not do it in the end, they try hard not to let me be subjugated by the thought of suffering. In this regard I recalled a beautiful passage from a book that I was fortunate enough to pass some time before: "Every unhappiness is partly, so to speak, the shadow or the reflection of itself: it is not only its own suffering, but also the need to continually think about suffering. I not only live every interminable day in pain for his death, but I live it thinking that I live every day in pain ....... " (Lewis, 1990)

Thick skies, golden twilights, vanescent lights and lights that brightened my thinking during the day.

The cry of the heart, the ephemeral raised, the useless enrichment and the essential ignored.

The wind on the cheeks, the rustle of the forests and, suddenly, the roar of thunder after the lightning.

My progress was slowed because I felt that my guide now progressed no more linearly, but stopped to smell the air, zigzagging left and right, as if to tell me that the time to stop was very close. But it would certainly not have been a static stop, but fundamentally dynamic and above all reflective and constructive because to fully understand the essence of the facts, the only way was to listen to nature. The sign would be me when I first arrived.

I was in an almost surreal scenario: articulated hills in the background, a sinuous and sometimes impetuous river nearby and, everywhere, a grand, millenary primeval forest. An environment that took away the breath, which gave to being the deepest sense of wilderness of places and spirit. I had perhaps come to my place of LISTENING, where I would have probably understood the right to exist and would have breathed in my mind the air of harmonious living. Listening, understanding, reflecting ........... At that point a reflection occurred to me that once did not fully agree with it, but now maybe I saw something involving: "Life must be seen through all its shades like the colors of a prism. It is necessary to let oneself be penetrated by the thousand lights that go through it, because then at the end of the process they come back together again, it is enough not to resist; there are things that must be lived with participation, like evil and goodness, love and joy. It is necessary to let them cross and look at them, in a detached but present way, making it clear to anyone that you are the master of yourself, your mind and your body ".

This was my first feeling of thought now that the most arduous task touched me. Reconcile my disagreement with nature through the penetration into the innermost recesses of one's heart in order to demolish little by little all the wrong and tangible past, but completely ephemeral, of which my mind, well representative of all mankind, was so strongly set. It was like having to work in a mine to remove the superfluous and find the mother vein, the source of all riches.

I had to move again for about ten days, cross several hills and wade small rivers, but in the end I realized that my progress no longer made sense. The track of my "guide" had indeed disappeared. I had traveled a very long way and now I realized that what I was looking for could be discovered in all its entirety. I simply had, so to speak, clean up the encrustations of my being, remove the plugs from my ears and begin to listen to the great spirituality of the wilderness ........

 

With profound humility I decided not to resume my journey back from the "listening point" , a solitary and silent place where the spirit re-entered in nature. My wandering and my goal, perhaps more mental, surreal and inner than physical, led me to reflect well because now I was strong in me the full awareness of the bitter fate that the human race has been running for far too long. My now complete awareness of the "hidden truth", pushed me to argue and write a last thoughtful step ... ...

"The clear warning of understanding addressed to the wandering traveler will hardly come in sincerity understood, especially in its depth. In fact, in 'surface' there are many signs of partial awareness, but in the real and in the executive the changes appear only fictitious and 'scenographic'. It 's like being fallen into quicksand: we cling desperately to something to get out, but that something is an ephemeral blade of grass that quickly detaches. And then the sinking will be inevitable!

The last frontier of wilderness is fading more and more. A twilight that concludes a particular day, whose day represents the last stage of the free and incorrupt life that now, with the arrival of darkness, we do not know whether the next day in the soft light can continue to exist. Even the longest and most winding streets sooner or later come to an end or the limit converge into others, but now the others have already exhausted their route. Therefore, going can not be unfolded towards a customary destination beyond to come and we reach, in the most profound sadness, the conclusion that now there is no more way to go. Fermi, stunned, you look around and everywhere you see large expanses of smoke that obscure the depth of the visual senses and then the minds, lost in the unknown, no longer see the way they could take. In the paradox one deludes oneself, but only for a few moments, that one way, somewhere, is unaware that our previous going had progressively led us towards the end of the line. And now that the gait is no longer allowed, in the mind reappear, all in a rapid flickering of events, the mistakes made and the destruction perpetrated when, at the time, they were sure that the way would never end. To preserve abundance, when it is such, it must be administered sparingly and harmoniously, and never, never say above its sustainable and self-generating capabilities. In this there are all the things that the wild spirit, in a certain sense, has never expressly 'said' because it has always expressed it, every now, in the intimate and subtle bond that in the introspection holds and unites every elective affinity . We did not want to listen either because our progress has always prevented us and because our actions did not want to perceive the essence of things at all. Throughout our existence we have been too 'occupied' in the practice of looting everything we came to - including ourselves - without the slightest semblance of conscience and, at the end of the day: what are the most bitter tears for, tears that seal with their very powerful collagen material, the lights now made darkness? And, in the immense chasm that opens, it will be inevitable the precipitate without interruption in the deepest depths; but, something even more serious and as an act of final perfidy, by bringing with it every existing thing, animated and not that it had appeared in what was called 'mother earth'.

When, therefore, the 'wild wind', the spirituality of the wilderness always brought us the warning of errors, we did not want to perceive it in any way. But now it is perhaps too late to go up from the deep ditch, even if we had been made - paraphrasing Rousseau - strong enough that we could not fall. What we could not foresee is that we wanted to renounce that strength !! ".

 

"Nature must be respected and safeguarded for its value in itself. He is the man who has to adapt to his needs and not vice versa. If it is possible, we must make sure that the wild world lives in its free continuity and its pride, that freedom and the pride that man, a prisoner and a slave to his own conventions, perhaps unconsciously envies.

 

After my last, sad, almost desperate statement, I gathered deeply into my self as I watched, melancholy, the lights that filtered through the thick of the forest. At that point I knew that once you are back in the spirit of the last frontier of nature, the "wisdom" tells us not to return, under any circumstances, never back. And, with extreme anguish, I wrote "If we really lose the wild world ..... - paraphrasing a famous writing (Cassandra by C. Wolf) - the pain will take possession of us. But thanks to it, after, and if a later there will be, we will meet again and if we were to relive the savage we will eventually create with it an eternal relationship of truth, spirituality, of union, of infinite and indissoluble respect ..... .... ".

 

 

A superior spirit, a different spirit

 

 

"Blessed is he who will also never repent of his moment of life" (JG Herder). Few human beings have lived their lives with truth, with intensity, with coherence and without major compromises. Few human beings have been able to truly "rebel" the negative status of social ambiguities or destructions to nature. Few human beings have been able to operate and live without using situations to their advantage and for their own sake. Few human beings have looked into the eyes of justice, frankness and loyalty and have shouted to the world the errors, the abuses, the prevarications and the destructions that mankind causes continually to itself and to nature. Few human beings have universalized their spirit and have been truly free. Few human beings have had a unified vision of the whole universe and even of infinity. Few human beings have been determined to affirm their own thoughts and convictions, right or wrong that they have been. Few humans have said "as long as a man is in chains no human being is free" (Che Guevara) or "... the liveliest thing is the wildest. Not yet submissive to man .... " (HD Thoreau). Few human beings have really fought the endless battle for the preservation of nature and for a better society. Few humans have breathed the essence of life and have claimed that in the wilderness is the salvation of the world ........ Few humans called themselves Gray Owl (WA-SHA-QUON-ASIN, the man unforgettable walking in the night), John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Marshall, Aldo Lepold, Sigurd Ferdinand Olson, Arne Naess, Gary Steiner, Edward Goldsmith, Gregory Tah-Kloma, Dian Fossey, Chico Mendes, Pyotr Kropotkin, Lev Tolstoy, Rosa Luxburg, Vandana Shiva, Ernesto Che Guevara, etc., plus the "unknown" names of those who have given their lives for the protection of nature and human misery (the list of all those who have given meaning to their lives and a practical aspect towards social / environmental issues, it is not absolutely complete and exhaustive but in any case it would not be very long).

