Nature and Power (World Environmental History)

Author: (German) Joachim Radkau | Translator
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-04-01
Features: 3. Entering the Depth 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 humanity 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 preliminary 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 take water and air pollution as the central issue of environmental history, then objectively, only the era of coal and oil is truly important. However, reducing our perspective of knowledge based on current problems is short-sighted from a historical perspective. Today, there is no longer any doubt that the continuous cultural crisis caused by humanity over thousands of years is closely related to the resource scarcity it has brought upon itself. At the current level of research, we must first recognize that large-scale environmental changes over thousands of years have all 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 exhausted 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, and even Karl Buzer, who studied the Egyptians, firmly believed this. The Egyptians are considered a model of maintaining the balance between humans and nature. As a historian of the Mediterranean mountains, John Macknight often emphasized the modern roots of deforestation, but he also believed that all adaptations to the environment, including those from ancient times, could not last long, and all balances were temporary. Is all this just the meaningless past perfect tense of the present? But one should not forget that some of our environmental behaviors today 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 for long periods without coal stoves." And our love for pastoral landscapes is justified by 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 relationship between humans and nature that has lasted for thousands of years: 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 the use of radiocarbon dating—methods of determining time—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 the clearing of the Middle Ages but had already existed thousands of years earlier, and Germany was not, as people once imagined, covered in dense primeval forests as early as the time of the Battle of Varus. The barren lands of Luenebuerger were not the result of the Luenebuerger salt works consuming timber but, as pollen analysis shows, had begun to develop as early as 1500 BC: likely due to fire-farming economies and livestock 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, which served as feed for livestock. 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 the focus is mainly on wet rather than dry regions. The process of prehistoric grassland formation may have been overlooked by pollen analysis. Based on pollen research, early forest coverage may have been overestimated or underestimated. Conclusions drawn from the quantity of pollen about large-scale ecosystems may not be reliable. Can we know what early humans’ view of nature was like? To this, someone will immediately object, pointing out that our modern understanding of nature is based on modern concepts and has nothing to do with past notions of nature. In an influential article on the beauty of nature in 1962, Joachim Ritter 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 is much evidence to support humans’ 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 wilderness 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 reflections and discussions on 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 humanity and questioned the villa owners who destroyed nature: "How long can lakes still exist without the roofs of your villas?" This makes one think it came from an ecologist by Lake Starnberg in the 20th century. Once 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 critique of the anarchist philosopher PaoChingyen from the 4th century, who criticized the behavior that assumes nature exists for humans: "Barking the bark of the cassia tree, sucking the resin of the cassia tree, is not what the cassia tree desires; pulling the feathers of the wild chicken, tearing the meat of the kingfisher, is not what the bird desires. 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 the external world will give rise to new violence, which in turn will oppose human nature. As early as the ancient Greek and Roman times, people realized that although nature is easily harmed, it is ultimately invincible, and opposing it can only bring harm to oneself. "You can drive nature away with a pitchfork, but it will come back." Classical poets like Horaz, who were deeply fond of pastoral life, were rare. Since reproduction is also an attribute of nature, the sexual meaning of nature 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 used her to complain about the obstruction of reproduction by sodomy. 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 allows one to feel the moisture of 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 historical development, 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 focus on 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 missed most of its extremely important, normative, and practical connotations. To many theorists, the concept of nature has been historically contradictory and confusing, and this confusion has only intensified in modern times. Nature is essence; nature is wilderness; nature is a teacher; nature is unconquerable; nature is good, yet nature is also terrible. From this confusion of meaning, 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 whirlpool of confusion and then restore its original meaning? These phenomena seem to have never received the attention they deserve. At any rate, 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, have misunderstood "nature" as just a concept. In fact, it refers to something else. Norbert Elias called it a "symbol representing a very high level of synthesis," namely the synthesis of long-term collective experience and reflection. Without a doubt, it is an abstraction, but it is constantly concretized and proven to be a beneficial guide for life. The mystery 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 tied to the concept of nature. Generally, most people’s daily adaptation to natural conditions occurs in a tacit manner. It has been proven that the imaginative world associated with nature is always useful, 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 what humans create and invent—rules and constraints. Therefore, "nature" does not particularly point to primitive 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 in solitude, including the solitude of two people together. If one 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 by society? Social scientists unanimously believe that "of course, it is through society." But everyone’s connection with nature is mediated through their own body. The body belongs only to oneself; it is the carrier of life and existence, a more complete whole than any social system. Society may misunderstand the inevitability of nature. The more complex and all-encompassing 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 environmental protection. But where should the intuition for environmental protection 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 even fully recognize the role of rain. Without rain, there would be no vibrant nature. The danger of narrow-mindedness and extremism exists not only in environmental politics but also in the feeling of nature.