Funny Hats and Nature

If the booked-up campground I spent time at this weekend (all 112 sites were taken!) is any sort of anecdotal indication, then there are certainly folks out there who appreciate and value nature. If the mountaintop removal I see when I go back home to visit Appalachia and the lack of recycling may also be added as evidence, then this appreciation of nature is inconsistent and sometimes disconnected from the impacts that people have on the nature they enjoy.

I'd believe somone in this hat about nature

Well, perhaps then we should consider how we talk about nature, and who is doing the talking. In a study paid for by the conservation nonprofit I work for, the consulting firms of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) and Public Opinion Strategies drew several recommendations up on just those topics. Should you not wish to read any further, the conclusion can be stated in short: people want nature to be there, and they want people in funny hats to tell them why.

Digging in, the consulting groups first sought to gauge people’s attitudes towards the great outdoors. A staggering 90% of respondents said that nature’s benefits (be that recreation, aesthetic, to health, for clean air and water, etc) were either Extremely or Very Important. And when asked to name the specific benefits of nature that individuals valued, among the highest ranking were those linked to protecting public health. Assuring water quality, air quality, allowing for food and medicine, and protecting against floods and hurricanes also ranked highly.

Providing for camping, hiking, and recreation hit the 67% Extremely or Very Important mark, below many of the health benefits.

It should be noted though that when the question was phrased as asking the most important reason for conserving nature, 45% responded that nature ought to be conserved for the benefits (health, economy, enjoyment) that it can provide; whereas a respectable 42% responded that that best reason to conserve nature was for its own sake (to leave systems undisturbed to evolve, change, and grow).

I find this quite heartening. People see their well-being as tied to nature, and not just for what we can extract. This idea is further enforced when testers asked respondants who they trusted to discuss conservation and nature.

Here, the funny hat rule comes into play: conservation groups ranked behind ranchers, farmers, doctors, scientists, fishers, and hunters. After conservation groups, professors, landowners, businesses, business analysts, and economists came in far down the list.

Thus, the funny hat rule can be further defined, perhaps, as anyone not seen as trying to sway the public for a particular agenda (professors, economists). Those who are “insiders” with the land seem to have the clout amongst the general public.

I work for a conservation organization, and on a donor trip last year sat spellbound around an early-evening camp fire in a rancher’s backyard, as the rancher told those of us visiting his reasons for putting a conservation easement on his land. He grew up on his acreage and knew every tree, every creek and hill. He believed in the power of the land its beauty, and wanted to ensure that in perpetuity. His twenty minute, heartfelt explanation was the highlight of the donors’ two week-long trip, and proved to be far more memorable than the dozens of maps we showed and parade of experts we had appear.

So the lesson: nature, just because. Maybe my hometown in Appalachia already has that appreciation, but perhaps they would benefit from hearing why they should recycle from someone who don’t work behind a desk.

What is ecology? A philosophical debate…

Slavoj Zizek in the documentary “Examined Life”, giving his talk on the philosophy of ecology. If one takes the definition of ecology to its literal end, it means the interactions between organisms and their environment. Some philosophical ecologists believe then that any actions or impacts that humans have are natural and aren’t “good” or “bad”.

But if you’re finding it tricky to decipher if Zizek actually likes nature or not, check out this article.

Zizek: “Either we take the threat of ecological catastrophe seriously and decide today to do things that, if the catastrophe does not occur, will appear ridiculous, or we do nothing and risk losing everything if the catastrophe does take place.”

Then there’s the more strict philosophy of ecology figure Timothy Morton, whose ideas lead him to propose doing away with the idea of “nature”, arguing that the idea of “nature” is really a fetish concept created by the romantics. I’ll have to take a closer look into his ideas, but there is certainly a rising prominence of ecology in philosophy.

From the start though, Zizek seems to be thinking about survival and human’s helplessness in the hands of nature, and Morton seems to see no reason to elevate nature (or preserve it?). I have learned that I value nature for many reasons, but can offer the idea that for us to value the aesthetics of nature is reason enough to want to value and elevate its importance.