Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Greatest Moral Challenge Ever
Two weeks ago I saw a fine documentary, “Expedition to the End of the World,” about a three-masted schooner venturing into the newly open seas off Greenland. Rapidly melting glaciers had afforded the opportunity for a group of scientists and artists to explore territory that had not been experienced by humans for thousands of years. Some of it was probably being seen by human eyes for the first time. An onboard art photographer made sure the images were spectacular, and the sharp eye and ear of the filmmaker captured some great conversation among the mostly-Danish crew.
In the process of eavesdropping on
daily life aboard the ship, the filmmaker (Daniel Dencik) captured
many discussions of climate change. Most of these folks were
scientifically trained, and there was a lot of matter-of-fact
acceptance of our current global climate situation. Some seemed
simply to accept the gift of glacial melt as another scientific
opportunity. Taking the long view, some of them remained ethically
neutral, whereas the philosopher on board worked the whole time to
figure out the meaning of his life, given the especially fraught
times we live in. The character simply called the Artist provided
immense comic relief with his off-the-wall statements and antics.
There was no attempt to show the research team or the species to
which they belong as noble. For the most part, these were just naked
apes who were having a lot of fun, with some thoughtful observations
along the way,
Of all the remarks on the
responsibility of humans to the planet, the archeologist's was most
telling. He said that carrying a moral sense of our action at all
times was just too tiresome; sometimes you really needed just to
live. Having written in my early twenties that all of a life is a
moral problem, if we would only see it, yours
truly felt a sympathetic sigh of relief. Though I had deeply sensed
this early on, I certainly had not lived my life by its standard.
“Of course, he's right. We're only human,” I thought.
I have
chosen to keep my retirement from academe honest by focusing as much
as I allow myself upon the very crux of human life as a moral
problem, the crescendo of global ecological disruption, hugely
accelerated by anthropogenic climate change. Simply look at the
masthead above this post, and the “about” sidebar. But, like the
archaeologist, I have not been able to consistently stay with that
focus. When I criticize my son for his materialism, he always points
out my car use. I live 50 miles away from him, and visit frequently
(he seldom reciprocates, although he looks for opportunities to ride
here on his bike, along the magnificent Blue Ridge Parkway). For me
it gets a lot worse than driving the car, as my readers can see just
by reading last month's post in answer to the pointed query, Do
all aspects of your life bear the same witness?
The very next day
after viewing the documentary, I watched an online interview by Michael Dowd of the most thoroughgoing climate ethicist I have
ever witnessed, Kathleen Dean Moore. I shivered as she said ,
This is the greatest moral problem we have ever faced, and we must
act upon this knowledge, which is deep within us all, every day
(sic). Isn't' it great how life throws you a paradoxical
curve, right when you need it? Since the interview, I have visited
both of her blogs, and absolutely quaked at what is written and
spoken there. The key resource is the book she co-edited, Moral
Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril.
The three pieces that I particularly recommend are “A Call to Writers”, the Blue River Declaration (assembly of
ethicist-naturalists) and the ferociously gripping speech on
“The Ethics of Adaptation to Climate Change." If you
aren't moved by these statements, and what they ask of you, then
you'd better find another planet.
I once had an
exchange with the clerk of QEW where I challenged her statement
that she loved the whole earth, pointing out that you could only
really effectively love that part of the earth you were in
relationship with. The traveler in me had been chastened by Wendell
Berry, who wrote that if one needed to get away, then travel within
one's own bioregion, continually getting to know its inhabitants.
You won't save what you don't love, and you can't love what you don't
know in intimate detail.
Kathleen Moore
speaks of loving the earth the way a mother bear loves her cubs –
with everything you have. “What do you love too much to lose?”
she says, her piercing blue eyes looking directly into the camera. A
few minutes later, “It's time to start tearing the pages out of our
field guides.” She isn't speaking of loving a romanticized earth,
but specific creatures and flora she's starting to lose. For the
greatest moralist-naturalists of our time – Thomas Berry comes to
mind – it is indeed the earth that they love too much to
lose. It is I who does not pay enough attention, care enough,
love enough. So I owe my friend Hollister an apology, wherever
she is.
But encounters with
fiery, steady folk like Kathleen Moore are priming me for change.
And when is that? As another of Dowd's interviewees, Lierre Keith (day 9), said last night, “This is the last moment... Find your
passion, and follow it now.”
Labels: Blue River Declaration, Expedition to the End of the World, Greenland glacial melt, Kathleen Dean Moore, Lierre Keith, Michael Dowd, Moral Ground (book), QEW, Thomas Berry, Wendell Berry
Comments:
<< Home
“I once had an exchange with the clerk of QEW where I challenged her statement that she loved the whole earth, pointing out that you could only really effectively love that part of the earth you were in relationship with. The traveler in me had been chastened by Wendell Berry, who wrote that if one needed to get away, then travel within one's one bioregion, continually getting to know its inhabitants. You won't save what you don't love, and you can't love what you don't know in intimate detail.”
This all reminds me of a conversation I had with United Church of Christ theologian Walter Breuggemann a couple of decades ago. He told me that there are theologians who speak about the Earth and theologians who speak about the land, and that he himself was one of the latter. Thomas Berry, beloved of QEW leadership, is one who speaks of the Earth; Wendell Berry, no relation to Thomas, speaks of the land.
There are land-related issues; there are Earth-related issues; I personally think both approaches have value in their respective places.
This all reminds me of a conversation I had with United Church of Christ theologian Walter Breuggemann a couple of decades ago. He told me that there are theologians who speak about the Earth and theologians who speak about the land, and that he himself was one of the latter. Thomas Berry, beloved of QEW leadership, is one who speaks of the Earth; Wendell Berry, no relation to Thomas, speaks of the land.
There are land-related issues; there are Earth-related issues; I personally think both approaches have value in their respective places.
Thanks Marshall. I think you have a good point and the examples of the 2 Berrys, both of whom I have met and talked to, are spot on. I find that, when I look at it, I love the earth, but am trying to get to know and love the land better. In doing so, I'm noticing what we are losing, which saddens me deeply. Especially birds, their numbers, and in some cases species, like the whippoorwill.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
