You may argue, perhaps: true, our capacity to see has diminished, but
such loss is merely the price all higher cultures have to pay. We have lost, no
doubt, the American Indian's keen sense of smell, but we also no longer need it
since we have binoculars, compass, and radar. Let me repeat: in this obviously
continuing process there exists a limit below which human nature itself is
threatened, and the very integrity of human existence is itself endangered.
Therefore, such ultimate danger can no longer be averted with technology alone.
At stake here is this: How can man be saved from becoming a totally passive
consumer of mass-produced goods and a subservient followerbeholden to every
slogan the managers may proclaim? The question really is: How can man preserve
and safeguard the foundation of his spiritual dimension and an uncorrupted
relationship to reality?
The capacity to perceive the visible world 'with our own eyes' is
indeed an essential constituent of human nature. We are talking here about man's
essential inner richness-- or, should the threat prevail, man's most abject
inner poverty. And why so? To see things is the first step toward
that primordial and basic mental grasping of reality, whic constitutes the
essence of man as a spiritual being. [...]
The diagnosis is indispensable yet only a first step. What, then, may
be proposed; what can be done?
We already mentioned simple abstention, a regimen of fasting and
abstinence, by which we would try to keep the visual noise of daily inanity at a
distance. Such an approach seems to me indeed an indispensable first step but,
all the same, no more than the removal, say, of a roadblock.
A better and more immediate remedy is this: to be active oneself
in artistic creation, producing shapes and forms for the eye to
see.
In this essay Pieper observes the increasing speed at which we are coming to interact with the world exclusively through various instruments, and therefore less directly through our own five senses. While he is no primitivist-- that is to say he does not oppose technology as such or propose a "return to nature"-- he does argue that we have come to a limit at which this process has ceased to be simply the development of helpful tools and has begun to undermine the natural proportion between man and the world. Let us reflect for a moment on how these principles might be applied to environmentalism today.
Many people I talk to seem to feel something similar to what Pieper describes, though it remains on the level of intuition. Especially among those interested in the rise of organic farming there seems to be a desire not simply to have healthier food, but to go out and interact with nature in one's own body. This often seems to be an unconscious and unreflective conviction. If it's only a matter of saying "I like how it feels to see and touch things in my own body," then it is perfectly fine for it to remain so. Pieper goes a step further in pronouncing our inability to see with our own eyes to be a danger to human nature.
To say this problem involves anything like a danger to human nature requires us to affirm that there is an established natural order that is intentional. If not, we simply have two different ways of perceiving the world, and do not have grounds for saying anything more. If it's only a matter of preferring one mode of perception, then we could aim at creating drugs to make people stop caring just as well as we could aim at teaching them to see with their own eyes again. Though many people with a newly discovered green mentality seem to feel we must get back to interacting directly with nature, such a claim is only possible if we suppose man is meant to be in this world, that there is a proportion which must be preserved. If not, then any solution, even one which further alienates us from our environment, is acceptable so long as it is sustainable. Very likely the most sustainable possibility is the option of complete alienation not only from our environment but even from our own bodies: life inside the computer.
Thus the concept of sustainability, taken on its own, could logically lead to the opposite of where the green movement expects it to take us. If there's no intention in the natural order, then the harmony between man and his environment proposed by many environmentalists is no more sensible than a total alienation from our environment. The ultimate realization of this principle would be hooking one's brain up to a computer and letting the body die, but there are any number of intermediate stages which could be proposed. These ideas are no longer pure science fiction, but are increasingly being seen as real possibilities for the future. If it's only the practical question of sustainability we are interested in, a cyber utopia along these lines might be preferable to direct interaction with the environment. It might be more efficient. It might be less harmful.
The fact that so many environmentalists seem to feel it is good not simply to make human life less damaging to the earth, but also to have people experience nature directly, suggests to me we ought to be reflecting more on these topics. If it is good, then there is an objective order to life that must be preserved, and not just the practical question of survival. Ultimately this means that only theology can truly support this mentality. It falls apart when viewed materialistically. Once we admit such an order in the world we also realize that this is a matter of preserving the integrity of a fastly distorting human nature, not simply an environmental question.
Sadly, most people who believe in natural law have focused their intention on a handful of moral controversies and completely ignored these more subtle shifts in mentality. On the other hand, many environementalists feel intuitively that there is a proportion between man and his environment which should be preserved, but lack the philosophical foundation to make this anything more than a sentiment. Soon, as the green movement becomes increasingly mainstream and our lives become more dominated by video screens we will be forced to take a hard look at these questions. Hopefully we will have the good sense to admit there are controversies here that are more than practical, but are metaphysical and moral.
If this makes any sense to you, I reiterate Pieper's advice: limit your use of technology, especially as used for inane entertainment, and engage in creative activity.
The Pope speaks on rural life: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/POPRURAL.HTM
