Nature’s Band-Aid
What is the human place in nature? Perhaps the title of this class and the fundamental question we seek to answer is in itself a flawed assumption. To ask this question in the first place is to make the assumption that we have a place in nature and are therefore a part of nature. This week’s readings, while evaluating the concept of “restoring nature,” both attempt to tackle this fundamental question.
Katz, in writing The Big Lie (1993), attempts to tackle this question by first separating all things into two categories: the natural and the artifactual. Though he eventually admits that this distinction is purely theoretical and that nothing truly exists that is purely one or the other- that rather a spectrum exists between the two entities- this argument immediately distinguishes humans as apart from nature. He labels that which is man-made into the category of artifact, as it possesses an intended use prior to construction. In nature, according to Katz, nothing is in this sense designed. Indeed, due to the basic concepts of evolution, the natural world has no prior intentions but rather adapts to the innovations of its own processes. For example, a wolf has no aspirations to be a keystone predator but rather fills the role that is mandated by preexisting conditions. However, this distinction can quickly be blurred though, as the beaver has clear intentions when constructing its dam and therefore its dam might be considered an artifact under Katz’ distinction if only it were human constructed.
From this basic concept of artifact and nature, an argument can quickly be formed that an exact replica of nature demonstrates less value than the original natural construction, as any anthropogenic replica must possess an intended use before its creation and would therefore be artifactual, according to Katz. He admits that all of nature is in someway impacted by human “pollution and technology,” and also maintains that not all human activity is unnatural. Instead, anything that is within our basic biological or evolutionary functions is natural. Katz uses this logic as his argument against restoration and in favor of preservation as the primary device for environmental policy. In contrast, according to William Jordon in “Sunflower Forest” (1994), we are entirely a part of nature and therefore restoration of the natural system should not be considered only palliation, but rather ultimately essential.
Jordon states that no matter any action we take, whether it be active or passive, leaves “a distinctively human mark on the [natural] landscape.” In this sense, true preservation is innately impossible. Preservation implies that it is possible to leave nature in its original state. According to Jordon, landscapes are constantly changing whether by human or natural influence. Therefore, by attempting any type of preservation, we are acting against the forces of nature rather than with them. Instead, we should adopt the role of caretaker as we engage the natural world in active ecological restoration. Restoration acknowledges the inevitability of human interference and attempts to compensate for it rather than attempt the impossibility of preventing it. We cannot attempt to prevent human-nature interaction, as humans are entirely a part of the natural system. Instead, we must engage the natural world in restoration that molds human activity with the natural world and preserves the natural system.
Here is where Jordon and Katz differ in their views- in the inclusion of humans into the natural system. Because we are a product of nature and all of our actions (rather than just some, as Katz might argue) are therefore within the realm of biological and evolutionary function, all our actions must therefore be a product of nature. To reference Richard White, nature cannot be reduced with a mechanistic perspective, where natural functions can be disassembled into a series of parts and manipulated to fit our needs. Instead, in order to achieve any kind of symbiosis we must view ourselves as entirely a part of nature rather than mutually exclusive. As true preservation is entirely impossible within our changing world, restoration is the most coherent response. By “communicating with nature in nature’s terms,” as is inherent in the restorative process, we can attempt to mitigate any human influence rather than simply ignore it.
