In the old days of environmentalism wilderness proponents were professional lobbyists working for large National groups like the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society. However, one drawback of the Nationals is that they operate from an anthropocentric perspective (human centered). Rather than viewing the Earth as the "source" of life, anthropocentrism holds the Earth as a "resource" to be exploited by humans. When these groups were successful at saving small parcels of land from logging and development, they were preserved primarily for their scenic and recreational values. Lamentably, this designated wilderness is often what is now referred to as "rock and ice." Such lands are not among the most biologically productive sites on the continent. These wilderness areas are modest and usually isolated from other wilderness areas, in effect making them biological islands amid a matrix of human disturbance. Plants and animals marooned on these islands are unable to migrate between habitat types, subjecting them to genetic inbreeding, and ultimately extinction. The most biologically productive sites on the continent went into the timber base, and have become the almost exclusive domain of the timber barons.
As in the past, contemporary mainstream environmental advocacy does not stem from a cogent land ethic, like that espoused by Aldo Leopold; and it often does not invoke conservation biology as a criteria for wildlands designation. Therefore, we should not be surprised that wilderness areas designated in the past have little basis in ecological science, fail to provide functional biodiversity reserves, and do not protect the entire array of species and ecosystem types across the landscape in perpetuity. From a conservation biology perspective, these are important failings that must be addressed.
Serious as these breeches are, perhaps the most damaging weakness of the Nationals is their propensity for compromise. Excessive compromise has undermined the ecological integrity of the North American landscape - a countryside already seriously impaired and degraded from abuse at the hands of industrial humans.
Despite a paucity of evidence offered by the Nationals in support of continued compromise, conventional wisdom holds that the old strategies still apply. Contrary to this view, however, more sophisticated and, I would argue - realistic - views are emerging among the grassroots. These beliefs draw upon a potent land ethic that recognize the intrinsic value of every component of the landscape, both living and non-living - a perspective that grants other beings inalienable rights, as well as legal and ethical standing (biocentrism).
It should surprise no one that the National groups reject biocentric thinking in favor of preserving the old paradigms and former power structures. Unlike the lean, quick reacting and proactive grassroots, bureaucracies are cumbersome, reactive, and slow to respond to change. According to the big ten environmental groups, the emerging grassroots vision is both naive and politically unrealistic. Hence the rift that is developing between these often warring factions of the forest protection movement.
While many claim that the goals of wilderness protection espoused by wildlands defenders is unattainable in the age of capitalism and in this climate of political cynicism, our wildlands vision surely passes the strict test of ecological literacy. Assessing the situation in this light, it's readily apparent that our goals are quite realistic. We must not confuse the "politically realistic" for ecological necessity. After all, so called "political reality" is a fiction, a fabrication of the human mind that habitually ignores and attempts to deny natural law, and the rights of other beings to evolve according to their own design. Nature does not recognize "political reality." She does not recognize "money" and other doctrines of economics that ignore the needs of the planet. Ecological patterns and processes shape the landscape, not political process. If we continue to invest in economic mythos, rather than acknowledge the role of natural process in shaping our world, we will continue to get what we have gotten so far - compromised ecosystems, an overcrowded planet, polluted water, toxic air, loss of jobs, eroding soils - and a host of social tensions caused by "environmental" stresses.
By investing everything in the myth of perceived "political reality," the National groups have fallen into a trap of self-deception that attempts to deny how nature works. In doing so they ignore the right of other beings to fulfill their own evolutionary destinies. When substituting political expediency for the biological needs of the land and its people, the Nationals have unwittingly sold out and rendered the forest protection movement ineffective.
It is a mistake for activists to operate exclusively in the political arena, just as it is a mistake to operate entirely outside it. We must realize that we derive our real power from the land, not from posh offices, computers, and costly expresso machines. Real power stems from the long association with wild places felt in the collective senses of our souls. It is the power in us that recalls our connection to all life, and our moral obligation to defend it. Moreover, it does not sacrifice the good of the whole for the short term benefit of the few.
Far be it from me to suggest that we completely ignore our perceived political realities. I am not suggesting that at all. No one could be that foolish. However, I am proposing that we fit "political reality" around ecological process, not the other way around. The health of the biotic community must always be the centerpiece of our wilderness strategies. If not, we are doomed to fail again.
