The Wild and the Wicked: On Nature and Human Nature

by Benjamin Hale

A brief foray into a moral thicket, exploring why we should protect nature despite tsunamis, malaria, bird flu, cancer, killer asteroids, and tofu. Most of us think that in order to be environmentalists, we have to love nature. Essentially, we should be tree huggers—embracing majestic redwoods, mighty oaks, graceful birches, etc. We ought to eat granola, drive hybrids, cook tofu, and write our appointments in Sierra Club calendars. Nature's splendor, in other words, justifies our protection of it. But, asks Benjamin Hale in this provocative book, what about tsunamis, earthquakes, cancer, bird flu, killer asteroids? They are nature, too. For years, environmentalists have insisted that nature is fundamentally good. In The Wild and the Wicked , Benjamin Hale adopts the opposite position—that much of the time nature can be bad—in order to show that even if nature is cruel, we still need to be environmentally conscientious. Hale argues that environmentalists needn't feel compelled to defend the value of nature, or even to adopt the attitudes of tree-hugging nature lovers. We can acknowledge nature's indifference and periodic hostility. Deftly weaving anecdote and philosophy, he shows that we don't need to love nature to be green. What really ought to be driving our environmentalism is our humanity, not nature's value. Hale argues that our unique burden as human beings is that we can act for reasons, good or bad. He claims that we should be environmentalists because environmentalism is right, because we humans have the capacity to be better than nature. As humans, we fail to live up to our moral potential if we act as brutally as nature. Hale argues that despite nature's indifference to the plight of humanity, humanity cannot be indifferent to the plight of nature.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Nature

328 pages, Hardcover

Published December 10, 2016

Reviews

[Kes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book might be better read as an introduction to ethics - it talks about the various elements of ethical theory (for example, the distinction between motivatory and explanatory justifications), applies it to nature, and concludes that we should all think and discuss the environment.

It's not a road map, by any stretch - a fact that the author readily admits. It's an introduction to how to think about the environment, and the reasoning process that should be employed. It's perhaps entirely premised on the author's belief that humans should think (because this distinguishes us from animals) and be conscious about the impact of our actions.

It's a good book for thinking about ethics. I thought it was also well-written: the chapters set out their points very well, and the author clearly builds his argument to a conclusion.

4/5 stars

[Will Blok · Rating 4 out of 5]

How fast the environmental movement evolves! The core tenet of the argument is something that I am now very familiar with and try to implement into my day to day decision making. But unfortunately for Benjamin Hale I'm not sure how much this movement is attributable to him alone. It goes along the lines of: appealing to the value of nature completely ignores the ethical responsibility of a human - distinct as it is from the mindless wildness of nature - to actually make a reasoned justification of each action they take. I have really embraced the idea of asking myself why I am doing things, particularly with purchases... If I drink one less coffee out per day, I not only save money, but reduce my overall ecological footprint by reducing the amount of coffee I am responsible for importing. This thinking has emerged organically from the blogosphere over the last few years (perhaps guided much more by this book than I have presumed!)

What Hale's argument is most practically useful for is to help environmentally conscious people like myself to teach those who are less environmentally inclined.
I can no longer tell someone to drink less coffee like me because it will help to save the planet - vague, unreasonable because there are greater causes of environmental collapse than coffee.
Equally can I not stand back and allow them to do what they want, because that is a fallacious view of freedom. Acting ecologically blindly does not count as freedom because nature, in its wildness, has no rationality and will eventually harm you for your actions.
What I can do, however, is teach according to the principle that how reasonable a person is is dependent on how well their decisions hold up to external scrutiny. If they listen to my logic behind drinking less coffee (saves money, less coffee is imported) and they cannot argue against it other than "but I love coffee and want to drink as much as possible", then they are admitting to themselves a certain degree of self-interest that is not justifiable.
My Hale-informed non-judgey environmentalism must rely on trust in their humanity based on justifiable action that considers others as well as themselves. In time this humanity will inform theit future choices to be the reasonable, ethical and environmentally right choices.
His writing is very tongue in cheek humorous. It is a long read that does require going over some of the basics of ethics first, but the pay off is good and satisfying and certainly bolsters my environmental playbook.

[Sophia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a bit of a slog for me. I'm not stupid, but philosophy and ethical readings require me to read them out loud to understand what the author was getting at. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that type of work, sometimes not.
I really don't want to have to justify my actions to everyone, but I understand that if I did, I might make different decisions. I appreciate that argument.
Not for the faint of heart.

[Samuel W · Rating 4 out of 5]

very erudite and informative

I learned a great deal from reading this book. It is a tour de force with respect to its depth, breadth, erudition, personal anecdotes and humor.

[Angie Boyter]

I have tried to read this book twice now but just can't do it. The writing style is repetitive, the sentences are hard to parse,and the words often seem to be used in a way that does not quite fit their normal definition. The book has been out since December, 2016, and I was surprised that there were NO Goodreads or Amazon reviews, despite a very positive review in the NY Times. After trying to read the book, perhaps I understand why; maybe no one else has been able to finish it, either!