Green Group discussion

I'm a couple of days early; easier to set up over the weekend. But here is the thread for our discussion on Ed Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang."

I love this book. However, there are people who are now a bit uncomfortable with the book because of the civil disobedience in the text.

Remember - and Abbey said as much himself - it is satire!

We will talk about Glen Canyon Dam - how it came into being and the reaction by environmentalists after it was a done deal. Also, we'll talk about the issue of water and dams in the American west.

Abbey is meant to be digested slowly; he shouldn't be read quickly. Some might call him wordy; I prefer to think that he is constructs sophisticated prose that makes (or should make) the reader reflect on his words before moving to the next idea.

Therefore, I'm only going to read a chapter a day. There are 30 chapters, one for each day of the month.

I read this book a year ago. I am a big fan of the Abbey books partly because I've been to a lot of the places he writes about. In this book, I have the strong feeling "gee, I wish I had the guts to do that". There is a strong environmental message that reflects Abbey's personality - and mine. As a biologist, in the past I did associate with the person who Abbey used to create the George Hayduke character. The similarities are striking. This same person, Abbey's close friend, actually buried Abbey in "an illegal grave" as requested by Ed. So, my ties to the book are very strong both in character representation and in the message. I completely agree with the previous post that all Abbey books need to be digested slowly.

Bill wrote: "I read this book a year ago. I am a big fan of the Abbey books partly because I've been to a lot of the places he writes about. In this book, I have the strong feeling "gee, I wish I had the guts t..."

Hayduke...one of my favorite literary characters. And it always brings a smile to my face when I remember that there was a real "Hayduke."

I don't want to mention names. But the real guy is strikingly like Hayduke. Abbey did a great job in selecting a live character model - even to the accuracy of the personality and physical characteristics.

Prologue and Chapter 1:

Both of these chapters are very symbolic. People have tried to take them literally, but again, the actions are symbolic.

In the prologue, we see the destruction of the bridge over the Colorado River. Two ways I would read this: 1) the infrastructure that is allowing people to move into Abbey's beloved western, desert lands. 2) the degradation of the Colorado River due to the people moving into these western lands. According to Abbey, it must be stopped before the area is completely ruined.

In Chapter 1, Doc Sarvis is setting fire to billboards. Again, symbolic. Abbey once said, growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. There have been a number of books on how we can't keep growing the economy forver. It is like a balloon. Eventually, it will pop. We're going to discuss this more in the Spring; responsible capitalism is good. Capitalism without looking at how it affects people and the environment is reckless.

Your last sentence brought a quote by Gary Snyder to mind, Lynn. Abbey lists Snyder as one of his literary influences, and Snyder's poetry and essays are among my favorites. Snyder said: "The capitalist world must rediscover its own conscience, now that it has no adversary."
Gary Snyder, A Place in Space: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Watersheds, "Exhortations for Baby Tigers"

A Place in Space: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Watersheds is available to read online for free, and the chapter about the "Baby Tigers" is at http://books.google.com/books?id=raSQ...

The sad part is that my good friend, also a Snyder fan, pointed out that capitalism cannot "rediscover" a conscience since, by definition, it never had one. Abbey's analogy of a cancer cell holds a chilling truth.

Julia wrote: "Your last sentence brought a quote by Gary Snyder to mind, Lynn. Abbey lists Snyder as one of his literary influences, and Snyder's poetry and essays are among my favorites. Snyder said: "The capit..."

Thanks for the tip, Julia. I've never read any of Snyder's poetry. I will have to do so.

I definitely don't think corporations are people. :-) But at the same time, much like the government, corporations are made up of people. So while a corporation - or capitalism - can't possible have a conscience, the people within the corporations and the capitalist system do have consciences.

There are great debates over Adam Smith's actual meaning as the "father" of economics in "The Wealth of Nations," but corporations exist within communities. They have duties and responsibilities.

I think that the people who run corporations can certainly direct their actions to take people, communities, and nature into account.

In fact, I'm taking the Environment and Law course on Coursera. I'm not on expert on the economy or the law, but I found out that there are natural resources economists. So, economists do study the role of nature - and the importance of keeping nature intact and saving the environment.

Hayduke was based on Doug Peacock. If you look him up on Goodreads, you will find a lot of interesting nature books, especially about grizzly bears.

Doug Peacock is the author of three books listed on Goodreads. He is best known for his work on grizzly bear conservation. You can see interviews with him on YouTube. I was acquainted with him during his forays to Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico where he hung around with those of us who did research on marine biology. So, Doug's interests are quite wide. I don't recall that any of our discussions were about Ed Abbey. However, I do recall that Doug's passion and mannerisms were accurately reflected in Abbey's Hayduke character.

Question for those reading along:

Ed Abbey changed the way people worked in the environmental movement.

But there are those who argue that the way our environmental organizations work cannot possibly fight the various environmental problems facing us today. The old strategies are no longer viable for various reasons: to capture the attention of people today, especially the younger generation, and also due to the political climates around the world in western nations.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I fully agree. Activism as we have known it (like the current Greenpeace fiasco) is dead. I believe that (1)solid scientific fact; (2)competent conservation managers; and (3) environmental education of our youth and our adults are essential factors in building a new consciousness for Nature. I just finished reviewing a wonderful video on the highly emotional wolf predation issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PagO3g...). This video is a great demonstration of what I mean.

Bill wrote: "I fully agree. Activism as we have known it (like the current Greenpeace fiasco) is dead. I believe that (1)solid scientific fact; (2)competent conservation managers; and (3) environmental educatio..."

Thanks for the link, Bill. I'll watch it tonight or tomorrow. (The narrator's voice sounds familiar...I can picture the actor but can't remember his name). I've been following the wolf "story" for years, and sad to see what is happening now.

Agree with your points; as a teacher, especially with # 3. The issue is, how to engage young people. I've tried many ways, and it is difficult. So many distractions pulling them in so many directions.

The narrator is Peter Coyote. I've started an environmental education program in Mexico where my high school students are trained to be the teachers. We have a beautiful estuary that is our classroom as my students give classes on connections in Nature to elementary and jr high students (see: http://gallery.freshvista.com/Nature/... )

Bill wrote: "The narrator is Peter Coyote. I've started an environmental education program in Mexico where my high school students are trained to be the teachers. We have a beautiful estuary that is our classro..."

That's exciting! And good news. Good for you. We need more of these types of programs.

And thanks for the name...was driving me nuts. :-)

Lynnm wrote: "Bill wrote: "I fully agree. Activism as we have known it (like the current Greenpeace fiasco) is dead. I believe that (1)solid scientific fact; (2)competent conservation managers; and (3) environme..."

Conservation fails for many reasons. Usually swept under the rug are the incompetence, self-serving programs, and misdirection of many conservation organizations (and conservation donors). I'm speaking as a long-term veteran as a conservation professional. I'll have more to say about this down the road...

In terms of Activism, I think it is a pretty broad term and should not be too heavily linked to high profile demonstrations. Perhaps for lack of a better word (maybe someone can help me) a lot of successful "activism" happens on a quieter level behind the scenes, often more local than the big activism movements. I think this comes with Bill's #2, good managers, and then backed up with a supportive subset of the public (point #3). Sometimes the big demonstrations work and have value. Sometimes I think they polarize and divide, or at least give fuel to those who wish to polarize-- like the brilliant (but completely wrong) strategy of creating the "jobs vs. environment" dichotomy.

I hope that different forms of activism are evolving (eg the youtube video mentioned that I will soon check out). Hopefully the activism of the next generation will be more effective even if less obvious...

I too agree that those of us active in environmental work need to change our strategies. I've long believed that the only real, effective actions are taken at the local level. It's why I'm a director of both the local land trust and watershed associations near my home in Maine. I believe we're making a difference in the preservation of land, with the ideal of creating a viable wildlife corridor. We're also working hard on water quality and the control of invasive plants, as well as educational initiatives and the inclusion of programming aimed at getting the young off line and out into the natural world.

A current project you might be interested in is a foundation grant we received to create a Climate Change Observatory on our lake. We're taking it one step further and partnering with the University of Maine's Climate Institute to create an observatory template and pilot it. This will be exportable to other land trusts and water associations throughout Maine, with the idea that we can measure change in the micro-climates that abound.

For me, these are the kinds of projects and work that can make a difference in the long run. It takes a great deal of effort, fund-raising, and motivating volunteers.

I'm very impressed by these suggestions. Frankly, I look at Edward Abbey's ideas as the ones that are outdated. All of the successful environmental decisions have been made by communities, governments, individuals, and groups working together.

Andrew wrote: "Conservation fails for many reasons. Usually swept under the rug are the incompetence, self-serving programs, and misdirection of many conservation organizations (and conservation donors). I'm speaking as a long-term veteran as a conservation professional. I'll have more to say about this down the road...
"

I agree with what you wrote about activism. People do think of it as high profile events, but it can be anything from working on a local event to even grassroots lobbying on the national level (which can work in small ways because I've done it while working on certain issues with major organizations.)

I wouldn't write off large environment groups though. They do have the members; they just need to change a lot of the message.

