Collision: nature as domain vs. nature as process

for lack of a better term. The three sectors or domains of Civilization (industry, technology, knowledge, consumption, economic and social structures), Nature, and Agriculture are arranged as follows:

Civilization is the largest, nearest, and quite obviously the dominant sector. (This matches the view from our office window.) The other sectors are defined in terms of Civilization, which is seen more negatively as consumption rather than as quality of life.

Nature obviously provides us with air and water, and serves as an (increasingly ineffective) sink for industrial wastes. Nature is where we often go on vacation (often Nature represents the goal, our quality of life). Biodiversity and conservation are important for aesthetic and spiritual reasons, and also because we might find cures for cancer in vanishing rainforest species. And nature is under assault by civilization — which, with its huge population and massive technology, is mining it, damming it, logging it, ploughing it, spraying it, grazing it, and paving it for short-term economic gain. (But nature bats last, and could topple us.)

Nature is more or less defined as what Civilization is NOT. Nature is not so much a process or collection of processes, but a collection of native species that have evolved together. Ecosystem health is defined as the absence, minimization, or removal of Civilization’s influences. And because Nature is defined as a domain rather than a process, there is no need to monitor process once ecosystem health has been achieved — you just have to guard against contamination and interference.

Agriculture, in this view, is a declining frontier industry and an increasingly minor sector of the economy, much less important than the health-care sector for example; perhaps even smaller than the entertainment industry. We view agriculture and other natural resource activities as "extraction." Agriculture is what we drive past on our way to vacation in Nature; it is Nature corrupted by Civilization. To varying degrees it is an ecological and economic sacrifice zone — and, to a segment of the population at any rate, it is a social sacrifice zone as well. It seems to need subsidies to remedy its chronic overproduction. Farmers suffer natural disasters periodically, but the supermarket shelves always seem to be full. Overall agriculture is destructive to nature, but occasionally some farmers heroically give up chemicals and farm the old way.

New York City is a source; eastern Oregon is a sink. Rural communities need high-tech to get on their feet.

In this view, because Civilization is the dominant and controlling element, to fix problems we tamper with Civilization: we regulate environmental, social, and financial technology. We adopt "top-down" systems and management schemes to fix Agriculture and Civilization’s corrupting influence on Nature (e.g. organic food labeling, eco-labeling, prohibition of management tools in natural areas, etc.). And we set aside preserves where Nature can survive. "Ecosystem management" (as well as Farm Bill debates) consists of gerrymandering the boundaries of these overlapping domains. The widely perceived problem of a disconnect with Nature is addressed through "education" programs (cardboard rainforest curriculum).

In short, Nature is increasingly threatened by, and dependent on, Civilization and Agriculture. In order to sustain Nature (which is our goal) we have to reform and control Civilization (e.g. consumptive lifestyle) and Agriculture. These are expensive and uphill battles.

In this view, Civilization is utterly dependent on Agriculture, as without food there would be neither Microsoft or the Sierra Club. And Agriculture is utterly dependent on Nature, which holistic managers tend to view as process rather than as domain. In other words, Agriculture depends on the water cycle, mineral cycle, energy flow, and community dynamics.

(This view of Nature is confusing and unfamiliar to most mainstream environmentalists, for whom it may seem like an upside-down pyramid. It is likely to remain so, because there are few real, tangible opportunities for urban people to try, practice with, or invest money in ecosystem processes — whereas opportunities abound to experience and to invest in preservation and in gerrymandering.)

Peter Donovan On the left, a view popular with many mainstream conservation organizations: wilderness is preserved by regulating civilization, including its subsidies and incentives to agriculture (which is often thought of as an ecological, economic, and social sacrifice zone). On the right, a holistic view: civilization can only be maintained by effective management of ecosystem function, upon which all else depends.

Here, the solution to sustainability issues is not to fix and regulate from the top down, but to manage the ecosystem processes in ways that genuinely sustain our physical and spiritual needs--which are indeed various and diverse (decision making according to holistic goals). To the mainstream environmentalist, the claim of many holistic managers that ecosystem management (of processes) can happen in a backyard is a patent absurdity.

The civilization (quality of life) that in turn would be sustained by this kind of diverse stewardship would probably have relatively little need for cardboard rainforests or the Sierra Club, or for blanket rules and regulations. (This sounds freaky and utopian to mainstream environmentalists, because they believe the decision making framework described in 1. above reflects the only reality or possibility.)