Can one love a plastic tree ?

Bulletin of the=20 Ecological Society of America Vol. 54, no. 4 pp.5-7 December 1973=20 :

Every planner, landscape architect or human = ecologist=20 should read Martin Krieger's "What's wrong with plastic trees?" = (Science, 179:=20 446-455. Feb. 2, 1973) if he wishes to catch a glimpse of the nightmare = future=20 that technology is preparing for man and nature. His article discusses = the=20 titanic events of the environmental crisis, of Man vs. Nature, totally = outside=20 of the framework of the biological reference; hence, one of his = conclusions -=20 that plastic trees and all sorts of nature substitutes have a valid = place in=20 planning - reads like a bad fairy tale. If he had only contemplated Hans = Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's Nightingale" in which a mechanical=20 nightingale is given the emperor to substitute for the real one whose = song the=20 emperor had loved. Eventually, of course, the clockwork breaks. Death = comes and=20 sits on the emperor's bed. But the real nightingale appears and sings so = sweetly=20 that the emperor recovers. It is an old moral - you can't make a real=20 nightingale out of wheels and diamonds, an idea quite lost on the our=20 author.

If there is nothing wrong with plastic trees, = if plastic=20 trees can "give most people the feeling that they are experiencing = nature", why=20 not invent plastic dogs instead of live ones? Why not plastic corsages = with=20 synthetic perfumes, instead of orchids or gardenias? Why not substitute = plastic=20 dolls which need no diapers instead of babies? Why not 3,000 giant = Disneylands,=20 one in each county, and then develop the rest of the country to grow = more food=20 and build more cities ?

Why worry about the extinction of the African = giant sable=20 antelope or the Indian tiger? Or the preservation of the weedy Mexican = grasses=20 ancestral to corn or Peruvian wild potatoes? Why protect the Amazonian = Rain=20 Forest, or preserve the arctic tundras ? According to Krieger, such = proposals=20 are "imperialistic at worst, unrealistic at best" (p. 447). But if = biologists=20 and ecologists or, for that matter, planners, won't concern themselves = about the=20 fate of Nature, who is there that will? And since most ecologists and = planners=20 are in the "developed" countries, should they remain uninvolved to = satisfy=20 misguided notions of what it is to be "imperialistic" ? Of course, we = are all=20 against "imperialism" and for "social justice" ! But we are also against = stupidity and misinformation.

&nb= sp; What then is a socially concerned teacher and = biologist=20 to do when he reads such misconceptions? What are we to think of = Science,=20 that editorially confused journal which proclaims its adherence to = social=20 justice and the scientific comprehension of the environmental crisis, = yet=20 publishes, regularly for years now, the unenlightened "optimism" of the=20 technological bamboozlers? (to use Theodore Rozshak's apt expression) : = of=20 Spilhaus, Doxiadis, and Weinberg, and of Handler, Buckminster Fuller and = Seaborg. And now, as a final insult, these gratuitous environmental = opinions of=20 a biologically innocent planner sanctified, as it were, by publication = in=20 Science:

&nb= sp; One wonders why Science publishes this = author who=20 values flowers by cost/benefit ratios, and argues preservation of nature = only in=20 the framework of rarity and the free market in apparent ignorance of the = vast=20 and complex ecological arguments as to why nature and its diversity must = be=20 protected ?

=20 Why, indeed, must Nature be preserved? = This=20 question has been answered in detail so many times by others - = biological=20 diversity as a basis of long range ecological stability; genetic = diversity as=20 the necessary concommittant of continuing evolution (including gene = preservation=20 for future crop breeding options); and that vast uncharted New World of = esthetic=20 diversity: of human genetic needs for natural pattern, for natural = beauty, for=20 natural harmony, all the results of natural selection over the = illimitable=20 vistas of evolutionary time - of the complimentary co-adaptations of man = to=20 nature, of man and woman, of mother and child.

=20 Do plastic trees have mycorrhizae? = produce oxygen?=20 transpire and cool the air? have fragrant flowers visited by bees and = produce=20 fruits that feed the birds? Do they have leaves that decompose into a = rich humus=20 ? But further, in contemplating plastic trees as economically = inexpensive nature=20 substitutes, one may well ask the question, can one love a plastic tree? = Or the=20 sound of wind in a plastic Pine? Is indeed "the demand for a rare [read = natural]=20 environment . . . a learned one"? Is the love of a living = tree or=20 flower truly taught only by culture, or is it due to the = interaction of=20 culture and evolution? With such wonderful plastic surrogates, will this = love=20 eventually become obsolete? Will mail-order plastic women filled = with warm=20 water and greased with vaseline satisfy sufficiently our human needs? = Will the=20 false harmony of false trees or of surrogate sex be able to produce = feelings of=20 affection? Will all these makeshift substitutes send us screaming into = the night=20 for the satisfying totality of the emotions that evolution has led us to = expect=20 ? Has our innocent apologist never heard of Charles Darwin = ?

