Protecting nature, conserving, preserving, saving, rescuing, restoring, repairing… An obvious fact for some, an absurdity for others. I am one of those who care, but I remain skeptical about the reasons that push us to act. Or more precisely, I am convinced that we misunderstand the reasons for our actions, that we greatly underestimate the degree of ignorance about nature and therefore, the extent of the losses that will be necessary before a more general awakening in its favor.

Gloomy prospects for the beginning of a text and I do not guarantee a happier ending. But the question is nagging me tonight as to whether the loss of nature really makes a difference in people’s lives. Wanting to save all that, what’s the point? What for?

No nature at all, it seems complicated, especially for food, the quality of air and water, the pleasure of having forests and flowers, the song of birds. But honestly, losing the endemic lizards of the Pyrenees mountains with their very isolated populations, the Tsolov’s mouse-like hamster living only in a few desert valleys in Syria, or the already gone endemic fish of the Aral Sea, in the end, what importance and what consequence? For human life, apparently none. For the planet, minimal. The ticking of the world will continue to go on just the same, without us being able to notice any difference in our lives. And we can go a little further, by scaring ourselves a little.

Let’s take the example of my native village Lugasson, in south-western France. There are mainly vineyards, with a few groves, more or less wild, never very old, ancient stone villages connected by a dense network of country roads.

Let’s now imagine that the current loss of biodiversity continues drastically and that we lose ninety percent of bird species. No more Woodlark, no more Kestrel, no more Marsh Tit, Blue Tit or Great Tit, no more Thrushes, no more migrating Cranes, no more Tawny Owl that sings at night, no more Woodpecker that attacks dead trunks, no more Greenfinch, Linnet or Siskin. All gone for the long term, very long term, forever.

Let’s then think about daily life as it is now there, but without these birds. The winegrowers continue their work in the vineyards, the inhabitants continue to go back and forth between their work and their home, the hunters concentrate on farmed partridges and pheasants. We move around in the same way, we lead the same family life and we continue to enjoy evenings with friends at home or in restaurants, sill the same. There are fewer birds at the feeders and they sing less in the countryside. We sometimes talk about it with friends. We are indignant, we remember before when there was still the migration of cranes or the tits on the front of the windows. Children and adolescents who have not experienced this do not care a bit. And for those of them who have the naturalist fiber, there are still quite a few things to see with sometimes even surprises like a passing Black Kite or a Black Redstart. But in the end nothing fundamentally changes in people’s lives. So where is the harm?

And it is even more obvious when it comes to animals or anything that we do not see in nature. Over a year, in the daily life of an average citizen, what makes nature, the landscape, “his environment”, are these vineyards, these roads, these villages and these few forests. Leave these elements and this person will see the stability of a prosperous countryside. You can eliminate half of the insects (already done), most of the bird species as in our thought experiment, all the small mammals, mustelids and squirrels, half of the flower species (work in progress), drastically reduce the number of tree species and eradicate nine-tenths of the mushroom species, this person will not notice a thing. The landscape will remain the same.

Even during her walks in La Lirette, a little corner of nature in the village next door, this cute little stream will continue to flow in a green and mossy forest, with the good smell of humus, the song of the blackbird and the cries of the Jay. She or he will see a few butterflies, a dragonfly and will be hassled by mosquitoes. And this walk in nature will have been very satisfying, as always.

So, what is the problem in this story? Why does this seem so serious to me, so catastrophic, when in a rather pragmatic way, it seems to make so little difference in our lives? Because it is clear that we can have a life that is both totally urban and fulfilling. We can never have known the wilderness and arrive at the end of our life without any regrets. We build ourselves in the world that is offered to us. We seek happiness in the framework that is offered to us during the duration of our life.

So that’s all? No glimmer of hope for those who care? Since the majority don’t see the Woodlark, the Hawksbeards, the Greater Noctule, the Winter Moth, the Yellow Scale or the Water Shrew; since the Marten, the Summer Chafer and the Spurge don’t change anything in our lives, is all we are left to do to wait to sink quietly, deeply, into the destruction of life?

I’m not saying that everything will be fine despite the destruction. I’m not saying that there won’t be consequences. I’m not saying that wild nature is not a necessity of existence for each of us. No. I’m trying to question here whether we are really all ready to scrap the majority of what our nature has been, is, and will be, without blinking. It’s hard for me to admit that yes, perhaps, we are ready to settle for this bare minimum. We might even be happy there, without thinking too much about what our optimum could have been, on the contrary.

Whether we understand it or not, this optimum is found alongside a free and wild nature. A somewhat abrupt conclusion, even categorical, and which has the defect of not being obvious. This is why this text is only one of the many threads to pull to try to untangle this ball of confused ideas that all try to answer this one: why this need for wild nature?

To be continued, obviously.

Adrien

Woodlark
Watercolor
Illustration from 2015