Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Facebook / Twitter / Tumblr / Podcast

Preamble

Single page /
Email

Messages in a Bottle

Tags:: environment,; Lewis Lapham,; Walt Whitman

To me the converging objects of the universe perpetually flow, All are written to me, and I must get what the writing means.
—Walt Whitman

To read the newspapers these days is to know whereof the poet spoke. Whitman had in mind the writing in the book of nature—whether encoded in a cloud, engraved on a leaf, or printed on the page—the messages in a bottle washed ashore from the shipwreck of what was once a distant star. The tone of urgency in the poet’s voice is well met with the ever more frequent reports of anomaly in the biosphere, of prodigies and portents on the horizons of scientific study—the Arctic Ocean warming more rapidly than the Mediterranean, a lamb born in New Zealand with seven legs, haystacks in Australia subject to high rates of spontaneous combustion, the Nile perch waging total war against the native species in Lake Victoria, a robot that recognizes itself in a mirror, Formosan termites dismantling the French Quarter in New Orleans, a dolphin schooled to sing the theme song from Batman.

The media upgrade the bulletins to terror alerts analogous to the statue spouting blood in the second act of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the evil omens and the “strange impatience of the heavens” that pointed to a climate change in Rome induced by the presence of an unnatural tyrant. In place of great Caesar bestriding the narrow world like a colossus, maybe we have as surrogate the global industrial economy devouring the earth and all its progeny; but I’m less frightened by the prospect of boiling seas and disappearing forests than by the view into the abyss of my own ignorance, which is a spectacle equivalent in scale to one of Albert Bierstadt’s paintings of the nineteenth-century California wilderness. I open the book of nature on a page written in the alphabet of the double helix or come across the photograph of a 646-pound catfish hauled out of the Mekong River, and I know that I’m confronted with what Edmund Spenser likened to the “wide womb of the world” where lies in hateful darkness “An huge eternal Chaos” (London, page 94). If I could get what the writing means, learn with Wang Yucheng to read the “devious and fathomless” designs hidden in seemingly carefree clouds (China, page 172), or with Richard Feynman (Ithaca, page 179) come to see in nature “simplicity and therefore a great beauty,” maybe then I’d know where, on the human genome map or in the Great Chain of Being, to place the singing dolphin and the self-regarding robot.

The texts in this issue of Lapham’s Quarterly go in search of an understanding of what we mean by nature, ask where to mark the boundaries between mind and matter, body and soul, the human and the nonhuman, between what’s out there in the woods and what’s in here with the endorphins and the organelles. Absent an answer to the questions, I don’t know how we call off the dogs of planetary ruin. The steadily multiplying world population (projected to increase from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion people by 2050) is likely to impose unbearable burdens on increasingly scarce supplies of earth, air, fire, and water. The arithmetic suggests that we have no way of avoiding calamity without first giving up our belief that somehow there is an irreconcilable difference (substantive and spiritual as well as moral and aesthetic) between what is “natural” and what is “artificial.”

Single page /
Email

Get one free trial issue of Lapham's Quarterly!

Fill out this order form.
If you like the magazine, get the rest of the year for just $49 (4 issues in all).
If not, simply write cancel on the bill, return it, and owe nothing.

First Name Please enter a first name.

Last Name Please enter a last name.

Address Please enter an address.

Apt./Suite

City Please enter a city.

State Please select a state.

Postal/ZIP Code Please enter a valid
zip code.

Email Address Please enter a valid email address.

Country Please select a country.

Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.

More Preamble

Comments Post a Comment »

I'm currently in the process of reading all the issues of Lapham's Quarterly that I own aloud. The last issue I purchased was Medicine -- shortly after, I ran out of any sort of excess funds and have been unable to purchase the two most recent.

I'm reading them aloud because I am newly pregnant, and though I know (or at least figure) the baby can't hear anything at this point (it's only been growing for about seven weeks) I thought it still might be nice to flood its little growth area with thoughtful readings.

Because I like some topics more than others (I have very little interest in States of War, but plenty in About Money, I don't care much for Crimes & Punishments but adore Religion) I've decided to read an article at a time through the issues. I've picked through most myself, including reading Eros straight through, but I want to read them all completely and this is how I've decided to.

I just read the Preamble to Book of Nature and I'd like to comment, as I'm a huge supporter of the natural in human life. This is addressed in the Preamble as a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and something that isn't all too sensical (if I'm reading right -- I also haven't touched upon any other article, so excuse my ignorance). I see the reasoning behind that opinion, but I feel a bit differently myself.

It seems to have become more and more clear to me that as a rule of thumb, "natural" is generally a healthier (physically and mentally) way to go than not. This isn't always true. If someone is dying and modern medicine needs to save them, then I applaud modern medicine. However, if someone has a cold, I think the better approach is to attempt to have better overall health and let your body battle the symptoms rather than stuffing yourself with whatever relief drugs you can find. (Why is that whenever I've been sick in the past, generally something small like a cold, I'm always asked, "Have you seen the doctor?" Well, no, I haven't, because it's only a cold, and the doctor can do nothing to help me. I'm surrounded by people who seem to think of doctors as gods, but I suppose this is a topic for another issue...)

I don't think it's that hard to determine what's natural and what's not, even if it's our own distinction that doesn't really hold water when reasoned out; even if the distinction is strange because, after all, we are natural, we are also very strange creatures who have done a whole lot of stuff with our intellect that other creatures just don't. I like to look at it through the eyes of Man's Fall. Prior to gaining the knowledge from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we were rather animal-like (this is mythological, mind you) -- animals are quite crafty and do interact with the environment and whatnot -- until we gained God-like knowledge of Good and Evil and were able to start working towards severe interference (unlike minor animal interference), shortcuts to the Good through mires of Evil.

That's not to say that our society isn't sometimes a beautiful one. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we didn't have the opportunities we do, and I love that. But at the same time, I yearn for a more "natural" way, some sort of simple hunter-gatherer life in a cozy little village (even though the "I" that I know would have a very tough time adjusting, and ultimately, surviving).

Between fruit snacks and fruit, fruit is better. Between artificial light, and sunlight, sunlight is better. Between speaking face-to-face, and writing and email, face-to-face is better. Mind you, these are all health-related things, but health is very important to happiness (the social one relating to the fact that seeing loved ones and touch are very healthful activities). I understand our society has afforded us incredible things at the expense of the natural: more friendships are possible because we don't have to be face-to-face to create them. However, I think there are social repercussions that are unfortunate and in a face-off, natural is better.

I don't have any sort of solution except that being aware of this, I think, is important. If someone were to believe that artificial light were a perfect substitute for sunlight because, after all, both are natural (we're natural and we made electricity) they would suffer greatly in physical and mental health. I believe this happens. Other substitutions have taken place everywhere. Sometimes it's necessary and it's for a greater good, but I think we should be striving to spread a more "natural" way (and again, I think, especially when put in opposition to something else, "natural" is easily detected, and correct -- humans have pushed and pushed limits beyond what other animals can accomplish in their interference with nature) in order to have a healthier people and a healthier environment.

Thank you for creating such a joyous read for me and my unborn child.

Posted by Priscilla Clay Wright on Mon 19 Jul 2010

Preamble

Messages in a Bottle

Get one free trial issue of Lapham's Quarterly!

More Preamble

Comments Post a Comment »

Post a Comment

In Stir

No. 44

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.