why so dismissive?
....
I don't think I'm being dismissive at all.
I'm noting the way many of our neo-Rousseaus feed a deep strain of narcissism in sectors of the eco-movement, which is particularly evident in its literature. I'm also challenging the concept of 'Nature' expressed in their work.
Joanna wrote:
I think at this point, given the eco-catastrophes and the medical catastrophes of the "advanced" world, there is every reason to question our relationship to nature and to consider alternatives.
[...]
I agree.
But, premises craft conclusions. I think the premise of a schism between humanity and nature is false: we never 'left nature', we dramatically scaled up the sorts of things we've always done (housing construction, food production, artifact creation) and added a few new items. As our methods became more powerful and as these powers were put at the disposal of capitalism; problems have accrued. People like Logsdon lament our attempts to control nature. They have a point. It's true that dreams of dominance and out-sized influence have shaped our large-scale efforts from the beginning -- what is the Giza pyramid complex if not an attempt, after a fashion, to exert human will on the universe?
This hasn't worked out as smoothly as our ancestors hoped; there've been spectacular side effects. Clearly, adjustments are required. Intriguingly, the idea of dominance has, as its companion, the belief in an Earth that can endlessly absorb our outputs, such as C02e, without consequence. One of the reasons many people have trouble accepting the reality of climate change is because the atmosphere appears limitless and beyond human influence.
...
So, how do we solve the problems caused by our increased powers? The romantics propose a reconnection with the 'natural world' -- that we, in your words, learn to live on "honorable and harmonious terms with the earth". This quasi-religious restoration will, we're told, serve as the (more or less) spiritual foundation for a new civilization.
To be blunt, I ruthlessly reject this line of argument, which is really more of a bedtime tale than a prescription for what ails us. I reject it because I'm convinced it leads to fuzzy thinking and 'solutions' which have more in common with sermons than the diamond hard plans needed to re-engineer our infrastructure so it will continue to serve as our life support system, even as its outputs are de-fanged.
Joanna wrote:
Maybe some people read Logsdon as a form of fantasy; I don't doubt it.
What's wrong with the fantasy of living on honorable and harmonious terms with the earth? What's wrong with the fantasy of unalienated labor? You think agri-business has a better approach?
[...]
Of course, I don't think agri-business has a better approach.
Apparently, there's a bit of confusion; some are mistaking my criticism of the naturalist genre with a blanket acceptance of industrial farming practices. Let me clear things up. Agri-business is a capitalist enterprise. Like other such enterprises it's designed to maximize profitability. This inevitably leads to excess and un-sustainability. The abuses people like Pollan and Logsdon discuss (for example, the over-use of artificial fertilizers, monoculture farming and the creation of high calorie, low nutrition fast foodstuffs) are, in my view, much more the result of capitalist logic than any supposed break with nature.
By shifting the focus away from market ideology's immense role and towards the 'fantasy of living on honorable and harmonious terms with the earth' our neo-Rousseaus misdiagnose the illness.
To answer your question, there's nothing *wrong* with this fantasy -- except when it's presented as an alternative national policy.
.d.