Seasonalight

Blog

  • The Act of Pricing Nature

    ‘We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom’. EO Wilson

    The Act of Pricing Nature

    No, sorry, I won’t be rallying support for The Nature and Wellbeing Act, as it stands, with Chapter Four in place. Underpinning the latest Conservation NGO backed Green Paper for The Nature and Wellbeing Act is its Chapter Four, the economic valuation of nature and, particularly, nature’s services to us in the form of PES (Payments for Ecosystem Services). I’m passionate about nature and so are the people who propose this Act, I’ve no doubt. Nature desperately needs defenders. So how could I even think to object?

    Chapter Four is a fundamental value misjudgement being made by our conservation NGOs here in the UK.

    Sometimes, good intentions don’t turn out well. I’ve raised some of my concerns with advocates. My reach of course is small compared to theirs. But I’ll make some of my points here, again, none-the-less.

    We have to look to changes in the way we all relate and value nature.

    It’s time for every single one of us to make pro-nature decisions in our every day lives. So what changes in values are being suggested here to orchestrate those everyday decisions? Sadly, instead of cherishing nature and the services it provides us on the basis of love, reciprocity, wonder or for the simplest and clearest of all values, intrinsic value (nature for its own sake, beyond our own purpose), the NGOs are suggesting to legislate for a single value ~ the £. Like everything else in our capitalist society, the monism of money is all pervasive. But the reduction of all life to this single metric is impossible without losing essential elements of what it means to be human. Advocates say Natural Capital and Payments for Ecosystem Services are just two of many ‘tools in the box’ to conserve nature, though obviously they are targeting government and business. We have seen the market-bias politicians already going to work on the idea, with the onset of Biodiversity Offsetting, a controversial policy to say the least. But in order to change the way ALL people value nature, regardless of government or business, to value by the £ is an exclusive act, not inclusive. And as a value, money is INCOMMENSURABLE with so many other critical values such as justice and love. Conflicts may arise from trying to weigh one value against another. Sometimes, it’s impossible. Just look at the radical incomparability of money and love. When money is metric, corruption becomes a real danger. Money as metric combined with an absence of other measured values are often reasons why conflicts fail to resolve. If anything, non-monetary values must be measured and evaluated on their own terms. Let us legislate for that and offer tools for that purpose instead.

    Nature is our life support but we are also intrinsically part of nature.

    Follow this argument through, and we must then also price ourselves. As we are overpopulating, then perhaps we ought to consider we are cheap. Does this assist in government and business decision making? Logically, it could. Morally, it shouldn’t. Nature is intensely interconnected, no-one species more important to the overall picture than any other. Of course, there are dependencies. Ecosystem services exist in all manner of ways, some of the processes we still do not fully understand and may never fathom. Critically, there are species more or less important to differing humans, depending on what purpose (or service) we choose to select. How do we value the disparity between useful and less useful species, the individual beings, dominant or as keystones (or not) to that ecosystem? How do we value the minutiae and the undiscoverable? I suggest there is little science here and more art.

    Who will do the selecting?

    The question is, of course, rhetorical. Scientists who back PES inevitably become valuable in themselves. And so the process might actually be construed as a self serving exercise. They become the ‘opaque lawyers and accountants’ of the natural world, far from the grasp of most ordinary people. Scientific calculations themselves may be commodified and there are questions on the ethics of the commodification of scientific research and questions of neutrality. Another blogpost perhaps.

    The focus on Natural Capital valuation is intensely materialist. And this kind of materialism is now jarring.

    On the surface, there is an obvious appeal. Nature becomes financially ‘visible’ to businesses and political institutions. There seems to be a tremendous gap between this point and the point at which nature is protected by these very same institutions. The fact is, if we want to protect nature, then we should simply PROTECT IT. By pricing nature by the £ we lay nature more vulnerable to commodification and make the situation far worse. Nature as £ = Property. When market values conflict with other values, say in planning applications for development, key property rights generally have to be either held, or consents granted or withheld, by the parties pushing to protect. It makes sense. Often, grassroots objections come from the general public who neither hold land nor specific power over consents. NGOs, however, in gaining property rights, gain considerable power over decisions. Some might go a long with this notion as an alternative to democracy, an extension of the professionalisation of conservation. But I don’t. There’s little democratic say and only serves to intensify exclusivity.

