Climate change is a subject which is presently being talked about all over the world. Many people think it will very soon be followed by a climax collapse. Thus it means a global threat, a danger which concerns our earth as a whole and which was much discussed in the twentieth century already. The British philosopher Aldous Huxley, who was distinctly ahead of his time and who, in his literary and in his essays as well as in his academic lectures, made several contributions to this problem. It was in the Aldous Huxley Annual (AHA) 19 (2019) only that for the first time a dramatic version of Ape and Essence was edited by James Sexton and Bernfried Nugel, which had been familiar to the reading public as a novel with the same title for almost seven decades. This offered the opportunity to compare the two texts which appeared as two different literary genres. Apart from many other aspects, Huxley developed some ecological insights in both works, which were well-nigh identical. His pessimistic message is now more urgent than ever.

Aldous Huxley's Ecological Ideas in Ape and Essence Willi Real

As early as 1929 in his essay "Do What You Will" he wrote about its dangers.(2) In another essay written shortly before his own death, entitled “The Politics of Ecology” (1963) (PE), Huxley pointed out: “In the past, high birth rates were balanced by high death rates. Thanks to science, death rates have been halved but, except in the most highly industrialized, contraceptive-using countries, birth rates remain as high as ever. An enormous and accelerating increase in human numbers has been the inevitable consequence." (3) Besides, in a synopsis of a film on Egypt (1957), Huxley argues that overpopulation is an ever increasing burden for natural resources, which means a danger for the ecological balance of the country.(4) And in his collection Brave New World Revisited (1958), he concludes: “Overpopulation leads to economic insecurity and social unrest. Unrest and insecurity lead to more control by central governments and an increase of their power.(5) In other words, as “populations increase, resources dwindle. [...] These conflicts create social and political chaos.”(6)

Moreover, elsewhere Huxley went on to argue that death control was easy, which however, was not the case for birth control: “To persuade hundreds of millions of men and women to abandon their tradition-hallowed views of sexual morality, then to distribute and teach them to make use of contraceptive devices or fertility-controlling drugs – this is a huge and difficult task.”(7) And this problem is increased by pressure of time: „We have very little time at our disposal. The river of change flows ever faster, and somewhere downstream …. we shall come to the rapids, shall hear, louder and even louder, the roaring of a cataract.(8) A similar notion occurs at the end of Barbara Kingsolver's novel Flight Behaviour (2013), when one of the major characters tells a journalist, who does not believe in climate change: “We are at the top of Niagara Falls … in a canoe. [...] We have arrived at the point of an audible roar. Does it strike you as a good time to debate the existence of the falls?”(9) By this rhetorical question it becomes obvious that no less than the fate of mankind is at stake.

As to Huxley's fiction, first of all Brave New World (1932) has to be mentioned. In this famous dystopia the writer describes the so-called Malthusian belt as a contraceptive device, as a tool for population control, which was born by every possibly childbearing woman who had not not been sterilized.(10) In his last novel Island (1962), contraception is freely available, whereas children are raised in the so-called Mutual Adoption Clubs which are meant to achieve individual stability.(11) In other utopian novels the opposite is true, for example in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (1985) and The Testaments (2019), where population is determined by rapid decline.(12) Besides, in fiction there may also be a steady population, as it is described for example in Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time (1976): only when a person dies, is effected a new birth in order to bring life to a baby.(13) In reality such a perfect balance which is determined by a one-to-one correspondence between birth and death is well-nigh unthinkable.

But there are two other literary works in which Huxley develops his ecological ideas in a more comprehensive way. First of all, he does so in a novel which was published briefly after the end of World War II and entitled: Ape and Essence (1948). This work was later dramatized but published with the same title more than 55 years after the writer's death.(14) In the following section, there are five key passages taken both from the novel and the dramatized version of Ape and Essence. As a rule, these texts contain historical aspects as well as general insights, both of which are supplemented by value judgements on the part of the writer. The speaker in the first three passages is the Arch-Vicar, that is, a member of the ruling class of priests whose head of state is Belial, who is a perfect personification of Evil.

In both texts (1a) and (1b), the Arch-Vicar gives a historical lecture to Dr. Poole who, as a visitor from New Zealand, is one of the major characters: it is the Industrial Revolution that he regarded as the starting point of a dangerous development: right from the beginning this epoch was determined by the rise of coal-mining, steelworks, textile factories all of which caused a lot of air pollution. In text (1a), the claim of men to have become the Conquerors of Nature is rejected, however: this human achievement is just the opposite of military glory. The repetition of the term “conqueror” accompanied by the intensifier “indeed” is evidence of the writer's irony. As a matter of fact, a defeat rather than a victory has taken place, for Nature's balance is out of joint. Its ultimate consequences become visible roughly one century and a half later by the dropping of atomic bombs which “pounded most of the world back into the Stone Age” and which included “widespread pollution”.(15) Elsewhere Huxley passes a value judgement on this claim of conquest, which is accompanied by the recurring metaphor of parasitism (cf. texts 4a + b): “If, presumptuously imagining that we can 'conquer' Nature, we continue to live on our planet like a swarm of destructive parasites.”(16) The pejorative meaning of parasitism will be commented upon below.

