The cutting of trees spawns strong moral reactions from some. Vlad, a seldom bathing semi-intellectual who is the housemate of my brother in Portland, informs us that one must "respect the tree" in order to take its life. Another barefooted character who is in the circle of the house claims of all things that "trees are more important than human beings".
In Santa Cruz, I recall a withered ancient Black Walnut that had been there since the time of Captain Davenport needing to be removed. The City Council wanted to remove it but met with great public outrage and at last agreed upon steep heading cuts back to the remaining stem. After the cuts were made, hippies ascended into the remaining branches rubbing hemp salve onto the exposed cambium.
Recently I was removing some offending branches from Mrs. Jones' tree which happened to be half in a small organic garden's lot here in Portland. As I was removing them a hippy came out of the woodwork and piped up "hey, that tree can
feel that.""Oh," I said "haven't you heard the news: trees do not have nervous systems!"
And in the pause there was no retort, but, looking down upon him from above I could see that a great thunderclap of Reason had stultified his bird's nest mind.
He bitched a little more about the tree and told me he was an "spiritualist" as though that would let him off the hook and have some currency with me.
" I continued, "Animism is dead now 2000 years. Yeah, the idea that trees have souls with feeling died with the ancient Greeks. Get with it, man. Think it through with the tools of a man appropriate to your age: let slip the last vestige of the magical view of reality that is childhood."
Later he slipped away without comment like a summer plum that had been stripped of its thin coat.
So, you see, there are all of these kind of cases of hippies complaining about the moral problems in cutting trees. And they always come back to how much feeling is there in a tree--as though the moral problem in cutting trees consists in offending the
person of the tree. Again and again the problem is that you are not "respecting the tree", that you are "not honoring it", that you are "murdering" it, and so forth. But to my way of thinking all of this talk is nonsense.
And that is why I'd recommend a view of the moral value of nature that is anthropogenic but not anthropomorphic. We can certainly speak about our moral feelings about trees--that they have certain values for us, perhaps even certain moral value unto themselves from our point of view--but to say that trees are moral agents in themselves we court insanity.
No fish today, but then again...who's counting? Topics discussed today: theological non-realism, epistemic justification, environmentalism, hippies, rednecks, strategies for steelhead success. The gold is in the soul.
