Running around New York. ([info]futurebird) wrote,
@ 2006-08-22 09:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:the urban naturalist

11. The Wounded City

-





Environmentalists have long spoken about the wounded earth, those with spiritual leanings will say that they can feel, in the presence of a clear cut forest, a sewage-choked stream or a toxic strip mine, the cries of the trees and of mother nature. The rationalist, who is an environmentalist, will, instead, talk about the lost diversity of rain-forests that are burned and of coral reefs that are bleached. They will remind us that the next cure for some terrible illness could come from the still unexplored life-forms there. In any case, most people, who are not bound by harsh economies, prefer to know that, someplace, non-human creatures thrive. That someplace, beyond the pesticide-laced wheat fields and strip-malls, we can still find abundant animal life.

Since the city is manifestation of nature, it too can become wounded like the earth. The wounded city is the wounded earth, but in the wounded city the environmental disasters are inflicted directly upon human beings. Like a well-managed rain forest the city is filled with diversity. The diversity is economic, intellectual, artistic and cultural. Just as the diverse environments for plant and animal life may hold the cures to our ills, so too, in the tiny economies of the city, solutions to any crisis we face may dwell, the art lives here too that could heal a nation. And when we must change our values and the way we live, the new ideas arise from the incubator of the city. Fantastic people and strange enterprises find a kind of ecological niche in the city, and like rare orchids, or birds of paradise, we may not even know that they exist, or what cures they hold for the ills of the future.

The wounded city is scared by neglect and misguided development. Masses of buildings stand empty, more still stand in ruins. Where new development occurs it occurs with relentless repetition, like invasive vines that come to dominate once rich forests. The city itself spreads out, flattened by miles of highway, engulfing entire regions in endless development that consists of only a few enterprises and only a few floor plans for homes and other buildings. The tragedy in this is that these developments destroy green diversity while, simultaneously, sucking life from the concentrated human economic and cultural diversity of cities. It is not so much that any one chain-store or agricultural method is, in and of itself bad, but rather the scale and monotony of development fails to form the healthy ecological harmony required to sustain human life through ever changing circumstances. Whatever it produces, it necessarily does so in excess, and no other forces hold it in check.



In the wounded city once great places rich with many meanings and memories for many people are forgotten. They have no stories to tell. We no longer understand the hieroglyphics of our own creations, knowledge is lost, and with it culture and art. We find ourself rendered naive and unprepared for the future, ready to make the same mistakes again with no lessons from history to guide us.

We hear the cries of the wounded city as we hear the cries of the wounded earth. The voice is not that of mankind, but of mother nature. To "save the earth" we must also save the unique ecology of cities. The people who care about cities, who try to heal these wounds are the urban naturalists and they are, in every sense, environmentalists.

Last: 10. The City is a School
Next: Transportation (Plane, Bus, Foot and Train)

From: The Urban Naturalist.



(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]sevenjades
2006-08-22 11:35 pm UTC (link)
Just wanted to say, I love reading your posts. They really make me think of cities in new ways, and you write very eloquently.

Also, a question - if a city is a natural place, an organism, what is it's relation to more areas more commonly thought of as natural - the farms, the wilderness, the forests and countrysides it borders and bleeds into?

(Reply to this)


[info]beezari
2006-08-23 02:26 am UTC (link)
I love this essay. Clicks with something I've been thinking of for a while recently. Your ablitity to put things into words is amazing!

(Reply to this)

Couldn't find you're other post
[info]musicianwriter
2006-08-24 04:37 pm UTC (link)
Hey, I couldn't find your other post, and so I thoght I'd post it here. The themes still apply.

Again, I have my problem's with some of Naess's ideas. I also don't think that population is as big of problem as we often pretend it to be. Perhaps population only seems to be a problem because we have a problem with borders and attachment to land. Thus, there are concentrated areas of population in the world that do not necessarily relfect a humanity out of proportion, but rather a humanity unwilling, or unable, to emigrate.