For example, as you said, instead of jobs vs. the environment, green jobs. And not always the usual: solar panels, etc. Everything in our lives/societies needs to be changed. I think I posted about this before, but there is someone who has figured out a way for a treadmill to work off of the person's exertions and feed back into the power grid rather than being plugged in and taking from the power grid. Everything in our lives needs that type of innovation.

Schools and colleges can also take the lead - sustainability degrees, but not just in the usual math/science/business roles. Environmental issues hit every discipline from literature to history to law to medicine/health to the arts to philosophy, etc.

Sara wrote: "I too agree that those of us active in environmental work need to change our strategies. I've long believed that the only real, effective actions are taken at the local level. It's why I'm a dire..."

Definitely agree - local is the most important. People can actually see the problems and work on the solutions. Plus, it adds to the quality of life.

Jimmy wrote: "I'm very impressed by these suggestions. Frankly, I look at Edward Abbey's ideas as the ones that are outdated. All of the successful environmental decisions have been made by communities, governme..."

It depends on what you are looking at. Most of Ed's books deal with the love of nature, perserving and protecting nature, and respect for nature.

Those ideas are never outdated. They are fundamental to every green issue.

As for civil disobedience, I would agree. I don't think that is the path to take today. However, I'm a huge believer in understanding history to understand where we are today. And Ed's ideas are a huge part of the environment movement in the 70s and 80s. To not know and understand his ideas means not fully understanding where we need to be today.

And we need to understand civil disobedience, something that has brought many great changes: the labor movement, the women's movement, the civil rights movement, etc. etc. We should never ignore its importance.

Last, but not least, yet again, the Monkey Wrench Gang is satire. It is not meant to be taken literally, even though some people/groups have taken it as such. Most of it is a commentary on consumption, capitalism, and overdevelopment. All of those ideas are relevant today.

I have to disagree about taking a public stand in protest, which I don't find out of date at all. It's the reason NY has had a fracking moratorium for 5 years, and the protest about the Delaware River Basin has halted development there, at least for now.

Mark Ruffalo and Josh Fox were part of the protest last November: http://www.cleanwateraction.org/page/...

And when the Global Frackdown arrives on Oct. 19, take a look at the countries involved: http://www.globalfrackdown.org/events/

I agree about the protests. I was thinking about the idea of using violence and destruction as a form of protest.

Finished the book the other night. I've never read Edward Abbey before, so bear with me on some first impressions.

He's clearly a brilliant writer, with a masterful command of the language. Sometimes, though, the writing was so "clever" that it impeded the story's progress (or maybe just this reader's ;-). And - at first, at least - I really had trouble liking any of the main characters. They were united by their love of the natural world, and that came through, but they seemed generally disdainful of their fellow human beings. (Some of the character's comments / thoughts about Native Americans seemed especially distasteful... but maybe that was a byproduct of that era in that particular region?) Perhaps Abbey depicted them as psychically wounded to draw parallels to the way humanity had scarred and damaged the natural beauty they cherished?

The novel did suck me in, ultimately. I appreciated the gang's oath to avoid violence / injury to other people (although Hayduke would've waived that one if he could, eh?). George's escape from Pastor Love with the winch was brilliant - loved that! And I loved the way everything tied together at the end. To be honest, I was getting a serious case of "dark foreboding" as I read: couldn't shake the feeling that one or more of the gang were going to meet a sticky end. I enjoyed being totally wrong on that!

Overall: as others much more knowledgeable have pointed out on this thread, this book played a pivotal role in inspiring environmentalism, and I'm glad I had a chance to experience it firsthand. I wouldn't be comfortable with the gang's tactics nowadays, but I loved their passion and commitment. As a few others mentioned, I see value in the less confrontational approaches. I personally love the Nature Conservancy, for example, because they seem to work very hard to forge partnerships between government, industry, and environmental groups to protect tracts of wilderness. (They did an awesome job in the Upper Peninsula of my home state of Michigan.) I wonder if they'd be willing to mediate the bloody budget / debt ceiling crisis in D.C.?!?

The Nature Conservancy is the absolute best.

Brian wrote: "Finished the book the other night. I've never read Edward Abbey before, so bear with me on some first impressions.

He's clearly a brilliant writer, with a masterful command of the language. Some..."

Brian - glad that you liked the book. Yes, the tactics wouldn't be appreciated today, but again, it is meant to be satire.

The characters aren't likable at first glance, especially Hayduke. Seldom Seen Smith is probably the exception, but he has his quirks as well. But most readers come to love the four of them.

I've never been west, except for California, but from what I've read, a lot of what Abbey worried about has come true. Too many people, the water levels have gone down drastically in many of the great rivers, too many people on the public lands, etc.