Monday, April 29, 2013
The gospel of Henry David
By Mike VanBuren
From the early May edition of The North Woods Call
One of the first books that many student conservationists read is “Walden” by 19th Century American writer Henry David Thoreau.
Published in 1854 and often coupled with the author’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the book details Thoreau’s experiences over a period of two years in a tiny cabin he built on the shore of Walden Pond outside Concord, Massachusetts. It is simultaneously a personal declaration of independence, social experiment, satire, voyage of spiritual discovery and manual for self-reliance.
By immersing himself in nature, Thoreau hoped to gain a more objective understanding of society through personal introspection, simple living and self-sufficiency.
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,” he wrote, “to front only the essential facts of life and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”
Thoreau, who once visited Mackinac Island, emphasized the importance of solitude, contemplation and closeness to nature in transcending what he saw as the often “desperate” existence that most people live.
I, too, was captivated as a young man by Thoreau’s advice to “simplify, simplify, simplify” and have tried to exercise that philosophy during much of my life—sometimes successfully and ofttimes not. I have even supplemented Thoreau’s thoughts with teachings from “Freedom of Simplicity,” a fine book by Christian writer Richard Foster.
Generally, I have preferred walking, camping, bicycling and canoeing to other more costly and less environmentally friendly activities. And I have typically tried to live below my means, stay out of debt and resist the temptation of too many possessions.
Again, I haven’t always succeeded in this effort. But neither did Thoreau. During his time in the woods he reportedly often walked back into town for dinners with friends and certain other luxuries that society had to offer.
Still, I can say without hesitation that I have felt the least desperate and the most joyful during those times when my life has had the fewest trappings. Even today I am fascinated by the so-called “minimalist” movement toward simple living and smaller houses, though I don’t know if I’ll ever become that Spartan in my own existence. Maybe so.
It seems to me that simplicity should always be a central tenant of the conservation movement. It already is, of course, for some who recognize the environmental, social and spiritual benefits of such a lifestyle. But many who call themselves “conservationists” and “environmentalists,” seem to want to cling to the high life while complaining about corporate excess, environmental degradation, the ravages of fossil fuels and other things that go along with conspicuous consumption.
How many people do we know in this modern age, for example, who have willfully given up family road trips, airline travel, large houses, heated swimming pools, computers, televisions, electric appliances and the plethora of other energy eating technologies that define modern life?
Not many, it seems. We desire all the conveniences without the often Faustian consequences. But everything involves some kind of trade-off.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit Walden Pond on at least two occasions and contemplate Thoreau’s experiment in simple living. The world has changed dramatically since those days and the sprawl of the Greater Boston area is quickly enveloping the once-pristine rural area.
The pond itself remains preserved and managed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the surrounding area would be largely unrecognizable to 19th Century Concordites.
Most people today mock the notion of simplicity, and the overwhelming trend is toward greater complexity in our lives, our laws and our aspirations.
Maybe it’s time that we revisit “Walden” and reconsider the voracious monster of a culture that we have created over the last 159 years since it was written.
What we are today and what we will become tomorrow depend on wise individual and collective decision making. Will we continue on the wide path that leads the mass of men toward quiet desperation, or choose to take the narrow path to better living—one simple step at a time?
From the early May edition of The North Woods Call
One of the first books that many student conservationists read is “Walden” by 19th Century American writer Henry David Thoreau.
Published in 1854 and often coupled with the author’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the book details Thoreau’s experiences over a period of two years in a tiny cabin he built on the shore of Walden Pond outside Concord, Massachusetts. It is simultaneously a personal declaration of independence, social experiment, satire, voyage of spiritual discovery and manual for self-reliance.
By immersing himself in nature, Thoreau hoped to gain a more objective understanding of society through personal introspection, simple living and self-sufficiency.
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,” he wrote, “to front only the essential facts of life and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”
Thoreau, who once visited Mackinac Island, emphasized the importance of solitude, contemplation and closeness to nature in transcending what he saw as the often “desperate” existence that most people live.
I, too, was captivated as a young man by Thoreau’s advice to “simplify, simplify, simplify” and have tried to exercise that philosophy during much of my life—sometimes successfully and ofttimes not. I have even supplemented Thoreau’s thoughts with teachings from “Freedom of Simplicity,” a fine book by Christian writer Richard Foster.
Generally, I have preferred walking, camping, bicycling and canoeing to other more costly and less environmentally friendly activities. And I have typically tried to live below my means, stay out of debt and resist the temptation of too many possessions.
Again, I haven’t always succeeded in this effort. But neither did Thoreau. During his time in the woods he reportedly often walked back into town for dinners with friends and certain other luxuries that society had to offer.
Still, I can say without hesitation that I have felt the least desperate and the most joyful during those times when my life has had the fewest trappings. Even today I am fascinated by the so-called “minimalist” movement toward simple living and smaller houses, though I don’t know if I’ll ever become that Spartan in my own existence. Maybe so.
It seems to me that simplicity should always be a central tenant of the conservation movement. It already is, of course, for some who recognize the environmental, social and spiritual benefits of such a lifestyle. But many who call themselves “conservationists” and “environmentalists,” seem to want to cling to the high life while complaining about corporate excess, environmental degradation, the ravages of fossil fuels and other things that go along with conspicuous consumption.
How many people do we know in this modern age, for example, who have willfully given up family road trips, airline travel, large houses, heated swimming pools, computers, televisions, electric appliances and the plethora of other energy eating technologies that define modern life?
Not many, it seems. We desire all the conveniences without the often Faustian consequences. But everything involves some kind of trade-off.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit Walden Pond on at least two occasions and contemplate Thoreau’s experiment in simple living. The world has changed dramatically since those days and the sprawl of the Greater Boston area is quickly enveloping the once-pristine rural area.
The pond itself remains preserved and managed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the surrounding area would be largely unrecognizable to 19th Century Concordites.
Most people today mock the notion of simplicity, and the overwhelming trend is toward greater complexity in our lives, our laws and our aspirations.
Maybe it’s time that we revisit “Walden” and reconsider the voracious monster of a culture that we have created over the last 159 years since it was written.
What we are today and what we will become tomorrow depend on wise individual and collective decision making. Will we continue on the wide path that leads the mass of men toward quiet desperation, or choose to take the narrow path to better living—one simple step at a time?
Friday, April 5, 2013
Conservatives and conservation
By Mike VanBuren
From the early April edition of The North Woods Call
Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental wacko.”
I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, “fracking,” food contamination, and open-pit strip mining in the Upper Peninsula.
Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a Nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principles of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.
The funny thing is—in most areas of my life—I’m a fairly conservative guy.
As an independent thinker, I believe that pure conservatism—based in a deep respect for the uniquely American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and anchored in personal faith and responsibility—makes much more sense than the frequently deceptive, often ineffective and sometimes immoral policies espoused by the major political parties. Some may disagree, but I’m convinced that those organizations are populated largely by inflexible ideologues who only see the world through their own selfish ambitions and greed.
As some Call readers have discovered, I have particular difficulty relating to modern “liberal” or so-called “progressive” thought. It seems to run counter to how most people live their daily lives. Nevertheless, I have often found myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.
I wonder why that is.
Shouldn’t more conservatives be conservationists and more conservationists be conservatives?
After all, there are few things more “conservative” than protecting resources for future generations. And—language-wise at least—“conservatism” comes from the same root word as “conservation,” for crying out loud.
I know there are some members of the so-called “political right”—whatever that is—who feel as I do.
ConservAmerica, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment and boost our economy at the same time. They want to resurrect the GOP’s once-strong conservation tradition and restore natural resource stewardship and sound environmental protection as part of the Republican vision for America.
It seems like this would be something we could all support, but many Republican leaders—not to be confused with conservatives—don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species.
What’s that all about?
Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more—not less—needs to be done to defend the natural world that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will likely bring greater benefits tomorrow, including better economic performance.
You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard our natural resources, rather than fighting against those liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it.
Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity. Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.
Of course, there will always be disagreements as to how to best go about this work and far too often we’ve seen that professed concerns for the environment are just smokescreens for more sinister political agendas.
In an ideal world, we could simply educate people about environmental issues and trust them to do what’s right. Isn’t that what personal responsibility in a free society is all about?
Sadly, the reality is that individuals and corporations don’t always do what they should, and there’s an ongoing need for some kind of regulation and enforcement action.
But politicians and bureaucrats are not any more selfless and trustworthy than individuals and corporations, so there are all kinds of pitfalls on the path to good stewardship.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”
Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental wacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time to put another one in the Oval Office—along with several others at all levels of government and industry.
And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservative in thought and deed.
From the early April edition of The North Woods Call
Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental wacko.”
I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, “fracking,” food contamination, and open-pit strip mining in the Upper Peninsula.
Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a Nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principles of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.
The funny thing is—in most areas of my life—I’m a fairly conservative guy.
As an independent thinker, I believe that pure conservatism—based in a deep respect for the uniquely American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and anchored in personal faith and responsibility—makes much more sense than the frequently deceptive, often ineffective and sometimes immoral policies espoused by the major political parties. Some may disagree, but I’m convinced that those organizations are populated largely by inflexible ideologues who only see the world through their own selfish ambitions and greed.
As some Call readers have discovered, I have particular difficulty relating to modern “liberal” or so-called “progressive” thought. It seems to run counter to how most people live their daily lives. Nevertheless, I have often found myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.
I wonder why that is.
Shouldn’t more conservatives be conservationists and more conservationists be conservatives?
After all, there are few things more “conservative” than protecting resources for future generations. And—language-wise at least—“conservatism” comes from the same root word as “conservation,” for crying out loud.
I know there are some members of the so-called “political right”—whatever that is—who feel as I do.
ConservAmerica, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment and boost our economy at the same time. They want to resurrect the GOP’s once-strong conservation tradition and restore natural resource stewardship and sound environmental protection as part of the Republican vision for America.
It seems like this would be something we could all support, but many Republican leaders—not to be confused with conservatives—don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species.
What’s that all about?
Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more—not less—needs to be done to defend the natural world that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will likely bring greater benefits tomorrow, including better economic performance.
You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard our natural resources, rather than fighting against those liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it.
Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity. Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.
Of course, there will always be disagreements as to how to best go about this work and far too often we’ve seen that professed concerns for the environment are just smokescreens for more sinister political agendas.
In an ideal world, we could simply educate people about environmental issues and trust them to do what’s right. Isn’t that what personal responsibility in a free society is all about?
Sadly, the reality is that individuals and corporations don’t always do what they should, and there’s an ongoing need for some kind of regulation and enforcement action.
But politicians and bureaucrats are not any more selfless and trustworthy than individuals and corporations, so there are all kinds of pitfalls on the path to good stewardship.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”
Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental wacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time to put another one in the Oval Office—along with several others at all levels of government and industry.
And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservative in thought and deed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)