In the dramatized text (cf. 1b) the devastating consequences are even described in a more detailed way. Apparent achievements lead to new problems, that is, it becomes impossible for mankind to achieve a real solution. There are ups and downs in the history of the world eventually leading to a vicious circle. In the beginning, the slogan is: Bread for everybody, which means that more food is needed, which means that the land is treated worse, which again means that less food is available. The final consequence, then, is that men are tempted to ruin their environment. The fact that the Arch-Vicar is not contradicted by anybody probably is a deliberate device of Huxley's literary technique.

(2a) “The overcrowding of the planet […] - and the land in process of being ruined by bad farming. Everywhere erosion,[...] the passage from hunger to imported food, from imported food to booming population and from booming population to hunger again [...] the hunger that is the cause of total wars and the total wars that are the cause of yet more hunger“ (p. 92). (Arch-Vicar's plea)

(2b) “More and more erosion, less and less fertility. And each year there were twenty million more of them to be fed.” (p. 55) “Imported food lead to booming populations. Booming populations lead to ruins of the soil. And ruin of the soil leads back to hunger.” (p. 56). (Arch-Vicar's plea)

Texts (2a) and (2b) continue this line of argumentation, which is very much the same in both passages: to ruin one's environment is characterized by the same keyword, namely 'erosion' of the soil. This means that the land is less fertile, that the farmers' attempts are largely futile so that people have to suffer from hunger. In addition to that, there are increasing numbers of people. In text (2b) “twenty million more people” have to be fed, from which it may be concluded that the country is overpopulated or even overcrowded (text 2a).

(3a) “Fouling the rivers, killing off the wild animals, destroying the forests, washing the topsoil into the sea, burning up an ocean of petroleum, squandering the minerals it had taken the whole of geological time to deposit. An orgy of criminal imbecility. And they called it Progress. Progress, he repeats, Progress!” (p. 93) (Arch-Vicar's plea)

(3b) “ … fouling the rivers, destroying the forests, washing the topsoil into the sea, turning pastures and plough-lands into deserts, burning up oceans of petroleum, squandering the minerals that it had taken the whole of geological time to deposit. An orgy of criminal imbecility. And He [Belial] persuaded them to call it Progress. Progress! (p. 56) (Arch-Vicar's plea)

In texts (3a) and (3b), the examples given are almost identical: fouling rivers, washing the topsoil into the sea, burning up oceans of petroleum, squandering minerals … And the value judgment passed on these by the writer is the same in both extracts. It is expressed by a very unusual collocation, namely “an orgy of criminal imbecility”. The term “orgy” normally refers to an uncontrolled or immoderate activity for example to excessive drinking and/or to sexuality, whereas “imbecility” is a synonym of stupidity or absurdity, which, besides, is classified as “criminal”. This sharp criticism is even more intensified by the final classification as “progress”: its irony could not become more obvious even when first reading the corresponding paragraphs. Elsewhere Huxley argues that "'progress' is counterproductive to well-being.”(17)

(4a) “In true symbiosis … there is a mutual beneficial relationship between two associated organisms. The distinguishing mark of parasitism … is that one organism lives at the expense of another. In the end this one-sided relationship proves fatal to both parties; for the death of the host cannot but result in the death of the parasite by which it has been killed. The relationship between modern man and the planet … has been that, not of symbiotic partners, but of tapeworm and infested dog, of fungus and blighted potato.” (p.129) [Dr. Alfred Poole speaking]

(4b) “In true symbiosis, there is a mutual beneficient relationship between two organisms. The distinguishing mark of parasitism … is that one organism lives at the expense of another. In the end this one-sided relationship proves fatal to both parties; for the death of the host entails the death of the parasite by which it has been killed. The relationship between modern man and the planet … has been that, not of symbiotic partners, but of tapeworm and infested dog, of fungus and blighted potato.” [Dr. Alfred Poole speaking] (p. 79)

