X Close

Sorry Extinction Rebellion, but nature is not progressive

July 6, 2021 - 7:00am

Apparently, “nature is queer”. That must be true because Extinction Rebellion said so yesterday in the following tweet:

Mysteriously, the tweet was subsequently deleted. Does that mean that nature isn’t queer after all? Or did someone within the organisation suddenly realise the full implications of what they were saying?

For a start, rooting claims about the fluidity of gender in biological sex is a dangerous thread to be pulling on. Whatever trees may get up to, our mammalian relatives are overwhelming cis-normative.

But there’s a more general problem with looking to the natural world to provide a model for progressive politics. Mother Nature, I’m afraid, is a dreadful reactionary. Famously red in tooth and claw, she gets up to all sorts of stuff that would get her cancelled on any self-respecting campus. 

In fact, if nature were a person, she’d be arrested for a very long list of offences. You could name just about any crime on the statute book and find an equivalent among the birds and the bees. 

The natural world offers examples of entire societies that provide the worst possible role models — for instance, the ruthless resource exploitation of the locust swarm or the totalitarian hierarchy of the ant colony. Even those huggable trees set a poor example. For instance, some species rely on allelopathy — i.e. poisoning the local environment in order to monopolise it. 

Some people argue that environmentalism is a substitute religion. If so, then it’s a rather different faith from the one on which western societies were built. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, while praising the glories of creation, also recognises that something has gone very badly wrong with it. The doctrine of the fall doesn’t just state that sin has corrupted mankind, but by extension the world as a whole. 

Christian morality therefore does not encourage us to behave like the beasts. And neither does the secular liberalism that grew out of the Christian worldview. Progress is — or, at least, was — seen as a movement away from the uncivilised state of nature.

But now nature is seen as something we need to get back too. In fact, in many ways it is held up as the highest good. For instance, we are urged to tackle climate change not to save ourselves but to the ‘save the planet’. 

This is a mistake. Viewed on a geological timescale, the planet will be fine. If, however, we want to avoid environmental chaos on a human timescale, we need to behave in a very unnatural way i.e. unselfishly.


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

13 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago

It’s been a mind trick used in marketing for some time – see the number of products embellished with “natural” as if that alone confers goodness. Or our obsessions with things such as the “paleo diet” and other “natural” remedies.
Anthrax is “natural”, famine is “natural” – I could go on. It seems as though the further away from nature we are – the more we see it in a cute video online – the more detached from the reality of it we are.

Andrew Lale
Andrew Lale
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I spend a lot of time around animals and birds, and nature is most certainly ‘red in tooth and claw’. For them, life is extremely brutal and uncertain. Do we really want our lives to be like that?

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
2 years ago

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment.

— Michael Crichton, 2003
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

And not just atheists. Listen to the nonsense Pope Francis and Justn Welby come out with

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago

What is Extinction Rebellion thinking? Why don’t they stick to their core issue if they want to be taken seriously. Just another lunatic organisation.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
2 years ago

What is their core issue? Anarchy I think.

B Luck
B Luck
2 years ago
Reply to  Mike Smith

No, their core issue is—or was—an attempt to bring the public’s attention to the ongoing sixth mass extinction.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
2 years ago

That’s the problem with a lot of these protest groups, they’re so busy driving from one protest to another that it’s pretty much a given that they are going to cross an intersection, or two, It’s all very well for them to give a wave and say hello, as they cross paths, the trouble is they are so focused on their own destination that they barely have time to register where other fellow travellers have come from or are heading too, or indeed, in this case, maybe even looking at the vehicle they’re travelling in, an SUV perhaps.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
2 years ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

It’s quite nice that we are so wealthy that we have the time for protests over something not related to survival. Worse that the protests in general solve nothing.

Andrew D
Andrew D
2 years ago

It’s the pa-Tree-archy innit?

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
2 years ago

“The Se xual Preferences of Trees”. Kingsley Amis’ next novel.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
2 years ago

mmm, interesting short comment but not coherent in its reference. ER, a group of people, is judged for one statement (there are probably more we could criticise) and is criticised for this by using the nature allegory. Nature is indeed all the things mentioned but this is a survival mechanism working over the very long term (as justly inditicated). ER are people, just like others who maybe do not want to change their ways, all working with a short term view: me now, or humanity for the next few generations.
You can define any group who pursues a particular interest as religious: all things are always based on some belief or a particular way of seeing and agreeing things: always …. within the short term human context.
And of course, all things we think and do come from nature… I don’t think we have been planted on this earth in some mysterious way: nature is our heritage.
It would be more interesting in approaching this subject in the sense of values. Our reactions and what drives us comes from nature, how we try to be human is by putting values on things…
I am not sure what is wrong with ER in the sense of values. Of course they may do things that bother other people: ….welcome to the real world and democracy (of what there is left).

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
2 years ago

This is why Pope Francis is no longer a Catholic. He can’t be both a pagan and a Christian. He needs to start his education again at Genesis, conveniently positioned at the start of the Bible. He should cancel his subscription to the Tablet.