&nb= sp; =20 And what of the special needs of = children? Suppose=20 that they have biological imperatives for wilderness, for natural = beauty,=20 for natural harmony? If these are not satisfied, what will happen to = their=20 orderly and adapted ontogeny? Supposing that, for the sake of social = justice,=20 all children, not only those of the rich, should have a chance to = experience untouched wilderness (in order to grow up to be happy, = healthy and=20 wise) ? What if, long after all of nature has finally been ground = up in=20 the garbage disposal of the technologic sink (with bamboozlers like the = author=20 at the switch), it becomes suddenly clear that there are indispensable = genetic=20 needs for many of these components of nature? But by then it would be = way too=20 late.

&nb= sp; =20 All planners should be human ecologists. = They=20 enunciate and illuminate what an alive, evolved and evolving man = must=20 have to remain human, with human biological needs foremost on their = minds; with=20 the needs of the technological colossus in proper perspective. And what = does it=20 mean to put human needs first? "Not until man places man second, or , to = be more=20 precise, not until man accepts his dependency on nature and puts himself = in=20 place as part of it, not until then does man put man first! This is the = greatest=20 paradox of human ecology." (H. H. Iltis, BioScience 20:820,=20 1970)

&nb= sp; But what in fact does our present school of = planners=20 think its duty is? Is it to offer frivolity of choice to a human = population=20 uniformly programmed to genetically determined and culturally influenced = needs?=20 Thus Krieger offers genuine, unspoiled nature only to those rich enough = to rent=20 a plane to visit it, and small city parks for the poor masses who can = afford=20 only to ride a street car. What brand of social justice gives the poor a = tiny=20 city park, the rich a giant wilderness ? " A summum bonum of preserving = trees=20 has no place in an ethic of social justice" (p. 453) - indeed! It should = of course be obvious that there can never be any meaningful social = justice=20 without "preserving trees".

The counter-culture is bad enough in its = simplistic=20 insistence on the Greening of America. On having its car and = driving it=20 too. On living simply, in affluence. Are we now to be blessed with a = counter=20 counter-culture, which will hasten the destruction of most of what is=20 biologically sacred, a destruction, while begun in a mindless = technocratic=20 profit-oriented capitalism, is now to be completed in the guise of = social=20 justice and relevancy by a pack of technologically optimistic liberal = planners?=20

&nb= sp; No matter what Harry Harlow's experiments might = suggest,=20 to the affection-starved baby monkey a terry-cloth, wire female with = only a=20 light bulb heart does not much of a loving mother make! And, likewise, = plastic=20 trees or tiny city parks do not a healthy landscape make. We cannot = condition=20 humans to be happy and human with the surrogates of technology - = we can=20 only make them happy and human with what they, biologically, have been = selected=20 to experience.

&nb= sp; =20 The planner who maneuvers himself into = becoming an=20 apologist for our cultural derelictions, including the virtues of = plastic trees;=20 the planner who encourages the faked and denatured environment, no = matter how=20 good his intentions may be, becomes himself and addict of the = "technological=20 fix" [1], a technological junkie, hooked on the propagation of = that one,=20 grand, and damnable lie (the lie which makes the absurdly destructive = extremes=20 of the technological revolution possible): that man can adapt to=20 anything, even plastic trees; that man doesn't really need the = matrix of=20 nature to exist in; that "the way in which [man] experiences nature is=20 conditioned by . . . society"; and that, therefore, society can = de-condition man=20 from wanting to experience the "real thing", the real Nature, that lives = and=20 blooms and flies and sings.

&nb= sp; =20 Whatever the finer points of man's = existence may=20 be, the French sociologist and lay-theologian Jacques Ellul has put it = well in=20 The Technological Society (1964 p. 325) :

"The=20 milieu in which man lives is no longer his. He must adapt himself, as = though the=20 world were new, into a universe for which he was not created . . . He = was made=20 to have contact with living things, and he lives in a world of=20 stone."

