Nature: The Unrepresented Shelter

The most one-sided equation

On a morning walk today to explore a new part of Singapore, it occurred that whilst there aren’t acres and acres of free land, there is a very rich biodiversity in the tranches of land that are guarded and kept as nature would have it. Singapore ranks number 1 in the world on the MIT Green View Index, which is a measure of tree concentration. It’s name as the Garden City certainly something it continues to live up to. ~50% of Singapore is “green” in the sense of being trees, lakes or other greenery. On the walking path today I saw a complete cross-section of the two, one moment in depths of nature with aquatic animals and lizards, and within just ten minutes, back in the typical concrete urban set up. Singapore is a good, or great example of how a City should have its “nature v man-made” ratio managed. Who sets the ratio? Who bargains? Who are the actors, or stakeholders? Well, on the one side there is the “non-human” composition of Earth, and the other side is the human. When the human, full of desire and self-serving ambition decides to “go get”, where can they get anything from? Of course, it’s the non-human Earth. Gems, oil, and other natural resources form the bedrock of the “real economy”, and are the means to humans achieving what is in their eyes, their potential. So the ambitious human, needs to get something. If I wanted a building from another human, I can’t simply walk in and own it, I need to bargain. Have I got the credit line? Am I a worthy owner? After this, the owner may or may not decide to let me buy the premises. It comes with a price tag. On walking out of the mangroves this morning, I was reflecting that it should be appreciated that the designers have given a much greater bandwidth for nature that most other places. But who bargained? Did nature name a price? Did nature check the credit line? Or the worthiness of the human race to exploit it like it’s being exploited all over the world? Nature is silent; there will be no protest.

Opinions & Perspectives

Between 1946 and 1958 the United States conducted nuclear testing off an island called Bikini Atoll. They exploded 23 nuclear bombs in the sea, 42.4 TNT of explosive power; this is more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs combined. Prior to the tests, the natives living on the island were gathered some for testing. They were told that the work the United States were doing was for furthering the will of God, Jesus Christ. The natives firstly not knowing any better, and secondly being helpless in the midst of US power, just tried to stay as clear as they could, but of course ended up deformed for multiple generations. It was the perspective of the US that US hegemony was the way to go. The other perspectives clearly would have varied, or at least been up for debate. Were these means to stop further aggression from Imperial Japan, and the Nazis, and keep such things at bay? Certainly many “facts” were disclosed at the time to support this. Just as they were before the assassination of Sadam Hussain. Or were these things not absolutely necessary, but things you can do when you have power, just because you can? We’re only discussing this now since the United States revealed under the Clinton administration in the 1990s the secret initiatives they were undertaking since it is part of their rules. If not, we would not even know of this. 

There is no doubt that so-called facts and evidence can be engineered, manipulated, in order to meet specific ends. Lessons from history, and stories of vice and virtue can help illustrate that the recent phenomena of fake news, misinformation, is anything but new; it might be using new tools, but as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun. In the Mahabharata, the devious and deceptive cousins the Kauravas had schemed to send the Pandava brothers to the forest for 12 years, plus one year in disguise, such that if they were recognised in the last year, they would have to go again for 12 years. In the last year, the Kauravas sent an army to a kingdom called Matsya where there was word that the Pandavas were hiding. The elder Kurus who hastily went to support the Kauravas on their request, they wanted to sit on the fence as they didn’t want to openly support the righteous Pandava brothers out of fear of being locally reprimanded, or have their income and support stopped from the kingdom since they were ruling. They had a soft spot for the virtuous Pandavas, but were effectively silenced. When the eldest Kaurava, Prince Duryodhana asked the elders to confirm that if the Pandavas are recognised at this time, then it would mean they would need to be exiled again. Kripa, a priestly teacher said that it is not entirely clear whether identifying them would qualify or not to send them back again. Bhishma, a more outspoken Kuru, said that it was very clear for him that identifying them now was too late as their 13th year is already finished based on the location of the planets. Duryodhana disputed this, claiming that what he says is the truth, simply by virtue of him saying it, although he had no other basis for it. In this way, you have three different views on the “truth”, which were all being contested by different parties. They had different agendas, priorities, and needs. Kripa didn’t want to burn a bridge either side. Duryodhana clearly wanted the kingdom at any expense. The most impartial could be argued to be Bhishma since his opinion was also least likely to be self-serving, but Duryodhana and his team also picked holes in it saying that he is always partial to the Pandavas from the beginning. So there will always be these three things; opinions and perspectives.

Reality is One

On an absolute level, there was a definitive answer to whether the Pandavas had really completed the due term of their exile. There was also a definitive answer to the threat that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany posed. The issue that clouds these, are agendas, mostly selfish, some ideological, and then on top of this our imperfect ability to see the reality due to the reasons discussed last week on our several shortcomings in perception. The mainstream certainly take full advantage of our somehow inherent inability to perceive truth due to preoccupation with self-interest. Therefore, what we connect with must not be linked to this selfish side of humans. The safestay, is therefore nature. The innocence of the flows of water, the soaring swift birds gliding hundreds of meters high barely visible to the eye, the morning dew simmering in the renewed rays of sunlight. These are our safestays. We must remember that nature didn’t come to the bargaining table, but it is ever-existing. It is deeply connected with us in ways we do not have the perception to understand. Indeed we are made of it, we are part of it, and we would do ourselves well to better understand it. This connection is not serving propaganda, or other self-interests, but is serving our best interests, which are inextricably interwoven with the planet. Coming from this perspective, we will develop opinions that are aligned with the reality, and aligned with truth. 

“In valour Rama is comparable to Vishnu, and in his looks he is attractive like the moon, he equals the Earth in his forgiveness.”

Narada Muni to Sage Valmiki, 1.1.18-19a, Bala Kanda, Book of Youthful Majesties, Ramayana