Because corporations have been so successful in subverting democracy, combined with the most hostile Congress in history, the grassroots forest protection movement is of necessity radical. Compromise cannot be a tenet of a successful conservation strategy in which virtually the entire continent is already compromised and otherwise degraded. Long ago we used to fight. We gave nothing away without fierce resistance. We won important victories. But when we became professional environmentalists, it looked unreasonable for us to fight. So we compromised. And we lost.
Grassroots forest protection is not an avocation; it's not an elitist hobby for wealthy backpackers escaping from crowded cities. We are engaged in a war against a corporate culture of death - and we should openly acknowledge this fact. We are engaged in a fight for the survival of countless species of plants and animals against corporate greed and power drunk CEOs. If we are to halt the ongoing destruction of ecosystems and entire assemblages of species, we must learn to fight again. Not only must we fight - we must fight like hell! The wilderness movement must adopt the warrior's mentality - the warrior's spirit. We must show unrelenting tenacity of purpose in our efforts to defend the Earth. We must not give away any more of our remaining ancient forests. Every proposed entry into the wilderness by machines must be contested. Every timber sale stringently opposed. We must fight to end logging on all public lands. Every acre of remaining wilderness must be defended from the bulldozer and the chainsaw. Not only must we defend the wild, we must restore much of what has already been lost and degraded, allowing the land to heal itself. This strategy will require vision, courage, imagination, and real leadership.
Our adversaries in industry (including the wise use front groups), with the aide of their puppets in government, are utterly barbarous in their pursuit of wealth. They routinely lie, spread propaganda and disinformation, intimidate, coerce, steal, cheat, threaten our lives, and use violence against us and our loved ones. They control the media, and so the message that shape the opinion most Americans have of us - therefore, we will not be popular with the multitudes unless we generate our own media and take our message directly to the people. So why should we care to appear reasonable to our enemies? Do they look reasonable in our eyes? Do they care? If we play that game, we play by their rules, and we lose by their rules. The unscrupulous among us will stop at nothing to preserve their power and privilege. Nothing!
We must also understand that the most cynical politicians will masquerade as champions of democracy even as they undermine constitutional government. These cynics are the avowed enemies of participatory government, social justice and labor, though they speak the language of these movements. Just as the Forest Service speaks the language of ecosystem management even as it destroys ecosystems, so these devious manipulators of public opinion are capable of speaking our language and infiltrating our ranks. These are the ones among us who call their evil a "revolution" while they betray the people who elected them. But make no mistake - the CEO's of the largest and wealthiest corporations are capable of the most appalling treachery. When we attack them they will come after us with a vengeance. We must be ready.
There can be no compromise with those who would take it all. Conceding anything to our enemies guarantees that we will lose. If we cave in to the rabid fanaticism of the U.S. House of Representatives, for instance, we give legitimacy to their power and their methods of coercion. We must subvert. We must dismantle the corporate state by dechartering law breaking corporations in the states of their origin. Corporations that break the law, pollute, harm workers and impair families and communities while diminishing the land must be dealt with in the most severe manner. We must begin this process, the cornerstone of an emerging conservation and social justice strategy, on a state by state basis, and hold the people responsible accountable for their actions. No longer can we allow CEOs to hide behind the legal fiction of corporations that advance an agenda of plunder and disunity. Corporations must be accountable to the people who created them - and they must be forced to treat both the land and workers with respect and dignity.
In today's climate of unbridled corporate power this will not happen voluntarily; we must do it. Because most corporations are responsive to market values, not ecological or human needs, there is little incentive for them to behave like good citizens. Thus while corporations enjoy greater stature and privilege than citizens, they share none of the accountability of real people. This results in diminished families, loss of meaningful work as corporations downsize, and the total failure to develop an appropriate land ethic.
Furthermore, it should be clear to everyone that we're getting our teeth kicked in, because the results we have obtained so far stem from a seriously flawed strategy. The times demand bold visionary action, and personal sacrifice, while the Nationals insist upon staying the course. The failure to alter our course only guarantees more of the same - more and greater failures than we have already suffered; a continued loss of biodiversity and further ecosystem degradation. America is no longer a government of the people, for the people, by the people. It is a government of the corporations, for the corporations, by the corporations. We can no longer operate on the old premise because all the rules of engagement have changed or were suspended.
