“May what I do flow from me like a river, no forcing and no holding back, the way it is with children.”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

“May what I do flow from me like a river, no forcing and no holding back, the way it is with children.”
― Rainer Maria Rilke

Just to say a little something on religion, as it’s Christmas. I’m an atheist who believes in freedom to believe. I would never pinpoint religion as wrong.

I study belief, hope as well as existence and truth, and lots of other interesting things as a philosopher. Yet I am more than a little jealous of those with religious faith, whether Pagan, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim, as it would be a very hopeful thing to have in one’s heart.

There are all kinds of amazing things about world religions, not just the hateful acts reported in the press. There’s a richness and resilience in that diversity. Extremism (differing from radicalism, I would argue), in any form is a problem and so is delusion.

Delusional behaviour is an unpredictable scourge of our time. Delusional behaviour is not restricted to individual extremists of religious faith. It can hail from civil governments, security analysts, corporate board members and even police departments too, it seems.

Most religious texts are peaceful, inclusive, tolerant. But we need to remember they were written pretty early on in human pastoral history during significant times of unrest and brutality. Tradition and reverence to founding prophets means these scripts tend not to be updated. But if these founding ‘fathers and mothers’ (mostly fathers), lived today, they might have adapted their work.

If there’s one section of religious text taken out of context in order to set one group against another, there’ll be three more which bring them back together. Cultures and dominant groups within those cultures (hierarchies of power) tend to corrupt religions by skewing and interpreting these ancient scriptures to fit their own world view. This often will be proven by going back to the original text.

Philosophy is not religion, however, and began in response to theistic or polytheistic dominance. Early philosophers did not accept the status quo and they asked ‘who are we and what is nature’ if we/it is not deemed by God or the gods? There was a bravery in this act of defiance towards theocracies. Radical, I would argue. It has spurred all kinds of amazing human endeavours in philosophy and the sciences.

But to be an extreme scientific materialist is as misguided as being an extreme theistic idealist. One excludes the other across an inflexible void. Yet it is the void which offers most scope for imagination. And it’s this place in-between where there is room for all creeds and compassionate thought in this beautiful, mystifying and diverse world.

Let’s cherish it.

Since launching my petition, leading conservationists and sustainability academics have generally either lambasted or ignored me. Rupert Read and Molly Scott Cato rightly describe the problem as the “Natural Capital Controversy”. The assertions in the Nature and Wellbeing Act Green Paper on monetary valuation ARE controversial.   There is a way to bridge the gap, which so few discuss. Pluralistic values are important and just. But monetary valuation of nature is the point upon which to focus, as money in our current economic system is all-pervasive, anti-pluralistic and often incommensurate with key values, not least justice and love. We do not need to monetise nature. Money is THE medium of exchange (trade). Nature should not be exposed to commodification. If we wish to measure it for our own sake too, sure. Pick any other metric except money. Nature for economic growth? No thanks. Ecoliteracy for all, including legislators and business people? Yes please. Please do read my earlier blogs. I emphasise, there are no heavy or rude demands here, simply polite requests. We environmental ethicists are more often than not a compassionate species! It’s in the very nature of what we study. But this issue IS important.

I am told, often, that as conservationists, we must learn to speak the language of governance and commerce, and that monetary valuation of nature is the only way to communicate with politicians and business people. It’s all about the £. The way of the world.

So, do we really speak ‘money’?

I ask myself this question not only as a student of environmental ethics, but also as a business person who grew up in a family of business people. And also as a political being, one who believes in justice, equity, compassion and the intrinsic value of life itself.

When we sell goods, we market through advertising, largely via words, symbols and images. We may educate consumers on the ‘benefits’ of purchasing goods and services via the spoken or written word. We have meetings. We talk. Even in convincing banks to back us, or in tax office inquiries, or in matters of insurance, the key is more the narrative than the projections. People to people. Key persons. Track records. Trust.

And whether it is a good thing or not, globalisation means the English language is increasingly the key communication across the globe. Just check out Harvard’s the Language of Business blog. It’s all in… English. http://www.dce.harvard.edu/professional/blog

Yes, we look at the figures, of course. Checks and balances. The figures must add up. But in valuing living beings (wild life) we are quite at liberty to use other currencies to ensure those figures add up.

The Nature & Wellbeing Act Green Paper, by the way, does not strive for alternative currencies. It strives to value nature, including living beings, by the £. The purpose of money is as medium of exchange. It facilitates commodification. It’s homogeneous. And it rather easily segregates what is common to all, without limits.

Nature should not be beholden to, or be none of, these things.

So to Government; here in the UK, the language of Government is English. History as evidence of its beginnings… http://shar.es/13gp0G

When we vote, we vote on ideals, promises, mandates, track records. Trust. When we petition parliament it’s usually because we agree or disagree, and we argue our cause using language.

Language is also central to education, which is where we really should be placing all our efforts right now. In education we can change and validate baselines, the world.

Some say there is no true society without language. It’s what brings us all together. And I’m not going to give up on society.

Despite any neoliberal obsession with money, the human world is what it is because of language. And that, my friends, is a justifiable, equitable, compassionate and intrinsically valuable thing.