In these two passages it is the protagonist Dr. Poole who is speaking: he is a good-natured, naive botanist believing in the natural order of things. However, he has to witness excesses of dehumanization never heard of in Brave New World.(18) In the texts (4a) and (4b), the writer again expresses his criticism with the help of a metaphor, which, this time, is combined with an analogy. He starts from explaining a “true symbiotic relationship”: “In true symbiosis … there is a mutual beneficial/beneficient relationship between two associated organisms.(19) This is in accordance with Huxley's basic definition of ecology: “Ecology is the science of the mutual relations of organisms with their environment and with one another.(20) And he goes on to declare: “Only when we get it into our collective head that the basic problem confronting twentieth-century man is an ecological problem will our politics improve and become realistic.”(21)

From this position, it is only a very small step to a genuine respect for Nature: In a collection of lectures entitled The Human Situation, Huxley (1959) advises […] that "we extend the Golden Rule to the non-human world also, doing unto it as we would have it do unto us.”(22) In other words: Things are not only mere objects but they are an integral part of a great living organism. As a consequence it is advisable to “do as you would be done by.”(23) This principle, then, should not only apply to human beings but it should also include Nature. The categorical imperative, then, is transferred from man to Nature and thus becomes a moral principle for the relationship between the human and the non-human world.

By way of contrast, Huxley continues with an explanation of parasitism which, when used as a biological term, may apply to plants or animals where one benefits at the expense of the other. Therefore such a relationship is one-sided and can never last long. In the end, the host will die in the same way as the parasite by which he was killed before: this is a just reward for selfish and irresponsible conduct. The metaphor of the parasites occurs once again in Huxley's article EP already mentioned above: “Do we propose to live on this planet in symbiotic harmony with our environment? Or, preferring to be wantonly stupid, shall we choose to live like murderous and suicidal parasites that kill their host and so destroy themselves?”(24) There can be no doubt that the two questions are rhetorical and therefore do not require an answer. This concept, then, is transferred from human behavior towards the planet. Men and Nature are not symbiotic partners but men behave towards Nature like a tapeworm to an infested dog, which means that both men and Nature are on the brink of extinction. Man's behavior, then, is both fatuous and irresponsible. It is hubris, since we behave "as though we were not members of earth's ecological community.”(25) Ape and Essence, then, represents "a depressing anti-utopian nightmare.”(26)

(5a) “Ignoring the obvious fact that his [man's] devastation of natural resources would, in the long run, result in the ruin of his civilization and even in the extinction of his species, modern man continued, generation after generation, to exploit the earth ...“ (p. 129) [Dr. Poole speaking]

(5b) ”Ignoring the obvious fact that his destruction of natural resources would result in the ruin of civilization and even in the extinction of the species, modern man continued, generation after generation, to exploit the earth, with an almost complete disregard of the laws of Nature“ (p. 79). [Dr. Poole speaking]

In texts (5a) and (5b) Huxley has Dr. Poole speak of the “devastation” or the “destruction” of natural resources respectively. In the past, particular in the tradition of Christianity, man's attitude towards Nature has been questionable. In the first chapter of the Bible (Moses, 1:28). God tells Moses to subdue the earth. In our times, however, Nature is considered as composed of animals and plants, of animate and inanimate things, and accordingly, man himself is not only part of God's creation but also responsible for it; see for example Pope St. Francis' encyclical published in 2015.(27) Therefore men should practice a careful treatment of the fragility of the natural world. What has been and what is practiced even now, is equivalent to an exploitation of the earth.

Undeniably this conduct has two consequences which could not be more serious, namely the collapse of civilization and the annihilation of man. Unfortunately, this relationship has been and is being ignored by mankind. It can be seen from both texts that this process has occurred for a very long time by now, that is, for several generations of men. Therefore nothing less than the survival of our planet is at stake: in the writer's words, there is a clear threat to human existence implied. Generally speaking there are no substantial differences between Huxley's argumentation in his novel and in his drama. On the contrary: there are many statements in the two different literary genera which are (well-nigh) identical.

Huxley's approach to ecology, then, is based on his concept of overpopulation, which may easily result in starvation. Closely connected with this is the problem of food production which has to make a reasonable and responsible use of the planet's resources. It has been shown that unfortunately in practice food production ended up in earth's exploitation. Another aspect which concerned Huxley was that our economy should not be too dependent on oil. In this context the writer already thinks in the contemporary categories of the alternative energies: “The most desirable substitute for petroleum would be an efficient battery for storing the electric-power produced by water, wind, or the sun.”(28) A third aspect deals with man's attitude towards other people and societies. To quote Huxley again:

“We believe that we best survive and thrive, as a society and as a nation, by watching out for our own interests. Accordingly, we should not only protect ourselves from other societies but, when necessary (and it is often necessary) exploit them. […] And as one consequence of this, we are often content to let our neighbors suffer as long as we can avoid suffering ourselves – an attitude that implies 'we' are not 'them'. 'We' are of that special class of people who matter most, and, unfortunately, we must sometimes do things to those other people (the ones who do not count), if it will benefit 'us'." (29)

