On May 6th, 1903, Pres. Teddy Roosevelt made a speech at the Grand Canyon, in which he said:
"Leave it as is. You can not improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it."That sounds correct to me. And so sensible. The reactionary opposition of the Right to environmentalist policy is as
irrational as is the hippie Pangaea-worship on the Left. Of course, one of these positions - with its animism, emphasis on the religious experience afforded by hallucinogens, and myth-based reverence for nature - is actually rooted in ancient tradition. I'll let you guess which. Hint: it's
not the ironically named "Conservative" one.
Irrationality is not, in itself, a thing to be assiduously scorned. Some of the best reasons to be alive derive their goodness from irrationality. Faith, poetry, love, laughter, blue cheese dressing. I'm sure many of these can be explained in rational ways, but, experientially, those explanations are irrelevant. What matters is the feeling. And that feeling is, by definition, irrational.
So there are ratios and formulas that govern our sense of musical aesthetics? O.K. I'm willing to go along with that. But just because you can chart the mathematical relationships of chord progressions or scan my brain - quantifying how my neurons fire when I hear the Kinks'
Waterloo Sunset - that doesn't mean you can qualitatively demystify the response. If anything, you've deepened the mystery. As
C.S. Lewis wrote, the study of the phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are separate, discrete, and mutually exclusive; the parsing of something precludes experiencing it, like a macroscopic version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
For all our attempts to put reality into a box, irrationality persists.
What is troubling about how this irrationality manifests itself on the Right with respect to the environment and Darwinism - evinced by their obdurate denial of the consensus on global warming and evolutionary biology - is its stubborn self-delusion. It is irrationality masking itself as rationality, speaking in terms of nominally persuasive labels like "millennial trends" and "coincidental aberrations" and "non-representative samples" and "holes in the fossil record." Such misguided efforts to (mis)use science to disprove science underscore a willful blindness. There is madness in their method.
All of this intellectual energy being expended for the purpose of what? To dress up what is essentially an emotional and religious resistance to new ideas. In other words: irrationality. Is it such a dirty little secret? Have the meanings of our words become warped beyond all usefulness?
“
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.” - ConfuciusIrrationality is no more "bad" than any of our other characteristics. Is it wrong to cry? Is it evil to get butterflies in your stomach? To deny our emotional needs, to suppress our religious longings, is to be half-aware, half-alive. It is self-denial in its most comprehensive and most devastating form.
I am not suggesting that one's subjective, internal experience should trump objective, external evidence. I am suggesting that subjectivity is inevitable and therefore ignoring it - in the quixotic pursuit of "personal" objectivity - is ultimately harmful. In Taoist terms: by seeking objectivity, you produce its opposite.
So what does this mean for the anti-green activity on the Right? It means stop fighting science. The effort you exert is wasted. It would be better spent attempting to reconcile the rational and the irrational, the two essential and complementary aspects of the human condition. We were given two halves of a brain. Let's use them both.
For my own part, the few times in my life when I've tried to keep sight of this have been among the most rewarding. In June, 2003 - just over a hundred years after Roosevelt's speech - my one-time college roommate and all-time best (male) friend, Willis [note the parenthetical, Rach] and I visited Roosevelt Point at the North Rim. It was shady and cool on an otherwise warm day, so we stayed for the better part of an hour. And we just watched it. The longer I looked, the more I noticed something strange: across the Canyon, leading up to the edge there spanned a wide plateau, mostly under the care of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Due to some trick of the light or the gradation of the topography, it looked as if I could see the curvature of the Earth. Rationally, I knew that was impossible. But there it was. And I couldn't stop looking at it. Had I dismissed it and walked away, I would have missed out on what I now consider one of the central religious experiences of my life.

In the end, we moved on because we "reasoned" that there were other sights to see, other stops on the itinerary we had set. We wanted to "maximize" our time. It seemed like the rational thing to do. Looking back, that doesn't make any sense at all.