A lot of the time this simplistic conflict is not there at all and technology and the influence of man can work with nature, or enhance it. Even where it is presented as a conflict between two sides the lines are drawn in lots of different places.
In C.S.Lewis's Cosmic Trilogy, and J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings those protecting the natural world, in whatever form, are the good guys. But does a stance that's pro-nature automatically mean a stance that's against science and against progress?
In That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis (the last in Lewis's theological science fiction trilogy), a cold, apparently scientific society the N.I.C.E (National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments) is presented as the manifestation of evil. Fighting against them are the spiritual, benevolent group who hang out with a friendly bear and are centered around Elwin Ransom (the protagonist of the other two books). The title is a biblical reference to the tower of Babel and the book is a fictionalized metaphor for Lewis's argument set out in The Abolition of Man.
Basically, the N.I.C.E plunder the natural resources around their head quarters and seek the destruction of mankind under the guidance of beings they refer to as 'macrobes' who communicate with the society through a severed head kept alive with man's technology.
Spoiler alert: Needless to say the other side win and with the backing of benevolent spirits and a resurrected wizard (yes it's Merlin) he smites the N.I.C.E with biblical curses and releases the caged animals used for experimentation. If you haven't read the book it's not nearly as stupid as I've made it sound, but the side on which nature is presented is firmly against the scientists as they are depicted in this book.
I realise that this runs the risk of becoming a debate about God which is not where I want to go, but the scientists in this novel are out to destroy nature as though study of nature through empiricism automatically pits you against it. The N.I.C.E headquaters reminded me in someways of where I studied ecology, Silwood Park, which is a contradiction in itself, everyone there cared about nature and science (well most, some just wanted to dissect insects and get smashed). The book was written in 1945 and things have changed a lot since then but I don't know a single conservationist who is a devout believer in any god, though again I don't believe these are mutually exclusive either. It seems to me that you can be a believer, a scientist and a conservationist all at the same time and that you don't need supernatural belief to find abstract value in a beautiful tree; so on to the next discussion.
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R Tolkien pits some hobbits against the mighty powers of an evil god namely Sauron. You all know the story, and like any fantasy nerd it will always be of great significance to me. However, it has been observed by some modern authors (e.g. China Mieville), that Tolkien's obsession with an idealistic rural life and his vocal distain for industry and "The Machines", seems rooted in upper middle-class conservatism and is ultimately a bit misanthropic. I love the countryside and hope it remains undisturbed (where it isn't already), but Tolkien's disdain for modern cities is evident. The advancement of technology is not an inevitable threat to the beautiful British countryside, in many regards it may provide a solution to the unnecessary destruction of habitat (e.g. recycling). In Tolkien's own time no doubt industrialization posed a grave threat to the natural places of the world, and it still does, but is retreating to the country and living without technology the answer? Put it this way, would you be Amish? It's probably no coincidence that Lewis and Tolkien were bezy mates for a long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment