Who is nature good for?

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.