Civilization vs. Nature, Essay Example

In the history of human development, correlation between nature and humanity had gone a long way from entirely harmonious coexistence to entirely ruthless exploitation and destruction of the surrounding environment. Although the Ancient times were not characterized by the highest level of human development, general perception of the universe and actual reality was more advanced than it is today or was during the rest of the human history. The point is that, in those times, people understood their dependence on nature and surrounding environment in the context of human survival and well-being. Although one might argue that now humanity had managed to overcome its dependence on natural environment in terms of food, water and life security, the reality is quite opposite. In the digital age of genetics and anti-seismic architecture, humanity remains as vulnerable to the natural catastrophes and changes of the environment as millennia ago. The only difference is that today humanity is responsible for the situation. On the other hand, human desire for comfort and high standards of living makes people ignorant to this knowledge and comprehension of how close to the edge we are now. Those few individuals who see and entirely comprehend the whole scope of catastrophe are trying to attract human attention. Just as people are different, methods and rational of environmentalists also differ. In the context of all mentioned above, the present essay aims to analyze how the same issue of human impact on nature can be addressed by different writers with different backgrounds. In this respect, I would like to compare my interpretation of Edward Abbey’s book “The Monkey Wrench Gang” with articles of Henry Salt and Slavoj Zizek. First of all, I will explain my perception of the book and then compare it to the rational of other two writers.

After numerous approaches to the book analysis, some issues kept me wondering over the nature of some events and descriptions. First of all, the most striking was the manner in which the main heroes were trying to save the wilderness. Although their rational of eco-terrorist activity was quite comprehensible, the whole scope of their activity was lacking integrity and conceptuality in explaining their position. The most famous quote “My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don’t know anything else worth saving” is rather plain in its nature and not motivating at all (Abbey, 200). This quotation corresponds to all activity of the gang – lack of global view on nature and implications of human activity in its every embodiment. In this case, I mean that characters and the author himself create an abstraction between themselves and the Evil Corporation polluting the environment (McKibben). Thus, they consider that the main evil is industrialization, as an abstraction which can be embodied in any machinery and scientific influencing the primary wilderness. In this context, just as author himself, main characters were lacking a global scope of the issue interpretation (McClintock, 49). I mean, that they were looking on how industries were destroying wilderness and natural order of ecosystem, but they did not really think about how they influenced the environment. I mean that they were destroying machinery, exploding trains and bombing dams, which, in the end, had also negative implications on the ecosystem. The oil spills, chemicals burnt during the explosions and water population, even cars they were using were also polluting the environment.

One might argue that I am pushing too hard on integrity of the approach they should have used. In fact, I am. The thing is that I do not see much of spirituality and respect to the nature they should have since they are fighting for saving the wilderness. Calling wilderness “fucking” does not put heroes far from the consumptive attitude. In their case, wilderness is the only thing worth saving, but they do not feel it the way it should be, the way it was felt and respected by American Indians, for instance, or Buddhists.  Their actions lacked spirituality inspired by nature. This is particularly striking, if to compare this expression to detailed depictions of nature and its beauty:

“From down down far down below, carried on the wind, came the applause of

Boulcher Rapids. The dried stalk and empty seed husks of the yucca rattled in the

breeze, on the rimrock, under the stars” (Abbey, 248).

From my personal perspective, the author wanted to contrast irrationality of human essance even in those individuals, who were fighting for the environment, to the smooth rationality and spirituality of nature. In this respect, wilderness can be applicable more to the gang itself rather than nature. Their desire to safe wilderness is quite spontaneous, just as their plans and actions. Thus, in a certain way, characters embody humanity, which is unpredictable, irrational and inconsequent in its activity, even if that activity is for the common goodness and restoration of the natural order of things. From my personal perspective, nature should be seen in more spiritually integral way, not in a sense of a “psychiatric refuge”, but in a sense that human being and nature have spiritual origin and subsequent interconnection (Abbey, 63).

Having outlined the main points of my personal interpretation of the issues covered in the book, I would like to make a comparative analysis of the issue of human influence on nature might be interpreted by three different writers. The main common ground for Abbey, Salt and Zizek is that they all emphasized a correlation between human civilization and natural environment of living. Both Abbey and Salt refer to specific geographical examples of ruinous influence of industrialization on eco-system. Abby argues that the greatest violation of humanity is embodied in building of the Glen Canyon Dam and subsequent distortion of the local eco-system (Farmer, 216). Salt is emphasizing how numerous mountains in North Wales were “sacrificed to commercial selfishness” (131). Unlike Abbey and Salt, Zizek does not place emphasis on the actual examples of how human development influences nature, but he outlines the lack of realistic approach in human, Western perception of reality. He argues that “in the late capitalist consumerist society, “real social life” itself acquires the features of a staged fake” (Zizek, 386). In this context, Zizek emphasizes that the human perception of reality is vague and deemed by ideology and mass production alike. His statement does not directly emphasize the harmful influence of people on nature, but it can be derived from his statement, meaning that people do not realize reality and their actual impact on it, including nature. Distinctive feature is that, while Abby refers to the whole humanity and human civilization in general, Salt is likely to refer to British people and Zizek tends to analyze Western capitalist civilization, embodied in the USA.

The difference between all three authors is also in what they mean by the main cause of thoughtless human activity. Abby considered that the main reason was human desire to overcome natural laws and gain benefit from new technologies, which became the central idea of industrialization as the main cause of natural environment’s decay. His position can be supported by the following quote:   “the ultimate goal of transport technology is the annihilation of space” (Abbey, 114). Subsequently, humanity in Abby’s perception is rather holistic and pragmatic in its destruction of nature. Salt is putting entirely different emphasis. He suggests that the reason of the mountains’ destruction is human negligence and lack of desire to do anything. Salt argues that people, mainly British, are likely to send money on land purchase, while they “have not, of course, a penny to spare for the preservation of their own” (131). Thus, it is about integrity of common activity towards the appointment of mountain sanctuaries that local society had failed to do. Unlike the previous two approaches, Zizek outlines an entirely different perspective of the issue. First of all, he refers to socio-economic structure of the American attitude to the environment. Secondly, he is global in his interpretation of human perception of reality and interconnectivity of the current world. Zizek makes a comparison of the human misperception of reality with the Matrix’s concept “desert of the real”; suggesting that 9/11 corresponded to the pill Neo had taken in order to see reality (386).

Another substantial difference between three approaches is how each writer was viewing possible ways of the problem resolution and actual human awakening from its ignorant sleep. According to Abbey, the main means of situation improvement is eco-terrorism (fighting industrialism with its own means) destruction of production means and the final results of industrial activity – dam itself (McClintock, 49). On the other hand, the other two writers were less radical and less specific about exact means of problem resolution. Salt suggested that the final solution might be in common efforts towards preservation of the existing mountain sights. He suggests that in order to succeed in mountains’ preservation:

 “local communities should remove hills from the tender mercies of the mine-owners

and railway lords… and shall place them under a council of mountaineers and

naturalists and nature lovers who understand and reverence them” (Salt, 132).

While Salt and Abby were referring to individuals’ activity, Zizek concentrated on the changes of the whole society and even Western civilization itself. He suggests that the deadlock of illusion and misperception would be broken through the realization of the current situation, “America will finally risk stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World” (Zizek, 389). In this context, the realization would lead to America’s comprehension of its impact on the global world and environment in general. My personal opinion is that the attack on twin towers had shown the political dimension of reality, but it had not influenced ecological perception of the society and civilization itself.

All three approaches have their benefits and limitations. I think that Abby’s eco-terrorism would not be able to change much in the global environmentalist movement. On the other hand, his perception violent actions without victims and bloodshed is quite unrealistic and idealized. People die during eco-terrorist acts, and there is nothing ecological or environmental in killing another human being. Salt’s solution is limited to a specific case and field of local community actions; they would not contribute much to the global environmental movement, although the practice might be replicated in another location. Concerning Zizek’s radical approach to the American surreal perception of reality, I would suggest that it is partly true about twin towers and opening to the real world. On the other hand, I think that this idea is not applicable to the environmental issues. In order to understand the harmful implications of human activity on the nature, American and global societies would have to experience huge disasters caused by their activity, which are already happing today, but not everyone is ready to link them with the human influence on the environment. Zizek’s concept might work only when a certain natural disaster of the national scale takes place and it will be directly connected to the human activity and will be vivid even to the most ignorant members of the human society. This is also the reason why I think Abby’s approach is irrelevant. It just does make people change. They would change if the nature itself shows them their place.

Overall, from all mentioned above, it can be concluded that environmental issues and human realization of reality might be described from various perspectives. While people might agree on the essence of human impact on nature, each person places a specific emphasis on means, aims, and reasons for the impact. Putting together, those concepts can be organized in a chronological order, showing the development of environmentalist movement itself. Abbey would be an initial radical stage. Salt is more elaborated and economic-oriented and Zizek is more global and futuristic. My personal opinion is that people will finally understand their mistakes without any eco-terrorist activity. The only question is when they will realize that.

Works Cited

Abbey, E. The Monkey Wrench Gang. London, LD: Penguin Modern Classic. 1975. Print.

Farmer, J. “Field Notes: Glen Canyon and the Persistence of Wilderness.” The Western Historical Quarterly, 27.2 (Summer, 1996): 210-222. Print.

McClintock, J.I. “Edward Abbey’s “Antidote to Despair”” Critique, 31.1 (1989): 41-58.Print.

McKibben, Bill. “The Desert Anarchist.” The New York Review of Books, 18 Aug. 1988, Web. 08 Nov. 2011.

Salt, H. “Slag-Heap or Sanctuary?” The Savour of Salt. Ed. George Hendrick & Willene Hendrick.  London, LD: Centaur Press. 1989. Print.

Zizek, Slavoj. “Welcome to the Desert of the Real!” The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101.2 (2002): 385-389. Print.