0
0
There is, in our society and others, a deep interest in the preservation and protection of our common environment from the predations of multinational corporations. We protest when large supermarket chains wish to build ginormous new projects on previously green land, and our greenbelt initiatives reflect this fact – we do not appreciate the paving over of our lovely countryside with endless concrete and tar.
Additionally, in recent years, the potential side effects of manmade climate change has become one of, if not the, central issue that has moved many people to consider their individual impact on the environment that we share, and perhaps to change or adapt how they live to be more sustainable. All these measures are important if we wish to live in a clean and healthy environment, free from the toxic effects of smog and pollution.
Yet, this move towards a considerate, humane environmentalism has in no way engendered us younger generations to appreciate our countryside, to feel a deeper synergy with the local farmer or hunter whose deeds and acts give us a daily example of a healthy, reciprocal relationship with nature. Instead we are told to despise them. To cast them out as part of the problem; that they are the irredeemable problem of human civilisation itself.
Our countryside, we are told, is too cultivated. It bears the marks of generations of the human labour to domesticise nature, to shape it in a way that pleases us, and tame it so it could pose no threat to us. This effort over centuries to rid the woodlands of England of dangerous predators, we are told, has fundamentally crippled our biodiversity. The countryside of Britain is used for pastoral farming, long scenic walks, and camping when the weather is nice – clearly, we are told, this poses a major threat to climate stability, and until every forest is teeming with wolves and bison, there will be no hope for humans on our dearest planet.
‘Rewilding’, as it is called, is the process through which a number of wild species of plant and animal life are carefully reintroduced to an area where it is now absent. Rewilding policies are being heralded as a clear step in the right direction in battling climate destruction, a progressive glimpse into the enlightened future of ecology and land management. Rewilding in the UK has been seen in Kent, and many future projects are planned – it seems there is this pervasive fervour for this otherwise obscure policy.
Yet in what sense is it progressive? Its fundamental principle seems more aligned with a romantic, pseudo-reactionary understanding of humanity’s relationship with nature. Its advocates implicitly, if not explicitly at times, state that it is the mere existence of human beings and their needs that cause environmental damage, and that only by literally rewinding the clock of humanity’s existence can nature be restored to a healthy state.
While romantic sentiments about nature can be emotionally compelling, this account offers no reason why I, as a human being, should accept this weird perspective that adopts an abstract amoral definition of a healthy ecosystem as a goal, and that the very realised, morally-infused lifestyle of human beings are the obstacle.
The centre of moral agency and feeling is the individual human person, and so to place an external object – or in this case, a generalised scientific abstraction of reality as a paradigm through which moral judgements can be made, as the advocates of rewilding do, is to make an egregious trespass from the realm of science or fact, into the realm of ethical judgement and value.
This is to say that the understanding of a healthy, morally sound, ecology must be understood not solely from the universal considerations of science, though they remain relevant, but from the perspective of us moral agents, human beings. There should be a consideration of our own interests. Science is the means through which we understand the external world, and so will always be important for a full, mature, and informed judgement, but it is precisely that judgement that carries the moral weight for us.
Therefore, we should weigh up the potential human cost of this new fad of ‘rewilding’ alongside the considerations of the wider scientific context. First of the moral considerations is the significant risk of humans of all ages being injured or killed due to the reintroduced wild predators. In the US, a country whose citizens possess powerful means of self-defence, 201 deaths are caused by wild animals each year, and non-fatal injuries make up over one million emergency room visits and cost the American public around $2 billion dollars each year. This is not to say the numbers would be very high, but it is to say that intentionally increasing the risk of the countryside, which currently isn’t dangerous at all, should require significant justification.
Secondly, much of the countryside is taken up by farmland that has been the property of some families for generations. Presumably, this new rewilding project will repurpose this historic land so that it can once again be made into wildland, yet is it not important that Britain maintain even the slightest amount of food security? While it is now fashionable to speak of global Britain, we have seen that it is important to have local produce otherwise we are extremely vulnerable to shocks to the global supply chain. When the product we are talking about is food rather than graphics cards, then it seems it is deeply important to maintain this historic farmland, over and above this desire for a new wild forest.
Additionally, the countryside is an important aspect of our country’s cultural identity and history. The shires of Tolkien were inspired by the gentle hills of the English countryside, George Orwell wrote of his admiration of the countryside life in numerous essays. We have been given this beautiful landscape that, although sparse of wild predators, is worth protecting in and of itself. Of course, we can treat it better, and of course we have not always as a country used it appropriately and destroyed it to provide space for the polluting industries. But perhaps we can now use this newfound respect for nature and simply appreciate the countryside just that little bit more, instead of looking to return to an imagined wildland.
Average Rating