To Rescue or Restore, that is the question.
Written by Nick Kettles   
Friday, 29 January 2010 10:18

How we talk about the Earth and the language we use probably determines and influences our relationship with the Earth more than we think.

Contrast the idea of the earth being sick, the subject of a brutal rape by the forces of progress, with the view offered in the draft resolution, entitled Harmony with Mother Earth  (A/C.2/64/L.24) which Bolivia presented to the United Nations in November last year (2009).

“One of the greatest discoveries of civilization was the realization that the Earth is not flat and that we live on a globe. Today we are in the midst of a much larger discovery regarding the nature of our home. To know that Earth is not only round but it is a WHOLE.”

Yes, you read that correctly.  WHOLE.  Meaning, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, complete, in an unbroken or undamaged state, with no part removed.

Take a moment to consider this.  If the Earth is Whole, how can it be fragile, raped, dying?

Is it possible She can be both of these things at the same time? That may be possible in the realm of theoretical quantum mechanics, but what’s more likely is that we perceive that the Earth is suffering, because that’s actually how we feel.  It’s not the Earth that’s dying but us.

Our sense of urgency for the 'fragile' Earth, is actually a projection of our own sense of deep hurt about our place in the world and perceived sense of impotence in our ability to make a difference and play our part.  Our sense of disempowerment by the relentless drive of progress that insists we sacrifice well being for wealth, and our health for happiness.

Perhaps for some, these feelings are rooted in a deep sense of loss, that the institutions and way of life that we have invested so much faith in, are in fact crumbling, dying; no longer systemically sustainable.

When the Earth is seen as sick and dying, we position ourselves as in charge, and the Earth subject to our will.  Humanity is in charge.  Humanity caused the problem.  Humanity will fix it.  Humanity has misused the earth’s resources, now humanity will redistribute them more fairly.

But who really is in charge here?  Is it really us?

Taking responsibility for our impact is an essential part of our evolution as a race, no doubt, and yet our awareness of who we are, in relation to what we are taking responsibility for, can make a big difference.

Consider for a moment, the possibility that the Earth is in charge, and we as a species, subject to Her will.  Consider what it would be like if we knew intrinsically, that we were a part, an intimate part of Her whole?  A dynamic part of an ecosystem which includes all Her species?    

With such a view, would our approach to addressing the impact of climate change be any different?   

Rather than act to rescue a dying planet, because it’s the right thing to do morally and intellectually, would we instead act to restore our interdependent relationship with Nature?

Where once the idea of rescuing fair maiden Mother Earth, provided the clarion call the environment movement needed to mobilise itself, today it’s more likely to impel the kind of evangelism which can and does cause people to switch off and disengage.  It is not that the urgency of those who want to rescue the earth is misplaced – it’s better to act than do nothing – it’s just the idea of rescuing anything suggests that the perceived victim cannot help themselves, and that in turn can leave us feeling helpless at the enormity of the task at hand. 

What’s more likely, in fact, is that without us (humanity) the Earth would do just fine and recover to a relative state of Harmony quite quickly, with the number of species that benefitted significantly exceeding the number that suffered.  Even genetically modified crops would, in the absence of spraying (for which they are resistant at a metabolic cost to the plant), be disadvantaged and probably die out.  

It may be the idea that the Earth needs us and cannot survive without our intervention is perhaps another projection of our own deep seated and egocentric need to be needed.  Not only to be seen, heard, and useful, but to feel that we matter, that we can play an important role, and fulfil our part in the Whole.  This too, is a perfectly human urge to have, and yet, again our point of view makes all the difference.

As Satish Kumar has often said, it only takes one letter to move from egocentric with an individual worldview, where I am separate from the world, and my needs are more important than yours - to ecocentric, where my comfort doesn’t come at the expense of another, and who I am is determined by my ability to relate to Other, including the Earth.

It's quite possible that an ecocentric world view is what emerges when we see that the best role we can play in combating climate change, is not to take up arms on the street, but to actively seek to restore our relationship with the Earth. 

Take the time to accept Nature as a teacher, by observing Nature’s cycles, by growing our own vegetables, making our own bread, staying long enough in Nature, to see it with new eyes, until it’s inter connective web, or which we are a valued and important part, is revealed.

Would we then, assured in the knowledge that we truly belong, act less from fear, and instead with greater awareness of the best use of our time, energy and resources? 

=
Nick Kettles is a freelance journalist, broadcaster, and a founding editor of Plan C, Creating Sustainable Change From The Inside Out 
 

Trackback(0)
Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Subscribe to eNews