Anderson's introduction to this story acknowledges the current threat to the environment:
"[Johannes V. Jensen], who so loved the living world, did not live to see it menaced as we do - menaced and corrupted by ourselves." (p. 202)
"He knew better than to believe in a nice, harmonious 'ecology' presided over by a politically correct Mother Goddess. No such thing ever existed." (ibid.)
Does the word "ecology" merit sneer quotes? It looks like an appropriate combination of "economy" and "biology."
Anderson goes on to say that the wilderness was once both our home and our enemy and is now our victim:
"...because of technology misused and science misunderstood. This has not been inevitable, and the hour is not yet too late. Through research, thought, and action, we can still save and restore that which is, after all, a part of our souls, and surely unique in the universe. I hope that this tale is not predictive but only cautionary." (ibid.)
I have yet to reread the story but I suspect that it is predictive and that the hour is by now too late.
Ominously, the story ends:
"Her voice was like a wind across the snows of upland winter." (p. 212)
Yet again, in a work by Anderson, the wind comments on human action.
12 comments:
In fact, humans have always had drastic effects on their environment.
The Ice Age megafauna would probably have survived the end of the glaciers, albeit reduced in numbers, if it hadn't been for human hunters -- they had in previous interglacials.
And the further you get from Africa, where the large animals coevolved with us, the more drastic the effect is.
In Australia and the Americas, where humans came relatively late, the humans show up and BLINK the megafauna's gone.
Where they can be, humans specialize in hunting big game because the return in food for energy expended is so high; and even with fairly primitive gear (fire-hardened spears and the like) they're fantastically more efficient than any other mammalian predator.
When humans arrived here in North America, it was more like Africa fauna-wise; lions, saber-tooths, elephants (several different forms), dozens of species of antelope, giant ground sloths, beaver the size of bears, giant bears, giant bison.
All gone in the blink of an eye.
Fertile ground for Time Patrol and alternative history stories.
After time-travel is acknowledged (in the TIME PATROL series) no animal would be 'really' extinct, because they could simply go back and get some breeding stock.
History and archaeology would also not really be sciences any more; you could go and directly observe and record anything you wanted.
Even historical linguistics wouldn't exist any more -- not when you could simply send a miniature drone with a recorder back, disguised as a house-fly.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, those sneer quotes by Anderson were justified. Too many so called "environmentalists" are ignorant of real science and blindly opposed to practical solutions to our problems. Others are opportunists and demagogues using "environmentalism" as a means for getting power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can you name the opportunists?
Paul.
There used to be a joke among missionaries that in China, from any point of biblical exegesis, the conversation could be brought around to the Great Rice Question.
Human beings are like that. They'll simply use any new situation as fodder for their particular hobbyhorse.
And, the other way round, if you tried to buy flour in Constantinople, the answer was that the Son is equal to the Father.
Kaor, Paul!
Former Vice President Al Gore comes to mind as one of those frauds. And current Governor Gavin Newsom. And the spectacularly demagogic Alexandra Ocasio Cortez. All of them Democrats and noisily pro-"environmentalist," advocating useless, futile, counterproductive "solutions."
To expand on what Stirling said, anything can be used as fodder for clutching at power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And you can tell that these guys are dishonestly motivated? Do they advocate solutions that they know are useless or just disagree with you about whether their solutions are useless?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, they are dishonest frauds, IMO. For example, Newsom, Gov. of CA, has been loudly talking about the need to force everybody to switch from internal combustion cars to electric vehicles by, I think, 2035. BUT he crashed into insurmountable difficulties such as CA not having the power grid and energy to cope with such a massive increase in demand. And that will worsen the more CA tries to cut down on using fossils--without adequately replacing them. Another problem is that CA does not have anywhere enough of the infrastructure needed for charging electric cars, esp. for people who have only curbside parking.
I could go on and on about the follies and idiocies of left wing Democrats! These horrible people have wrecked a once great state.
Ad astra! Sean
A politician who goes with whatever is popular is probably less harmful than an ideologue. The former can be more easily persuaded to do the beneficial policy if it becomes popular.
Newsom seems to be the former, judging by him going for keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open, after years of opposing nuclear.
Kaor, Jim!
I basically agree, while thinking of Newsom as a left wing ideologue who's getting his nose rubbed in the harsh facts of real life. And he still comes from a party whose dominant faction remains opposed to nuclear power and wants to tear down dams!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment