| RAJGOPAL NIDAMBOOR
Ecology is a way of looking at
the world, in a subjective and emotional way, not just as
an objective and rational one. It involves seeing the world
with wonder, awe, and humility -- as something to feel part
of, rather than to exploit.
The tropical
rain forest is mankind's lungs.
Though the Earth cannot live without the
rain forest -- nature's "automaton" that turns carbon
dioxide into oxygen -- one alarming fact is apparent. About
50,000 hectares of rain forest are destroyed each day by burning
to make way for beef farmers and fields for arable agriculturists;
and, by felling to obtain wood as raw material, or fuel, and
to smelt ore, construct roads, and dams. In its totality,
this "devil-may-care" destruction alone amounts
to a phenomenal loss of 200,000 square kilometres annually
-- enough to "suffocate" Mother Earth.
To cull another example. The depletion
of amphibious species across the world. Monitors of our environment,
amphibians are vulnerable to a host of influences -- mainly
because they are not protected by scales as fish are. Besides
this, habitat destruction, massive logging operations, agriculture,
widespread industrialisation, automobile pollution, acid rain,
pesticides, and chemical abuse, may also be extended causes
for their dwindling population. Yet another common analogy
is: no trees, no tree frogs. Yes, of the 3,000-odd known species
of amphibians in the world, just a few maybe doing well. The
inference is clear: the frog is an ecological touchstone.
A requiem to its existence could possibly set a good number
of poorly understood dominoes tumbling.
Furthermore, we have to contend with several
other problems. Of whaling and a host of scientific experiments
in Antarctica and elsewhere. Which brings us, inevitably,
to the two faces of science. One of advance, prosperity, and
happiness; the other, destruction.
It is also understandable that ecological
deterioration -- the heavy price man has to pay for savouring
the fruits of scientific temper -- has, indeed, been a definitive
outcome of a compelling misconception about the natural world.
That it exists in a steady state, under normal circumstances;
its sense of balance is disturbed only when people infringe
upon its working order.
The big question. Is man any wiser with
scientific knowledge and advance? Not really. Take for instance,
ecological inspiration. It has been proposed and rightly so
that many an enlightened idea could be drawn from the sublime
principles of ancient civilizations -- most notably, the Vedic
concept of Indian thought. What's more, the knowledge so derived
may also be sought from the traditional, vernacular man whose
old commitment, eternal in every sense, could help us maintain
that delicate, harmonious order so essential to preserve Earth
in a hospitable, generous, and habitable state.
To paraphrase noted ecologist Edward Goldsmith:
"The idea was probably entertained, explicitly and implicitly,
by all vernacular societies..." Adds Goldsmith: "Ecology
is a way of looking at the world, in a subjective and emotional
way, not just as an objective and rational one. It involves
seeing the world with wonder, awe, and humility -- as something
to feel part of, rather than to exploit."
As maybe analysed, Goldsmith's basic block
of the traditional man is confined to logic: of benefits based
on appropriate climate, and copious supply of the source of
life, water. Avers Goldsmith: "If you respect the biosphere,
you can also evolve a system, a behavioural pattern that enabled
the traditional man to preserve the critical order of the
biosphere." His line of thought is practical, related
in both spirit and essence to nature's own biological laws.
Observes Goldsmith, "The present
world-view, I am afraid, serves to rationalise and legitimise
today's policies. Its most basic tenet is the tenet of progress,
and the idea that science, technology, and industry, are going
to create a paradise." He adds: "This is the world-view
of modernism which believes that all benefits are man-made…
The benefits are measured in terms of man-made goods that
you acquire or possess. It does not take into account the
non-man-made benefits: a favourable climate, fertile soil,
and water. The view that legitimises a sustainable policy
towards a sustainable and fulfilling society was the traditional
world-view."
Reflects Goldsmith: "I don't think
there is anything to invest. I think the solutions are already
there. The people who lived in the valleys of India for 2,000
years are likely to know how to farm the land. The idea of
an American graduate coming and teaching them is preposterous
and fanciful... I studied irrigation and found that the traditional
ways were fine."
