Nature and Power: A World Environmental History

Author: (German) Joachim Radkau | Translator/Country: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-04-01
Features: 3. Entering the Depths of Time: The Mystical Regenerative Power of Nature’s Ideal Lynn White (Lynn White) in his Christmas report of 1966 traced the "historical roots of our ecological crisis" back to the origins of Judaism and Christianity, as well as the mission given by God to humans in the Old Testament: "Let the land be your servant." ② This report became a kind of "sacred book" for the birth of environmental history, and for a time, tracing ancient history and studying the Old Testament became very popular. Later research proved that this view of world environmental history was difficult to apply to empirical research. When environmental history research moved beyond its introductory essays to return to the main subject, it primarily focused on the industrial era, where emissions were the pressing environmental issue of that time. If people regard water and air pollution as the central problems of environmental history, then objectively, only the era of coal and oil is truly important. However, narrowing our perspective based on current problems, historically speaking, is short-sighted. Today, there is no longer any doubt that the continuous human cultural crisis over thousands of years is closely related to the resource scarcity it has caused. At the current level of research, we must first recognize that large-scale environmental changes over thousands of years have been caused by humans themselves. The large-scale changes to the environment caused by fire-farming economies and pastures far exceeded early industrialization. Today’s research shows that, in typical cases, marshes arise from the process of soil erosion, and soil erosion is caused by the destruction of forests and overgrazing during the Neolithic era. Prehistoric migration patterns indicate that humans had already depleted the resources of the areas they inhabited in early times. Of course, this did not yet lead to global environmental problems, but when humans lived in a confined space, the world faced the threat of resource depletion. The results of geoarchaeological research prove that environmental balance rarely lasts long, even Karl Buzer, who studied the Egyptians, firmly believed this. The Egyptians are considered a model for maintaining the balance between humans and nature. As a historian of the Mediterranean mountain region, John McKenna often emphasizes the modern origins of deforestation, but he also believes that all adaptations to the environment, including those from ancient times, cannot last long, and all balances are temporary. Is all this just the meaningless past perfect tense of the present? But one should not forget that some of our current environmental behaviors still follow ancient patterns, and some of our feelings are also consistent with those of ancient times. Why can’t human senses perceive highly toxic carbon monoxide? For evolutionary biologist Wuktits, this question is simple, "Because carbon monoxide did not exist in the long years without coal stoves." And our love for pastoral landscapes has countless reasons. To understand how our current environmental behaviors are shaped, environmental historians must return to the past and delve into the depths of time. Here are two ships, far apart, which can help people sail to the source of the millennia-old relationship between humans and nature: one is the study of objective remains, such as pollen, bones, and soil structure, using scientific methods; the other relies on the semantics of nature and related concepts, starting from the proliferation of a part of human environmental history within ourselves. For this, a certain intuitive understanding is required. The analysis of pollen and radiocarbon dating studies have shown us that the struggle between humans and nature has a history of tens of thousands of years. It indicates that the sparse forests of Central Europe did not begin with medieval reclamation but had already existed thousands of years earlier, and Germany was not covered in dense primeval forests as early as the time of the Battle of Varna. The Luenebuerger heath was not the earliest result of the Luenebuerger salt works’ consumption of timber, but as pollen analysis shows, the heathening process had already begun as early as 1500 BC: likely due to fire-farming economies and pastoral grazing. There is even evidence that early humans not only reduced the area of forests but also strongly influenced their species composition. For example, they promoted the spread of oak and beech trees as animal feed. However, pollen analysis also shows that plants can vary on their own without human intervention. The persuasiveness of pollen analysis is naturally limited. People have only studied the surrounding areas of lakes and marshes where pollen is stored, so it is mainly in wet rather than dry regions. The process of prehistoric grassland formation may have been overlooked by pollen analysis. Based on pollen studies, early forest coverage may have been overestimated or underestimated. Conclusions drawn from the quantitative composition of large-scale ecosystems based on pollen counts may not be reliable. Can we know the ancient human view of nature? To this, someone will immediately object that our modern understanding of nature is based on modern concepts and has nothing to do with past concepts of nature. In 1962, Joachim Ritter, in a highly regarded article on the beauty of nature, proposed that "nature as environment" only exists "in modern society, under free conditions." However, this view is a typical illusion, stemming from our narrow focus on modern society. Just look at the frescoes of Pompeii to remember how long the obsession with lush, budding nature and the joy of birdsong has existed. Hildegard von Bingen believed that there was a green force (viriditas) that could excite both plants and animals, as well as humans and animals. There are many facts that prove humans have an innate biophilia tendency. Environmental history is based on anthropology. In Greek, "nature" and "physics" both derive from the word "growth." It is certain that its original meaning was not wild but referred to the essence, rational order, and abstract nature of things; this semantic chain extends to the modern era, yet the concept of nature always frequently returns to its original meaning, to the world of growth, to its lush prosperity. It is noteworthy that even in the reflection and discussion of the concept of nature, there are constant factors. Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, once doubted his teacher’s teleological view of nature, arguing that there was no reason to believe that nature exists for humans. This shows that the debate between "anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism" has a long history. Seneca called nature the mother who protects humans and questioned the villa owners who destroyed nature: "How long can lakes still exist without the roofs of your villas covering them?" This makes one think it came from an ecologist by the shores of Lake Starnberg in the 20th century. Again, one realizes that current environmental problems and the modernity of people’s environmental awareness cannot be overestimated. KoHung, the founder of Chinese alchemy, once quoted the criticism of the anarchistic philosopher PaoChingyen from the 4th century regarding the behavior that assumes nature exists for humans: "Peeling the bark of cassia trees, inhaling cassia resin, is not what cassia trees desire; pulling the feathers of wild chickens, tearing the meat of kingfishers, is not what birds wish. The germs of deception and cunning are hidden in the act of opposing nature, and they are based on violence." This actually expresses a maxim of the contemporary ecological movement: violent acts against nature will produce new violence, which in turn will oppose human nature. As early as the ancient Greek and Roman times, people realized that nature, although easily harmed, is ultimately invincible, and that opposing nature can only bring harm to oneself. "You can drive nature away with a pitchfork, but it will come back." Classic poets like Horaz, who were passionate about pastoral life, were rare. Since reproduction is also an attribute of nature, its sexual meaning is also very long-standing. In the 12th century, the scholastic philosopher Alain de Lille placed the reproductive goddess Natum in a garden surrounded by forests, where it was always spring, and complained about the obstruction of reproduction by sodomy through her mouth. Even in medieval scholasticism, a post-classical reproductive goddess appeared, though it was cloaked in Christian morality. Ernst Robert Curtius said: "The ancient reverence for reproduction" "like water flowing through an open dam" "flowed into the imaginative world of Christian Western Europe." People not only used "nature" to female images but also to represent a comfortable lifestyle that can be felt on the skin. In the 16th century, the Lutheran missionary John Matthias, while preaching in the mountain town of Joachimsthal, said, "A life and thought like nature is the best life." The experience of relieving compulsion and satisfying the needs of the body and soul to bring comfort and joy has a long history. Over the long course of history, the inner nature has guided people toward the outer nature. Botany originated from medical botany. In the history of philosophy, discussions involving the concept of "nature" primarily concern sexuality, medicine, the art of life, and natural rights. In works on the natural sciences and technology, if the concept of nature is mentioned at all, it is mostly in marginal positions. Therefore, as a philosophical category, nature has largely missed the extremely important, normative, and practical connotations. Many theorists consider the concept of nature to be extremely contradictory and chaotic in history, and this chaos has only intensified in modern times. Nature is essence; nature is wilderness; nature is a teacher; nature is unconquerable; nature is good; nature is terrible. From this confusion, what definition can be drawn? One can easily separate nature as a law from nature as a philosophical category. What is puzzling is how the ideal of nature has never been destroyed? How does the concept of nature emerge from every chaotic vortex and then restore its original meaning? These phenomena seem to have never received the attention they deserve. Whatever the case, this concept that has endured for thousands of years must contain some meaning, whether symbolic or practical. The fundamental error is clearly that people, influenced by philosophers, misunderstand "nature" as merely a concept. In fact, it refers to something else. Norbert Elias called this word a "symbol representing a very high level of synthesis," i.e., the synthesis of long-term collective experience and reflection. There is no doubt that it is an abstraction, but it is constantly concretized and proven to be a beneficial guide for life. The answer may lie here. How can the experiential basis of the metaphorical nature be briefly summarized? This experience is that our own happiness is closely linked in many ways to the growth of the animal and plant world, to the clear and tireless flow of springs; it is also an intuition that everything must obey the rules it determines, and people cannot resist arbitrarily. The role of the ideal of nature is no longer always related to the concept of nature. Most people’s daily adaptation to natural conditions generally occurs in a tacit manner. It has been proven that the imaginative world associated with nature is always useful, and even essential for life. The reason is simple: humans are a biological organism, like other organisms they depend on, and must obey the same laws. Without water, people will die of thirst; without plants and animals, people will starve; without sunlight, people will wither; without intercourse, the human species will go extinct. "Nature" is not just material for discussion; ultimately, it is the source of human animality. Discussions that attempt to ignore human biology as the foundation of human history are as absurd as denying the inseparable connection between the spirit and the body. The vitality of nature repeatedly proves that it is the opposite of human-made rules and constraints. Therefore, "nature" does not particularly point to original harmony, because it does not need such an expression, but points to the dangerous zone of ancient human existence. Since ancient times, a strong sense of nature has often arisen from solitude, including the solitude of two people together. If a person is alone or silent, it is easier to hear the chirping of birds. In medieval Europe, ancient China, and India, hermits or wanderers often had a particularly close relationship with nature. So, is there a special direct relationship between the individual and nature, or is the relationship with nature always mediated through society? Social scientists unanimously believe "of course through society." But everyone’s connection to nature is mediated through their own body. The body belongs only to oneself; it is the carrier of life and life, a more complete whole than any social system. Society may misunderstand the inevitability of nature. The more complex and comprehensive a society is, the more it invests in social affairs, the more it may become incapable of responding to the inevitability of nature. Environmental history and social history are undoubtedly closely linked, but they will not form a harmonious whole. Similarly, biophilia—assuming it exists at all—is not a reliable intuition for protecting the environment. But where should the intuition for protecting the environment come from? A person’s behavior itself will not harm the environment, but the behavior of a group of people will harm the environment. Even those who usually love nature rationally have their limits: many modern people cannot fully recognize the role of rain. Without rain, there is no vibrant nature. The danger of narrow-mindedness and extremism exists not only in environmental politics but also in the feeling of nature.