Destroying Nature is Suicide

To the Editors of The Crimson

Jendi Reiter's recent editorial ("I Lost My Job to an Owl," February 24) attacking environmentalism seems to me to need some clarification.

First of all, she hit the right mark when she points out that the majority of opponents to environmental change are average middle-class American citizens who, like the loggers in the Northwest, are opposed to losing jobs or financial opportunities due to environmental regulations like the law protecting the endangered spotted owl. They feel they have a constitutional right to take advantage of these financial opportunities, a right which is being violated by environmental laws.

Unfortunately, Reiter is wrong in interpreting this situation as some kind of fight for survival between the human species and the rest of nature. Saving the environment is not equivalent to crucifying our humanity. However such conservatives would like to deny it, Homo Sapiens are a part of nature and subject to nature's laws.

The trick is to figure out how we can still pursue our interests at minimum cost to the environment, a task that I think (and most would agree) is not beyond our capabilities. To ignore environmentalism, however, is to ignore the fact that destroying nature is suicide.

Human beings are different from the other species, but that does not mean that "our first responsibility is to other humans, not rare beetles." In fact, our intelligence is the first sign of our obligation to look beyond self-preservation, which no other species does on a regular basis.

Our first responsibility, as the only sentient and rational species around, is the preservation of this planet, which in the end includes our own preservation. We cannot assume, as we have always assumed, that what is good for human beings is good for the rest of the world. We must accept that the opposite is true, and that in the end it will save us from destroying ourselves.

Countless examples show that disregarding the natural balance is self-destructive. Deforestation in Southeast Asia has let the rivers wash fertile topsoil down the drain, so to speak, destroying the land and the habitat of the indigenous human population that was supposed to benefit from the cleared space. The same thing is being repeated in the Amazon.

Strip mining by private enterprises in the Appalachian mountains destroyed countless homes and polluted the rivers with waste. And on a more practical level, all studies pertaining to the cost-efficiency of business which follow Environmental Protection Agency regulations found that they save more than companies which don't. Face it, environmental consciousness is better for us, not worse.

Reiter points out that the Constitution gives us private property rights. But as with every "inalienable right" in the Constitution, this one must also have borders. We are given the right to free speech but it doesn't include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded room, where such action endangers the lives of others.

Whether the spotted owl qualifies for such exceptions is a matter that rests with the laws, whether we like it or not. Such a question would never arise if your neighbor was burying toxic waste next door on his "private property."

Clearly, the Constitution does not protect anyone's rights when those rights infringe on the safety of other people, or sometimes, other species.

As for the lack of government compensation (perhaps due to the bankruptcy of our government, as Reiter points out), I hope those people will keep it in mind when November comes around.

The real point is that we have to look ahead, and according to our illustrious president, see the big picture. Someone once said that our property is not inherited from our ancestors, it's on loan from our children. If we have no obligation to spotted owls or beetles, don't we at least have an obligation to leave a planet that's reasonably intact for them to live on?

The doesn't mean we need to give up our cities and return to an agriculture society. That is neither possible nor desirable. Technology has given us advantages that we should appreciate and keep. Communication has made this world in a sense smaller, and yet it has also widened all our horizons to a point where none of us would want to retreat back to our separated corners. We cannot do without our medical advances, and I wouldn't want to live without my stereo and music.

But there is a balance to be struck here. The days of "full steam ahead" and "damn the torpedoes" are long over. It doesn't mean we come to a full stop: it does mean we need to proceed with caution and awareness of the consequences of our actions on the environment. We aren't just talking about spotted owls and beetles. We're talking about big blue whales, rain forests, and human being too.

Perhaps it's easier, though, just to recycle paper. Yu Wong '94