An Ecosystem Model of Transformation
--
…Freedom is the truth of necessity.
Hegel, The Science of Logic, § 1286 (1816)[1]
How does one go about making the world a better place? 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) came up with one proposed solution. He adopted an aesthetic of philosophical pessimism, which scorns all life and consciousness. He did not just want everyone dead. He wanted every sentient thing in the universe to cease to exist in such a way that no sort of conscious life could come into existence, ever again.
Schopenhauer’s world view was founded on the Buddhist First Noble Truth: Life is Suffering. On that point, I do not disagree with Schopenhauer (or the Buddha). But I cannot now agree that eliminating all life and consciousness is a valid a means of eliminating all suffering. Schopenhauer is simply calling for a diminution of the Everything. He seeks the separation of consciousness from the universe. He seeks extinction in his aesthetic. He craves the ultimate sin. He curses God.
Whereas Schopenhauer founded his philosophical pessimism on the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, I discovered my ecological aesthetic in an ancient Egyptian blessing.
Look to our own, flourishing, “natural” biosphere for a successful model for healthy social transformation. In organic nature we can behold the ecological model of vitality, diversity, and sustainability. This ecological formula, demonstrated in the working of animate nature itself, was identified and inscribed in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics as 𓋹𓍑𓋴 or “ankh wedja seneb”.
𓋹 — ankh — to live, to have life, to be part of the “living” world
𓍑 — wedja — to be whole, to have prosperity, to have much, to have many
𓋴 — seneb — to be well, to be healthy, to be sustained in health
𓋹 𓍑 𓋴
Ankh! Wedja! Seneb!
Vitality! Diversity! Sustainability!
This formulaic phrase was often placed following the name of a deceased pharaoh or at the close of a letter. The phrase was fairly common, occurring in the famous Rosetta Stone, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and in numerous funerary inscriptions dating back at least four thousand years. I have modified the phrase slightly to emphasize the contemporary ecological implications of the phrase, rather than the historical theological or supernatural associations the phrase has in its original contexts. Deciphering this phrase in the context of working towards making the world a better place helps answer the question of how we should proceed. If the purpose of philosophy should be to change things (for the better) as Marx claimed, perhaps we should start by beholding Nature itself.
What does it mean to behold “nature” in terms of looking for solutions to global problems? Not all “nature” will be equally instructive. Venus (Astarte for Jonah’s Phoenician shipmates) is, by my definition, “natural” (having little or nothing to do with human influence) and appears to be a nice little planet. But I consider its aesthetic value to be considerably less than that of Earth. So far as we know, Venus has never sustained life (and even if it can be shown at some point to have done so, it’s nothing compared to the life that Earth has generated). Venus may have a variety of geological features (certainly the Maxwell Montes is taller than anything on Earth!), but it does not have the diversity of geology that the earth does with its multiple layers of sedimentation, soils, and strata (to say nothing of our oxbow lakes and hanging canyons). Finally, while Venus may be sustainable in the technical sense that it will continue to exist with its oppressive carbon-dioxide atmosphere regularly generating a surface temperature estimated at over 800° Fahrenheit (450°+ Celsius), and while Venus will orbit Sol until the sun consumes it (or some other catastrophe takes place like an unusually large meteoric collision) — what life or diversity does it sustain? Venus may be “natural”, but it is also a Wasteland, and a wasteland is antithetical to notions of vitality, diversity, and sustainability. Venus and its planetary systems may have cautionary value (“Don’t grow up to be like Venus!”) but it is no model for a vital, diverse, and sustainable Earth.
Unlike a Wasteland, a transformative and diverse ecosystem is not static. Although humans are presently altering all of earth’s biomes, the “natural” processes of predation, desiccation, population, and evolution were developed long before humans came into the picture,. These “natural” processes and are still operative. A healthy biome continues to evolve and adapt to new challenges and new threats to its overall sustainable life. If we seek to make a better world, look to Earth’s Nature. On our planet, the biozones are healthiest when they operate as complex ecosystems: Nature thrives when diversity reigns. When trees provide shade for certain plants to grow, and certain plants serve as food for some herbivores, and other creatures function as predators to prevent the herbivores from decimating the plants, and pollinators maintain the various flowers and vines and bushes and trees, and fungi convert the dead into soil, and the trees share nutrients through their root systems.
Keeping Earth’s “natural” processes in mind, and guided by the aesthetic goal of vitality, diversity, and sustainability, we return to the question “What can we do?” The “nature” of Venus, as a Wasteland, is not valuable as a model for evolutionary adaptability. A rainforest is far more instructive for addressing issues of biological complexity. Actions also have different values as well in terms of seeking to make the world a better place, some being more worthwhile than others. Let’s briefly consider some unproductive options which, like Venus, we might seek to not emulate:
• Apathy murmurs: shop as usual.
• Rage screams: eat the rich!
• Sacrifice demands: bleed ‘till it hurts!
• Parasitism proclaims: I, me, my, mine.
• Denialism seduces: don’t think! (It’s too much work.)
The above are diverse responses, but none of them will address the problems facing our increasingly beleaguered biosphere. They are “wrong” answers. As a teacher, I was often asked by my essay-taking students, “Is there one right answer to the question?” I would remind them, “There are many right answers, but there are an infinite number of incorrect answers as well.” The same is true for taking individual and collective action towards solving complex problems like wealth disparities, societal violence, or global climate destabilization. Not all actions are beneficial. Some are more fruitful than others. Yet, …
There is no one action to take — a healthy ecosystem engages a multitude of actions.
So what can you do as an individual concerned about the health of the biosphere? You have many options and currently a vast quantity of resources suggesting local actions you can take individually or with a group.[2] Here’s a smattering starter list: writing to political figures (if you live where democracy functions); participating in marches (if the media will cover the reasons for the march); beach/countryside clean-ups (good if the clean-up gets positive media attention, better if that attention also raises awareness of the sources of pollution); planting biologically attractive flowers to promote a healthy pollinator population (if you have the resources to do so); publishing activist essays (if you live where there is free speech); pressuring your local public school district to provide adequate education on the issues; create and serve meals to others using locally-sourced products (if available). These simple individual actions are all absolutely beneficial. Some of them may even bring about positive local change, but on an individual level they are utterly insufficient to tackle global crises.
So, if these individual actions won’t save the planet, should we just give up?
Yes. We should follow the advice of Job’s wife and “Curse God and die!”
Okay, I’m kidding. The correct answer is: NO FUCKING WAY SHOULD WE GIVE UP!!!
Not only have we been given opportunities to take individual action in the face of the Sixth Great Extinction, the Plastification of the Biosphere, and the Climate Crisis, but, as MLK and Jefferson will remind us, not only do we have a right, we have a duty to transform society for the better. Giving up is not an option!
Keep going!
* * * * *
[1] For more context on Hegel: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlnotion.htm#1286
[2] An on-line search for “How to save the planet” will get you started with literally hundreds of sites offering tips and suggestions for both individual and collective action. My purpose is not to replicate those lists but to lay out one moral argument for why you should consider “saving the planet”.