As for civilization, being the antithesis of nature is not necessarily a bad thing. History has shown that there is always a struggle, a balancing act, between civilization and nature. It's a thesis/antithesis between land (civilization) and water (nature). There's nothing wrong with either nature or civilization so long as we seek a synthesis of the two. After all, ala Hegel, thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. This synthesis is the harmony or balance that you seem to speak of here.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Couldn't find you're other post
[info]futurebird
2006-08-24 06:20 pm UTC (link)
I think the mod deleted it because it was off topic? I've also been banned from that forum, though I don't know why...

Thanks for coming here so that the conversation would not be cut off-- it seemed like a really great et of responses... oh well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Couldn't find you're other post
[info]musicianwriter
2006-08-24 08:02 pm UTC (link)
Off topic? Ecophilosophy is still philosophy! They banned you? That's crazy...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Couldn't find you're other post
[info]airstrip
2006-09-07 12:34 am UTC (link)
Not to drag up an old conversation, but I was going through this and was a bit surprised to see that you had been banned from [info]philosophy. Though you might not have had the most philosophical content, I don't think you ever dipped into a ban-worthy area--especially considering the general quality of posts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Couldn't find you're other post
[info]futurebird
2006-09-07 09:03 pm UTC (link)
It was all quite odd. I still don't get it. But, I guess I'm not welcome there. Or at least this type of philosphy isn't welcome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Couldn't find you're other post
[info]airstrip
2006-09-07 09:30 pm UTC (link)
I would venture two guesses, both with "Appy is asshat" (he wouldn't disagre) in my assumption set:

(1) You posted something without explicit philosophical content.

(2) You posted that thing a lot.

In my view, the problem with a lot of the philosophy communities is that they are too dedicated to explicit philosophy while most of what people think about is applied philosophy (and, indeed, even pure meditations on ethics usually stem from a difficult practical question). Unfortunately, there isn't much to chew on there.

Of course, the objection to what I said is simple and obvious: no one wants to become another discussion community where it's a few people posting news or Jesus every hour.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sidebar: "assertion" and "conquest"
[info]hfx_ben
2006-08-24 06:59 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry to see you deleted your post in [info]philosophy; I hope it didn't get smammed.




"at-one-ment? You lost me there..."
Oh. Sorry. Kinda freaks me out, thinking that every word makes the whole so fragile. But anyhow: harmon, you know? Being "at one"? Tuned into the moment, like that?

"Seems to me a slippery slope in the direction of convince / compell / coerce / conquer."
We can't conquer nature becuse we are a force of nature.
*blink*
Say what? Ummm ... there are huge areas of ocean that are entirely lifeless. Entire species have been wiped out sdirectly by our activity. I haven't been to the Amazon rain forests, but I've walked through clear cuts in the Cape Breton Highlands and seen it from the air. Even bigger: the Sahara was produced by nature, yes, as the consequence of our actions, entailed by our "assertion". If those aren't instances of "conquest" ... or rape ... or vandalism. I'm sure I don't know what you mean. It sounds like "there are no slippery slopes; there is neither grey nor black, it's all white so it's all good."

What we can do is either churn up the water, destroying diversity and harmony, or we can work with the other forces in nature to create harmony and promote diversity.
But not conquest. I'm sorry, I've lost you.

Perhaps, since you seem to agree that we're capable of abuse and over-exploitation, it's just a matter of my word not working ... that would be 2. "Conquest". I didn't write a whole article ... it's just a word, no?

Civilization is our tool to either end. And it's not a eiher or situation, there are a whole range of degrees in-between the two extremes.
But you just said one of the extremes is impossible.

My thinking is that we can cooperate/collaborate or we can continue with compel / coerce / conquer. Sorry the words give reason to dismiss that thinking. More sorry than you can know.

be well

What we can't do, and this is where the primitivists really miss the boat, is not assert our presence. I mean, unless we really hate humans, ourselves, that much.

(Reply to this)


(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…