In realistic terms, Goldsmith's concept
of ecology is based on the Vedic principle of rika,
the behavioural form aimed at maintaining the decisive order
of the cosmos: of the religion of the Earth as found in the
Vedas, and in early Greek scriptures. Observes Goldsmith:
"Science is superstition and a very pernicious one at
that. It has no foundations. There is no epistemological justification
for modern science. It is like sitting in the air… Things
like neo-Darwinism are simply a farce… It is evident
that the climate operates on the basis of self-regulatory
processes. If it depends on our conscious effort through technology,
there's very little hope… Man is a bloody idiot; he's
no sapien. Fortunately, God or whoever created the
evolutionary processes knew it. Hence, the functioning of
our body or metabolism is well insulated against human follies."
If population explosion is itself a consequence
of economic progress, Goldsmith explains: "I have also
realised that the only answer to our problems is to return
to the traditional type of society as Mahatma Gandhi understood
it… What we are trying to do is impossible. So, I opt
for the difficult." Isn't this a perfect summary on the
etymologies of how we have, with technological advance, reduced
the human brain into a tool, a gadget? Man sure lives in nature
and culture at the same time, but to say that nature is culture
would be grossly incorrect and untenable.
For the sake of argument, let us dwell
on the dominant school of thought: that "technology conserves,
not destroys the environment." Over to Norman Borlaugh,
father of the Green Revolution: "Environmentalists today
seek a simple solution to very complex problems. The pollution
of the environment, for instance, is the result of every human
activity as well as whims of nature. It is a tragic error
to believe that agricultural chemicals are the prime factors
in the deterioration of our environment."
Yes, the agrochemical industry has, for
long, been the whipping boy of ecologists. A few years ago,
agricultural specialists had this to say: "Some of the
worst environmental abuse is occurring under traditional,
not intensive, agriculture." They added: "The spread
of the Sahara and soil erosion, and flooding, in Asia, partially
due to overgrazing and deforestation, are evidence of the
heavy price often paid when traditional agriculture is asked
to attempt to sustain increasing numbers of people."
Also, consider energy -- a sine qua
non -- to make the world a better place to live in. Warned
David Pimentel, a biologist and energy specialist, once: "While
one may doubt the sincerity of the US efforts to share its
agricultural technology so that the rest of the world can
eat and live as it does, one must be realistic about the resources
available to accomplish this mission. In the US, we are using
an equivalent of 80 gallons of gasoline to produce an acre
of corn. With fuel shortages and high prices to come, we wonder
if many developing countries will be able to afford the technology
of US agriculture."
Next, water -- the elixir of life. The
five continents receive more than 110,000 cubic kilometres
of fresh water, every year, in the form of precipitation.
Of this, 75,000 cubic kilometres are lost to evaporation,
each year, leaving a net influx of 45,000 cubic kilometres
of water on ground, annually. Twenty years ago, about 4,000
cubic kilometres were used for all human needs; and, about
1,500 were lost to pollution. The situation today is grim.
According to researchers, all the available [fresh] water
in use today won't last for too long, if the present usage
trends worldwide continue. Informs a scientist: "Some
parts of the world are already severely short of water, and
are drawing from underground pools at a faster rate than the
water can be replenished."
What about food, and the most effective
way of increasing its production? Two major schools of thought
emerge, again: one, which places faith on modern technology;
and, the alternative stream, which argues that high-tech agriculture
is not sustainable even in a country like the US. The latter's
riposte: "Only organic agricultural methods will be sustainable
in the long run; these methods can efficiently produce all
the food needed to end hunger."
To look at history. Twenty years ago,
the total recorded food production worldwide was around 4,000
million metric tones. Of them, half by weight was grain --
an unimaginable amount of food. Grain alone would have been
sufficient to fill a one-foot-diameter tube that encircled
the living planet nearly 800 times. And, yet, what did we
have then, as we have now -- the sombre spectacle of starvation?!
Is there a way out of this formidable
imbroglio? Maybe, yes -- albeit there is no solution that could
be termed perfect. The best way, if at all there is any, is
to aim at restoring balance in life and environment -- one
that would depend on how inequitable power structures become
more equitable. Of a transfer of power from the rich to the
poor, and from the powerful to the powerless. Of changing
social and economic structures that would contribute much
in solving problems… Are we asking for just too much?
All the same, one fact remains. The Universe
may not be self-sufficient or self-important to a Vedantin -- one who knows the Vedas.
It would also mean a lot to us -- whether or not we are familiar with the Vedas. Because,
environment to each one of us, whatever our belief, perception
or ideology, is by itself the Vedantic foundation of truth
-- a simple truth for all reasons and all seasons.
Its raison d'être? Truth
is eternal; so also is belief.
|