"Mortals live as they welcome heaven as heaven. They leave their course to the sun and the moon, the stars leave their path, their blessings and their inclemency to the seasons of the year, they do not make the night, nor the day an endless scramble " (Heidegger, 1976) .

Few human beings have made us realize our mediocrity made up of trifles, meanness, falsehood, pride, arrogance and empty certainties. He wrote Che Guevara in a letter to his sons (in Bucellini, 1995, already quoted in the text): "To my children.

Dear Hildita, Aleidita, Camilo, Celia and Ernesto.

If one day you will read this letter it will be because I will not be there anymore. You will hardly remember me: the little ones will not remember anything. Your father is a man who acts like he thinks and has certainly been loyal to his own convictions. Grow as good revolutionaries ......

Above all, always be able to feel any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world in the depths of yourself. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary ...... ".

Perhaps the endless battle for the preservation of nature is a battle already lost at the start, but nothing and nobody will prevent us, paraphrasing Rousseau, to cry out to the world that the moat is too deep to get out, but we were made strong enough not to we could fall!

 

"When it can no longer fight the wind and the sea to follow its course, the sailing ship has two possibilities: the cloak gait (the bow at the neck and the leeward bar) that makes it adrift, and the escape in front of it. to the storm with the sea in the stern and a minimum of canvas. The escape is often, when you are far from the coast, the only way to save the boat and crew. And in addition it allows you to discover unknown shores that appear on the horizon of calm waters. Unknown shores that will forever be ignored by those who have the illusory fortune of being able to follow the route of the cargos and oil tankers, the route without the unexpected set by the shipping companies ... " (Laborit, 1990).

 

 Farewell

 

 

"Civilization is nothing but the detachment of man from nature.When man is detached from nature he loses natural innocence, loses the simplicity of life and consequently increases his own ambitions and miseries ..." (Lao- Tse).

"It seems inconceivable that an ethical relationship with the earth can exist without feeling for it love, respect and admiration, and without a high consideration of its value. Speaking of value I refer, of course, to something much more vast than simple economic value, meaning the term in a philosophical sense.

Perhaps the danger that most seriously threatens the evolution of an ethic of the earth is the fact that our educational and economic systems go in the opposite direction to that which would lead them towards the development of an intense awareness of the earth. Modern man is separated from the earth by too many intermediaries and tools; it does not have a vital relationship with it and for it 'earth' means only the space between one city and another, where crops are produced. If you leave it free one day in the countryside, in a place that is not a golf course or a belvedere, you will be bored to death ..... In short, the land is now tight " (A. Leopold, 1949 -1997).

The philosophical, social and economic turning point from the Enlightenment to the Western world since the eighteenth century, then continued with positivism, has arrived in our days in the uncritical triumph of technological rationalism. Such radical effects, produced by such a complex "weltanschauung" , can not be countered by a different philosophy. But it is unfortunately true that within the philosophical thought of which the Western world has been nourished since the time of ancient Greece, one would look in vain for a vision of life removed from the determinant influence of anthropocentrism expressed by the group and inspired by a unified conception and equal to the relationship between man and nature. "Excessive rationalism" should be eliminated from the mind and the symmetry of elements and events should be removed. An "asymmetric status" would generate continuous variables that, as previously mentioned, would favor the interpenetration of the opposites fused into a single whole within the dialectic of nature. "It's so sad to see people trying to conform to others. To be all the same thing. Well, we are like the flowers of the earth. It would be a bore to get out of your home and not see that little daisies, black and white daisies. A different people, different ideas and beliefs: this is what makes life much more interesting " (Cecilia Pitchell, Mohawk - in AA, VV., 1995).

