Wild Nahani
For a deep Wilderness
"There is only one 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)
"Like the winds and sunsets, the wild life was considered safe until the so-called progress began to take it away. Now we face the problem of whether an even higher standard of living is worth its frightening 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. It is the man who must adapt to his needs and not vice versa. If it is possible, we must ensure that the savage world lives in its free continuity and pride, that freedom and that pride that man, a prisoner and a 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. We therefore amend the aspects of surface ecology, filled with anthropocentrism, to which the various wilderness movements (including the Italian one) very often land. In fact, Franco Zunino, practically the Italian "father" of this movement, with a typically "Western" thought, writes: "In my opinion we cannot 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 are men with consciousness and intelligence, it is inevitable that whatever we do, we always do it for man. So nature conservation is nothing but a reaction to the part of the man who is destroying it. But even those who want to defend it always want to do it for men. It is almost pleonastic to say that it must be preserved in itself and that in doing so it will still be useful to man, because in reality, for those of us who love it, we do it, whether for material, scientific or spiritual purposes. And then we don't try to deny a reality that maybe we don't like but that is such, in the illusion of a nature that lives by itself (but that certainly doesn't appreciate itself!). If man were not there, nature itself would not make sense. I am happy to know that the nature of the Island of Papua exists in its own right, but it is in itself a satisfying and satisfying man. So it is always for the man that we desire the preservation of places that we will never see in our life, but that as long as we live we are glad to know that they exist. It is a difficult concept to explain, but in the end man always returns. Otherwise, before we oppose the destruction of the nature of this planet of ours we should do it to prevent man from discovering others, which certainly exist and live by themselves. But does it make sense to think so? Will we ever be able to satisfy the idea of a natural world that lives by itself but that we don't even know if it exists ?! I do not think so. To be satisfied we must know that it exists, and the moment we know it exists, here is that man returns to the center, to that navel that deep ecology would deny ”. The same Zunino, in another step of his thought, seems to be defeated alone, when he says: "the protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many aims, but I believe that only one should be the purpose for which it is should implement: preserve the territory as an end in itself " . And then again: " .... Who feels the desire for a different relationship with the environment, more tied to inner needs of beauty and solitude, of reflection, of enjoyment of the beauty, moments of life and the evolution of nature, the more easily you will understand the need for greater respect, you will understand that the rights of nature, must have the first place and that man must visit it always ready to pull back as soon as they become evident signs of the change that its presence causes, ranging from environmental degradation to fauna disturbance, 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 replies to Zunino saying that "I was quite surprised to find that the wilderness philosophy, according to Zunino's view, is completely anthropocentric.
The wilderness areas would be preserved in a 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 to the principles of surface ecology and current thought, except for the (commendable) fact of asking for a completely different management of natural-wild protected areas, which however remain islands in a sea of "progress" ".
The statement that seems to me to be really untenable is that deep ecology would be "materialistic" and wilderness philosophy would have more "spiritual" aspects instead. Indeed:
- the wilderness philosophy, as exposed by Zunino, sees the spiritual-psychic-mental part only in man: the wilderness areas must be preserved, but for the spiritual improvement of man;
- deep ecology sees a profoundly 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? It seems to me just the opposite. In wilderness philosophy the spirit is the prerogative of a single species, in deep ecology it is everywhere.
Furthermore, 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 vertex of the so-called "progress": at most it asks for some corrections. I understand that he considers "Christianity", clearly intended as the current Jewish-Christian tradition, as a "progress" with respect to the animist-pantheistic visions of many other human cultures.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic vision, on the other hand, is only the fruit of deep splits, 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 in the teaching of Christ, of which we know almost nothing. There remains only the impression that this teaching very much refers to "the compassionate love towards all sentient beings" of Mahayana Buddhism.
As a detail, there are about a hundred fossil species intermediate with other Primates, from the Australopithecines to the Neanderthals and then to Homo sapiens. I would like to know which way these sentient beings are placed by those who support human-animal rifts.
