The other day, I went to a large grocery store to acquire several minor food items. While in the shop, amongst the stacks of boxes and packages, I passed a selection of plants: I was instantly seduced. I purchased two rather sprightly examples of verdant life and took them back to our office. I felt instantly connected to these willowy life forms: why? Some would say it is because I recognized them as fellow sentient beings: different, but still members of Gaia’s fraternity. I recently read the article, Are plants intelligent? “Stefano Mancuso and journalist, Alessandra Viola, in their book, Brilliant Green, makes a compelling and fascinating case not only for plant sentience and smarts, but also for plant rights. … As radical as Mancuso’s ideas may seem, he’s actually in good company. Charles Darwin, who studied plants meticulously for decades, was one of the first scientists to break from the crowd and recognize that plants move and respond to sensation – i.e., are sentient. Moreover, Darwin – who studied plants meticulously for most of his life, observed that the radicale – the root tip – ‘acts like the brain of one of the lower animals.’” (1) It is an awe-inspiring concept, and a humbling revelation of our living interdependence.
I often wonder where we are going with all of this: this being the continued acceleration of the capitalistic model of consumption. Among many “image-statement products,” food is now a commodity not a necessity, in my estimation. We have detached it from anything that was at one point living. This includes animals, vegetables, fruit, grains, legumes and the like: nature itself. Nothing exists but my cell phone could easily be a contemporary mantra. But, is this good? I would think not
Our natural state of being, corrupted by the first Industrial revolution, (2) is now undergoing a truly vile transformation. In many societies, we are in the process of terminated our association with the environment: very, very stupid and, ultimately, lethal. Much like fish need a healthy river to grow and reproduce: we need a natural ecosystem to minimize the effects of our avaricious lives. In short, the cocktail named “the beauty of nature” is probably the only concoction that can keep us spiritually and morally alive. Our cities are working to replicate nature and place her alongside our concrete and steel infrastructures in the form of parks and landscaping. Can this actually emulate the natural environment? The response seems to be mixed. It is better to have an urban, tree covered area than an asphalt- covered parking area: the question is “… by how much?” By a lot it would appear: “It has … been suggested that cities themselves can be parks, rather than just containing them. A campaign has been launched to have London declared a kind of urban national park. This might seem a backwards device — in general, parks are established in beautiful places that people love, not established to make places beautiful and encourage people to love them. But it goes to show the affection that many feel towards places classified as parks, be they vast national expanses or local patches of scrubby grass. … This affection is not based solely on a ‘misty-eyed’ yearning for the outdoors. There is ample evidence that parks are a good thing. Many studies have confirmed that they come with significant benefits. They seem to make people who use them healthier and happier. They make local ecosystems more diverse and more resilient. They can even help to mitigate climate change to a small degree.” (3)
What causes me concern is that we are excellent at “stage managing” (4) our world. We can cut down a natural forest, replant it and, in 100 years, have it look as if the hand of nature had never been pulled aside for a period of human exploitation. It could be said the same of our food supply. I asked a group of my students, how many liked to eat chicken. The reply was positive and almost unanimous. I then inquired as to how many had actually killed a chicken or had even observed the process. The result was also unanimous, but this time in the negative: no one had participated in or observed this undertaking. It was further to be noted that no one wanted to, either: certainly the poultry association will not be welcoming public tours through its abattoirs any time soon. I think that we should take all school children through this somewhat grizzly process: it would certainly bring reality to the forefront of our consciousness. Then, if you want to continue to eat anything, you would have an understanding of its place in nature: in the same way we pick fruit or vegetables from our grandparents’ farm. Radical: yes, but you would certainly reflect on your food source, would you not? The iconic and venerated human being, Pope John Paul II (1920-2005), leaves us with a thought: The earth will not continue to offer its harvest, except with faithful stewardship. We cannot say we love the land and then take steps to destroy it for use by future generations.
A small joke: Mr. Smith was a businessman and he always took the morning train to London. At the train station, there was always an improvised man selling packages of matches for 50 pence each. Mr. Smith didn’t smoke, so he just gave the man the money and continued on his journey, not picking up the item. One day the businessman left his usual donation and continued on his way. The poor vendor hurried after him. “Excuse me sir,” the man called out. “The matches are now 60 pence – you owe me 10 pence.”
This week, please ask yourself, “What is my grasp of nature?”
Every day look for something magical and beautiful.
Quote: When we leave this good Earth we will have to lie in her fields: let them be pristine and inviting, like our life.
Footnotes
1) Are plants intelligent? New book says yes
4) Here this idiom means “manipulating.”
