I was lucky enough to have grown up in an environment that valued nature. Much of my childhood and teenage years were spent outdoors, and the experiences and friendships that came with it profoundly shaped my outlook on life (and I think for the better). With it came a perspective on nature as ‘Nature’: an ideal state of existence, a network of self-balancing relationships that would be found everywhere if only it wasn’t for human interference (this outlook might be familiar, for it is a perspective that permeates the contemporary outdoor culture, as well as much of environmentalism, historical and contemporary). But in recent years I have found it necessary to move beyond this world view, for on a close examination I increasingly found it incongruous and unhelpful.

Here are the three main issues I find with Nature (with capital ‘N’):

1. It doesn’t exist

Nature thus construed doesn’t exist, and manifestly so: if it did, the planet would have not reached the sorry state it is in, because the self-balancing gravitation toward perfect equilibrium would have prevented the human species from getting out of control long before the Egyptian pyramids were built (this also applies to the idea that if only we expose people to Nature, they will start to care for it; quite a lot of destruction is actually done by people while being exposed to it).

The very fact that this Nature must be defined by an exclusion of a rather populous species is a compelling evidence of the artificiality of the construct, and it never stops amazing me how scores of self-confessed atheists are oblivious to the Judaeo-Christian origins of the human exceptionalism that this view of nature is entirely built upon; it stands and falls with it, if you let go of it, you end up with nature with a lower case ‘n’.

Nature, with a lower case ‘n’, is real, but it is neither perfect, nor self balancing, and most of all, the human species is a part of it as much as any other.

2. It doesn’t work

The Nature view of nature fails to provide workable ecology. In a world steadfastly heading toward 10 billion humans it is not possible to create a viable ecological strategy while believing that the optimal state of affairs is defined by human absence, that’s pure make belief. This in turn allows naive ideas to proliferate.

The exclusion of humans from Nature skews the data on how nature really functions; the fact that a hominid species is the one that got out of control is a historical accident, and there is no reason to imagine that in Nature (i.e., sans humans) other species cannot, and will not, become problematic as well.

The popular pre-occupation with large carnivores in some circles, as well as the ‘keystone species’ concept, look suspiciously like a direct transference of the Judaeo-Christian human exclusivity down the food chain — I strongly suspect that any species sufficiently studied is going to be found to be a keystone species somewhere, just that most have, so far, failed to find their enthusiastic champions.

Indeed, in many ecosystems humans are undeniably a keystone species. A Nature/not-Nature distinction between a beaver dam and a stocked fishing pond is superficial, just two animal species (that is, beavers and humans) doing their thing; it is only meaningful on the basis of an a priori assumption of the superiority of Nature to all else. But such an a priori judgement smacks of religion rather than reason, and without it neither the beaver dam nor the human pond are necessarily a good thing, that is (and this is the central issue), nature is not necessarily ‘good’.

The planet desperately needs ecological models fit for this day an age, and yet the last 150 years or so have proven conclusively that the Nature model doesn’t work. The national parks have not prevented the US from becoming (per capita) the biggest polluter and destroyer of our planet (with the rest of the global north in close tow, lest we feel smug this side of the pond) — a move beyond Muir worshipping is long overdue.

3. It marginalises the masses

Over here in Scotland the Nature approach to conservation appears to be producing an environment where only multimillionaires and billionaires (plus acquiescing outdoor photographers and writers, and such), are meant to exist. The majority of us are expected to bugger off and admire (and financially support) Nature from our urban ghettos, with an occasional weekend visit.

I doubt this situation is unique to Scotland, but of all places, here in Scotland the warning bells should be ringing loud and clear, for we have been here before, and are living with both the human and environmental consequences of the super rich being able to manage the land to suit their private agendas. The fact that the bells are not being rung at all is deeply disturbing.

There are around 3.5 acres of land in Scotland per head of population, but very few of us will ever be able to have a claim on any of it. It is owned by a handful of absentee lairds, of whom the latest, and by now biggest, crop is hoarding land in the name of Nature, to keep it ‘wild’ (Wilderness being a common synonym for Nature) — we should be under no illusion, the believers in Nature stand, and will continue to stand, in the way of meaningful land reform in Scotland as much as the lairds of old, for it is in the nature of Nature to keep land depopulated.

Yet, land reform is one of the key changes needed in Scotland to make it a better, fairer place. But hope for such change is limited, for money talks and land is one of the best speculative investments. And to maximise its value it’s also best kept depopulated, and so the interests of money and Nature appear to coincide — keeping it ‘wild’ nowadays offers a veneer of respectability as an alternative to the grouse of old.

—

So, where does it leave us?

To be honest, I don’t know; not least because this a taboo subject. Although the problems with Nature with capital ’N’ are numerous and self-evident, the faith in Nature is often held onto with true religious fervour, one which will look away from much, as long as the faith itself is kept. And so those who know better avoid asking uncomfortable questions (but hey, nobody reads this blog anyway 🙂).