Somewhere, however, it has been thought to be able to identify in philosophical thought a philosophical construction that by its very foundations manages to free itself from the idolatry of the power exercised by man in its various forms of association, ranging from the family, to the clan, to the State. . It is necessary, however, to make it clear that the few environmentalist tendencies inclined to the seductions of the ancient anarchist matrix refer only to anarchy understood as a philosophical construction, certainly not to anarchy which, as a political movement, has made itself talk at length through the voice of William Godwin, Max Stirner, Michail Bakunin, Petr Kropotkin, and the same Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Precisely the Stirner, also an exponent of the Eghelian left, was firmly opposed to the conclusions of the great German philosopher who saw the individual dissolve in the all-encompassing of the infinite Spirit, which is the only reality and the only value for Stirner.

Within the anarchist philosophy, the absolute domination of the individual and the individual personality develops, so to speak, that to express its primary needs it does not need to be delegated to the family, the clan or the State, as it can and must express them in the first person, certain that the sum of individual happiness make the happiness of the whole community. In this way we think we can overturn the relationship between society and the environment, in the sense that the imperative precepts are useless if every single individual does not freely regulate himself, so that the individual will determine the behavior of the group, and not vice versa . In this sense, Odin (in Boussinot, 1978) seems very appropriate and effective: "We want humanity to be happy. But humanity is not a real entity, only the individuals that compose it are real entities. So when I say: I want humanity to be happy, I want individuals to be happy. Contrary to appearances, it is not about the famous happiness of everyone thanks to the happiness of everyone, but exactly the inverse: purely and simply the happiness of everyone (and everyone gathered together actually do all). This happiness of everyone has everyone as an agent. Society must therefore be conceived in such a way as to ensure that, in the utmost total freedom, each one is the agent of his own happiness ....... Since every individual is unique, irreplaceable and incarnates the whole of humanity, that he does his personal revolution before anything else! Let it be free first and help others to free themselves, one after another! " However, with regard to historical anarchism, it must be said that, broadly speaking, it has not transferred its social ideas to environmental problems. Perhaps the time period of the development of those ideas, the underlying anthropocentric vision and the lack of the "natural" foundations of Western philosophy, may have caused such "silence". However, the fact remains that the anarchist ideas have in a certain way contributed to questioning the "certainties" of Western bourgeois sociality. The contemporary anarchist school, probably aware of the profound ecological crisis of the current society, has however inserted in its libertarian arguments the reference to the natural world. A vivid example of this is Murray Bookchin, quoted several times in the text with his "social ecology", and Paul Goodman who "elaborated his criticism of the system by opposing the idea of nature and human reality as a functional whole to the" technological civilization ". unitary, in which the interaction and symbiosis between the individual and the environment dominates. This is why it is not for the specialist who has to plan social life: in this way the unity of the phenomenon with the perennial risk of destroying the existing original community will be lost " (Zanantoni, 1996).

Bookchin writes about the revolutionary spirit: "As polluted, ideals of freedom continue to exist among us. Yet the revolutionary project has never been so compromised by the 'bourgeois' feared by Bakunin in the last period of his life. Nor has it presented itself in terms as ambiguous as today. Words like 'radicalism' and 'left' have become of mysterious meaning, and there is a serious danger that they completely lose their meaning. How much today passes by revolution, radicalism and left, only a couple of generations ago would have been rejected as reformism and political opportunism. Social thought has allowed itself to be drawn into the entrails of the present society so that people who consider themselves 'leftists' (socialists, Marxists or radicals) risk being digested without even realizing it ".