And then I add, we are not talking about two contrasts between wilderness philosophy and deep ecology. The one is inherent in the other and, above all the deep ecology, contains a universal vision that includes all our positive perspective of things. Finally, it is a serious mistake to frame the importance of wilderness philosophy in a merely anthropocentric view (it would be more logical and significant to give it an ecocentric and holistic peculiarity) ”.
Instead, it is necessary to strongly reaffirm the concept of the value of nature itself so that an intimate bond can emerge between the concept of classic Wilderness and deep Ecology, which brings with it a new environmental ethic 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, in fact, to commit oneself (even though it is obviously already a laudable act) to the protection of territories (wilderness and otherwise), but it is also necessary to set a new form of thought so that the protection of nature becomes one with the everyday existence. Extinguish the dualism and embrace the holistic and bioregional vision of the whole. In this way the concept of Wilderness purged by the marked refluxes of surface ecology that, as we have mentioned, too often belong to it, will export principles not only of direct and real protection of wild areas, but also of thought.
This is a fundamental point since to think of preserving a place as wild as possible without even going to affect a new conception of the world, is certainly an important fact, concrete and commendable, but it has at the base of the feet of clay, as it stops at a Short-sighted vision aimed at a single "superficial" conservative element, in a future projection it will inexorably be engulfed by a system of thought that is firm to the centrality of man and always to the exploitation of nature, in all the senses 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 extolling fundamentally the spiritual aspects that man takes in living the Wilderness (even if there is no lack of material ones), but he has a "cancer" inside him, since he poses the question in sense of protecting a territory for yet another human benefit. It is true that the classic view of the wilderness recognizes the value of a territory in itself, but this comes to life only if the man can "benefit" in some way. Let us remember instead 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 man too will find a benefit, it is welcome, indeed it is desirable, but this must be exclusively a reflection, not the purpose of that "rescue". It is necessary to understand that if the utilitarian mindset is not changed, the free unfolding of nature will never find space, because it will always be "held back" by the direct interests of man. And without a holistic, ecocentric and universal vision, in the future everything will be shipwrecked in the total destruction of mother earth, since having first been totally possessed by man, it is consequently destroyed. No one doubts that the "original" man saw in nature almost exclusively elements of his utility, but in this case we speak of "survival" and, like the rest of life on earth, "exploited" what he found available , but he never succeeded in destroying what was his bread. But the man we are talking about is a man who has developed an excessive, I would even say, only way of exploitation / utilization of natural resources that, having gone beyond the purposes of subsistence, has arrived at "economic" interests and is annihilating everything, just because by now he sees in nature an immense "cofferau of a bank" to which "to steal" as much as I can not, all the money that he finds there.
"When it comes to the ecology and protection of nature, dealing with 'visions of the world' seems more abstract, or less practical, than giving advice on waste disposal or forest conservation, but it is only because we talk about 'visions of the world 'has much longer term effects. However, these are aspects that touch behavior and attitudes much more deeply, compared to the more immediate practical advice of petty ecology ” (G. Dalla Casa).
It is certainly true that wanting to change the forma mentis, moving it from the current human-centered vision towards a centered-on-Earth, is not an easy and immediate thing, but to develop this renewed vision (renewed as it was at the origin of the times. lived) is fundamental because over time, albeit long, if established, it will arrive at universal, unique and essential results. "Man is an outdated philosophical phenomenon. The universe is far too vast for only man to dwell there ” (HD Thoreau) and, quoting J. Muir “ Nature has many other purposes, certainly not the interests of men ” or “ “La Nature may have destined the fertile land for other purposes than for the nourishment of human beings ".
From the House, recalling the figure of Arne Naess, he writes in this regard: “In reality, as a fundamental philosophy 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 distinguished between a "superficial" ecology, which fights for the conservation of nature, which however remains a resource at the service of man, and a "deep" ecology, which supports the intrinsic value of natural realities. If all that exists is interrelated, that is, if "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 it must assume an empathic attitude.
