| |
Interpreting
Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment, by
I. G. Simmons.
Although written close to fifteen
years ago, this exploration of the interaction of people
and the biophysical systems of the planet -- beyond that
merely arising from the natural sciences -- is even more
relevant today, as concerns of climate change are at the
fore. Geographer Simmons looks at this interaction by the
sciences, but also the humanities and the social sciences,
seeing the myriad ways the human imagination has constructed
ways of thinking about the environment and therefore dealing
with it. The book can be seen as more important today, because
if the way we think about our surroundings is linked with
what we do to it, then we probably need to address both,
not just the latter, as is the case in most proposals, be
they architectural, urban, technological, or scientific.
Simmons did not aim to create an
in-depth study of the concept, rather he presents a wide
range and includes numerous foot notes and suggestions for
further research. This plethora of voices and viewpoints
makes this most likely the right approach for the book,
but it also makes the hope for a solution to our environmental
problems less than optimistic, as many of the voices don't
share certain core beliefs that may be necessary for certain
actions to take place. Apparently the author's favorite
view of the planet (favorite in terms of the most likely
to reduce ongoing or future harm via human hands) is the
Gaia
hypothesis, formulated by James Lovelock in the 1960s,
which states that the earth is a self-regulating entity.
While acceptance of the Gaia hypothesis, on the one hand,
may mean people may view their actions as without consequence,
thinking the Earth will fix things, it also means the opposite
may be true: that the equilibrium so cherished could change
via human interaction.
Simmons does not wholeheartedly accept
Gaia as the way of constructing the environment;
if anything he is critical and sees the shortcomings of
practically every approach -- from Buddhism to Heidegger
and cybernetics and so on. He eventually concludes that
the best path for the future is a synthesis of two prevalent
models: one based on realism and one based in idealism.
These could generally be called environmental and humanistic
views, respectively. This conclusion at first seems to be
one that lacks a strong stance, of something like the Gaia
hypothesis, but given the author's intentions it's not surprising.
To find one way of viewing the earth for the whole of humanity
would be do deny humanity itself. Instead, Simmons presents
the ideas as multifarious as we are, giving suggestions
and perspective for dealing with the contested constructions
in a way that might allow for positive transformations of
humanity and nature.
or 
|
