Goldsmith argues, "I don't think there is anything to invest. I think the solutions are already there. The people who lived in the valleys of India for 2,000 years are likely to know how to farm the land. The idea of an American graduate coming and teaching them is preposterous and fanciful. I studied irrigation and found that the traditional ways were fine"
Ecology is a way of looking at the world in a subjective and emotional manner-not just as an objective and rational entity.
It involves seeing the world with awe, admiration and self-effacement -and, as something to feel part of, rather than to manipulate.
The tropical rain forest is mankind's lungs. Though the Earth cannot live without the rain forest-or, nature's 'automaton' that turns carbon dioxide into oxygen-one alarming fact is palpable. About 30,000 hectares of rain forest are destroyed practically each day by burning to making way for beef farmers and fields for arable agriculturists; and, by felling to obtain wood as raw material, or fuel, and to smelt ore, construct roads and dams.
In its totality, this 'devilmay-care' destruction amounts to a phenomenal loss of 200,000 square kilometres annually - enough to 'suffocate' Mother Earth.
To pick another example.
The depletion of amphibious species across the world. Amphibians are monitors of our environment.
They are, however, vulnerable to a host of influences - primarily because they are not protected by scales as fish are. This isn't all. Habitat destruction, massive logging operations, agriculture, widespread industrialisation, automobile pollution, acid rain, pesticides and chemical abuse are also the extended causes for their dwindling population. Yet another common analogy is: no trees, no tree frogs. Of the 3,000-odd known species of amphibians in the world, a few may be doing well. The inference is clear: the frog is an ecological touchstone. A requiem to its existence could possibly set a good number of poorly understood dominoes tumbling.
There are several other problems, too. Of whaling, including a host of scientific experiments on them - in the Antarctica and elsewhere.
This brings us, inevitably, to the two faces of science. One of advance, prosperity and happiness; the other, destruction. It is apparent that ecological deterioration has, indeed, been a definitive outcome of a compelling misconception about the natural world. That it exists in a steady state, under normal circumstances; its sense of balance is disturbed only when people infringe upon its working order.
Hence, the big question.
Are we any wiser with scientific knowledge and advance? Not really. Take for instance, ecological inspiration. It has been proposed that a host of enlightened ideas could be drawn from the sublime principles of ancient civilisations-most notably, the Vedic concept of thought.
This knowledge may also be sought from the traditional, vernacular individual too, whose old commitment, eternal in every emotive way, not just as an objective and rational entity.
It involves seeing the world with wonder, awe, and humility-as something to feel part of, rather than to exploit."
Goldsmith's premise of the traditional man is confined to logic - of benefits based on appropriate climate and copious supply of sense, could help us maintain that delicate, harmonious order, so essential to preserving Earth in a hospitable, generous and habitable state.
To paraphrase the noted ecologist Edward Goldsmith: "The idea was probably entertained, explicitly and implicitly, by all vernacular societies. Ecology is a way of looking at the world, in a personal and the source of life, water. "If you respect the biosphere, you can also evolve a system, a behavioural pattern that enabled the traditional man to preserve the critical order of the biosphere."
"The present worldview," as Goldsmith underlines, "serves to rationalise and legitimise today's policies.
Its most basic tenet is the tenet of progress, and the idea that science, technology and industry are going to create a paradise." He adds, "This is the worldview of modernism which believes that all benefits are man-made. The benefits are measured in terms of man-made goods that you acquire, or possess. It does not take into account the non-man-made benefits: a favourable climate, fertile soil, and water. The view that legitimises a sustainable policy towards a sustainable and fulfilling society was the traditional world-view."
Goldsmith argues, "I don't think there is anything to invest. I think the solutions are already there.
The people who lived in the valleys of India for 2,000 years are likely to know how to farm the land. The idea of an American graduate coming and teaching them is preposterous and fanciful. I studied irrigation and found that the traditional ways were fine."
In realistic terms, Goldsmith's concept of ecology is based on the Vedic principle of 'rika', the behavioural form aimed at maintaining the decisive order of the cosmos: of the 'religion' of the Earth as found in the Vedas, and in early Greek scriptures.
He elaborates: "Science is superstition and a pernicious one at that. It has no foundations. There's no epistemological justification for modern science. It is like sitting in the air.
Things like neo-Darwinism are simply a farce. It's evident that the climate operates on the basis of self-regulatory processes. If it depends on our conscious effort through technology, there's little hope. Man is a bloody idiot; he's no 'sapien'.
Fortunately, god or whoever created the evolutionary processes knew it.
Hence, the functioning of our body, or metabolism, is well insulated against human follies."Well, if population explosion is itself a consequence of economic progress, "I have," as Goldsmith explains, "realised that the only answer to our problems is to return to the traditional type of society as Mahatma Gandhi understood it. What we are trying to do is impossible.
So, I opt for the difficult."
Isn't this a perfect summary on how we've, with technological advance, reduced the human brain into a gadget? Is there a way out of this imbroglio? Possibly, yes - it calls for restoring balance in life and environment and transforming social and economic structures to solving problems. Is this asking for just too much?
Nidamboor is a wellness physician, independent researcher and author
A version of this article appears in the print on May 16, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.
