I discovered a surprising book in my vast library
recently: My Wilderness, East to
Katahdin, by a certain William O. Douglas. Many of us think of the modern
era of environmental awareness as having begun with the 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. But My
Wilderness, published in 1961, has some of the same ideas, though in a less
organized form. Rachel Carson organized the concepts into a powerful argument
and provided all of the scientific references, but William O. Douglas and
probably many others had thought of them earlier. To read more about these
specific concepts, see the essay for this same date on my science blog.
Douglas was a man who hiked all over the continent. He
writes of backpacking in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming; Zion National
Park in Utah; Maroon Bells in Colorado; Baboquivari along the Arizona-Sonora
border; Quetico Provincial Park in Canada; The Smoky Mountains; the Everglades;
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal near Washington, D. C.; and the White Mountains,
Allagash, and Mt. Katahdin in the northeast United States. He was no stranger
to the challenges of survival in the wild. The descriptions in this book are
sometimes evocative and help you to feel like you are actually present in a
place you will probably never visit. But, although I have no doubt that he saw
all of these organisms, his descriptions were usually lists of plants and
animals that sound like he copied them out of a guidebook. There were quite a
few books of this sort published about the same time, such as The Singing Wilderness by Sigurd Olson, The Near Woods by Millard Davis, and One Day at Teton Marsh by Sally
Carrighar. Douglas’s book is highly disorganized, except for each chapter being
about his experience in one particular place.
What makes this book unique is the person who wrote it. Who
was he? Do the black robes in this portrait give you a hint?
William O. Douglas was, throughout nearly all of the time
during which he took the hikes he describes, a Supreme Court justice. He still
holds the record of serving the longest on the Supreme Court, almost 37 years,
from 1939 to 1975. Aside from Teddy Roosevelt shooting big animals and
mistaking it for a love of nature, we have never had—and almost certainly will
never again have—a prominent politician who had or will have such a passionate
and thorough knowledge of the natural world. Today, with the new “conservative”
(vs. conservationist) takeover, it seems that the less you know about science and nature, the more qualified you are for any office, particularly positions in
which you are supervising government conservation and scientific activities.
But even the few remaining liberals in government seem to think that the Earth
is just a stage on which the human drama takes place. Douglas was most famous
for writing the “Rights of Rocks” statement. In the Sierra Club v. Morton suit
regarding the commercial development of Mineral King, just south of Sequoia
National Park in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, Douglas wrote, “Contemporary public concern for
protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of
standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”
That is, trees should be able to sue for their own preservation. Can you
imagine any Supreme Court justice, or any other prominent politician, saying
anything like this today?
But the main
point for this essay in this blog is that Douglas considered Nature to be a
holy place. No wonder the right-wing fundamentalists hated and still hate him.
Bob Dole and Gerald Ford both wanted to see him removed from office. Thousands
of books are published with the theme that nature is holy, and millions of
people believe it, but none of them in such a prominent position as the one
Douglas held. Just read these words: “If we make conservation a national cause
we can raise generations who will learn that the earth itself is sacred. Once a
person breaks through to the level where love of beauty is the ideal, he will
worship the rocks and plains that are America. Then he will look on a tuft of
grass with awe. For it has the secret of chlorophyll that man hardly
comprehends” (page 32). Nearly every modern conventional Christian would
consider Douglas to be a pagan for saying such things. Yet his view is the only
one that can allow us to survive into the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment