Yesterday wading in a lake with my kids, we watched schools of minnows darting through the water. It was beautiful to watch them and their shadows glide and turn together under the sparkling surface of the water.
When I was younger I would have thought, “This is Good — it’s good for such things to exist in the world.”
These days I notice much more now that what’s good is our enjoyment. My kids and I enjoyed wading and seeing the fish.
What’s it like to be a minnow? I have no idea. Maybe they enjoy swimming, their quickness, and the feeling of darting and swerving together with their kin. Maybe they’re frightened of my shadow and of basically everything, which is understandable given how many things want to eat them. Maybe there’s nobody home at all.
……
This maple tree in my neighborhood is beautiful to me. The glowing yellow is amazing in October. But the tree has no experience or preferences as far as I know. Its beauty to me is unconnected to any kind of experience on its part.
I value this tree, but I value it because people live in this neighborhood and see its colors. (And because it’s a home for birds, bugs, and squirrels, though I’m less clear on what their interests are.)
……..
Material about nature elides human use and inherent goodness a lot.
Children are taught that ladybugs are good because they eat aphids, which are bad because they eat roses. Search for “good and bad ladybugs” and you’ll get lots of articles like “That’s not a yellow ladybug, it’s an invasive Asian lady beetle” with warnings about insects that “crowd out beneficial ladybugs” “infiltrate,” and “sneak into your home.” If no one has yet written their dissertation about xenophobia in such texts, it’s just waiting to happen.
None of these beetles, “good” or “bad,” know or care about us. They’re not trying to help our flower gardens or bother anyone. They’re just doing normal beetle things, mostly eating stuff.
…….
I keep thinking about this article about pet welfare (partly because it discusses pet abolition without asking the obvious question of whether pets are better off existing or not.) It did raise a point I’d never thought of: people of course think of their pets as they are when they see them. Your dog likes to see you and likes to go for walks. The 9 hours the dog spends bored during your workday aren’t part of your perception, because you’re not there to see it. (Does that mean it’s better for fewer pet dogs to exist, or are they overall still having a good time? I don’t know! But seems worth considering.)
…….
Arguments about nature preservation now seem pretty confused to me. People frame it as being about the animals, but it seems better to be honest about the ways that it’s really about people. For example, the Loon Preservation Committee has worked since 1975 to preserve loons in New Hampshire. They conduct loon rescues, build loon nest rafts, and educate the public about loons.
Why do people care so much more about a loon in New Hampshire than, say, a pigeon in New York City? Well, loons make an interesting call at night. And the most common answer I can find is that they’re an indicator species, i.e. they die easily when there’s stuff like lead in the water. But obviously we have better ways to detect environmental toxins than the loon-o-meter.
Mostly people like the loon more, and like lakes in New Hampshire. Those are both fine! But let’s not pretend that loon preservation is mostly about loons themselves rather than about the aesthetic preferences of people with disposable income who like lakes.
This is wonderful, first of all.
This leads, with little extension, to some slippery slope questions. Such as, why is it important for humans to try to preserve the ecosystem and the exact relative proportion of species as they were in, say, the year 1977 — despite the fact that these systems and species have never been a static thing. Does this not also represent an arbitrary aesthetic preference?
Does our culture use changes in the ecosystem and in the relative population/distribution of species as an indicator of our own environmental impact, when many such changes will occur with or without us?
I’m no climate-change denier, but when one appreciates the fact that Earth has ice ages and ice retreats, and the continents move all over the globe, and the sun will go red-giant and swallow up the solar system eventually, aren’t our attempts to achieve stasis on the planet somewhat absurd? I think it’s more an effort to preserve the (arbitrary) beauties we are familiar with, as well as the pragmatic issues of property damage and economic disruption to ourselves.
Sorry if this comment has distorted the point of your essay… it just stimulated some buried thoughts.
Yep, I agree it’s strange and arbitrary to consider the ecological balance of a given historical period the correct one to maintain! Old world earthworms are “good” because they’re useful to agriculture, but they greatly changed the North American landscape when they arrived in the 1600s.
[…] Who’s nature ultimate for? […]
[…] Read More […]
I know this is an old article, but I just felt like commenting because it’s an interesting subject.
Basically, I think the beauty or “goodness” of nature depends on from what perspective you look at it. The entire concept of beauty or goodness is entirely human-centered, so when discussing the beauty of nature, it’s silly to look at it from any other perspective than a human one. I would go so far as to say nature has no beauty or purpose without humans (or some other conscious beings) to interpret it. This topic is fairly thoroughly explored in the game The Talos Principle 2.
I guess that does mean preservation is an inherently selfish (from a humanity perspective) act, rather than a selfless, nature-serving one. We preserve nature so that we or our descendants may continue to enjoy it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. In that sense, climate change is not important because we want to preserve nature for nature’s sake. One might view the impacts of humans as just another catastophe on the natural world (of which several have happened in the past). No, climate change is important because we know it will make nature less enjoyable for humans. We are stealing beauty from our descendants, and even ourselves. We know what beauty exists in nature right now, and while different beauty may exist as we continue our climate change path, we can’t know what it will look like (but I do think we think it will be lesser).
(Also, there’s plenty of natural things that are good because of their utility other than beauty, but I’m only discussing beauty here)
Anyway, your blog is very interesting, thank you!
I give money to an organization that preserves natural habitats. I don’t agree with a lot of what the animal rights activists say, but I think it is important for animals to not have their habitat taken away by humans: I think they have the right to their turf (or pond), even if they are tiny insects that we seldom see. But what Julia Wise says is certainly a part of it, it is nice to see the minnows or the frogs!