The closer one comes to understanding the essence of “postnaturalism” (a la Erle) the more one suspects that what is being peddled is a rather familiar brand of mainstream environmentalism colored by a tinge of realism and pragmatism. The story goes something like this: “returning nature to something approaching an ‘original state’ is both unfeasible and undesirable. Approaching environmentalism with unrealistic goals confuses the problem and risks sacrificing the achievable in our foolish quest for the unachievable.” Instead, a pragmatic, realistic philosophy is in order: “Seek truth from facts. Do not assume that human impact is necessarily harmful. Try not to exaggerate the problem and inappropriately shout ‘fire’ in the theater. Rather, let us each become empowered to contribute, little by little, to a global solution for mankind.” Sadly, the realism of the philosophy is premised on underlying assumptions about human behavior and politics which are patently unrealistic. Perhaps this philosophy would have a fighting chance if, on balance, folks were rational, reasonable, knowledgeable, and willing to place value on the mostly diffuse, usually shared, and at times intangible benefits that nature affords. The phrase “business as usual” implies a well established mode of doing things: Average Joe becomes settled into a particular way of living; economies get organized such that certain interests wield power; political institutions become entrenched, gaining inertia. That is, there is a certain path-dependency to the way we do things and think about the way we do things. On the micro level it is manifest in a rampant consumer culture and an impoverished understanding of the value and importance of healthy ecosystems. At the macro level it is manifest in a primarily “western” development formula and growth model—the catch up and be like America plan. If the project of creating a “sustainable” future—a goal that I believe ‘postnaturalism’ shares—is to succeed, what is required is nothing short of a revolution in the way we think and do things. The problem is this: entrenched social and political orders undergo dramatic changes usually in the face of a precipitating crisis: financial regulation is overhauled only after the system teeters on collapse; the Montreal Protocol is signed and implemented after a gaping hole in the Ozone is discovered; a department of Homeland Security is created once it is realized that the CIA and FBI failed to coordinate intelligence and prevent a spectacular terrorist strike. The point is simply this: tragically, people and the political systems they create tend to be reactive, and not proactive. Sadly, Erle’s postnaturalism, though boasting the virtues of realism and pragmatism suggests that the Titanic’s captain should stay the course until presented with overwhelming evidence; he should objectively judge the facts, not hastily drawing conclusions about the size and likely impact of the iceberg’s collision; and alas, he should draw comfort from knowing that the Titanic is “virtually unsinkable” and that, in any event, lifeboats are plentiful, at least for the wealthy among us. Of course, many “crises” (as the Swine Flu for instance) turn out to be just “scares.” But many crises really are crises. When it comes to the environment, it is perhaps most prudent to err on the side of caution. And second, and perhaps most importantly, if you intend to mobilize the masses, which in a political system like ours, is the precondition for any deep political change, then you simply have to create alarm. It’s really the only way. By and large, the masses are not informed, concerned, and empowered stewards of the commons. They’re asses. They respond to incentives. Education helps. But fundamentally, people respond to the largely self-interested incentive structures they face. First you create alarm. Then you pass laws. And you change the incentive structures that govern the many many individual and firm cost-benefit calculations. This is why Obama’s message is: (1) Folks, we’re in a once in a century crisis, (2) if we don’t do something we’re cooked, (3) what we need to do is reform healthcare, overhaul education, and create a green economy. This is ‘postnaturalism’ to the extent that Obama is likely quite pragmatic and realistic, but the strategy does not share Erle’s ‘take it easy, study the facts, do not create panic’ style. And the simple reason is this: Obama understands politics and human nature, while Erle, a student of physical nature, does not. So, here’s perhaps a more “realistic” version of postnatural philosophy: “Look at the evidence. Err on the side of caution, keeping in mind that people will impact ecosystems. Exaggerate the evidence and scare people. Never assume that the goodness and knowledge of people will by itself create sustainability. Push through major reforms when the political climate is favorable. Bias incentive structures in favor of sustainability and the environment.”  

I agree completely with what you are saying and I think that many others do as well. I think there is a rapidly growing awareness that "status quo environmentalism" based on "there is a natural and we need to save it" is an idea has outlived its usefulness. People are getting this but institutions, including environmental groups, adapt much more slowly (that's the political problem).

We need to focus on managing all of the resources available to us. And as you note in a separate post, on a planet with 6.5 billion human inhabitants -soon to be 9 billion- this is a fundamental justice issue.

One stumbling block is that your message, as presented in the Wired article, has a cornucopian ring to it. You might say, "no that's not what I meant", but that's what I got and some will react negatively to that.

Sounded like an elaborate argument for optimism to me. On that, I have no issues with it. But to deny what is both intuitively and otherwise being acknowledged as fact is an unhealthy way of advocating optimism. In order to be optimistic, you don't have to trash anyone.

Just a note: Perhaps you might rethink that line about zoos at the end of your original article. Zoos are pretty horrific places. I suggest the book Thought to Exist in the Wild, by Derrick Jensen.

In an interesting twist of fate, both you and Derrick appear to be asking the same question; specifically: "Does anyone think this culture will voluntarily transform to a sustainable way of living?" You are saying "yes" and he is saying "no."

Personally, I like to walk the line between those answers as I realize coming to a conclusion would turn me into an ideologue... something I want to avoid. We won't really know the answer for quite some time, but the estimates of when catastrophic climate change will come into effect seem to keep getting closer, so maybe not so long.

I think that many others do as well. I think there is a rapidly growing awareness that "status quo environmentalism" based on "there is a natural and we need to save it" is an idea has outlived its usefulness. People are getting this but institutions, including environmental groups, adapt much more slowly.
http://www.club-penguin.org/

Entirely true, and sad facts in this article.  Thank your much great read.

I want to share a story that helps us to understand that we
are the problem and the solution

To the Future of the living planet
and to Humanity who has all the knowldge, and tech we need
http://www.dragonlorechronicles.blogspot
The Legand of Heros those threwout time, that have Stood
For IDEAS, and Freedom to BUILD what we need

Personally; I believe the planet will destroy us long before we destroy it.  Yes, we do have an impact to be watched and adjusted; too prevent further degradation of our only planet.

Thanks for the very intersting aricle my friend!
I think we should care more for the planet.
This is kind of sad how we just take take take and sooner or later its all gone : (

best wishes