P. S. If you’re looking for some environmental good news, here’s Robert Macfarlane’s recent op-ed on the de-damming and subsequent revitalization of the USA’s Klamath River: “Rivers are easily wounded, but given a chance, they revive with remarkable speed. Lazarus-like, their life pours back. The first salmon was detected swimming upstream of where the Klamath dams had once stood just three days after the completion of the dams’ removal last September. Within a month, 6,000 salmon had migrated up into the newly accessible habitat.”
Hello Robin, I had to come back to this post. You have provided a landscape that takes us to the river beneath the river, which I call our ancient earth soul — as Clarissa Pinkola Estes speaks about.
Your question—“Is a river alive?”—landed in my chest like a prayer.
Amazing similarity. I grew up near Lake Erie and Lake Ontario too, and I remember when we could Not enter the murky waters, when the water turned from companion to caution. Even then, something in me knew the water was still alive—wounded, yes, but listening, asking for our care.
Thank you for invoking Robin Wall Kimmerer’s wisdom. I’m reading and listening to Braiding Sweetgrass again slowly, like a ceremony. I also hear Robin Rose Bennett’s voice in your words—yes, plants as helpers. They are intimate, powerful kin that I continuously learn to be in right relationship with.
Water too. Maybe they’ve been waiting for us to remember that aliveness doesn’t mean perfection—it means relationship.
I will look up your recommendations.
This piece stirred memory, grief, and a kind of hopeful ache. Another thought to hold, indeed.
Thank you for putting this together so beautifully—your writing is a gift.
Thank you for reading so perceptively and bringing your wisdom and gifts of experience to this post, Prajna. I love what you say about “the river beneath the river” and learning to be in right relationship. And yes, the question—Is a river alive?— lands in my heart, too. I’m most grateful to you for your beautiful words and for your generosity in sharing this piece.
The famous creek running through Washington, D.C. and its environs is Rock Creek, which runs most of the length of Rock Creek Park, an urban park twice the size of Central Park in New York.
Sadly, it is filled with sewage and runoff. It was recently the subject of recent headlines about its status when the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the current regime took a swim there--with his grandchildren.
A potential source of sickness for those children. A source of continuing shame for us all.
I am an advocate for recognizing legal personhood for all waters and believe it is our moral responsibility to protect them as stewards of Nature. They are, after all, the source of life.
Oh, wow. Not surprising about the polllution, sadly. The anecdote about Kennedy is curious. Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your response, Robin! In case you didn't see it in my own comment on this piece, I included a link to Robert Macfarlane's recent NYT op-ed on the de-damming of the Klamath River that flows from southern Oregon to northern California. It's a good news story. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/opinion/river-clean-water-act-klamath.html
Thanks for your thoughts, Julie. The Niagara is a mighty river! FYI, there's a wonderful documentary on the Mutehekau Shipu on CBC Gem (inside the link in this post). A thrill to behold.
THanks for guiding me towards your post Robin, you've really grappled with the book and taken it's complexities and richness on board. Loved reading your thoughts about the Hudson and the Don and Lake Ontrario too.
I live near the Charles River (Love that 'Dirty Water'), but I'm not familiar with its watershed or headwaters. You've made me curious. The Charles was dirty, almost orange in color, because the mills that lined it and used it for power and dumped chemicals into it, but they did clean it up. It definitely is alive now!
I'm glad reading this made you curious to learn about your local river's watershed, Doreen. Thanks for sharing on the Charles River. Sounds like a dramatic cleanup!
From what I have heard and personally experienced, we - the trees, rivers, humans, sentient beings can understand and communicate with each other and likely do with or without our awareness because we are formed by the same consciousness… meaning we are nature and function from the same frequency. I note when I get out of the way (mind) and feel deeper into all that is, that’s when I am able to decode my conversation with the rivers I have sat by. I adore Mother Earths rivers and love being with them in stillness. In my upcoming book there is a beautiful story about the lake I stayed by out from Bancroft last year. I so appreciate your storytelling and sharing your experiences, Robin. Thank you! 🙏
Thanks for reading this, Leanda, and for sharing your experiences. Language is a subtopic in one of RM's book's chapters. He and his travelling companion pose great questions about interspecies communication. And there's a gorgeous moment of contact near the end. (No spoilers, though.) I look forward to reading your forthcoming work.
You asked “…how, together, as a society, we may get better at Two-Eyed Seeing.” This thought drops in. We so often think of nature and the natural environment as “out there“. But even in city centres it’s right here, in front of us. I’ve just spent an hour wandering a working class district where I live, taking in the trees, seeing a rabbit scurry in front of me, and enjoying the wildflowers. We can commune with nature almost anywhere.
It's an interesting argument--this idea that a river should have legal status as a "person." Here's my problem with it: if a river can be person under the law, so can a zygote. This argument can easily be used to end abortion anywhere and everywhere. And not only abortion but also birth control. After all, ova and sperm are living cells nurtured in specific ecosystems.
Much as I appreciate the natural world and want to see the environment nurtured rather than degraded, I draw the line at applying legal "personhood" status to rivers, rocks and trees. It's too dangerous in a world that's quick to apply the blunt force of the law to matters that would be better off handled through negotiation, mediation and social consensus on a case by case basis.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Martina. The dialectic is essential, and I hear what you're saying about abortion and the dangers of the "blunt force of the law"—particularly now. Point taken. When Macfarlane was here, he opened his talk by calling his book an exploration of an idea, not a declaration of a position. There are problematic aspects of the Rights of Nature movement, for sure. But he didn't want to get lost in the weeds of intellectual debate and miss the essential point that our natural world is in trouble and we are not only part of it, but responsible. Increasingly, I have come to regard Two-Eyed Seeing as a viable way forward. When we bring Indigenous knowledge, based on millennia of living in harmony with the land, together with Western science, we are wiser. If you decide to read Macfarlane's book, you'll see various accounts of social engagement, negotiation, and consensus. Case by case. What I take from his work is the importance of cultivating our ability to reimagine our relationship with nature—to shift from our anthropocentric view of the world to one that's more inclusive—before it's too late for so many of the species living here, including our own. Respectful listening to one another is vital, and this book invites us to listen deeply and to keep an open mind. It also invites us to take action.
P. S. If you’re looking for some environmental good news, here’s Robert Macfarlane’s recent op-ed on the de-damming and subsequent revitalization of the USA’s Klamath River: “Rivers are easily wounded, but given a chance, they revive with remarkable speed. Lazarus-like, their life pours back. The first salmon was detected swimming upstream of where the Klamath dams had once stood just three days after the completion of the dams’ removal last September. Within a month, 6,000 salmon had migrated up into the newly accessible habitat.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/opinion/river-clean-water-act-klamath.html
Hello Robin, I had to come back to this post. You have provided a landscape that takes us to the river beneath the river, which I call our ancient earth soul — as Clarissa Pinkola Estes speaks about.
Your question—“Is a river alive?”—landed in my chest like a prayer.
Amazing similarity. I grew up near Lake Erie and Lake Ontario too, and I remember when we could Not enter the murky waters, when the water turned from companion to caution. Even then, something in me knew the water was still alive—wounded, yes, but listening, asking for our care.
Thank you for invoking Robin Wall Kimmerer’s wisdom. I’m reading and listening to Braiding Sweetgrass again slowly, like a ceremony. I also hear Robin Rose Bennett’s voice in your words—yes, plants as helpers. They are intimate, powerful kin that I continuously learn to be in right relationship with.
Water too. Maybe they’ve been waiting for us to remember that aliveness doesn’t mean perfection—it means relationship.
I will look up your recommendations.
This piece stirred memory, grief, and a kind of hopeful ache. Another thought to hold, indeed.
Thank you for putting this together so beautifully—your writing is a gift.
Thank you for reading so perceptively and bringing your wisdom and gifts of experience to this post, Prajna. I love what you say about “the river beneath the river” and learning to be in right relationship. And yes, the question—Is a river alive?— lands in my heart, too. I’m most grateful to you for your beautiful words and for your generosity in sharing this piece.
Yes and to know that we walked the same land and swam the same lakes some time ago. If I read that properly.
Truly!
The famous creek running through Washington, D.C. and its environs is Rock Creek, which runs most of the length of Rock Creek Park, an urban park twice the size of Central Park in New York.
Sadly, it is filled with sewage and runoff. It was recently the subject of recent headlines about its status when the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the current regime took a swim there--with his grandchildren.
A potential source of sickness for those children. A source of continuing shame for us all.
