Life at the Edge of a Precipice

Life at the Edge of a Precipice

 The Wild Things conference was a big hit, more than 1,000 attendees convened at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Most were stewards and restoration workday volunteers that form a cohesive group of citizen scientists whose help is priceless in keeping the restoration of our forest preserve sites going. The presentations were great and there was a sense of accomplishment and earned pride. So why was I so depressed? One of the keynote speakers Doug Tallamy, professor of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the University of Delaware, spoke on the need to convert our private yards into ecological habitats. He had great slides illustrating the value of insects and their crucial role within the web of life focusing on the symbiotic relations that exist between insect species and plants, a theme familiar to all present. This is what I found depressing that after decades of similar talks and aspirations we are still asking for minimal commitment of this type. I gave a similar talk at the Chicago Center for Green Technology more than a decade back and before that had generated a plan for the Village of Schaumburg to create habitat corridors that connected the forest preserves to each other and before that helped carry out a project in Toronto in 1996 and 1997 to convert a neighborhood into a connected habitat landscape and before that in the 1980’s had participated in this debate and admired an experimental native prairie backyard in Kitchener, Ontario at the home of a University of Waterloo professor. So almost thirty years later here we were hearing basically the same rhetoric on the importance of creating habitat links. Other talks I attended had some positive news but still fraught with obstacles, one talk in particular by a neighborhood organization that in my mind was unduly optimistic, they had a 50,000 dollar budget for the year which would not make a dent in their goals. If this is the pace of progress then we are in serious trouble. So why was everyone smiling and patting each other on the back? I guess it is the knowledge that at least each one of us was contributing to the solution rather than the problem no matter how small a contribution that would seem.

Although the volunteer group of people were represented there was a noticeable lack of professional representation, when the keynote speaker asked those of us involved in landscape design to raise their hands only a few went up and I imagine if he had asked how many engineers were present even fewer hands would be shown and fewer still of any political or legal profession representatives. These conferences tend to draw from one’s own choir avoiding any real chance of debate. Perhaps a plan would be to specifically invite politicians and professionals to attend and create purposeful debates. Slapping each other on the back for work well done in the face of the amount of ecological collapse around us may give energy and impetus to carry on but does little else. This of course works in all other conference procedures; it forms the brick and mortar of a culture of professional silos. It is what drives turf wars among the professions and creates tiered value systems on the value of each one. For example, most politicians derive from the legal and banking practices because government is seen mostly in light of economics and a system of laws. What if government representation would require an equitable professional distribution that includes engineers, doctors, artists, ecologists etc., could we imagine different governance? Even further, can we adopt a system where appointment is made to represent future generations such as the seventh generation concept in some Native American cultures?  

I am reminded of another popular and well attended conference at the University of Guelph, my alma mater. The keynote speaker was John Kenneth Galbraith one of the most respected economists of his time and prolific author on economics. The United Nations Bruntland Report (1987) had just come out and there was a euphoric atmosphere in the belief that we had crossed a major milestone regarding environmental awareness. Galbraith gave his talk on the role of ethics in economy and governance and warned that vigilance on ethical behavior should not be taken lightly. How true that message resounds after the economic collapse of 2008. Leopold wrote on a land ethic, Galbraith spoke of an economic ethic and we are now faced with political unethical behavior in having money decide what our policies should be. Are we capable of achieving a moral fortitude of ethical proportion to outweigh the current system of short term monetary values?  One talk I attended at the Wild Things conference was given by Donald Hey promoting his Nutrient Farming program. He concluded with a statement “economics controls the environment therefore economics can cure the environment”. I have great respect for Mr. Hey; he is one of the bright spots in the local engineering profession and has had positive influence on the practice of wetland mitigation and restoration. Even so I found his statement troubling not only because it is based on current practice truth but because it reaffirms the status quo. Money does influence the environment and without the ethical vigilance referred to by Galbraith it will keep destroying it. What if the statement was turned on its head? The environment controls the economy therefore a healthy environment can cure the economy; this to me sounds more true. The increasing destructive natural forces have demonstrated the large amount of investment needed to repair damages that play havoc on local economies and have been reflected on the money market.

 For those of us that have a vision for something different we are trapped in a system that rewards those that fit into current modes of thought and production, it is much easier to make a living doing what is expected than to find alternatives. This is a dilemma that haunts those that dedicate their time and effort in exploration without compromise. We walk on the edge of a precipice immersed in fog  not knowing if our next step will be on solid ground.