Embarrassingly, my very own brother is one of those with a tightly fenced quadrangle of artificial grass. (He is equally embarrassed by my living in the wild- funny how far the apple falls). Good post. Let the weeds grow.🌱
I love this perspective! I live in an area that I am convinced would become a forest if left to it’s own devices. It is very challenging (especially with our busy lives) to maintain even a low standard of neatness. The good part is, when you walk or drive through our neighborhood, you see the trees first and the houses second. I realized the other day how much this means to me emotionally. It helps that we are an older development and that most houses are smaller than what is the expectation for newer builds. Of course, the compromise is less square footage for us and our consumer stuff (which is what really uses up the space). Thank you for the thought provoking re-frame of this topic.
That is a really interesting point Síochána, about how the smaller houses allow for less consumption/accumulation of stuff. I had not thought about that before — but it seems like a pretty fundamental factor in explaining the mass consumeristic age we live in and how houses have seemingly grown in size. Thank you greatly for this brilliant comment.
Interestingly enough, I just read a book on this subject. It was called Islands of Abandonment, by Cal Flyn, and it was descriptions of places where the humans left, whether by necessity-like Pripyat-or because they were simply done with it, and how nature comes back again, even the harshest environments. So reading your essay I see the so-called "urban decay" you described and these places as well.
Thanks Titus, that looks like a splendid book. I'll have to look out for it. The ability of nature to recolonise is extraordinary, even in those hardest environments as you rightly mention.
Really thought provoking piece, which I agree with. That said, I always wanted to live in a city. I chose the neighbourhood where I am raising my family based on its amenities, its position on the tube map and affordability. But a few years ago I started to see it differently. I now remind myself that I live between two rivers, on the edge of a forest in an area that has only pretty recently (150 years or so) been claimed from the countryside. I see hope in that, despite the massive amount of high-rise house-building going on all around us. Hamburg does it well, Amsterdam too - they bring green into every corner, giving the city a completely different feel. I don’t know why we’re so bad at it. Some of the pedestrianised new build areas in east London are devoid of anything living.
Several things strike me about your meditation. First, they are many plants that only live in what we call ‘disturbed areas’. They are the colonizers that help restore the wasteland back to a more original state. And they typically are only found in abandoned areas and are very useful plants. Second, at least here in America, the use of deadly chemicals used in industrialized agriculture have decimated insect, bird and small mammal populations. I remember so many more species being present when I was a child of the 1960’s than now. Next is the introduction of non-native species to areas without natural predators. Too many native species get overtaken by invasive species to the point of extinction which is avoidable. I know in the state of Oregon, invasive blackberries can overtake native rhododendrons to the point that bulldozers are needed for the blackberries removal!! But lastly and with hope, nature is marvelously resilient if left to its own devices. Green spaces in urban areas can and do make a comeback if we just allow the time and space for the healing.
Great observations NilaMae, especially about the disturbance species. I studied ecology at university and 'ruderals' were something we studied. I wish I had included this in the essay now!
Oh well! There’s always a next time. Maybe a post just about them? Because in my humble opinion, there are very important to the total ecological system.
Lovely meditation. I am, however, reminded of a question I’ve often had, which is, what do we mean by “nature”? There is value in making a distinction between the man-made and everything else, yet at the same time this is distinction is itself largely man-made, for we are also inescapably part of nature. To some degree, I think that an excessive emphasis on this distinction is a major cause of our problems with the rest of creation, just as an excessive emphasis on the distinction between body and soul leads to spiritual problems. “Dominion” when a part is quite different from “Dominion” when apart. By way of analogy, consider the difference between the relationship of a coach and a team captain with the rest of the team.
Thanks Jonathan, this is a subject worthy of much thought and discussion. I think we too easily draw a hard and fast line on what is unnatural vs natural and this does have some pretty significant ramifications for conservation and our use of creation. e.g. classing habits as semi-natural because they have had human influence could in the eyes of some make them less valuable habitats than pristine habitats. This is a flawed view in my opinion as semi-natural habitats often display great beauty, high biodiversity and cultural significance.
That being said, I think it is still worth making some distinction between man-made and nature, otherwise we are too easy to forget in this consumeristic world that there is value in keeping some habitats pristine/letting nature take its course. I would also want to keep a distinction between "artificial and natural", in part to defend and advocate for those things we deem as natural - which tend to be displaced/out competed by artificial things which tend to be cheaper, more efficient etc (e.g. artificial vs natural fertiliser).
Sorry if this is a bit rambling - my thoughts are not yet fully formed in response to this good question.
Beautiful essay, Hadden. There's an element of survival present in learning how to accept the rewilding of urban spaces, or really any human-inhabited spaces, and I think that's often forgotten when whipping out the weedkiller (or insecticide or rat poison or possum traps). What fits into a neat and tidy visual box isn't necessarily going to be what ensures inhabitable environments for future generations of human life. In our readiness to stamp out "nature" there's been quite the forgetting of relevant facts: WE are nature, and our survival actually directly depends on non-human life more than it depends on any structures we might erect.
Thanks Jan. You are right there certainly is an element of survival (or at the very least well-being) here - especially when we consider all the different services nature provides us (pollination, natural pest control, flood mitigation etc).
And a hearty YES, to this :"WE are nature, and our survival actually directly depends on non-human life more than it depends on any structures we might erect."
