After having examined a more ecological concern in the concept of scale and more moral concern in the concept of transitions, in this post I will focus on a more theoretical aspect of this initiative. As I have outlined previously in other posts, this project entails both the relocation of natural reefs and the planting or placement of artificial reefs in precise locations. In the words of the Ministry of Municipality, its activities over the past year have involved “the transfer and cultivation of 14,000 square meters of seaweed, and 11,595 units of natural coral hard, and 500 units of soft coral reefs, as well as the transfer and re-cultivation of more than 31,600 trees of mangroves in the coastal areas” (Ministry of Municipality). This raises important questions about what we consider nature, as well as the degree to which we are allowed to intervene with the “natural”.
In order to get a better understanding of the concept of “nature” and the strong significance such a phrase has on human culture, we may look at Clark’s The Anthropocene. In this article, Clark discusses several dilemmas of the current environmental epoch, which many refer to as the “Anthropocene.” What is nature, we may ask? As Clark explains, many traditional views of nature as ‘unaffected by human activity’ have become debatable (Clark 32). The phrase “natural” has value in and of itself, such as claiming that the components in a certain meal or drink are natural (Clark 32). Similarly, this notion may be found in far more complicated elements of life, such as stating that certain ways of life are more natural than others (32-33). Nature, viewed in this context, is a domain of undisputable facts (32). However, as notions of nature become more questionable, appeals to nature and the natural have also begun to lose credibility. This raises serious concerns for eco-criticism; a green critic can no longer claim to be protecting a natural state from human influence (36).
Looking back at the artificial reefs initiative in Qatar, doubts about nature or the natural raise more difficulties about the form and course of action that should be taken to address biodiversity loss. Grey areas around what exactly can be considered “nature”, in a way, raise questions about whether we should prioritize aspects of biodiversity based on how much “natural” value they hold. Do artificial reefs count as nature? Similarly, the lack of bounds to the idea of the “natural” raises questions about to what degree we can alter specific natures and preserve others. Is the relocation of natural reefs as a step in this initiative morally sound? Hence, it becomes clear how the notion of “nature” complicates this initiative’s core values. Through an examination of this initiative from Clark’s lens, a third alternative to the debate of altering vs preserving nature arises.
The case study of Qatar’s artificial reefs encompasses a new scope of altering to preserve nature. Are we allowed to alter nature if the ultimate aim is to preserve it? The Municipality of Environment and Climate Change has relocated natural reefs, seaweeds, and even mangroves, all of which constitute an alteration of nature. But since the aim is to protect nature and decrease biodiversity loss, does this change the moral stakes? Overall, this idea of altering to preserve would constitute new philosophical and moral dilemmas to the already existing doubts about the bounds of nature, as not only does it become a question of whether we are allowed to alter nature, but now it becomes a question of when are we allowed to do so, and what counts as an adequate reason for such a process?
Works Cited:
“The ‘Anthropocene’? Nature and Complexity.” The Value of Ecocriticism, by Timothy Clark, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 17–37.
“Qatar Marks International Day for Biological Biodiversity.” Ministry of Municipality, 22 May 2018, https://www.mme.gov.qa/cui/view.dox?id=702&contentID=5592&siteID=2.
