Here's the thing -- designing a garden, by its very definition, is an
act against nature. A garden manipulates and contorts nature through the
filter of our cultural and imaginative biases. These biases change over
years and centuries and vary by class, gender, race, etc. But why a
gardener (or landscape designer) must then throw up their hands and
continue to do whatever they want -- even in the face of mass
extinctions, ecosystem eradication, and climate change -- is beyond me.
We like things how they are even if they hurt us.
A garden of
native plants is at least an attempt to understand what we've altered
beyond recognition, and heal the rift between our culture and the
culture of flora and fauna around us that have given rise to our
evolution -- and given rise to our free will to do whatever we like. A
garden focused on exotics is a continual affirmation that we know
better, that the planet is here to serve only us, and that we can do no
harm; this is a delusion endemic to our species.
9 comments:
I guess as a novice gardener, it is easier for me to see the need to plant native as my desire to garden came from my desire to have a wildlife friendly yard. It seems so obvious to me.... Michelle
Gardening with exotics was never an affirmation that one knows better. It has and will continue to be about doing as one pleases simply because one can.
Allan -- And that's the problem. Doing what one pleases because one can. That's why we have climate change, why species are vanishing, why oil pipelines rupture, and the Pacific Ocean has a floating garbage patch the size of Texas. So I do think planting exotics is an affirmation that one knows better and to hell with having a functioning planet.
"Nature red in tooth and claw." You're using "garden" as a metaphor for something far larger. Why not place the anger and blame where they belong? I don't agree that gardening is an act against nature. We are part of nature.
James that's either a whole new argument or a whole new dimension -- we are part of nature. Yes and no. We evolved on this planet, we are the planet figuring itself out. But then we also manipulate nature in very radical ways, from farming to gardening to genetics. Is it an issue of semantics? Yes, I'm using "garden" as a metaphor, but also as the act itself -- I'm not condemning gardening or gardeners, I'm saying isn't it an extension of how we influence other areas of nature? Is that ok? Why or why not?
We're part of nature and we make nuclear weapons, and have used them. Isn't that of much more import for the future than how we garden? (I'm not talking about agribusiness kind of "gardening" here.) I don't see the point, unless you're talking about something like original sin or some poison, some taint we bring into the nature that exists apart from us (if there is such a thing, which I doubt). I don't think I'm trying to be argumentative. I just don't get your point.
James -- Hey, I don't care if you are argumentative or not, no worries. I see my posts since July building on one another as I get deeper into whatever it is I'm getting into -- a book I hope. Did you ever read this post? http://deepmiddle.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-garden-divorce-with-sunflower.html
With all due respect to the intelligent thinker that you are, if there is a book percolating here, you will need empirical evidence to support your concerns. Otherwise, erudite readers will not take your passion seriously. I get the impression that, in a world filled mostly with skeptics, one's personal, fervent idealism is not enough to convince most people.
Allan -- I'm sure every artist or writer has heard that, from the well known to the never known. Don't worry, I have the empirical evidence -- I have the science, the art, the philosophy, all of it ready to be brought together (logos, ethos, pathos). Still, fervent idealism is what starts one on the journey, and I don't think downplaying it will help out our species very much. Without idealism we'd all be screwed.
Post a Comment