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.
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.
SubscribeIt’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.
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?
— Michael Crichton, 2003
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html
And not just atheists. Listen to the nonsense Pope Francis and Justn Welby come out with
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.
What is their core issue? Anarchy I think.
No, their core issue is—or was—an attempt to bring the public’s attention to the ongoing sixth mass extinction.
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.
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.
It’s the pa-Tree-archy innit?
“The Se xual Preferences of Trees”. Kingsley Amis’ next novel.
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).
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.