Referring again to Murray Bookchin, writes Berti (1998): "Bringing to the extreme theoretical coherence the fundamental presuppositions of ecological thought, of which he was a pioneer, Bookchin demonstrates that the principle informing all the existing civilization - the principle of domination - it is the cause of total man's ruin. This is not a moral, or religious, or social, or cultural, or psychological, ruin, but a total ruin, since the ecological catastrophe will end up drying the very sources of human life. It must be deduced that the salvation of humanity lies in the dissolution of the principle on which the existing civilization is based: the principle of domination.

According to Bookchin, only the anarchist idea fully reflects a coherent ecological conception because its principle is universal. It is no longer an expression of a historical-social movement, but the only other way of understanding and organizing human life. The civilization of life taken in its entirety is opposed to the civilization of domination. Radical ecology, ie the theoretical awareness of the necessary interconnections that 'keep' the nature-man-society system, or ethical assumption of the rights of the existing in all the complexity of its forms, which are, in ecological terms, the guarantee of equilibrium and then the infinity of multiformity of reality. With Bookchin return the great insights of Kropotkin, especially the difficult equation according to which the highest cultural form of sociality is that (paradoxically) reflects the highest form of authentic naturalness ".

Among our considerations we can not fail to reiterate that the primary solution of environmental problems is based primarily on a radical revision or better in a reconstruction from scratch of thought and consequently the model of personal and social life, and it is with such conviction that I would like to quote below what CG Jung writes with a Spartan wisdom worthy of being imitated: "I have renounced electricity: I myself turn on the stove and the stove, and in the evening I turn on the old lamps. I have no running water, and I suck the water from a well; I split the wood, and I cook the food. These simple acts make man simple: and how difficult it is to be simple! " Jung's profound reflection opens a little hope for us: "Bees live in the shadow of the beehive, but they always find their way back to the light"

And on the criticisms of those who want to nullify the meaning of the thoughts radically opposed to the current way of doing, we report a very significant passage from Devall and Sessions (1989): "Inventing an ecotopic future has practical value. It helps us to point out our objectives, offers an ideal, which, if it will never be realized completely never, always keeps awake the attention towards its realization. On the basis of this ideal, we can also direct personal actions and collective policy decisions on specific disputes ... ... Thanks to this vision we can grasp the distance between how reality should be and how it is today in an industrial-technocratic society ".

 

"Somewhere in the east a wolf howled in a slightly questioning tone. I recognized the voice because I had heard it many times before ..... But for me it was a voice that spoke of the lost world of our time, before we chose a role in contrast with it; a world of which I had a glimpse and in which it had almost entered ..... only to remain excluded in the end from my own self " (F. Mowat, 1973).

 

* **

 

We could not conclude these notes suffused with innocent pessimism, with more appropriate words than those that appear in the following prophetic writing by Leonardo da Vinci, entitled The cruelty of the man. "You will see animals above the earth, which will always fight among themselves and with great damage and often death of each side. These did not come to an end in their malignancy; for the proud fairs of these will come to the ground most of the trees of the great forests of the universe; and then, that they will be fed, the nourishment of their desires will be to give death and trouble and fatigue and fears and escapes to anything animated. And because of their surreptitious pride, they would like to rise up against the heavens, but the spurious gravity of their limbs will keep them low. Nothing will remain above the earth. or under the earth and water, which is not persecuted, remoted or spoiled; and that of a country repressed in the other; and the body of these will be buried and transited by all the already animated bodies. O world as you do not open yourself, and it rushes into the high cracks of your great balusters and caves, and no longer show the sky so cruel and disdainful monster. " (Taken from Simonetta, 1976).

 

 

____________

 

 

"Man must find peace with himself to illuminate his path"

 

"If we really lose the wild world ..... - paraphrasing a famous writing (Cassandra by C. Wolf) - the pain will take possession of us. But thanks to it, after, and if a later there will be, we will meet again and if we were to relive the savage we will eventually create with it an eternal relationship of truth, of union, of infinite and indissoluble respect ........ . ".

 

 

LATHE BIOSAS

(live hidden)