We cannot hope to democratize the ecology of Turtle Island (North America) until we democratize the American government. This is the responsibility of every citizen - and a patriotic duty. If we abdicate our obligation to the greater life community for a few more years of personal safety and comfort, we are making a serious mistake that we will later regret. Despite the loathsome nature of our task none of us can afford to remain apolitical any longer. The urgency of our work no longer allows the luxury of separating biology from the body politic. Each of us must get involved in the issues. If industrial humans continue to persist on the planet in anything resembling their present numbers, we must accept the reality that biodiversity cannot flourish in the absence of democracy.
The reductionist thinking nurtured by RenŽ Descartes during the scientific revolution has led us to sever the umbilical that connects us to the web of life. Reductionism has succeeded in prodding us to tear things apart, but it cannot help us reassemble them. Much worse, it has led us to deny our own biology - that we are animals who constantly interact with countless other beings no less amazing, no less aware of their surroundings than we are. But as we discard ever more parts of an integral landscape, our job will ultimately become impossible. Our future will be utterly devoid of hope - too terrible to imagine - and filled with unspeakable despair. The alternative is that we can choose to heal ourselves, to enrich rather than diminish our lives. If we are honest with ourselves and objectively appraise our work, the choice is easy.
We must promote ecological literacy. Without Earth Education, an appropriate land ethic is nothing more than a dim hope, impossible to attain. All the disparate factions of the respective forest protection and social justice movements - biologists, ecologists, philosophers, educators, theologians, social justice warriors, labor unions, the American Indian Movement, women's movement, concerned citizens, the homeless, people of color, and other minorities, must be wed to a sound land ethic. Divided we are indeed a fragmented, largely ineffective minority. United we can be a strong majority that will alter the shape of the future by taking back democracy and providing for the equitable application of justice and wealth.
In tabling these ideas I am fully aware that I have come down hard on the National Environmental Groups. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this criticism is both earned and deserved. I do not mean to cause further division in and already discordant and timid movement. Rather my intent is to engender honest discussion of the issues, and to correct a failed strategy to halt global environmental destruction. Neither do I propose to dismantle the National Groups, not yet anyway. Most of these organizations still have an important role to play; primarily using their considerable wealth to implement the legal strategies initiated by grassroots activists in the field. I also believe that the Nationals are generally better organizers than many grassroots activists, and we can all benefit from those skills. Yet it must be made absolutely clear that the Nationals are no longer the choir; each individual is one voice in a far greater orchestration.
It is imperative that we educate the media to seek out the grassroots leadership in addition to the Nationals if an accurate picture of the movement is to emerge. No voice in the campaign should be silenced by another. The Sierra Club, Audubon, and The Wilderness Society are no longer the movements' sole spokespersons since they no longer represent the true grassroots - the most progressive faction of the campaign. We must democratize environmentalism even as we strive to democratize government and the ecology of Turtle Island. Each of us has a role to play. If we allow everyone to contribute their unique gifts and talents to the campaign we will make great strides and stem the tide that is degrading our home and rendering it unlivable.
Finally, we must publicize how poverty, loss of dignified work, social and economic injustice, the erosion of family values, a lost sense of place and community - are inextricably linked to environmental degradation and the corporate state. We must also make known that those responsible have names and addresses, that they cannot hide behind the legal fiction of the corporation. We will find them and hold them accountable. In contrast to the assertions of the corporate libertarians now in power - a truly democratic government is not our enemy. The despotic influence and control of government by powerful corporations, as embodied in the 104th Congress, is the root cause of government without representation and the resultant citizen unrest. We must remove this cancer by getting corporations out of politics and by returning the principle of self rule to the people - where it belongs. If we are creative in finding ways of uniting the diverse factions of a larger justice movement, we will bring about changes much too powerful to be ignored by government. Most importantly, everyone benefits from living in such a world.
(This article was reprinted from Wild Appalachia with the kind permission of editor and author Charles Sullivan of the Central Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Route 3, Box 390, Hedgesville, WV 25427; Voice & fax: 304-754-9161, or E-mail can be sent to: cesull@ix.netcom.com.)
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited