Connecting Humanity to the Natural Environment

To the editors:

In her article "Moving Beyond the Spotted Owl,"(March 18) Yuri Agrawal asks "whether the natural world has any value in and of itself, divorced from any utility to the human species." It may be argued that to divide humanity from the rest of the natural world is antithetical to the cause of environmentalism, which seeks to include humans in its calculus, as a part and parcel of the complex processes that drive natural systems. But apart from the emotional "tree-huggers" and "rainbow children" whose goal is caricatured as a return to some form of noble savagery, there appears to be no viable intellectual remedy to the schism that divides conscious human life from the rest of nature.

But it may be of interest to the writer and her readers to consider a scientific movement generated by the prominent Harvard biologist E.O Wilson in his book Biophilia. The term is coined to describe the complex emotions that compel us to often unconciously seek contact with living organisms--an urge that, if left unfulfilled, endangers our psychological well being.

Wilson argues (and here I grossly paraphrase) that we should put aside the materialistic arguments about sustainable development and saving resources for future generations, or even planetary colonization. What really matters, what will really convince people to care about the health of ecosystems and their appropriate care, is the realization that by cutting down the last grove of forest outside the city limits, we lose a haven for our souls, a place of rest for our often flooded and discombobulated minds. In stronger terms, our love of life is hardwired in the material of our genome and brain, and we must not deny it a lover.

Whether or not this notion is ultimately a romantic construction is a matter for further debate and research, and I thank Yuri for initiating talk on a most important and vital subject.

Peter D. Platt '00

March 18, 1999

Tutors Take up Space

To the editors:

Scott Resnick's feature "Masters, Students Feel Pinch of Full Houses" March 21, reminded me of my own situation a few years back, in a five-person group crammed into a tiny two-bedroom suite in Winthrop House. At the same time, Winthrop had an unprecedented number of resident tutors. When I suggested in The Crimson an obvious remedy to our predicament, namely reducing the swollen ranks of the rather useless tutors, the response was immediate: a menacing answering machine message from one tutor and an invitation to the Senior Tutor's office for a dressing down for my "ingratitude".

A decade after overcrowding first became a problem, Harvard still refuses to countenance reducing the numbers of tutors (and their broods) it lodges. Students who find themselves in less-than-spacious accomodations should ask themselves whether they benefit more from their resident tutors than they would from the rooms they occupy. It's an open question.

Ben Heller '94

New York, March 22, 1999

Gay Rights Debate Important

To the editors:

In the UC's recent gay marriage legislation debate, members discussed the merits of supporting proposals which do not directly affect students. The merits of the bill aside, this resolution clearly has an important impact on the lives of a significant population of Harvard students.

Gay Harvard students who are American citizens are currently barred from marrying. This legislation, if it is ever adopted, would change that. Comparing this issue to work in previous administrations on behalf of Burmese dissidents makes no sense. Although I am very much in favor of human rights around the world, I can see how some might argue that resolutions to free actvists in Burma are outside the range of reasonable council activities. But gay rights legislation in the United States clearly has a direct impact on Harvard students.

David B. Orr '01

March 22, 1999