From this quotation it becomes quite clear that any conviction of representing the chosen people is unjustified. Such a belief belongs to those kind of prejudices which have been and are still held by so may human beings in all ages. This hypocritical attitude may already be found in the Bible (cf. St. Matthew, 7:3): "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?“

To come back to Huxley. Elsewhere he points out: “Power politics, nationalism, and dogmatic ideology are luxuries that the human race can no longer afford. Nor, as a species can we afford the luxury of ignoring man's ecological situation. By shifting our attention … to the problems of the human species and the still inchoate politics of human ecology we shall be killing two birds with one stone - reducing the threat of sudden destruction by scientific war and at the same time reducing the threat of more gradual biological disaster.”(30) This statement was made by Huxley at the end of his life, still however, as early as in February 1963, which was far-seeing at that time. In the twenty-first century ecological policy must become a global affair which affects everyone. Consequently, Huxley's argumentation is more socially relevant than ever.

(2) Cf. Dana Sawyer, 'Brave New World View': Aldous Huxley, Environmental Prophet“, AHA 8 (2008), p. 221. (hereafter: EP)

(3) “The Politics of Ecology: the Question of Survival”, AHA 19 (2019), p. 114. (hereafter: PEQS)

(4) Aldous Huxley, ["Synopsis of a Film on Egypt"], (Edited by James Sexton), AHA 19 (2019), p. 97 and p. 102. (hereafter: SFE)

(5) Brave New World Revisited (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959), p. 21.

(6) EP, AHA 8 (2008) p. 237.

(7 PEQS, AHA 19 (2019) p. 116.

(8) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019) p. 119.

(9) Flight Behaviour (London: Faber & Faber, 2013), p. 507.

(10) Brave New World (1932), (Stuttgart: Klett, 2007), p. 49 and p. 53.

(11) Island (1961), (London: Flamingo, 1994), p. 86 and p. 98.

(12) Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1985), p. 34 and The Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 2019), p. 174.

(13) Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time (New York: Random House, 1976), p. 154.

(14) James Sexton & Bernfried Nugel (eds.), “Aldous Huxley's Unpublished Dramatization of Ape and Essence. Editors' Note on the Text”, AHA 19 (2019), pp. 1-91.

(15) Jerome Meckier, “Aldous Huxley and the Cure Scene in Modern Literary Utopias", AHA 19 (2019), p. 249; cf. also Ape and Essence, p. 93.

(16) Sawyer, EP, p. 231.

(17) Sawyer, EP, p. 227.

(18) Bernfried Nugel, “The Anti-Utopian Drift in Aldous Huxley's Literary Utopias”, AHA 19 (2019), p. 271.

(19) I have been unable to locate “beneficient” in a defining dictionary. Since the OED has “beneficent” only, there might have occurred a printing error in Huxley's work.

(20) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019), p. 122.

(21) Ibd.

(22) EP, AHA 8 (2008), p. 230.

(23) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019), p. 123.

(24) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019), p. 122. In a recent publication, Neubauer/Repenning point out that the climate crisis is the greatest danger for mankind, which may be compared "to a house on fire". Cf. Luisa Neubauer/Alexander Repenning, Vom Ende der Klimakrise (Stuttgart: 2019), p. 223 and p. 252.

(25) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019), p. 123.

(26) Nugel, AHA 19 (2019), p. 272.

(27) Cf. Wikipedia, s.v. Dominium terrae. Cf. also the comment to be found in Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich von und Anders Wijkman, Wir sind dran. Was wir ändern müssen, wenn wir bleiben wollen (Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2018), p. 124.

((28) Aldous Huxley, Science, Liberty and Peace (New York: Harper & Brother Publishers, 1946), p. 82. Quoted in Sawyer, EP, AHA 19 (2019), p. 227.

(29) Sawyer, EP, AHA 8 (2008), p. 233.

(30) PEQS, AHA 19 (2019), p. 124. There are some parallels between Huxley and two more recent works: Richard Powers in his comprehensive novel The Overstory (2018) argues that men ruin the world since they use more resources than can be replaced, and the consequence of such an exploitation is that it is leading to collapse (p. 321).
Ian McEwan in his novel Solar (2010) shows that its protagonist Michael Beard embodies greed and reckless consumerism. As such Beard is an allegorical character representing mankind. This motif is also close to exploiting Nature and to another metaphor used by Huxley as well, namely men's similarity to parasites. This is reminiscent of the metaphor mentioned by Neubauer/Repenning in note 24 above, namely that our planet resembles a „house in flames“.