    American monetisation

    Contrary to popular belief, many rich veins of sustainability gold can be found emanating from the US. I find this is no surprise given the number of truly inspirational enviro-ethicists across the Pond. From the communality of National Parks to the educationalist vision of ecoliteracy for all, from Bioneers to SteadyStaters, there’s a veritable rainbow of North American ideas and research to match. But it is Gretchen Daily, a professor at Stanford Woods, California, which Chapter Four owes much of its existence. She co-founded the Natural Capital Project, which is globalised partly through the Nature Conservancy (criticised for being too close to big business), of which she is also a board member. Daily says herself, her goal is to ‘align economic forces with conservation’ and her latest book is entitled, ‘The New Economy of Nature:  The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable’. She makes no bones about it. The ideas have been seized upon, of course, by pro-growth environmental economists such as Oxford’s Dieter Helm, (who also supports UK shale gas, by the way), on ‘pragmatic’ merits. But I argue, along with others, the system of which they are complicitly supporting, capitalism, is destructive and divisive. It’s business-as-usual, except nature is now even more accepted as instrumental to economic growth. This is a huge mistake. We can’t fix a problem by applying the same causal mentality.

    Pricing nature is not integrally an educational or spirit-stirring move.

    There are other human non-monetary currencies to apply, of course, including reputation, authority, attention, intention, time, ideas, creativity, health, trust, loyalty, conviviality, sympathy, affection, admiration, companionship, devotion and aesthetics. Let’s not forget life itself. To value all other life on Earth for its own sake, an intrinsic value, beyond all human purpose, sees there is no argument between varying human values (in my view, the best metric to begin on axiology). Why has there been no real effort in developing metrics for any of these other values in order to protect nature for the good of ALL life? There’s no doubt in my mind that the ‘capture of opportunities’ in a capitalist system of private & corporate property ownership by the minority rich is hastening the widening of the gap with the poor. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And nature, labelled resource, still bears the brunt of these destructive powers. But once the value conversion from, say, love to money is made, and nature commodified, it is THE MARKET which determines value, and the market can be steely, selfish and volatile.

    In creating a new beast, the beast will have its own mind and conservationists will have trouble in keeping it under control.

    I go so far as to say that markets might understand scarcity even more than conservation biologists. Rare things are generally of higher value, of course, but that does not equate to protection. The aim of conservation, if I am not mistaken, is to transform the rare into the common. Markets will respond. Common things are generally valued as cheap. Rarities are also EXCHANGEABLE and will, of course, either be consumed by exploitation or cached out of the reach of the majority. Tracts of ecosystems and accompanying data sets become accumulated by only the few with wealth. Is this fair? Out of the window, once again, flies social justice and equity. Hedge fund managers will find the risks very attractive, of course. And the Environment Bank is keen to trade credits. And then there is tax, insurance and artful accounting. Private or public owned, nature as property is vulnerable to the will of the few. At least community accumulation is more democratic. But this is not singularly what the NGOs are calling for. Most NGO’s are not generally democratic entities in themselves, relying more upon endorsement by Membership rather than internal votes or polls. I see this in full flow just now. The statements are being made, and support is expected to follow, rather than co-operative democratic & creative decision making from the ground up. NGO’s do not equate to the electorate, despite their influence in public consultations. Many board members might still not wish to listen to ideas on changing the economic paradigm, because their existence is, in many ways, reliant upon the current flow of money. Nature is exploited by capitalism, yes; valuing nature by the £ only serves to invite novel advantages taken by increasingly leviathan corporate economies, which already lean heavily against protective legislation. Just look at how many political advocates of corporatism there are right now wanting to unravel the gains made by the EU Habitats Directives. They see legislation as red tape to prevent debt repays or profit. Unfathomable battles lie ahead, with novel expansions of market and entrepreneurial creativity requiring more and more legislation (expensive), in order to protect what really is infinitely invaluable. Baselines and capital adequacies will be crystallised by financiers, and any future ecosystem imbalances will more easily be blamed upon that data. The financiers may walk away with no consequence, as we have already seen during the Crash, at huge social and environmental cost.

    How far could we go?

    To value nature financially is to bring all things down to one homogenous rule. For all the mysteries still to be discovered, the varieties and diversity of species and the colourful lives of all those individual beings, to value nature by the £ only serves to promote nature as insipid, dull and singular. It is, in one word, disconnecting. What example does it set to young people, aspiring naturalists and enthusiasts? We could value the moon; it’s gravity causes tides and coastal biodiversity after all. What good would this truly achieve? Little, if any. Once again, let me be clear. This is not something I imagine most who love nature would do with grievous intent. Instead, I see conservation biologists, reductionists by nature, and somewhat panicky, simply taking up the Stanford materialist baton. Personally, despite the disbanding of the Sustainable Development Commission by the current Coalition government early upon taking office, I haven’t given up hope on an up-swelling of people to scrutinise public decision-making on sustainability and a pursuit of mainstream ecoliteracy for all. Just look at the Green surge! I see no fairer and successfully long-term way to move forward.