I am an advocate for recognizing legal personhood for all waters and believe it is our moral responsibility to protect them as stewards of Nature. They are, after all, the source of life.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/13/kennedy-swimming-rock-creek-sewage/
Oh, wow. Not surprising about the polllution, sadly. The anecdote about Kennedy is curious. Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your response, Robin! In case you didn't see it in my own comment on this piece, I included a link to Robert Macfarlane's recent NYT op-ed on the de-damming of the Klamath River that flows from southern Oregon to northern California. It's a good news story. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/opinion/river-clean-water-act-klamath.html
My nearest river is the Niagara. It's a bit daunting to think of getting to know it better -- but important, yes. Thank you for your insights!
Thanks for your thoughts, Julie. The Niagara is a mighty river! FYI, there's a wonderful documentary on the Mutehekau Shipu on CBC Gem (inside the link in this post). A thrill to behold.
THanks for guiding me towards your post Robin, you've really grappled with the book and taken it's complexities and richness on board. Loved reading your thoughts about the Hudson and the Don and Lake Ontrario too.
Aww, thanks, Charlie. It’s great to connect with you here, and I’m glad you enjoyed this post on a book we both loved.
I live near the Charles River (Love that 'Dirty Water'), but I'm not familiar with its watershed or headwaters. You've made me curious. The Charles was dirty, almost orange in color, because the mills that lined it and used it for power and dumped chemicals into it, but they did clean it up. It definitely is alive now!
I'm glad reading this made you curious to learn about your local river's watershed, Doreen. Thanks for sharing on the Charles River. Sounds like a dramatic cleanup!
From what I have heard and personally experienced, we - the trees, rivers, humans, sentient beings can understand and communicate with each other and likely do with or without our awareness because we are formed by the same consciousness… meaning we are nature and function from the same frequency. I note when I get out of the way (mind) and feel deeper into all that is, that’s when I am able to decode my conversation with the rivers I have sat by. I adore Mother Earths rivers and love being with them in stillness. In my upcoming book there is a beautiful story about the lake I stayed by out from Bancroft last year. I so appreciate your storytelling and sharing your experiences, Robin. Thank you! 🙏
Thanks for reading this, Leanda, and for sharing your experiences. Language is a subtopic in one of RM's book's chapters. He and his travelling companion pose great questions about interspecies communication. And there's a gorgeous moment of contact near the end. (No spoilers, though.) I look forward to reading your forthcoming work.
I couldn’t imagine his book could be without such a connection! Thank you Robin 🙏💝🤗
Hello from a fellow tree hugger.
Hello! I'm glad to connect with you, Julie. Thanks for reading. 🌳🌊
You asked “…how, together, as a society, we may get better at Two-Eyed Seeing.” This thought drops in. We so often think of nature and the natural environment as “out there“. But even in city centres it’s right here, in front of us. I’ve just spent an hour wandering a working class district where I live, taking in the trees, seeing a rabbit scurry in front of me, and enjoying the wildflowers. We can commune with nature almost anywhere.
So true.
It's an interesting argument--this idea that a river should have legal status as a "person." Here's my problem with it: if a river can be person under the law, so can a zygote. This argument can easily be used to end abortion anywhere and everywhere. And not only abortion but also birth control. After all, ova and sperm are living cells nurtured in specific ecosystems.
Much as I appreciate the natural world and want to see the environment nurtured rather than degraded, I draw the line at applying legal "personhood" status to rivers, rocks and trees. It's too dangerous in a world that's quick to apply the blunt force of the law to matters that would be better off handled through negotiation, mediation and social consensus on a case by case basis.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Martina. The dialectic is essential, and I hear what you're saying about abortion and the dangers of the "blunt force of the law"—particularly now. Point taken. When Macfarlane was here, he opened his talk by calling his book an exploration of an idea, not a declaration of a position. There are problematic aspects of the Rights of Nature movement, for sure. But he didn't want to get lost in the weeds of intellectual debate and miss the essential point that our natural world is in trouble and we are not only part of it, but responsible. Increasingly, I have come to regard Two-Eyed Seeing as a viable way forward. When we bring Indigenous knowledge, based on millennia of living in harmony with the land, together with Western science, we are wiser. If you decide to read Macfarlane's book, you'll see various accounts of social engagement, negotiation, and consensus. Case by case. What I take from his work is the importance of cultivating our ability to reimagine our relationship with nature—to shift from our anthropocentric view of the world to one that's more inclusive—before it's too late for so many of the species living here, including our own. Respectful listening to one another is vital, and this book invites us to listen deeply and to keep an open mind. It also invites us to take action.
Sounds like a good read.