Natural DominionnWilliam Tucker: Progress and Privilege:nAmerica in the Age ofEnvironmentalism;nAnchor Press/Doubleday;nNew York.nThoreau in the Mountains: Writings bynHenry David Thoreau; Commentary bynWilliam Howarth; Farrar, Straus &nGiroux; New York.nby Thomas FlemingnIhe most basic text on environmentalismnis in Genesis: “Be fruitful andnmultiply, and replenish the earth, andnsubdue it: and have dominion over thenfish of the sea, and over the fowl of thenair, and over every living thing thatnmoveth upon the earth.” The expansionnof man’s power to subdue the earth has,nin recent years, caused a scrutiny focusingnupon the use he has made of his dominionn. An increasing number of Americansn—and Europeans—are coming to regardntechnology and its fruits as inherentlynevil and destructive. Such a reaction tontechnology is not new in the world.nThere have always been those who rebellednagainst the artificial extension ofnman’s grip on the natural world. OnenTaoist sage expressed contempt for andevice as simple as the sweep used to raisenwater from a well because with it man isnmade servant to the machine. In the earlyndays of the Industrial Revolution, skilledncraftsmen expressed their opinion of thennewly mechanized textile industry bynsetting fire to the equipment.nWhatever their motives, the Ludditenframe-breakers represented the age-oldnresentment of simple conservative folknagainst the progressive middle andnupper classes. The modern environmentalistsnare exactly the opposite. They are anmanifestation of an equally old socialnforce: an entrenched aristocracy strugglingnto maintain its position. In ProgressnDr. Fleming is a frequent contributor tonthese pages.n34inChronicles of Culturenand Privilege, William Tucker takes anlook at some of the political implicationsnof environmentalism. His book is sure tonoutrage the bird-watching and backpackingnelite who make up the SierranClub. In theirvicw of the matter, concernnfor the environment is a question ofnhigher values, which the laboring classesncannot be expected to share. Unfortunately,nas Tucker has the bad taste tonpoint out, this is one rich man’shobby—nlike fox hunting in old England—whichnthe not-so-rich are compelled to support.nThe cost of enviroimiental protection—nbureaucratically imposed limits tongrowth—are not paid for by those whonhave arrived (not even by the arrivistes)nbut by upwardly mobile blue-collar andnwhite-collar workers. In this class stmggle,nenvironmental protection is synonymousnwith gentility:nThe idea of looking on material progressnand economic security as an irrelevantnand vulgar nuisance cannotnbe picked up over night. The old sayingnwas that it took three generationsnto make a gendeman, and I have thendistinct impression that it now takesnat least two generations to make annenvironmentalist.nTucker profitably compares environmentalistsnwith previous avatars of politicalnsnobbery: abolition, Civil Service reform,nand the Progressive movement.nAll their proponents professed thenhighest imaginable ideals, while at thensame time regarding ordinary workingnpeople—and their material needs—withncontempt.nTucker is certainly right about thencomposition of the movement: the remnantnof desiccated gentility, threatenednarrivistes, arrogant and self-assumingnprofessionals. Unquestionably such peoplenconstitute the American social elite—nwhether they (or any class of Americans)nare an aristocracy is another matter. But ansocial elite—aristocracy, if you will—ncaimot be condemned out of hand fornnndischarging its duties. One of the justificationsnfor aristocracy used to be that itnwas freed from the squalid material constraintsnwhich prevent the rest of us fromnpursuing higher goals, aesthetic as well asnsocial, moral as well as political. Aristocracies,nalmost by definition, practice inaccessiblenvirtues. What Chivalry was innthe later Middle Ages, and Art in thenVictorian era. Nature is today. Like Art, andevotion to Nature is a surrogate religionn—the very rich have always had troublenlooking beyond the here and now. Butnwe really must give them their due—asnTucker does not. They no longer commissionngreat works of art (art is dead) ornset the standards for polite society (societynis dead). However, they do propose tonpreserve an important aesthetic resourcen—the not-quite-inexhaustible treasurenof woods, Idses, and rivers.njyiost people profess some sort of affectionnfor “the great outdoors,” but—naccording to environmentalists—not allnforms of outdoor recreation are equal.nThese snobs wish to enjoy a wildernessnunspoiled by man. Their motto is “leavenno footprints.” They drive in fuel-efficientnautomobiles to a remote parking lotnand carry their 50 poimds of nitrogenpackedntrail food for at least five milesnbefore setting up their well-nigh invisiblencamps. They are, of course, evennmore dependent on technology than thenlaboring classes who see no reason whynthe woods should be so hard to get to. Tonsimple vacationers—many of whom arenonly one generation off the farm—gettingnaway from it all usually means drivingnin an RV to a campsite with full facilitiesn. After unpacking the TV, stereo, andnvideo games, the family is ready to explorenthe wilderness—on their trailnbikes.nTucker argues strongly for the oldnmultiple-use doctrine. He insists that thenconflict between oflf-road vehicles andnhikers, power boats and canoes, requiresna compromise. It is only, he suggests, an