Nature and Humans: A complex and evolving relationship

by Phillip Bragg

Throughout my travels in India I have seen various examples of the conflict between humans and the natural world, particularly when it comes to preserving the rights of animals versus preserving the rights of humans. After seeing the desire to preserve tiger habitats with the creation of Ranthambore National Park clashing with the desire to preserve the cultures of the people already living in these tiger habitats who have been removed from their homelands by the National Park, combined with learning the cruel, soul-crushing practice that one must do to successfully tame an elephant at Wildlife SOS just outside of Agra, traveling throughout India made me second guess everything I knew about my relationship with animals and the natural world. Where do we draw the line when it comes to what type of relationships we can have with the natural world, both when it comes to owning animals and preserving habitats?

Surely beating an elephant into submission is not an acceptable relationship between humans and animals, but owning a dog that you purchase with money like some piece of merchandise is completely normal. I remember hearing that elephants are the largest land mammal on the planet. What business do we humans have in owning such a creature as property for any purpose?

My time at Wildlife SOS also taught me that elephants—along with almost all other living creatures—are a lot harder to take care of than one might first think. In addition to being fed, elephants need daily exercise, which usually involves a few miles of walking/roaming around an open area, and other elephants to socialize with to stay healthy. Their backs were also never meant to hold the weight of a human, so riding elephants is almost always detrimental to their health as well. There are likely countless other habits that elephants innately do in their natural habitats that they can no longer do or never learn to do while in captivity. Since we are not elephants, we may never fully understand how an elephant properly lives its life. This same idea can be extended to almost all animals.

I am not saying that all relationships we have with animals are bad. Rather, I am bringing to light the complex lives that these animals are simultaneously living alongside ours. I am also not saying that we should be putting the needs of animals above the needs of humans. After all, I am rather quite against the decision to remove the people originally living on the land that was re-classified as Ranthambore National Park. While the intent of the government was to protect the land and the endangered animals that resided within them from poachers and deforestation, but while doing so removed villages that have existed for an extremely long time. If it were not for the efforts of NGOs like Dastkar Ranthambore, many of these displaced people would have had no help integrating themselves into a society completely different from the independent, agrarian lifestyles that many of them were accustomed to. In addition, by un-endangering habitats through protecting the land, the government was by consequence endangering unique cultural customs and traditional craftsmanship that many of these villages practiced. It is a situation where the rights of animals were put above the rights of humans and a situation that I think should have been approached differently. These villages were living by themselves peacefully before being forcibly removed by the government, why not make an exception? But what if this means watching the Bengal tigers go extinct?

There needs to be a clearer line drawn between healthy and unhealthy relationships between humans and the natural world. While the desire to preserve our natural habitats is stronger than ever, so is the battle for resources. But deciding who has the authority to say what is good and bad when it comes to such relationships is a tough question to answer. If you ask me, the world really is not our oyster. Some things, like the magnificent elephant, are best left alone. We simply do not know enough about nature to tame or “own” it in such a way. Similar issues are arising back home concerning the patenting of genes for GMOs. To what extent we can own nature is a question nobody seems to want to answer, likely because it creates situations where nobody can win. Likewise, I will continue to have these thoughts as I pet my dog and take another bite out of my beef hamburger, because society, and by consequence me, have decided that these relationships are healthy and acceptable.