Two books are pertinent to this debate.
Simon Shama (Oxford Historian) wrote "Landscape and Nature" looking at
the historical connection between the species Homo sapiens and the
landscape of the world - such that "natural", in the sense of not
influenced by man, is a nonsense.
Stephen Budianski wrote "Nature's Keepers" with a similar theme though
more ecologically applied.
Chris Perley
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Stewart [SMTP:stewart@aec.arc.ab.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 2 April 1998 08:52
To: Multiple recipients of list FOREST
Subject: Artificial vs Natural
Dear Forest-listers,
Brooks' response to the current thread prompted me to recall an
experience
relating to the issue.
I attended two talks last week that addressed this issue of
artificial vs
natural. The first was given by George Weyerhaeuser Jr, CEO of
Weyerhaeuser Canada, one of the largest forest companies in
Canada. The
following night I listened to Matthew Fox, former Dominican
monk, and the
foremost exponent of Creation Spirituality, a global ecumenical
movement
that challenges the status quo in theology and secular issues.
Although
they probably approached the question from very different
philosophical
stances, both speakers made the same point, humankind is a part
of nature,
not a separate thing external to the creation in which we live.
Maintaining the dualism in the natural vs artificial concept has
negative
effects in many ways. First, by distinguishing our selves as
separate from
nature, it is easy to abdicate responsibility for what we do,
and its
effect on other parts of nature. This has certainly been the
tradition of
European culture in Americas. A second fallacy that arises from
this
dualistic outlook is the idea that if we just leave it alone
nature will
look after itself. The fallacy is that, being an intrinsic part
of nature,
we can never separate ourselves from nature, and we always have
an impact.
Just by being, we are taking part in ecosystem processes, from
local to
global scales. It is my contention that, by acknowledging our
real
relations with other parts of the creation, we will have to
acknowledge our
responsibility to manage ourselves appropriately. If we do not
"do our
best with what we have where we are", we are managing by
default, and the
default might not have pleasant results.
Thank you to all those contributing to this thread. It is good
for all of
us who practise, teach and do research in forestry to step
outside our
usual sphere of work, and examine the larger context of what we
do, both
personally and in community. I have benefited from all of the
different
perspectives being expressed here.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this message are solely my
own, and do
not necessarily represent the views and policies of my employer.
At 12:08 1/4/98 -0500, Brooks McCandlish wrote:
>OK, I will rise to David South's bait... I never did much like
the terms
>"artificial" vs "natural" regeneration.
>
>I believe that the excessive emphasis on a distinction
between "natural"
>vs "artificial" is at the root of our problems of forging a
sustainable
>society. This emphasis can lead to either an unthinking
preservationist
>philosophy, or to an equally unthinking faith that technology
can solve
>in a timely fashion any problem that we create.
>
>I plant a field with seedlings, weed, thin and protect it till
it grows
>into a forest of valuable timbe, providing a host of
environmental benefits
>along the way--did I create that forest? Perhaps it wouldn't
have existed
>without my actions, but I can't really take much credit for the
result.
>
>I plant a seed, my wife bears a child, -- did we create a
person? Is the
>child artificial?
>
>For better or worse, there is no forest on earth which has not
been
>impacted "artificially" by the influence of human activity.
There is also
>no forest, planted or otherwise, which can truly be said to be
"made" by
>humans.
>
>"Natural" and "artificial" are on a continuum. All forestry is
>"artificial"; all involves natural resources, adapted and
modified to a
>greater or lesser extent by man for his purposes. We can be
distructive
>through ignorance or carelessness, maliciously or with the best
intentions.
>However we are a product of nature, and, by living, we
necessarily impact
>the world we depend on for life. To quote "Mac" McConnell,
former
>professor of forestry, you do the best you can, with what you
have, where
>you are.
>
>
>*****************************
> Brooks McCandlish
> New England Forestry Consultants, Inc.
> Bradford, New Hampshire, 03221
> USA
> (603) 938-5354
> brooks@conknet.com
>*****************************
>
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->
James D. Stewart Ph.D.
Research Officer in Ecophysiology and Silviculture
Forest Resources Business Unit phone: (403) 632-8309
Alberta Research Council fax: (403)
632-8379
P.O. Bag 4000 email:
stewart@aec.arc.ab.ca
Vegreville, AB, T9C 1T4,CANADA http://www.arc.ab.ca/
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0