I think The New Naturalist is best described as an ideal to strive for. A hypothetical individual who deeply understands the complex, multifactorial ecological problems confronting humanity, and who knows how to go about actually solving them. The New Naturalist is rigorously scientific and ruthlessly honest about their analysis of any given situation. As a concept, The New Naturalist encompasses topics as wide-ranging as human psychology, ecology, and evolution. The concept is still only in its infancy, and I look forward to evolving alongside it. Below, I outline “the big picture” vision of where I see this concept taking us, and then elaborate on this by exploring some of the small, but necessary steps we’ll have to take if we are to see this concept blossom into what I intuit it can become. I think of this concept as an anchor, with innumerable connected ideas, each of which must be understood in relation to one another if we are to solve the existential ecological problems humanity is faced with today.
“The big picture” vision of The New Naturalist is of this concept as a catalyst for the summoning of a world in which humans can openly and honestly discuss the imminent and serious ecological threats our civilization confronts. Our contemporary discussion of the ecological situation is polemical and unproductive. The global problems we have before us will not be solved if this tone of discussion is maintained. The New Naturalist is a catalyst for transitioning from this hostile, “us versus them” dynamic to one that recognises collective humanity as ultimately indivisible. We all depend on the same underlying ecology. It’s not about wining arguments. It’s about getting this right.
Let’s zoom in on some of the small steps we’ll have to take if we are to find ourselves at this desirable future.
The New Naturalist is, in many ways, about re-framing how we see the world we live in. One of the ways The New Naturalist re-frames how we see this world is by examining core ideas that disproportionately influence us. One such core idea is that of “nature”.
Throughout human history, and especially during our hunter-gatherer past, nature will have been portrayed as an insurmountable force we humans were subject to. Nature, in the form of storms, floods, and lightning, will have been viewed as a potential threat to human existence, and treated accordingly. On the other hand, our hunter-gatherer ancestors will also have observed that nature provided sustenance for the continued survival of our species. The plants and animals that sustained human existence came from the very same nature as the storms, floods, and lightning that threatened human existence. To reconcile these two aspects of nature, a culture and mythology emerged that could adequately explain the world we lived in. Nature was both the giver and taker of life. And we lived within this cultural environment for the majority of our evolutionary history as human beings. No doubt, the same psychological structures that facilitated our hunter-gatherer ancestors’ understanding the world they lived in (through mythology and culture) continue to facilitate our understanding of the world we live in today (more on this in a future post.)
Then there came a major transitionary period in human history, when we began to relate to nature in a fundamentally different way than ever before. Agriculture evolved. And with this change in how we physically relate to nature, there came a corresponding change in how we psychologically relate to nature. The mythology surrounding nature morphed and evolved. Whereas before, in our hunter-gatherer past, we played a mainly passive, and receptive role when it came to obtaining food resources (except for the hunt itself, when the men will have actively pursued and chased down prey species,) with agriculture, we humans opted for a far more active, participatory role in our acquisition of food resources. Instead of simply trusting in the bounty and abundance of nature to provide for our needs, we actively ensured a steady supply of food crops by practicing agriculture. With this transition from passive receptivity to active participation, there was a corresponding transition from a feminine-dominant to a masculine-dominant mythology. This mythological transition altered the way we humans see the world, thereby affecting our thoughts, speech, and action.
Masculine ideas such as “the conquest of nature” motivated humans to no end. By the time Europeans discovered North America, the continent of Europe was predominantly anthropocentric. Grassland meadows were maintained through livestock grazing, and the composition of woodlands were modified such that trees and shrubs of human use were preferentially propagated. As the Westward march of Europeans across the North American continent was coming to a close, the idea of “pristine wilderness” emerged into human consciousness. As Europeans cast an eye back over the lands they had traversed, they saw a difference between what they had initially encountered, and what they left in their wake. It was at this historical moment that “the conquest of nature” morphed into “the conservation of nature”, and pristine wilderness was a core idea facilitating this psychological transition. Nature was no longer to be feared and conquered, but to be revered and conserved.
With this shift in attitude regarding how we relate to nature, there came the establishment of multiple North American national parks, and this trend eventually swept across the globe. The stark contrast between the lands before and after European conquest in North America catalysed the transition from conquest to conservation. This contrast was blatantly obvious on the North American continent as it was untouched by advanced European technologies (guns and steel, for example) before the arrival of Europeans. But the same pattern (of technological modification) could be observed elsewhere across the globe, albeit less starkly. With the spread of the core idea of “pristine wilderness” there came a worldwide unanimous decision to conserve remaining nature. To conserve that which had yet to be significantly altered by advanced human technology.
Here’s where The New Naturalist pipes up! The New Naturalist represents the catalyst for a new mythological/psychological transition in collective human consciousness. Just as there was the hunter-gatherer to agriculturalist psychological transition, and the “conquest” to “conservation” of nature psychological transition, so too the time is ripe now for yet another psychological transition in how we humans relate to nature. The transition from “conservation of nature” to some new, as yet undefined relationship with nature.
Now for a harsh truth: the idea of “pristine wilderness” although beautiful and enticing, has reached its point of paradoxical counterproductivity. Which is to say that although this idea may have benefitted humanity at the time of its conception (establishment of national parks being a major benefit for humanity for multiple reasons that we can explore in a separate post,) its usefulness as a beneficial idea has run its course. This idea is now doing more to impede the evolution of humanity’s relationship with nature than it is to assist it (more on this in a future post too.)
Pristine wilderness is a human construction. It is artificial. Take the epitome of pristine wilderness, the Amazon rainforest, as an example. Research shows (and has shown for quite some time now!) that the Amazon rainforest is more like a giant, cultivated garden than it is a pristine wilderness, untouched by the contaminating hand of man. The unequivocal preponderance of tree and plant species with known human use, the archeological unearthing of elaborate public works systems (such as large-scale irrigation systems,) and the discovery of large swathes of terra-preta (a human-created soil) all suggest that the Amazon rainforest is more anthropocentric than it is natural. (For interesting information on Amazon rainforest research read Charles C Mann’s “1491” and Fred Pearce’s “The New Wild”.) The Amazon is just one example of how we may have been seeing the world incorrectly up to this point.
What are some of the lessons that candidates for the status of “New Naturalist” can take from the above information?
- Significant changes regarding our relationship with nature occur when that relationship is re-framed (at the psychological/mythological level) to suit present circumstances (think of the transition from hunting and gathering to farming, and the transition from conquering to conserving nature.)
- The time is ripe for a modern-day re-framing of our relationship with nature (think of conservation as having reached its point of paradoxical counterproductivity, and The New Naturalist as catalyst for that much-needed re-framing.)
- A key process to the successful re-framing of our relationship with nature will be bridging the gap between the findings of academic research (pristine wilderness as a human construct) and common knowledge. This last point is of utmost importance. The New Naturalist understands that catalysing the re-framing of our relationship with nature will not occur through strict, top-down regulatory processes, but will occur through bottom-up processes, beginning at the level of human culture. Effective scientific communication is, therefore, a priority for The New Naturalist.