Скачать книгу

example, I have not followed Frank N. Egerton in omitting the Bible and early Christianity as neglectful of science (2012: 17), in view of their profound environmental teachings, presuppositions and influence. Nor have I omitted the divergent stances of Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, together with their long-term impacts. At the same time, I have attempted to bring onto the stage significant literary and artistic works, from Hesiod and Virgil to Traherne, Wordsworth, Turner and Gerard Manley Hopkins.

      Similarly, this book does not seek to cover the scientific revolution of the early modern period, or its technocratic late modern counterpart, despite its discussion of the central advocates of mechanism in Chapter 2, and of Darwin and his successors in Chapter 3. A penetrating investigation into these aspects of the history of science can be found in Pepper (1984). There again, this book does not seek to depict in any detail the history of either landscape gardening in England or the related enclosure movement (except for the related protests of the poet John Clare: see Chapter 2). Readers wishing to study these movements are recommended to consult Coates (1998). Likewise, more detail is to be found about American environmentalists of the nineteenth century in the books of Nash (2014 [1967]; 1989) than in this one, although Chapter 4 presents the developing ideas both of the American Transcendentalists (including Marsh) and of the controversy about preservation between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. There again, there is ampler detail to be found in Worster (1985 [1977]) about the origins and rise of ecological science, topics which the fifth chapter of this book re-examines with the aid of more contemporary sources.

      Darwin and Darwinism are discussed in Chapter 3, with emphasis on Darwin’s own understanding of the ecological implications of his theory. Chapter 4 considers ‘The American Debate’, focusing on the writings and influence of Marsh and of John Muir, and the controversies about National Parks. Chapter 5 concerns the origins and development of the science of ecology on both sides of the Atlantic.

      The above-mentioned debate about the influence of beliefs and ideas can be illustrated by the discourse surrounding the thesis put forward by Lynn White Jr. in an article in Science in 1967. White maintained that the roots of our ecological (his word was ‘ecologic’) crisis lie in Judaeo-Christian theology, which makes Christianity, particularly in its Western version, ‘the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen’. White’s specialism was medieval technology, and he regarded the distinctive technological advances of Western Christendom during the Middle Ages as manifesting an aggressive form of belief in the human domination of nature. His thesis will be discussed more than once (in Chapters 1, 8 and 9), because of its interpretation of Christianity, as well as of the Middle Ages, and detailed discussion can be left for the relevant sections. However, it is worth remarking that among the many criticisms to which his stance has been subjected, no fewer than two forms of misguided determinism have been ascribed to him.

      For example, in a review in Past and Present, R. H. Hilton and P. H. Sawyer (1963: 97) accused him of ‘technological determinism’, the suggestion that the shape of history and the structure of society were determined by technological innovations such as the new form of heavy ploughing of the early Middle Ages (on which White made human attitudes and behaviour towards nature turn), or later innovations such as clockwork and gunpowder. This approach clearly has its limits, since technology is itself heavily influenced both by economic factors and trends and sometimes by cultural factors (and even possibly ideas). There is a case for ascribing the intensity of some modern ecological problems to contemporary technology (carbon-based energy generation and the manufacture of plastics being leading examples), but once again the forces that drive this technology must also be taken into account.

      Yet the possibility remains that such beliefs are capable of making a difference, alongside many other factors. And this makes it important to consider whether, as many others have claimed, White mischaracterizes both Christianity and also characteristic medieval attitudes to nature. It also makes it important to consider religious stances like the stewardship approach, as identified by Passmore, since approaches of this kind may also make a difference, this time in the direction of motivating environmental concern. While there are undoubtedly other sources of environmental concern, such as recognition of the full implications of Darwinism, and of the ordered but vulnerable character of global ecological systems, attitudes such as these remain significant sources of potential motivation.

      But so does simple love of nature and natural beauty. This can be acquired from direct experience (for example, through hiking, boating and field-trips), from films and television programmes, through appreciation of art, and by retrieving the love of nature and landscape found in ancient thinkers such as Virgil and the author of the Song of Solomon, in patristic writers such as Basil the Great, in early modern poets such

Скачать книгу