    Paid conservation biologists and economists are not the only people with views on Nature and the we way humans ought to relate to it.

    Everyone has the right to know why nature is ‘valuable’ and ‘vital’ but slapping a price on species and ecosystems, gathered by the few for the few, only takes us backwards. I just hope others are given the chance to air their concerns, contribute to a cross-disciplinary collective wisdom of our age and voice alternatives for mindful coexistence with nature before this Act, as it stands, is set in stone.

    The Nature & Wellbeing Act may be found here, please do read Chapter Four in relation to this blog ~ http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/nature_and_wellbeing_act_green_full_tcm9-384572.pdf

    I also attach a very interesting, recent blog by Herman Daly himself on the uses and abuses of the concept of Natural Capital, via http://www.steadystate.org  ~ http://steadystate.org/use-and-abuse-of-the-natural-capital-concept/comment-page-1/#comment-12678 . Daly was one of the earliest economists to explore the concept of Natural Capital shortly after the publication of E F Schumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’, and is an executive board member of CASSE. I fully support their position statement and signed the pledge over two years ago.

  • 10 things we all can do to help Biodiversity

    The term BIODIVERSITY is used to describe variety and population of non-human life here on Planet Earth. Biodiversity includes everything from tiny microbes to blue whales.
    Global biodiversity is in decline. A recent WWF report, for example, shows non-human vertebrates (that’s birds, fish and non-human mammals), have declined by 50% in number since 1970. Freshwater life has been particularly hard hit.

    We are PART OF NATURE, and so rely upon what it provides to us, like food, drink, medicines and materials. We NEED to protect and encourage LIFE and HABITAT upon which life depends, not only for our own survival and the survival of our descendants but also to give back what we, and generations before us, have taken away. All life here on Planet Earth is extraordinary. In my view, for this reason alone, there is cause enough for humans, despite our own needs, to act with far greater care. Biodiversity is being depleted by the combined actions of our everyday life choices.

    To co-exist with all other life, and to care at all, we need to confront what science is telling us and then act as far as we can. The most direct impacts are by over-harvesting and loss/disturbance of habitat resulting from human development and economic goals.
    Increased pollution, agricultural intensification, nutrient availability and increased CO2 emissions, resulting in climate change, are also to blame.

    Most people don’t actively try to harm nature, and it’s often tricky to see the connections between what we do each day and the consequences as a result. But THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES and analysis uncovers more each day.

    With some simple changes, we CAN, as individuals, lessen our own adverse impacts.
    Remember, as groups of individuals, we have more power to make a difference. So you might want to join up with others who are like-minded and want to act to make the changes required. Here are just ten things that will help reduce your own environmental impact, and thereby your adverse impacts on biodiversity, and in multiple ways. Feel free to think of more!

    Habitat & wildlife

    ONE: Reduce or QUIT the use of pesticides and fertilizers in your gardens. These often have knock-on effects in wildlife populations and run off into water courses with adverse effects for the plants and animals living there. Ask your Local Authority to do the same.

    TWO: Invest and grow wildlife friendly gardens/patios or balconies and choose wildlife-friendly fencing to allow some access. Volunteer for your local wildlife trust, community garden or conservation group. Ask the Local Authority to manage their lands in a biodiversity friendly way.

    Waste

    THREE: Reduce, reuse, and recycle, with an emphasis on REDUCE (buy less non-essential stuff). The less habitat conversion will be necessary to get those resources or the energy to make STUFF, and the less waste goes into the landfill. Compost what you can. Ask your Local Authority for help if you need it.

    FOUR: Use environmentally friendly personal and household cleaning products, for example, distilled vinegar. This reduces chemical contamination of habitats both during manufacturing and when those chemicals go down the drain. Go for BUAV labelled products too. We don’t need to be cruel to animals by endorsing companies who test their commercial products on them.

    Food and the choices we make.

    FIVE: Buy local, organic food and drink. Ask for it if the shops don’t stock it. Expensive? Well, you’ve saved money by acting on POINT THREE. Might as well spend it on decent food. This helps reduce fertilizers and pesticides going into the environment, which in turn reduces negative impacts on nearby beneficial insects (for pollination and pest control) and adjacent freshwater biodiversity. Grow your own if you are able or buy direct from small holdings.