It cannot be, then, that our affection, our = apparently=20 overwhelming need for flowers, trees, and wild land is fortuitous, a = mere=20 accidental cultural fixation. We may expect, as a matter of fact, that = science=20 will furnish the objective proofs of suppositions about man's needs for = a living=20 environment which we, at present, can only guess at through timid = intuition;=20 that one of these days we shall find the intricate neurological bases of = why a=20 leaf or a lovely flower affects us so very differently than a broken = beer=20 bottle.[2]

= Meanwhile, modern technological civilization = continues in=20 its accelerative growth and with unprecedented speed, magnitude and = complexity,=20 which are so great that most people in fact do not have = the=20 faintest notion what is good for them, for their families, for their = society or=20 for humanity as a whole. The problems are simply too complex, involved = and=20 removed for anyone but an occasional highly sophisticated specialist to=20 understand. And that in itself is fraught with danger. Who will judge? = And how?=20 And even if we understood a problem and wished to effect a change, the = momentum=20 of technological civilization is so great that, like the sorcerer's = apprentice,=20 it is often quite beyond any rational control.

&nb= sp; Krieger may, in fact, correctly describe what = he observes=20 in a horde of Disneyland visitors. But many of these may have been = conditioned=20 by their megalopolis environment and upbringing to blindly deny their = own=20 biological well-being, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon, especially = of big=20 cities. The general biological ignorance bodes ill for democratic=20 decisions on environmental issues. Except for a deliberate expansion of = public=20 understanding of biology and evolution, I don't know how else the public = will=20 ever understand or realize its own condition. Meanwhile, we shall pay a = terrible=20 price in environmental damage for keeping evolution out of the schools = and out=20 of planning, and continuing the public's ignorance. Since we are, = and=20 always will be, biological creatures, the planner as well as the public = should=20 be biologically sophisticated if it is not to make erroneous = assumptions. The=20 lack of evolutionary input into the environmental crisis, and the mere = existence=20 of the "Teaching of Evolution vs. Creation" controversy in California = (not in=20 1873, but in 1973!) all point to the great need for reevaluating = priorities in=20 teaching and planning.

=20 What then is a planner to be; what then = is he to=20 do? As a socially responsible individual, where must he lead? He must, = above=20 all, be a biologist and a human ecologist, sensitive to man's evolution = and its=20 holistic implications, whose principal job it is to preserve the = evolutionary=20 harmony and diversity of this earth. Nothing really matters more = than this -=20 no cleverness, no "fix", no good intentions. There can never be a = healthy=20 humanity, both physically and socially, without its ancient evolutionary = and=20 ecological base.

&nb= sp; =20 Thus, neither the planner, the physician, = the=20 teacher, nor the landscape architect can compromise the evolutionary = nature of=20 man; he must accept it, because it is. He must accept the basic = principle that=20 the optimum environment for all organisms (including man) is that in = which they=20 evolved, because it, in fact, selected them, and in a = dynamic=20 sense still continues to do so. No experimentation is necessary to show = this, it=20 is true.

&nb= sp; =20 Let us therefore demand that the future = of the=20 human environment, the only environment to which man is genetically = adapted, be=20 left to those enlightened planners who, in prudence, humility, and = biological=20 understanding wish to protect and preserve it.

=20 "It is time for men to commit themselves to a=20 contemplative study of nature, however hard that may be for us to = begin .=20 . . We are far from knowing all the facts. We need more information. It = is too=20 easy to say that people prefer their landscapes humanized and that we = adore=20 wilderness only after it no longer howls. The presumed fact that men = like to=20 tame wilderness does not prove that men are well off without wilderness. = We are=20 still ignorant of what men, in the deepest levels of their brains, need = from the=20 world." [ Daniel McKinley]

[1] = A.M. Weinberg argues persuasively = (BioScience=20 23(1); 1-45, 1973) that for every "technological fault" there is a=20 "technological fix", ironically forgetting that the latter phrase was = coined by=20 environmentalists to designate a cure of an ill analogous to the "fix" = of a drug=20 user hooked on heroin; i.e. it is precisely because so many = "technological=20 fixes" are bad that they do not represent a valid solution (e.g. the = Green=20 Revolution and unlimited food, atomic energy and unlimited power,=20 etc.).

[2] = At the University of Wisconsin, Sharon Decker, = with Hugh=20 Iltis, is compiling an annotated bibliography on "Man's needs for = Nature",=20 sponsored by the Horticultural Research Institute, which may = represent a=20 small beginnings towards such an understanding. (cf. H.H. Iltis, 1966. = The=20 meaning of human evolution to conservation, Wisconsin Academy Review 13 = (2) :=20 16-23. )