The Irrelevance of Nations
Nations provide solidarity, protection, and security. But they also produce disputes, dangers, and difficulties. The entities that are currently passing freely across national borders includes toxic heavy metals from mining operations that travel downstream as far as the waters flow; airborne pollutants from coal-fired installations that ride air currents that encircle the globe; crude oil spilled from tankers that travels up the food chain to lodge in the cells of fish that swim the seas; plastic debris that is washed from shores of one continent to arrive on the shores of another; radioactive wastes with half-lives that outlast disposal technologies intended to prevent leakage; GMO crops that escape the confines of an agricultural site by self-propagating.
While no fortification is capable of preventing endangering leakages, the futility of sealing borders is advantageous when benign and beneficial trespassers cross border patrols unimpeded.
Fungal mycelia, for example, contribute a stunning array of services when they infiltrate an area. Mycelia decompose organic debris, detoxify wastes, filter upstream pollutants, reduce forest fires, provide anti-viral protection, build soil fertility, etc. The huge, continuous network that mycelia construct underground is as nation-defying as the vast world-wide web above ground. Thus, national borders are too small to mitigate environmental problems because all forms of blight are potentially global. National borders are also too large to influence or measure the functioning if any ecosystem. This is because the topography and demography, which rarely factor into the parceling of land into nations, establish the parameters for the myriad minute occurrences that determine the planet’s vitality and its infirmity. These units are called watersheds, not nations. Throughout history, artists have invented ways to envision the prevailing world view distinguishing the era in which they lived. Contemporary artists who assume this role can choose between two viable alternatives. They can either visualize the all-encompassing, trans-national unification of the global perspective, or the manifold, sub-national events transpiring within specific watersheds. While the human investment in nation-building and nation-preserving has historically been motivated by the desire for security, defense, and identity, these desires are far more capable of being satisfied through actions scaled to the watershed and the globe, not the nation. The two human perspectives are contrasting, but they are not opposing. Indeed, reversing the calamities that currently beset our planet so that it remains vital for future generations may only be achieved if these perspectives are given equal credence. If globalism is not balanced with the localism of watersheds, people might abdicate their personal responsibilities. This is because global realities are so vast, complex, and abstract, they discourage individualized initiatives. On the other hand, if localism prevails, the short-sighted views that watersheds provide might result in short-sighted outcomes. This is true because the borders surrounding topographically based watersheds are unified by the planet’s interconnected hydrological systems. But disparity, not parity, seems to separate these world views. Globalism typically thrusts localism into a defensive posture. Evidence to support this assertion is apparent in most peoples’ answer to the following question, “Would you prefer to take a trip on a bus or a jet?” Global superhighways, whether they are paved or electronic, offer excitement and adventure. In comparison, local trails near home often seem pallid and provincial. Despite the surge of initiatives among environmentalists to establish locally scaled endeavors such as local currencies, community gardens, neighborhood recycling facilities, district-based material exchanges, and regional trading partners, contemporary cultural norms still cluster around the glamorous images evoked by being a jet-setting globe trotter. Globalism is apparent in world music, world cups, world wars, world politics, world premieres, the World Wide Web, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank. It is less apparent, but equally present, in paper clips, shoelaces, peanut butter, and combs. In all these ways globalism evokes the inspiring vision of melding “the ends of the earth” and its “four corners” into a unified sphere. While they come in many sizes, sensibilities scaled to watersheds direct attention away from the captivating glamor evoked by imported consumables, exotic vacations, and outer space probes. Instead, they involve engagements with indigenous conditions and materials that are so local that they can be touched, smelled, and tasted. The brains of most contemporary humans may have to be rewired before people seek emotional and artistic fulfillment by manually shaping materials that comprise the visual, auditory, and tactile splendor within the earthly realm – plants, honey, fur, rock, fins, dirt. Each interaction with such matter is also an interaction with the planet’s teaming energies and an opportunity for sensual delight and spiritual expansion. Environmental reform may ultimately be determined by recalibrating prevailing perspectives, tamping down infatuation with global sensibilities, and ratcheting up watershed-scaled interactions.