The February 23 Opinion column "Do veganism and environmentalism go against human nature?" by Nick Grey was so infuriatingly illogical that it was difficult not to go to a computer immediately after I had read it to write a letter in response. But it's been a day now, and hopefully my head is clear enough to write an adequate and reasonable response to the arguments put forth by Grey, which, against all reason, seem to defend complacency in the face of alarming environmental issues which cry out for action.

Grey begins his article by arguing that the human species could not survive anymore without its intellect and technology. This is probably true. But the human species still needs the natural environment as well. We need it for the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and all of the raw materials that we use to create the technology Grey loves so much. In this way, the human species is still a part of the grand natural cycle in which all life participates, no matter how hard we have tried of late to forget that.

Grey goes on to ask the question, "What dictates the proper order [of nature]?" He seems to want to say that there is no universal moral law by which we should behave in respect to the environment. He wonders why we would want the human population to be two billion instead of twenty billion, or why a rainforest is better than a city. But, the fact is, it doesn't matter whether there is a universal moral code or not. Even without a moral reason, we still have the ethical and pragmatic obligation to acknowledge the life cycle which takes place on earth. Why should we want a world human population of two billion instead of twenty billion? Because the natural world cannot sustain twenty billion people! By his complacency, Grey is saying, "I would feel no sense of sorrow for the eighteen billion people (not to mention any of the animals left on Earth which hadn't been already driven to extinction) who will be forced to live a life nasty, brutish and short, because Œthat's just the way things are and there's nothing we can do about it.'" The way in which a species can determine its environment by overextending itself is a simple fact of nature. Even if it's not "immoral" in a cosmic sense, shouldn't we nonetheless be concerned about what we're doing? After all, we are a part of the natural cycle, and in that cycle, there are consequences to our actions, or inactions. (Interestingly, Grey uses this same argument, namely, that humans are still a part of the natural cycle, when he critiques vegans who would seek to step outside of that cycle in their dietary habits. Personally, I would be less concerned with those individuals who misunderstand the cycle of nature in what they choose to eat, and more concerned about those societies who misunderstand the cycle of nature in what they choose to bulldoze.) Just as the consequences of inaction and complacency in this matter would be undeniably bad, the consequences of action might be undeniably good. And the thing is, there is action we can take. We can use the intellect which the human species has, which no other species possesses, which Grey praises as our means of survival, to find a solution to this problem‹and make no mistake, the world population explosion is a problem‹and make sure the human species and all life are sustained indefinitely into the future.

Grey continually refers to "radical environmentalists" (as opposed to more moderate ones, I assume, although he never actually states his support for the latter either). He is right, however, in drawing a distinction between different types of environmentalism, for there are many different types. In Grey's eyes (and in the eyes of many others) environmentalism for the sake of humanity is justified, but environmentalism for the sake of nature itself is not. I am frightened to think what would happen to the world around us if we were to continue thinking this way. After all, is there not a beauty and mystery in nature worth preserving? Are we not a part of it? Or should we abuse nature for our own short-term gains simply because we have the power to do so? Grey argues that humanity's only means of survival is the manipulation of its environment; therefore it would be anti-human to force us to stop that manipulation. This may or may not be true, but I don't understand how pumping fluorocarbons into the atmosphere or dumping industrial waste into the rivers is absolutely essential to our survival except for the few unfortunate human beings who make their living doing such things. Again, Grey seems to feel that our intellect should only be used in the manipulation of our environment but not also for finding a way to preserve that environment as well, for its own sake as well as for future generations.

A picture of the world in less than a century would already look very bleak if the notion that the natural world is merely fodder for human manipulation continues along with the human population explosion about which Grey doesn't seem too concerned. Expect no forests but those harvested by loggers. Expect few animals but the ones we like enough to be put in a zoo. Expect cities swelling with humanity living in squalid poverty and exposed to the accumulated air and water pollution of decades past. In America, expect urban sprawl connecting each city with the others in an ugly mess of concrete, fast food joints, and gas stations and nothing but rotten lawn grass and a few wretched trees to remind us of the natural American beauty we took too long for granted. In the Third World, expect epidemics which might have been averted had we not already killed off the rain forest animals who carried the antidotes. Expect wars fought not for freedom and liberty but for bread and water. Expect that the idea of the soul and the importance of spirituality will have long ago lost out to a human ego which can no longer see beyond itself to the larger cycle of life of which it at one time used to be a part. Then it will be all too clear that the well being of humanity in the future is inextricably linked to the well being of the natural world in the present. Then it will be all too clear that this realization came one hundred years too late.

Daniel Schramm is a first year student at St. Olaf College.