The essay written by Roderick
Frazier Nash entitled, “Island Civilization”, captivated my attention and
opened my eyes to the reality of the mistreatment of humans to the planet. One of Nash’s main points was that while
humans normally see the decrease in forests as an increase in shopping centers
and highways, what they don’t see is the decrease in land to sustain
civilization. Nash gives a brief history
of the early European citizens and they’re mindsets on land expansion. For example, because the early citizens were
carrying a bias attached to the Bible, and the Bible classified ‘wilderness’ as
the land that God cursed, the first colonists were not concerned with
preserving forbidden forests. Derived
from that mentality, the new colonists created new tools of transformation such
as axes, dams, and freeways that left the wilderness in strewn leftovers.
As expansion continued, Americans began to worry as to
whether or not progress had gone too far.
When the 1890 United States Census stated that there was no longer any frontier,
that statement was a reality check for Americans who then began to realize the importance
of wilderness preservation and civilization.
While the beginning movements were based on the “ideas of wilderness as
a church” and “a stimulant to a unique art and literature and a psychological
aid”, the more recent arguments centered around the idea that the conservation of
nature was not about us, but rather about the wilderness that we had been
controlling since the beginning of civilization.
Food chains and ecosystems were the first scientific
reasons that led ecologists to believe that nature was a community that mankind
belonged to, not owned. Nature began
being compared to blacks, natives, and women as an oppressed minority in
extreme cases. There is only two percent
of the contiguous forty-eight states that is wild legally, which sadly equals
the amount of paved roads. Because of the
decrease in biodiversity amounts, many biologists were led to believe that
there may be a Sixth Great Extinction approaching.
After giving a summary of the history of natures’
declination, Nash begins to break down the possible futures of the Earth and
human civilization. The first scenario
entitled, “wasteland scenario”, describes a world littered and consumed with pollution. “Garden scenario” describes an Earth with no
diversity, clean water running through streams and far and wide grain fields;
however, the waters would have low bio diversification. The third scenario, “Future primitive”, would
resume ancient living styles such as hunting for food and make shifting
shelters and clothing. The final and
favorite scenario of Nash goes by the name of “Island Civilization”. Island civilization would build better tools
that would create peace, not war; also, there would not be any civilization
with nature. Nash describes the islands
as a way to scale back from lavish living and equalize humans and their impact.
Reading Nash’s article was definitely an eye opener for
me, because I had never really thought about the future of the Earth past fifty
years or so. Thinking about the distant
future of over a thousand years really opens up possibilities of bettering the
Earth’s current economic and wild life problems. I agreed with Nash’s point that we should not
dismiss all of the technological progress that has been made thus far, but
rather to use it responsibly. With all
of the technology being created, and those behind it, we should be starting to
plan a way to reverse the upward rates of population grown and the downward
rates of living space remaining. I do
feel that humans have too many amenities that could be scaled down and altered
to not be so wasteful to the planet.
Nash made a very impacting point when he asked the question of whether
or not society will make the appropriate changes deliberately or desperately. If society does not go ahead and begin
preparation for the upcoming decades, I fear for future civilization and the
slowly dwindling natural resources left.
I like how you use multiple references to Nash's writing and quoted him directly. Also, I agree with you in that I believe that we should keep some technology, and dismiss others that are not as useful or necessary if the "island civilization" actually occurred. I believe it would be improbable to attempt to get rid of all the technology in the world. Instead keep the most important forms of it, which are not extremely toxic to the earth and its environment and completely ban the other unnecessary technology. After living in our generation with all the items like cell phones and computers, it would feel like a completely new world without any technology at all.
ReplyDeleteI think you understood the article more than I did because your summary helps me understand it better. I liked it. I also agree with you that we should use technology responsibly rather than getting rid of it.
ReplyDelete