Both China Miéville and Anna Tsing center on nature's resiliency, which challenges us to reevaluate our environmental responsibilities. This challenges our traditional worldview of utilizing natural resources, which is profit-oriented. In the meantime, the unrelenting quest for resources by humans is revealed by Miéville's sharp critique of whether human resource exploitation is ethical. That means as the profit gainer when gazing at the polluted coasts and ocean, and destructed water, will we consider holding back from constant and endless deprivation of the homeland of other species? Slightly different, Tsing invites readers to anticipate a new possibility of the human-centered ecosystem. That is, would it be possible for humans’ subjectivity can transform from money-oriented to healing the wounds of nature, collaborating with other species? Collectively, the two authors’ creations force us to consider our ethical obligations more deeply. To emphasize how urgent it is to reassess our relationship with nature to ensure a sustainable future, this essay navigates their insights.
Although both Miéville and Tsing effectively present their interdisciplinary mindset and inquiry when discussing human ethics in exploiting natural resources and its influence on other species and the Earth, they showcase different inquiry rhetorical. Miéville utilizes a literature narration, leading readers to discover the truth of the oil rigs that oil companies and other stakeholders repeat the ruin of exploitation over and over again. On the contrary, through a critical debate and personal reflection, Tsing discloses her truth about capitalism and the human conceit of overriding other species and the environment (Tsing 19). The two methods show different effectiveness because they use different rhetorical devices to inform readers of their truth. Miéville’s treatment applies multiple metaphors to reinforce the Pathos of the inquiry. For instance, Miéville utilizes the character Dughan's perspective to implicitly expose the UN's investigation and the National government’s strategy of the Rowan Gorilla I. He notes, “Ruined, lost, burnt, scuttled rigs were healing on the ocean floor and coming back. Platform, jackup, semi-submersible: all the lost” (Miéville 7), which implies the vicious circle caused by oil rigs. Ever since discovering the ocean pollution and seafloor damage, political institutions have intervened, holding back the exploitation, whereas oil companies either wait for some time till the fields recover or transfer to other oil fields continuing to make money from oil rigs. This is not healing; instead, it encourages capitalists to expand their endless deprivation of natural resources and destruction of the ecosystem for other species. This correlates to Tsing's argument that the solutions that humans adopt to resolve the negative consequences of over-exploitation and pollution are "a bubble of promise" (18) because they shift the ruin rather than heal the ruin overall. Compared to Miéville, whose inquiry is based on Dughan's personal experience confession that appeals to readers' emotions to see the flaws of global capitalism expansion, Tsing's reflection tends to encourage reader's critical thinking about the reasons.
Then both Miêville and Tsing conveyed their anticipation for changes to ensure environment resilience in the future. Tsing proposes a critical perspective on the collaboration between humans and other species. Although the collaboration might bring contamination to the environment, humans still hold subjectivity in improving. As she argues, “staying alive– for every species– requires livable collaboration. Collaboration means working across differences, which leads to contamination. Without collaborations, we all die” (Tsing 28). I interpret Tsing’s collaboration as the remediation based on humans’ respect for those species who sacrifice their lives for human activities. As raw materials and goods in the global trade, mushrooms sacrifice their lives to feed human taste. This is how the mushroom or plants commit their collaboration. However, capitalism spoils its greed, over-collecting the mushroom by deploying several collectors and machines, which invade and destroy the stability and ecosystem of their habitats. Hence, to maintain resilience, humans should respect the mushroom’s right to have habitats that are not polluted and disturbed. At least, excessive collection should be banned and a recovery program should be launched; otherwise, humans do not fulfill the obligation to ensure a reciprocal relationship with non-human species and the environment.
Similar interrogation can also be found in Miéville’s short story, where he criticizes humans’ recklessness and unethical decisions in rebuilding the resilience of the ecosystem after the damage of oil exploitation happens. According to Miéville, “[o]nce chosen, a place might be visited by any one of the wild rigs that walked out the abyss. As if such locations have been decided collectively…”(11). Ever since the disasters and pollution caused by oil rigs happened, the oil rigs of Petrobras have been put under investigation for days till the UNPERU came to check for openness. However, is this an investigation that tends to correct the mistakes? Or it is still a self-deceptive penitence for human loss, disturbing other species, and polluting the environment? In my opinion, disasters cause irreversible damage that cannot be recovered nor human can adapt to the aftermath if capitalists and governments do not truly realize the necessity to control their desire to develop and expand. I noticed that Miéville adopts a vivid analogy of humans’ desire for natural resources. He wrote, “ An inhuman pornography of great slams and grinding, horrified whales veering from where one mounted another, warmed by hydrothermal vents” (11).
Regarding environmental ethics, Miéville and Tsing present opposing but complementary perspectives. In his literary narrative, Miéville exposes the irony of intelligence combined with environmental indifference by depicting humanity's unrelenting quest for resources. Tsing is an advocate for cooperative, mutually beneficial relationships between people Regarding environmental ethics, Miéville and Tsing present opposing but complementary perspectives. In his literary narrative, Miéville exposes the irony of intelligence combined with environmental indifference by depicting humanity's unrelenting quest for resources. Tsing draws attention to the mistreatment of matsutake mushrooms in international trade and promotes cooperative, reciprocal relationships between people and ecosystems. Both emphasize how urgent it is to reconsider how we relate to nature. Miéville criticizes humanity for its heedless pursuit of resources, while Tsing calls for respect for species and ecosystems. Their combined message calls for swift action, highlighting the critical need to recognize moral obligations and protect
Works Cited
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. “The Mushroom at the End of the World,” Princeton University Press, 2015. muse.jhu.edu/book/64511.
Miéville, China. “Covehithe,” The Guardian, 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/22/china-mieville-covehithe-short-story
Σχόλια