Dear Organise!

I am writing in response to the article about conservation of land in an anarchist communist society. (In issue 53.)

The author is right about the fact that humans are beginning to realise that we do not have unlimited power and that the Earth is indeed more powerful than humans. In the article, the writer tends to refer to humans as ‘on lookers’ of nature rather than being part of it. They are also right in claiming that we cannot do what ever we want to the environment without repercussions (global warming, the ozone layer etc).

However, in the article, John Miur Trust and the author (for at least some part) accept the definition of wilderness as ‘any area with no humans’. This is where they are wrong. The definition they accept is based on the colonialist way of thinking and living. The very term wilderness or the wild was used by colonialists, priests, etc, who believed that any living organisms not under control or dominated by their way of thinking or understanding was considered chaotic.

The term wilderness also encourages people to believe that somehow living in the suburbs or city is much more civilised than our natural environment. In that type of mind frame believing that humans by their very nature should separate themselves from nature can cause disastrous effects not only to humans but the whole world. The examples are all around us. People of all classes spit, throw trash and graffiti in planters while paying much more respect to the man made things. People erect sidewalks and benches to keep out of the ‘dirty ground’ as if the Earth is a bad thing. It is the ‘dirty ground’ which is part of what created us. We are part of the Earth, no matter how much we deny it. Thankfully, more and more people are realising that.

A possible solution to the problem of ‘how humans can preserve nature while being able to enjoy them’ is to reverse the capitalist way of thinking and domination. What needs to be addressed in our society is that society needs to encourage the person who gives the most as the better way of living rather than the present mode of the person who has the most is the richest. (Fred Charles was a perfect example.)

I do agree with your manifesto that humans must live in harmony with nature and not against it. But it is not enough. If more people could respect trees, plants and animals as equals (since we are no more than hairless apes. No more owning animals as pets and treating trees as only for humans Tecourses) as well as use recycling, solar power, crop rotation and ‘industrial symbiosis’ many problems would be solved and we would not need the definition wilderness or conservation. We would live co-operatively with nature and treat the environment with equal respect (living with trees, perhaps up in the trees?), less damaging ways of enjoyment with nature may emerge. Even, perhaps, a form of Green Anarchist Communism? I’m looking forward to hearing a response.

In solidarity,

Nick USA

The author replies:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your letter. I agree with the points that you make, though I would like to make a few comments.

First, the point I was making about conservation organisations was to actually criticise the concept of wilderness. I was arguing that it is wrong to see humans as something separate from nature, which I think is the way conservationists and environmental campaigners often speak. It is the idea that ‘nature’ is good and humans are bad outsiders. So, yes, we need to stop seeing ourselves as ‘onlookers’.

Second, the John Muir Trust does not really talk about wilderness. ‘Wild land’ is a more used term in Britain, recognising that people have always had a big impact on the environment. Still, whatever the term, they, amongst others, are trying to preserve areas of the country, that are relatively untouched by humans. I was trying to point out that doing this involves the intervention of human values about what this ‘wild land’ should actually consist of. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and have these areas. On the contrary, creating or conserving areas where other species can flourish without humans all over the place should be one of our goals. This is for the benefit of other species but also for ourselves.

Third, it is not just a capitalist way of ‘thinking’ that needs to be changed, but the system itself which sees everything on this planet (and off!) as a way of making a profit. And, lastly, yes we do need to have respect for other species, but, unfortunately, it is necessary that we use our habitat for our own benefit. (See article in this issue of Organise!) Even your suggestion about us living up trees rather than cutting them down is a problem. Think of how many different species would be losing a home if we moved into the trees! We need to seriously think about ways in which we can reduce the impact of humans, but we can never wholly get rid of it.