    SIX: Buy sustainably harvested seafood, which avoids ‘by-catch’ of other species. Some trawlers destroy seafloor habitat; many shrimp farms destroy mangrove forests, which are important as nurseries for wild fish species. Ask retailers questions!

    Energy use: By reducing your energy demand, you reduce both carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change, and disturbance of habitat for fossil fuel exploration and extraction. And you make savings.

    SEVEN: Conserve energy in your home. Home energy audits are available from power companies. They know it’s more economical to conserve than having to build new power generating plants. Take advantage of any reasonable government schemes on offer.

    EIGHT: Reduce single-person car use. Car pools, public transport, walking, and bicycling are also options. Look into the growing number of fuel efficient vehicles, electric, hybrid or turbo diesel (tdi) models. Go for an MPG as high as you can find, and check your tyre pressures.

    NINE: Home-buy OR rent, choose a home with renewable energy and/or energy efficiency. Decide what’s most important about your region, your site and your needs, and you can still have a beautiful, comfy home. Think about using green landscaping and building materials and allow for nature in any external design ideas.

    TEN: VOTE! Find out about legislation affecting biodiversity, make contact with your local political representatives, tell them how you feel and ask them what they will do to help. And support people and groups who are acting on long-term ecological sustainability.

    Good luck and talk to your friends and family if you can. Thank you!

    With thanks to David Hooper, Western Washington University, for inspiration on the 10 point structure.

  • “Save these birds for being all that they are”.

    “We are not outside the rest of nature and therefore cannot do with it as we please without changing ourselves … we are a part of the ecosphere just as intimately as we are a part of our own society … Paleontology reveals that the development of life on earth is an integrated process, despite the steadily increasing diversity and complexity. “Life is fundamentally one.” Arne Naess

    I attended Hen Harrier Day yesterday, deep in the Dark Peak of Derbyshire. I didn’t go alone and was accompanied by my wonderful friend @MrsEmma. We arrived to a torrential downpour, which relentlessly soaked us to the bone. For the whole time there was no let-up, but we didn’t care. The rain only seemed to make all shine beneath umbrellas and hoods. And there were many smiles.

    Nearly six hundred people gathered to Derwent Dam, and there were others across the country, to peacefully protest at the unfathomable decline in Hen Harrier populations. In England, where there should at least be three hundred breeding pairs, there are now only three or four. To add insult to injury, males are naturally polygynous, mating with a few females, who now simply do not exist to ensure a healthy population. Hen Harriers are generally ground nesting birds, enjoying young forest growth and open heath. They are vulnerable to land management changes and they have been easy targets.

    So why are they at risk? Because of the self interest of the few. Land managers who rear red grouse to be shot by paying guests on moorland shooting estates have allowed the illegal killing of this most spectacular raptor species in order to protect their perceived interests. The law is firm on the illegalities of these actions, but for whatever reason, people have failed these stunning, sentient beings. Worse, In closed circles I have over heard a shot hen harrier may still be deemed a valuable trophy by some, despite their obvious catastrophic decline; an overt expression of human dominion over the natural world, if ever there was one.

    So it was with sadness that I planned to attend yesterday, but I am very glad that I did. Knowing there are like-minded souls is a huge boost to the delicate morale of an environmentalist these days, and Emma and I were very fortunate to meet a few, not least conservationist and author, Mark Avery, who set Hen Harrier Day in motion with the BAWC and young Findlay Wilde who had lovingly sculpted a hen harrier ‘Harry’ and brought it for us all to sign.  

    Chris Packham, raptor scientist and Presenter, no less impassioned by these losses, spoke sincerely about what he perceives as the injustice of the loss of our Natural Heritage by a few bad apples within the shooting industry, who seek to take away our enjoyment of nature for their own selfish purposes. We conservationists have failed by not preventing this happening. More, by taking away predators, these criminals know not fully what they do. Ecosystems do not function healthily without predator/prey interaction, even though some shooters believe they are, of course, the ultimate predator with an omniscient remit to control. Little do they know.

    There is no doubt that most of us attending yesterday did so because we are passionate about the natural world. We humans are integral to it. We are one. This planet is one. Our love for all life is a love for ourselves also. But some are obviously so blind to that connection that any protection mechanism sadly needs to be founded beyond love. That is why laws are formed and exist to be upheld. It is a tragedy that the law in this case has been flagrantly broken. These crimes are rooted in human centredness, money, short-term wants and wishes.

    To my mind, we should save them not, therefore, because of any alternative human short-term wants and wishes, for these shape-change at the shallow end of human drive.