Embarrassingly, my very own brother is one of those with a tightly fenced quadrangle of artificial grass. (He is equally embarrassed by my living in the wild- funny how far the apple falls). Good post. Let the weeds grow.🌱
I love this perspective! I live in an area that I am convinced would become a forest if left to it’s own devices. It is very challenging (especially with our busy lives) to maintain even a low standard of neatness. The good part is, when you walk or drive through our neighborhood, you see the trees first and the houses second. I realized the other day how much this means to me emotionally. It helps that we are an older development and that most houses are smaller than what is the expectation for newer builds. Of course, the compromise is less square footage for us and our consumer stuff (which is what really uses up the space). Thank you for the thought provoking re-frame of this topic.
That is a really interesting point Síochána, about how the smaller houses allow for less consumption/accumulation of stuff. I had not thought about that before — but it seems like a pretty fundamental factor in explaining the mass consumeristic age we live in and how houses have seemingly grown in size. Thank you greatly for this brilliant comment.
Interestingly enough, I just read a book on this subject. It was called Islands of Abandonment, by Cal Flyn, and it was descriptions of places where the humans left, whether by necessity-like Pripyat-or because they were simply done with it, and how nature comes back again, even the harshest environments. So reading your essay I see the so-called "urban decay" you described and these places as well.
Thanks Titus, that looks like a splendid book. I'll have to look out for it. The ability of nature to recolonise is extraordinary, even in those hardest environments as you rightly mention.
Thank you. I love your stuff so much, keep up the good work!
Really thought provoking piece, which I agree with. That said, I always wanted to live in a city. I chose the neighbourhood where I am raising my family based on its amenities, its position on the tube map and affordability. But a few years ago I started to see it differently. I now remind myself that I live between two rivers, on the edge of a forest in an area that has only pretty recently (150 years or so) been claimed from the countryside. I see hope in that, despite the massive amount of high-rise house-building going on all around us. Hamburg does it well, Amsterdam too - they bring green into every corner, giving the city a completely different feel. I don’t know why we’re so bad at it. Some of the pedestrianised new build areas in east London are devoid of anything living.
Several things strike me about your meditation. First, they are many plants that only live in what we call ‘disturbed areas’. They are the colonizers that help restore the wasteland back to a more original state. And they typically are only found in abandoned areas and are very useful plants. Second, at least here in America, the use of deadly chemicals used in industrialized agriculture have decimated insect, bird and small mammal populations. I remember so many more species being present when I was a child of the 1960’s than now. Next is the introduction of non-native species to areas without natural predators. Too many native species get overtaken by invasive species to the point of extinction which is avoidable. I know in the state of Oregon, invasive blackberries can overtake native rhododendrons to the point that bulldozers are needed for the blackberries removal!! But lastly and with hope, nature is marvelously resilient if left to its own devices. Green spaces in urban areas can and do make a comeback if we just allow the time and space for the healing.
Great observations NilaMae, especially about the disturbance species. I studied ecology at university and 'ruderals' were something we studied. I wish I had included this in the essay now!
Oh well! There’s always a next time. Maybe a post just about them? Because in my humble opinion, there are very important to the total ecological system.
Yes, you are right. They are worthy of an essay in and of themselves. I'll add that to the ideas list
"You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she always comes back." Horace, Epistles i
Very, very true. And often comes back with vengeance!
just fabulous
Lovely meditation. I am, however, reminded of a question I’ve often had, which is, what do we mean by “nature”? There is value in making a distinction between the man-made and everything else, yet at the same time this is distinction is itself largely man-made, for we are also inescapably part of nature. To some degree, I think that an excessive emphasis on this distinction is a major cause of our problems with the rest of creation, just as an excessive emphasis on the distinction between body and soul leads to spiritual problems. “Dominion” when a part is quite different from “Dominion” when apart. By way of analogy, consider the difference between the relationship of a coach and a team captain with the rest of the team.
Thanks Jonathan, this is a subject worthy of much thought and discussion. I think we too easily draw a hard and fast line on what is unnatural vs natural and this does have some pretty significant ramifications for conservation and our use of creation. e.g. classing habits as semi-natural because they have had human influence could in the eyes of some make them less valuable habitats than pristine habitats. This is a flawed view in my opinion as semi-natural habitats often display great beauty, high biodiversity and cultural significance.
That being said, I think it is still worth making some distinction between man-made and nature, otherwise we are too easy to forget in this consumeristic world that there is value in keeping some habitats pristine/letting nature take its course. I would also want to keep a distinction between "artificial and natural", in part to defend and advocate for those things we deem as natural - which tend to be displaced/out competed by artificial things which tend to be cheaper, more efficient etc (e.g. artificial vs natural fertiliser).
Sorry if this is a bit rambling - my thoughts are not yet fully formed in response to this good question.
Beautiful essay, Hadden. There's an element of survival present in learning how to accept the rewilding of urban spaces, or really any human-inhabited spaces, and I think that's often forgotten when whipping out the weedkiller (or insecticide or rat poison or possum traps). What fits into a neat and tidy visual box isn't necessarily going to be what ensures inhabitable environments for future generations of human life. In our readiness to stamp out "nature" there's been quite the forgetting of relevant facts: WE are nature, and our survival actually directly depends on non-human life more than it depends on any structures we might erect.
Thanks Jan. You are right there certainly is an element of survival (or at the very least well-being) here - especially when we consider all the different services nature provides us (pollination, natural pest control, flood mitigation etc).
And a hearty YES, to this :"WE are nature, and our survival actually directly depends on non-human life more than it depends on any structures we might erect."