« »

Helium, Aesthetics, and the Problem of Anthropocentrism

On the Lament of Thoreau, Muir, and Abbey

Of course I litter the public highway. Every chance I get. After all, it’s not the beer cans that are ugly; it’s the highway that is ugly. — Ed Abbey (“The Second Rape of The West,” 1975)

The long run is longer than we – anthropocentric humans – think. Taking a step back so that we can see far into the future, the biggest problem facing “our” planet is the buildup of helium at “our” sun’s core, a natural byproduct of a star’s burning of it’s hydrogen fuel. Eventually this buildup will result in the sun getting much more luminous and thus much hotter, which in turn will eventually cause the Earth’s oceans to dry… or more accurately, to boil away. This planet’s climate will become much like that of Venus – inhospitable for “green” life to say the least. [At this point, only a very aged and even more stubborn Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will still be denying global warming, ever vigilantly protecting us from the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” until the end…] In “the end,” which for this planet’s purposes will be in about 7.6 billion years, Earth will be swallowed by a then Red Giant sun-star, and even the cockroaches will be fucked. It will be one hell of a sunset, and will probably make a very big noise, if only we were around to see and hear it. “If a planet bursts into flames in the middle of a galaxy and no one is around to see it…”

Which brings us to the problem of anthropocentrism, or the belief that we, humans, are the center of the universe, and more important and powerful than any other aspect of it. We are only interested in the planet and it’s “health,” as it relates to us. When we talk of “saving the planet” we are talking about saving it for ourselves. The rocky quasi-sphere we inhabit is eventually going to collapse into the sun regardless of human contributions to global warming. We would like to think that we have the power to destroy “our” planet, but in reality, we only have the power to ruin it for ourselves. Earth will spin on, with or without humanity, for another 7.6 billion years or so, and then it won’t. Despite our anthropocentric arrogance, we are not in the business of saving or changing stellar and galactic fates.  We would need to change the laws of physics, not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if we are really to “save” this planet from it’s scientifically destined end. And why would we, humans, want to alter the natural death of this planet anyway? See anthropocentrism.

I suppose that some of our species members, especially those whose primary concerns are not finding food, water and shelter for themselves and their families, find meaning in green ethics. We as a species once found meaning in conquering an inhospitable planet. It was our destiny. Now we find meaning in saving a doomed one. It is the new White Man’s Burden. Perhaps removing our impact from the planet constitutes the final redemption of our species. Guilt: its what makes up human. Cockroaches don’t feel or do such things.

The environmental movement, of course, did not begin with the ethical cause of saving the planet for ourselves. It begin with the aesthetic (and, yes,  typically anthropocentrically selfish) cause of keeping it beautiful for ourselves. Smog in the cities was ugly more than it was unhealthy. We were asked to “Keep America Beautiful,” well before we were asked to save the planet. Now, even the term “green aesthetics” has been hijacked by green ethically inclined artists who seek to create green products. DON’T CREATE ANYTHING AT ALL! Stop being so… human.

So for now, ethics trumps aesthetics in the environmental movement. Longing for an idyllic, pristine, and pastoral planet is, admittedly, selfish. The desire to create and develop in order save is very human(e). We have chosen to hitch our fate to ethics over aesthetics, so let them cry:  Thoreau at Walden, Muir in the Sierra, Abbey somewhere underneath the hot sand of the American desert… and Iron Eyes Cody, too, on the side of an eco-friendly highway.  But the highway is already ugly and the beer cans don’t contribute all that much to global warming anyway. Nor do more aesthetically pleasing green bottles.

“Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride…”

11 responses to “Helium, Aesthetics, and the Problem of Anthropocentrism”

  1. Avatar lee lee says:

    A) happy half-way to st. pat’s day!!
    B) i like the idea of the environment being the “white man’s burden.” that way, i don’t have to think about it anymore (read: can go back to throwing my miller high life bottles cans out on the highway again). thank you for this deconstructed demystification.
    C) can you be a guest speaker in my {ethics} seminar and present a lecture entitled “Ethics Over Aesthetics.” it has a really nice ring…

  2. kfrayz kfrayz says:

    In Memory of Abbey:
    No Comment

    • kfrayz kfrayz says:

      Being the anthropocentric human that I am, I began thinking about my thoughts and my feelings in regards to this post, and realized I do in fact have a comment.
      Aesthetic itself is a complex thought. I am referring of course, to the term “aesthetic”.
      In itself is up for interpretation to each individual. So there it…is problematic. Whether in art, self or now the “green (ugh) movement”?

  3. Avatar ecrussell says:

    Is it the litter on the highway or the emissions that we are truly concerned about? I remember environmentally concerned citizens opposing wind farms because they were “ugly.” Clean is no longer beautiful. As someone who values clean air/water, but also likes pristine wilderness, I don’t know what to do about this.

    • kfrayz kfrayz says:

      I thank all those who have so carelessly tossed the beautiful array of glass to the sea. For if it was not for them and the work of the tumbling tides I could not enjoy being a huntress of these gems. Of course these are secret missions! For the irony that lies in this, is it is not the “visual pollution” of wind farms that is dreadful to the “environmentally conscience citizen” but that the mere thought of my proletarian toes occupying their private pristine beaches makes them shake in their britches.

  4. Avatar Mark says:

    Call me an anthropocentrist but human-induced climate change leading to Runaway Greenhouse Effect concerns me.
    A scenario like this could result in a Venus-like atmosphere much sooner than the cosmological timeline you are speaking of.

  5. kfrayz kfrayz says:

    I wouldn’t be so sure…according to the EXTREMELY religious women sitting behind me today in the coffee shop {read praying before and after meal}…the torrential downpours we have been having in the Northeast, the fiscal crisis, and her son’s inability to find a wife… all subjects of Nostradamus’s quatrains.

  6. […] fear is that I will die before the final episode of American Idol.” I’ve noted before in this space that the end of the world would be must see TV. But alas, I’m quite certain that the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

« »
RSS | Contact | Contribute | Login


December 2009
Season Finale
November 2009
{Seven Deadly} Sins
October 2009
Mischief Making
September 2009
Green Ethics
August 2009