    Who are we to pick and choose what and what not to love, what species we deny life to for our own selfish purposes, particularly for greed? The right to life and existence is strong. It has taken millions of years for Hen Harriers AND Red Grouse in the wild to evolve into the individuals they are (in my view, red grouse should be afforded similar protection and the guns laid down for good; an argument for another day). These birds have worth in their own right, for their own sake. They have a will to flourish.

    Yesterday, I went to Hen Harrier Day not for people and their needs, I went for Hen Harriers. I’m not a birder per se, you see, I am passionate about all life here on Earth and I am a mother who believes that all living things have intrinsic worth.

    “Save these birds for being all that they are”.

    Despite differences, rooted in love, we all responded yesterday to Mark, Chris and the dedicated BAWC’s call to act. Act we must. These are good people and they know that we can all play a part in the recovery of the Hen Harrier. There is power in number and justice in doing the right thing. We simply cannot allow these birds to disappear without a fight. Fight we will, and as Chris Packham said on the day, “we will win”.

    For more information, please visit http://birdersagainst.org/projects/hen-harrier-day/

  • Light Seeking

    Light Seeking

    14753712546_f90296ebb5Sometimes, we may find light in unexpected places. These thistle flowers hung low on broken stems; a strimmer had been too busy along the verge here. But a common carder bumble bee had not given up hope of a drink of nectar and began to fly almost upside down to alight, ever so gently, on the petals. Light bounced around its blurry wings and hair-like sensilla, shining directly from the Sun and reflecting up from the light brown stems of last week’s clippings. I looked upon this tiny sunlit being in awe. And then I quickly stole an image.

  • The lightness of being in the dark – reconnecting with nature

    The lightness of being in the dark – reconnecting with nature

    Last night I sat quietly outside in the dark. I don’t know for how long but, in a way, this makes it more meaningful.The sky to the North glistened with stars and my eyes drifted across them from West to East. I dreamed of other worlds, other life. Soon the stars vanished and re-emerged as broken cloud began to fill the sky, something I remember registering as a child.

    I could hear a plane’s low whine high up, and I instinctively tracked ahead of the sound to discover lights blinking before watching them disappear behind the mist. I thought about where this plane might be going and why.

    Closer to home, a tawny owl was deep in conversation with another far across the valley. I wondered what they might be saying to each other. I recollected, these weren’t the usual mating calls.

    Lost in thought, I felt a whisp of air across my cheek, as if my daughter was kissing me softly. I couldn’t see a thing; another breeze on the same cheek then a whirl of a wing. I soon recognised these were bats after the small moths around me. They were unafraid of me yet aware and I concluded it was a privilege to be so near them.

    Experience, to me, is both sense-perception and reasoning through innate inquisitivity. Whether this equals knowledge or truth is another step, one I’m exploring through study right now.

    But I think, in a similar way, we may sense and ask questions of ourselves by embracing these nature-connecting experiences more often, and in the engineering of our own consents rather than allowing others to grant them to us. In doing so we might just cultivate self-trust, discovering more light in our personal darkness than we ever thought possible.

    14711416896_35335b0611_z

  • Cool Springs Rise

    For my mother.

     

    Cool springs rise to The Craft’s steep slope

    filtering to a twisted pipe.

    On warm days lambs will sip in hope

    before it drains beneath the yarrow.

     

    Floods benignly feed

    our silty depths; a pool within the fold.

    Rain in plenty, now.

    In seventy-six this well was dry and rusty.

     

    That year, old George would recollect

    the well once pumped a seamless flow

    for healthy stock and wartime folk;

    village life in unity.

     

    I made the dimpled well my den,

    hid from Germans and most gentlemen.

    In bolder times, I’d spy from naive Front,

    amidst our lofty blue delphiniums

     

    as George would guard

    and tend the scented borders.

    Not long before his death,

    his daughter brought him to our yard.

     

    Tall man sat, weak,

    leaned toward his walking stick,

    smiled and spoke of cherry,

    hops and bonfires;

     

    of cider makers’ hands.

    Sometimes, in smoke borne light

    he’d hear them sing

    a tune from home ~ in Italy.

     

    Our well is full with bracing rain,

    soaks the borders once again.

    The tank’s old tin is freshly painted green

    and by a tenor’s grandson.

     

    SONY DSC

  • River dipper

    I take a deep breath and turn to my family with a wry smile. I walk out until I can walk no more. Out of my depth, my feet lift from the slippery river bed and I slowly swim in circles beneath the alders. Here I am, I still exist, and despite the initial shock! The water is enveloping. My breath is quick, snatched through clenched teeth. The water is icy here in shadow. I have all the time in the world to adjust; it’s a beautiful day.

    As I reach out in symmetrical waves, like an oversized amphibian, flora brush against my bare ankles. Sun light sparkles on circling ripples. I decide to make for the light and some heat, relishing every move, stretching every sinew of my ageing body. But the water is deeper here and, beneath those glinting stars, jet black. There will be big fish I can’t see. Deep breath, swim on against the flow, aware that I don’t feel cold anymore. Perhaps all feeling is lost. It doesn’t matter! So I relax a little and take in the brightness, the sun’s heat on my face, glimpsing the movement of my hands beneath the water. The air is damp, earthy and organic.

    The flow is suddenly faster here, deceptive river! I have to kick my legs with energy, freestyle, boiling the water. An electric thought races through my mind ~ what if I am swept away? And then, just as quickly, the thought is gone.

    I turn to face downstream and the riffles below this perfect pool on the Wye. Small boulders and shallow white water give clue to where I could emerge, if I just let go…

    There is a dipper dipping there, with a white chest like a cotton ball against the teals and tans of the river. My decision is swift. I swim directly to the riverbank, avoiding this beauty who is hunting for his life. I don’t want to disturb him. A quick burst of energy and my feet find purchase in the shallows, currents pulling at my feet ~ the river desires me to return. I can’t help grinning and feel the rush of warmth as blood returns to my skin.

    It is a meditation, river swimming. Try it, but somewhere safe and don’t go alone. It’s liberating and free of charge. Plus, it reminds us we are alive and at one with nature. Enjoy.

  • The Ladybird and the Ring

    Treasure

    Today is a beautiful day and I hold a perfect Summer gem in my hand. She’s a 5-spot ladybird, Coccinella 5-punctata, flown to me as I perch by the river’s edge watching Ben, our collie-cross, playing in the shallows.

    Coccinella 5-punctata are a common ladybird in Europe, but endangered here in the UK. They’re usually associated with river shingle, but I found and recorded a new colony a couple of years ago on a local limestone slab which plunges into the River Wye upstream from where I live. So they are, perhaps, a little more adaptable than at first thought here in the extremes of their comfortable range in Europe.

     
    This little female is a living gem, an invertebrate with eyes and a mouth, a body and legs. Although she could represent an archetype or form of what the word ‘ladybird’ means to us, she is distinct in minute ways from any other female in the species and is certainly not an automaton. She interacts with her environment, taking in oxygen, exhaling carbon dioxide, eating aphids, making choices. She creates a home among the wild chives and thyme, which bind thin soils in the imperfections of the rock. This habitat thrives. It thrives despite an annual torrent of floods punching at the slab and submerging it for days at a time under fast, red silty flow. A male of the species (or two) pursues, mates with her, she lays eggs, they hatch, grow into nymphs and on into adulthood. And the rhythm of it all begins again the following year. This annual heartbeat is part of a wider ensemble, the musicality of ecological longevity.

     
    Wrapped around my ring finger is a band of gold. This was my mother’s wedding ring (I lost mine on a beach somewhere far away). I inherited it after her sudden death. I don’t wear it often, but today it is worn as a reminder of her and that I still love her dearly. When I woke this morning, I had not expected to be seated here by the river with two such valuable things to hand. A ladybird, rare or otherwise, and my mother’s ring, both of which I treasure.

    Of course the treasures I describe differ. And I see one as more ‘good’ than the other. I value life.

    Value theory, or axiology as the science of value, is a key area in academic philosophy though perhaps itself undervalued by the environmental movement as a whole. The word ‘value’ simply derives from the language of economics and further ‘use value’ divides into two distinct areas, satisfaction and admiration. The smaller teleological group of ethical theories asserts that if an action is ‘good’ in terms of moral conduct it will bring about ‘good’ consequences. The deontological or duty based group would suggest the actions can be deemed good without regard for consequences, like adhering to rules, whether or not the consequences are positive or negative.

     
    Returning to the treasures I have in hand: These are, of course, not actions but objects with differing properties and the things that, perhaps, unite them are that they are both in my hand and that I’ve called them ‘treasures.’ But I interact with them and so it is a good thing to examine the ethics of my consideration of them.

     
    This gold band is something which, without humans, would be largely valueless to all other life on this planet. In theory it serves to enrich human monetary wealth in its mass-production and existence, human aesthetics in its glittering beauty and the value of human relationships in some way through symbolism, giving and receiving. This particular ring is not particularly extraordinary and neither is its history. Other hand-crafted rings may be but this is a mass-produced ring, with gold probably industrially mined in South Africa. If it were injurious in its making, I will never know. That it was my mother’s wedding ring my father gave to her at the particular Church where they are now buried together, means much to me, but perhaps little to you. It was once lost in a garden ash tip and my grandmother found it after hours of painstaking search much to the relief of my mother. So in some way it also reminds me of my grandmother, who I was dearly fond of and whom, it is said, I take after in looks and temperament. It was on my mother’s ring finger when I found her after she had died, so there’s an emotional link remaining, even after much counselling. Once I am done with this life myself, I hope my daughter will have it. Whether she will value it as I do is unknown. Perhaps she will sell it and use the money for a number of things, or experiences (my preferred choice), or exchange it for something else of equivalent economic value. She may even choose to keep it.

     
    A 5-spot ladybird is of absolute intrinsic value to itself, its mates and its offspring. Given ecological homeostatis, it will hold in balance the things it eats and the things that may eat it. As such it benefits the wider biosphere in a small way, the one of course in which we humans are also a part. The instrumental value, extrinsic, use-value of the entire biosphere to human life is where some conservationists focus, as the foundation upon which to build a protection system. “We cannot destroy the biosphere because we rely on it” for our physical, mental and spiritual well being. In other words, we save it for the sake of ourselves. There is one significant failure in this approach, however. It is our species selfishness, or dominion, held over all other life forms and unreliable as a method of protection. It is the same ethic which caused environmental degradation in the first instance. For example, if this tiny ladybird be deemed dispensable in any overall anthropocentric assessment of the state of the biosphere, its extrinsic value falls immediately away. If a species like fox be classed a threat to humans, say via the spread of rabies, human selfishness would allow ourselves carte blanche to eradicate fox. Yet we are unsure just how many individuals, let alone species, life on this planet can do without before catastrophic collapse. We don’t even know the full extent of our impacts to date, let alone predict with any viable certainty what will happen in future. So in terms of the protection of individuals and species, extrinsic valuation of non-human life as first principle is a high risk human strategy, given the pressures also weighing down upon nature from other human demands, such as water and minerals and now climatic change.

     
    Human pluralistic values are unavoidable, inevitable and culturally enriching. To blithely instruct others to dispel their beliefs and value systems I admit is a step too far, even if the intent is good. Better to value those values, encourage new ways of thinking through education, collective and inter-disciplinary discourse, citizenship. Treasuring life in most ways is ultimately going to lead to protection in some form. But with pluralistic value sets there will be priorities of judgment and these will impact outcomes. The problem with money in our capitalist pro-growth economy is that it overrides (often legislatively), pluralistic values. The ultimate questions are what is best for Planet Earth as a whole and are those human actions just? It so happens that what is best for humans will be determined by the health of the planet; there is mutuality.

     
    My reasoned belief is that we are at a point in time when a value shift would enhance the cause for environmental protection. Absolute intrinsic value (even as opposed to relative intrinsic value), is something we cannot let go of completely. The ladybird in my hand is alive, and should be free to flourish. Sentience is hugely important, of course, but not essential for intrinsic value. All life should be afforded similar thought, at the very least. However, our own existence relies on the taking of other life in some form or another, as we participate in food chains and creating our own habitats, just as other lifeforms here on Earth do so.

    The question remains, however, how much should or shouldn’t we take? Less is one answer but I will write again about the ‘how much’. For now I suggest we also have to look carefully at moral standing as well as relative intrinsic worth but I would always encourage intrinsics to be somewhere near, if not at, the top of the list. To treasure life is to hold dear, cherish and love unconditionally, without expectation or fear, and we could all be very much more connected to nature this way.

  • Pheasant

    The body lies in a clearing

    long, tan feathers broken in a breeze
    quiet for a few minutes, washed up
    from an array of shades, the place
    where they gave chase.
     
    Body exhales in the sun, yellow eyes
    set in red shivvers, blue-green throat
    crushed by loners; there is no blood.
     
    The wood’s cool ambition repels
    a body that did not make it;
    little tenderness in claw and beak.
    Since the body could not embrace,
    its finery is the tomb of the wood
    still warm for new beginnings.
  • Snake Goddess, a modern emblem?

    Snake Goddess, a modern emblem?

    Sketch1131589_resized

    ‘Medusa.’ What image comes to mind at the mention of her name? I doubt very much if it is one of renewal and wisdom.

    The Hellenic myth of Medusa remains as metaphor for all that is wicked and vendictive in the world. Homer, the ancient Greek poet, drew her literary character as the epitome of ugliness and danger, with large glaring eyes, into which no-one should ever look unless wishing to be turned to stone, and hissing snakes for hair, each one ready for that lethal strike.

    But the root of the snake symbol is more ancient than any Greek myth or religion: The Egyptian Ouroboros, represented as the circle of a snake devouring its own tail, was a common emblem of cyclicity, the seasons, the eternal return, death and the renewal; the Minoan Snake Goddess was worshipped as a symbol of naturalism and grace; the Celts and early Pagans used the image of a snake in a similar way; before that, an hypothesis stands of a Neolithic Great Mother, with multi-functional powers of priest, ruler and warrior, and of plant and animal cultivator and protector. Indeed, some of the earliest human artefacts are depictions of women, recreated in the image of a snake-bird goddess, not of an evil female presence, but a depiction of all that is good. This neolithic woman co-existed with animals instead of conquering them. Her eyes were large, owl-like, and her locks were snakes, above the neck, as an animalistic indication of high wisdom and prophetic powers, rather than spite and hostility.
    The Greek myth diverges: All three dreaded Gorgons were sisters, two of them immortal, Stheno and Euryale; Medusa was the only mortal one, but into her eyes all men may look and stop, dead, turned to stone. Using the mirror of his shield in order to look upon her without fear of death, demigod Perseus was guided by the owl-like Goddess Athena to decapitate Medusa and use her stare, even beyond death, to save Andromeda from the sea monster Cetus. The head was said to have been placed upon the heroic Athena’s breastplate as lethal ward. Medusa’s serpentine image remains as one of the earliest stone temple pediments in Hellenic Greece, carved around 600 BC: A symbolic defense against all evil; wickedness against all wickedness.

    So, the Owl and the Serpent Woman of all that is good seems to have tumbled down through generations of oral stortelling and split into the brave owl goddess Athena and the wicked snake-like Medusa. Brennan Root refers to Athena and Medusa as shadow sisters, the light and the dark, with an interwoven story as one and the same but divided by misfortune and mortality. Both icons appear to have been preserved in modern culture. But here-in lies a tragedy.

    Remember, for the majority of human history, the symbol of snake has been one of birth, death and rebirth. For the snake sheds its old skin, only to live on in a new state of being.

    Pre-Christian agrarian Mesopotamia imagined prototypes of snake gods to fear, and these were most likely replicated by the Judeo-Christian tradition thereafter, in the perils of the Garden of Eden. Perhaps, it was the abandonment of hunter-gathering for cultivating the land by hand which changed our human relationship with snakes. Inevitably, there would have been an increased risk of an early death, for both farmer and snake. If snake denies man immortality, then the Serpent of Eden is the ultimate representation.

    The Egyptian war goddess, Neith, is cited by Plato as the inspiration for Athena, said again to have been rooted in a Mesopotamian owl goddess, resulting in the Greek ideal of womanhood in Athena; of strength and purity. What of Medusa as woman? Ovid, the Roman poet, claimed the mythological Medusa was a woman of immense beauty, perhaps a nod to her early virtuous incarnations. Athena, the virgin goddess, turned her into a monster/victim in a fit of jealousy, after Poseidon raped her in Athena’s own Temple. Feminists of the 20th Century seized upon Medusa as, therefore, a symbol for both victim of men and of retaliatory strength. Here was a woman who could deaden a man’s voyerism and render him nothing but a cold lump of stone. Her gaze was victor in the face of patriarchy. By contrast, the Russian philosophical Nihilists of the 1860’s had said those who do not stare into Medusa’s eyes fear reality, that life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. It is unfortunate that Medusa as deterrent to voyeurism appears to have been somewhat eroded very recently by Hirst and Rihanna in their photo shoot for GQ magazine, where the male gaze is actively encouraged to pour over Medusa’s form (and snakes) as sexual objects. Although there is a vague resemblance here to the Abrahamic religious symbolism of snake as sexual desire, it’s far less complex, and therefore, less rich in meaning, simply by its empty, commercial objectification. A sign of our time.

    I prefer to imagine the cultural richness of some kind of neo-neolithic snake goddess. Faced with anthropogenic environmental impacts, I think we could steal ourselves anew and look deep into Medusa’s big owl-eyes, which search for light far into darkness. We can embrace the wisdom of her serpent locks and reclaim the image of snake as all that is good about this ever-renewing world. It is not that I wish all humans to be turned to stone or return to the stone age! Her image could be re-imagined as one of insight, wisdom and integration, an affirmative message from our neolithic ancestors. And if we can face down those fears of imminent death and sweep aside any notion of Medusa as victim, perhaps we may re-draw her character for the modern age, of the strength of the wilder things and the wild inside us all.