Dear Dr K,
We recently learned in our geography class that the equator is an imaginary line that divides the Earth into northern and southern hemispheres. This got me thinking: aren’t all lines on maps imaginary? Political boundaries do not exist in nature, so why do we give them so much importance?
Borr Durr
Dear Borr,
If national and political boundaries existed in nature, birds would need to carry passports and visas to migrate. Drawing lines on maps, setting the geographical limits to a government’s jurisdiction, then arguing over them, is an entirely human endeavour. Politics itself is a human activity, which is why it is hardly surprising that the Earth didn’t come with pre-drawn political boundaries.
This is not to say that there are no geographical boundaries in nature, it’s just that these boundaries are of the physical variety. Oceans, rivers, mountains, valleys, forests and deserts, all can and do form boundaries that contain and guide the movement of life across the Earth’s surface. Such boundaries affect both human and other kinds of life, but we are bestowed with the ability to alter or penetrate these physical boundaries. We can dig tunnels through mountains, clear paths through forests, divert the course of rivers and much more. So it might be valid to say that physical boundaries don’t severely restrict our movement and activity in the same way that political boundaries are meaningless to plants and animals.
Yet, this is not always the case. You see, political boundaries may be created by humans, but they do not affect them alone. They are not imaginary but imagined, and this is a significant difference. Political boundaries affect human activity, and human activity affects nature. All you need to do to understand this is look at the boundary that India shares with Bhutan. You don’t have to be there in person to see this, simply open up Google Earth or Maps to look at satellite images of the two countries. You will notice that the Bhutanese side of the border, and in fact Bhutan as a whole, appears to be a much deeper shade of green than most of the areas on the Indian side of the border. This is because the forests on the Bhutanese side are much denser than on the Indian side. You might notice that there is a much starker contrast at the northern border that Bhutan shares with China, but over here the political boundary coincides with the physical boundary created by the Himalayas, which affect rainfall and vegetation on the Chinese side. The India-Bhutan border, however, is a political, human, ‘imagined’ boundary, and yet it creates a stark difference in the way that nature is distributed. This is because Bhutan is a less industrialised nation than India, but also because it is more serious about managing its forests and environment.
We need to recognise how profoundly human activities and institutions, even if they are ‘imagined’, affect the natural world. The boundary between the human and the natural is not as distinct as you might believe, and this line may in fact be one that is truly ‘imaginary’.
Yours questionably,
Dr K