Ecological Design - Design with the Desert: Conservation and Sustainable Development - page 356

Our choice is not whether we are religious or not as atheists would have it, but whether
the object of our worship is authentic or not. The gravity mass of our nature tugs us to
create or discover systems of meaning that places the human condition in some larger
framework that explains, consoles, offers grounds for hope, and, sometimes, rationalizes.
In our age, nationalism, capitalism, communism, fascism, consumerism, cyberism, and
even ecologism have become substitutes for genuine religion. But whatever the ism or the
belief, in one way or another we will create or discover systems of thought and behavior
which give us a sense of meaning and belonging to some larger scheme of things. Moreover,
there is good evidence to support the claim that successful resource management requires,
in Anderson's words, “a direct, emotional religiously 'socialized' tie to the resources in
question.” 13 Paradoxically, however, societies with much less scientific information than we
have often make better environmental choices. Myth and religious beliefs, which we regard
as erroneous, have sometimes worked better to preserve environments than have decisions
based on scientific information administered by presumably “rational” bureaucrats. 14 The
implication is that solutions to environmental problems must be designed to resonate at
deep emotional levels and be ecologically sound.
Second, despite all of our puffed up self-advertising as Homo sapiens , the fact is that
we are limited, if clever, creatures. Accordingly, we need a more sober view of our pos-
sibilities. Real wisdom is rare and rarer still if measured ecologically. Seldom do we
foresee the ecological consequences of our actions. We have great difficulty understand-
ing what Jay Forrester once called the “counterintuitive behavior of social systems.” 15
We are prone to overdo what worked in the past, with the result that many of our cur-
rent problems stem from past success carried to an extreme. Enjoined to “be fruitful
and multiply,” we did as commanded. But at six billion and counting, it seems that we
lack the gene for enough. We are prone to overestimate our abilities to get out of self-
generated messes. We are, as someone put it, continually overrunning our headlights.
Human history is in large measure a sorry catalog of war and malfeasance of one kind
or another. Stupidity is probably as great a factor in human affairs as intelligence. All of
which is to say that a more sober reading of human potentials suggests the need for a
fail-safe approach to ecological design that does not overtax our collective intelligence,
foresight, and goodness.
Third, quite possibly we have certain dispositions toward the environment that have
been hardwired in us over the course of our evolution. Wilson, for example, suggests that
we possess what he calls “biophilia” meaning an innate “urge to affiliate with other forms
of l i life.”16 16 Biophilia may be evident in our preference for certain landscapes such as savan-
nas and in the fact that we heal more quickly in the presence of sunlight, trees, and flow-
ers than in biologically sterile, artificially lit, utilitarian settings. Emotionally damaged
children, unable to establish close and loving relationships with people, sometimes can be
reached by carefully supervised contact with animals. And after several million years of
evolution it would be surprising indeed were it otherwise. The affinity for life described
by Wilson and others, does not, however, imply nature romanticism, but rather something
like a core element in our nature that connects us to the nature in which we evolved and
which nurtures and sustains us. Biophilia certainly does not mean that we are all disposed
to like nature or that it cannot be corrupted into biophobia. But without intending to do
so, we are creating a world in which we do not fit. The growing evidence supporting the
biophilia hypothesis suggests that we fit better in environments that have more, not less,
nature. We do better with sunlight, contact with animals, and in settings that include trees,
flowers, flowing water, birds, and natural processes than in their absence. We are sensuous
creatures who develop emotional attachment to particular landscapes. The implication is