Eric Katz, "The Big Lie: The Human Restoration of Nature"
- Restoration is a troubling contemporary environmental policy
- Even environmentalists think it is good
- This is mistake
- The myth of restoration: Restoration projects claim (but fail) to:
- Repair damage done
- Heal nature's wounds and make nature whole again
- Rather than making nature whole again, "Restoration is like putting a piece
of furniture over a stain in the carpet"
- TWO THINGS WRONG WITH RESTORATION
- The act of restoration itself is morally troubling and its consequences
are morally troubling
- One: Act is morally worrisome
- Fulfills the dream of human domination of nature
- Our mastery of nature shown by our ability to restore and repair
degraded ecosystems
- Manifests the same technological fix mentality that got us into the
environmental predicament in the first place
- Two: Results of restoration bad because it produces an artifact
- Restoration results in an artifact, not a natural object
- A restored nature is an anthropocentrically (human-centered)
designed human artifact
- QUESTIONS/WORRIES:
- Is a restored ecosystem an artifact?
- What is an artifact?
- According to Katz, an artifact is something with an intrinsic function
- It was intentionally designed to serve some purpose
- Its function is definitive of what it is
- E.g., Tables, chairs, computers, cars
- So do restored ecosystems have intrinsic functions (and hence are
artifacts)?
- They were intentionally arranged/designed by humans
- Is there function definitive of what they are?
- Possible human artifacts that were not intentionally designed:
- Global warming
- Trash pile on the side of the road?
- Does the fact that something was designed for a purpose by humans make it
an artifact?
- Not clear in the case of children (seems strange to call them artifacts)
- What about cloned or enhanced human children?
- Are cows artifacts?
- Calling a cow or a restored ecosystem an artifact is both illuminating an
distorting
- Must artifacts be "anthropocentric", as Katz claims? Reasons to think not:
- Possible nonhuman artifacts (e.g., beaver dams, bird nests)
- This possibility casts doubt on Katz's claim that all artifacts
are anthropocentric (serve human purposes)
- If a person builds a bird house or restore an ecosystem, though this is
purposeful human behavior, the intentions might include benefitting
nature for its own sake (and not just benefitting humans)
- KATZ ON THE MEANING OF NATURAL
- Natural = independent of activity of humanity (1st definition to be refined)
- Two objections:
- Objection one: Human impact on the planet is so pervasive that there is
nothing natural left (given this understanding of "natural")
- Katz's reply: Naturalness comes in degrees
- Natural objects/processes exist as far as possible away from human
manipulation, control, domination, and technology
- Note: that these words are stronger than "human activity" or
"human involvement"
- If naturalness comes in degrees why can't restored ecosystems be
natural to a some (very high) degree?
- Objection two: Since humans are naturally evolved, their actions are natural
too
- Katz's reply: But this would make all human acts natural and equally so and
this is not plausible or helpful
- Need to avoid two extremes:
- All human acts are natural and equally so
- No human acts are natural
- Katz: Some human acts are and some are not natural
- Human acts that are natural on Katz's account:
- Those that don't "go beyond our biological and evolutionary
capacities"
- That is, human acts that don't involve control and alteration by
technological processes
- Example: Natural child birth as opposed to Cesarean section
- KATZ CONCLUDES THAT WE SHOULD RESTORE DESPITE HIS
CRITICISMS
- "Nothing I have said in this essay should be taken as an
endorsement of actions that . . . injure areas of the natural
environment and leave them in a damaged state. I believe, for
example, that Exxon should attempt to clean up and restore the
Alaskan waterways and land that was harmed by its corporate
negligence. The point of my argument is that we must not
misunderstand what we are doing when we attempt to restore...
It is a compromise. We are not restoring nature . . . but making
the best of a bad situation and cleaning up our mess" (Throop,
p. 92)
- But it is not clear he is entitled to say this given his arguments
- If restorations create artifacts, then restoring nature would destroy
nature (or further degrade it)
- Perhaps Katz would argue that human-caused damage to nature has
already created an artifact
- But then restoration would further artifactualize ecosystems on
his account
- So though Katz can accept restoration for anthropocentric
(human-centered) reasons (it is better for us to have a cleaned up
artifactual ecosystem), he would seem unable to accept restoration
for nature's own sake