What Does “Going Green” Really Mean? (Part 3)
Last year, sitting in the darkness of New York City’s Sunshine theatre, I not only watched but found myself immersed in the Leonardo DiCaprio-narrated The 11th Hour, and here is a central fact of which I was reminded with a deep resonance, one of many insights that washed over me and stayed with me: Human beings are not separate from nature; we are inextricably part of nature. We think of ourselves as distinct from nature in order to make our ravaging of it less guilt-ridden, to justify our actions, to place nature in a position of service to our greed while distracting our attention from that greed.
However, the truth of our place on (in) this earth is like death: inevitable, inescapable. As we destroy the earth we destroy ourselves.
We can distract ourselves with our daily struggles to work our jobs and to pay the bills, to mend and cultivate our relationships with other people, but the negative impact of our decisions continues. As well, how often do we consider the kind of relationship we have with nature, with the earth, which, in one way, is to say with ourselves?
We are famous for trendyfing movements. To “go green” already seems to have the strained taste of a saying said for the sake of wanting to sound mindful without the action to back it up. For now, though, we seem to need a rallying cry, and perhaps “go green” does the job. Or maybe not. Regardless of what terms we use, what motivational moniker we apply, there must be a core understanding that drives action: Even though the consequences of our actions are typically not immediately noticeable, there are still consequences. We are not separate from nature. We are part of it. Always have been. Always will be.
Another resonating thought from The 11th Hour: The earth was here long before human beings, and it will be here long after we are gone, long after we have done our worst to destroy it for our own “needs.” The earth is quite proficient at starting over.
The authorities in the film estimated that we have approximately forty years to begin reversing the damaging process in which we have immersed ourselves, perhaps less than forty years, before a reversal is no longer possible.
Part Four of What Does “Going Green” Really Mean?
“We think of ourselves as distinct from nature in order to make our ravaging of it less guilt-ridden, to justify our actions, to place nature in a position of service to our greed while distracting our attention from that greed.”
seems to me that we disconnect ourselves from nature not to make our greed easier to deal with, but because we just aren’t comfortable with the existence of a being yolked to nature’s whims. that is, we can’t bear to think that we’re just like a worm or a leaf or an ephemeral gust of wind. the greed thing is just a way around the essential realization that we are mortal and limited and… you know, gonna die.
more succinctly, We think of ourselves as distinct from nature in order to make our existential crisis easier to take. if we can “own” nature, then it won’t own us.
Justin, great points. Thank you. What you’re saying has a lot to do with Haiku / 106, posted today.
I would even go so far as to say that for many of us it’s a matter of both fearing our own mortality and vulnerability (and the inevitability of both) as well as being horrified by what our unconscious selves are already utterly aware: that we’re stuck in a pattern of self-serving abuse (of the planet, of each other, of ourselves) and that the larger culture in which we all live has a really bad tendency, putting it lightly, to encourage that pattern.
“If we can ‘own’ nature, then it won’t own us.”
Well put. There seems to be really no difference in principle between what we do to each other (say, pushing people aside, hurting them if “need” be, in our efforts to get onto a busy subway car, for example; “taking out the competition,” if you will) and what we do to this here planet. Irrevocably, though, we and the planet (or just an all-inclusive “we”) are in this together, allies whether we like it or not. And this is how we treat our allies, our mentors.
It would be interesting to see a study on the connections between individuals’ perspectives on death and their relationships to nature, to observe older generations to determine if their generally closer proximity to their own deaths, perhaps to their growing consciousness of their own mortality, changes the way in which they treat nature.
Does anyone know of any study having been done? Or, any takers on doing the first?
no. but that’s a good study.
i’m starting grad school next year. that is a good idea for a study!