The great merit of deep ecology is that of shifting consciousness from centered to human to centered on Earth. Naess defined the superficial ecology movement, much more widespread than that of deep ecology, as "the battle against pollution and resource depletion, which will make humans move towards the so-called developed nations". The surface approach takes faith in technological optimism, economic growth, science-based exploitation and the continuation of current industrial societies for granted. Naess expresses himself as follows: "The supporters of surface ecology think they can change human relationships with Nature within the structure of the society that exists today".
"The major driving force behind the Deep Ecology movement - writes Naess - compared to the rest of the environmental 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 life that is free, autonomous and dignified. For Naess, individual organisms, ecosystems, mountains, rivers and the Earth itself must be included among sentient beings.
Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" (1962) impressed him deeply. Living beings, Arne Naess thought, have a value in themselves. Like the birds of the increasingly silent American countryside, they need to be protected from the intrusiveness of billions of humans. We must seek a new ecological harmony among the living beings that inhabit the planet Earth. This renewed equilibrium 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 less closeness 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 that of presenting us with a path towards finding 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 only a "resource" for humanity, something that must be exploited commercially.
Unfortunately the most famous characters of the ecological movement have never publicly named the deep ecology, nor talked about its great importance: it is not by chance, given that its principles would involve changes considered too drastic to society and above all to the economic system ".
"You can't 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 "... the Wilderness it is today a universal symbol of a wild territory not tampered by the hand of man in which 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 holistic, ecocentric, profound vision that recognizes, in its maximum meaning, the value in itself of the whole nature".
"Civilization cannot ignore the wilderness,
wild and incorrupt nature! "
(John Muir)
***
But to elaborate the profound disagreement between man and nature is a far from easy task, even if we simply want to arrive at the pure awareness of the fact. It is partly like wanting to recompose a complicated puzzle made up of many unequal elements without having the guiding image in front of it. This is also due to the fact that it is necessary to eradicate a form of thought that in the last few centuries has been progressively directed towards a totalizing disjunction where mental monocultures, based on the deep groove of dualism (man on one side and nature, well distinct from the other), they have strongly entrenched themselves in a vision unilaterally turned towards the only truth and existence of the human race. A new thought, libertarian and open-minded, must therefore face a double obstacle; the first is to eradicate globalized thinking on the dominance and unilateralism of man (a thought that even in an unconscious form is now inherent in minds), the second will be to unseat the false certainties so strongly embedded to glimpse, albeit in the distance, a holistic view of the whole. How many authoritative characters with their speech and their actions have tried to carry out this enormous task, but, at least in the first instance, they have seen themselves in the difficulty of being metabolized by "mental monocultures" aimed at the exact opposite. But maybe 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 were not understood or even completely ignored, but even if the time is now very limited, a cautious optimism on the even partial reversal of the route, could hover in the air (?!). Understanding, understanding, self-examination seem to be difficult to digest terminologies and concepts, but it is not inconceivable that they instead make their right path to arrive, in the end, to be acquired. Hope, though feeble, is always the last to die. But for the moment until the exploitation, looting and destruction of the planet earth (under all fronts) will still represent an enormous economic advantage, the way to proceed towards the right operation and vision of things will appear extremely difficult. So far, in fact, the man from his blindness has begun to see something, but only the smoking remains left behind his devastating path and will he be so wise and far-sighted to reverse course? The doubts remain many and largely unresolved. Multiple actions that now seem positive are still a small drop of water in a large ocean excessively dirty with "oil"!
"The protection of a natural territory can certainly have many roles, many aims, 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 should mean, to ensure that it is not deliberately altered, means to decide to remove it from the logic of development (which is the logic of profit) which is purely human.
Deciding to preserve a place is deciding to keep an ancestral animal behavior for that place, which is our origin, which is the only way we can define ourselves in equilibrium with the environment: no deer, no wolf, no bear ever has could or pretended to "develop" or "enhance" or "make produce" their own habitat. Simply for millennia they use it for what it spontaneously offers them and leaving it unchanged for other generations. Only man is the only animal species to have come out of this "circle of life" (Franco Zunino).
