Man vs. Nature?

Jean-Michel, who is the eldest son of sea-explorer legend Jacques Cousteau, told reporters that he thought Irwin, in his "Crocodile Hunter" shows and beyond, would "interfere with nature, jump on animals, grab them...It appeals to a lot of people, but I think it's very misleading. You don't touch nature, you just look at it. And that's why I'm still alive." (Jean-Michel also said that he found the death "unfortunate" and said he had "a lot of respect" for Irwin.)*

Well, I have a lot of respect for Cousteau (really, that's not sarcastic), but that statement of his is really a piece of work. Honestly, how do you not touch nature?

OK, obviously he did not mean that literally. I'm sure the man walks on grass just like the rest of us; he doesn't just look at it. But he does invoke an idea that I've always had a problem with: that "man" is separate from "nature". That "nature" is this pristine, holy thing that is sullied by any contact with "man".

Of course the reason Steve Irwin was so popular was that he did jump on animals and wrestle with them. I hate nature shows as a general rule; I find them unbelievably dull. Voice-over and a locked down camera, ugh. But Irwin got in there, got involved. (To be honest, I enjoy the Kratt brothers as well. They don't get in there as much as Steve, but they do get genuinely excited when they find cool animals. And genuine excitement is quite infectious). Man and animal, both part of nature, working out a way to live together and share the same space. That was Irwin's mission statement, wasn't it? It wasn't look from a distance, admire the untouched beauty, feel guilt for how you've sullied it with your need for civilization. It was working for a compromise, looking for ways to keep sharks off of beaches so that people could swim without getting bitten, but that didn't kill the sharks in the process. It was forward-looking and always positive. Which was why I liked Steve.

I think this idea of not touching nature is a really bad one. I think it's one of the reasons so many people actively hate environmentalists. They tend to treat humans as intruders when we are, after all, a part of the ecosystem too. Yes, we've been given the gift of reason, and we should use it to find ways to meet our needs that cause the least amount of damage to the world around us, but the idea that we shouldn't touch stuff.... well clearly, it rubs me the wrong way.

My vote for the worst book ever: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, in which a talking gorilla (ugh) advocates a return to hunting/gathering over agriculture. Because what would make the world a better place is high infant mortality and getting rid of those artists and scientists and all the other specialized careers that come from one man acquiring enough food to support more than just himself.

What the environmental movement needs, in my opinion, is more guys like Jared Diamond, who are looking for ways to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of industry. He has his critics, some feel he compromises too much, but I like him. He is not a zealot, and that's sadly all too rare. His books are well worth the read.

Another book I just read also touches on this man and nature debate. It's this one:



It's about what the Western Hemisphere was really like before Columbus came. History is one of those areas where I feel my public school education really let me down, so I've been digging up interesting books like this when I can find them so I can fill in the gaps. My impression from my school days was that North America was sparsely populated, no real cities, and was all wild, only lightly touched or untouched by man. (I also thought Squanto was a fictional character. I'm a bit ashamed about that one. In my defense, he is a highly fictionalized historical figure; I think I can be forgiven).

This book is well worth reading in its entirety. Suffice it to say my school days' assumptions were wrong in all respects (although I did actually know some of this before reading 1491, because I've been reading Jared Diamond's books which make a lot of the same points). The book goes into depth on what different Indian groups were doing to use nature to meet their needs. Most interesting for me were those in Amazonia, who couldn't grow fields of grain so they cultivated groves of nut and fruit trees. Once they were all wiped out by smallpox, nothing was left but the trees. Which in the middle of a rain forest don't really scream "civilization" to the casual observer, such as the first white explorers.

My point is, popular imagery aside, the Indians did not see themselves as apart from nature, and they didn't think nature was just for looking at. They touched it and used it. Because that's what people do.

* Disclaimer: From what I've read, it seems Jean Michel's problem wasn't with Irwin so much as it was with his nephew Philippe Cousteau, who worked with Irwin. Apparently the Cousteau family is quite a divisive and combative bunch. Someone should make a sitcom. Nah, it could never be as good as The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.