A Response to Martin Krieger's What's Wrong with Plastic Trees

1129 Words3 Pages

A Response to Martin Krieger's What's Wrong with Plastic Trees

"Technologies, which may involve physical processes or social

organization and processes, determine how reproducible an object

is, for we may make a copy of the original, or we may transfer to

another object the significance attached to the original. (Copying

natural environments may be easier than copying artistic objects because

the qualities of replicas and forgeries are not as well characterized

in the case of the natural environment.) Insofar as we are incapable

of doing either of these, we may desire to preserve the original

environment." (220:A:2)

This excerpt provides a good idea of the types of issues Martin

Krieger raises in his paper entitled "What's Wrong with Plastic Trees."

Krieger, a professor of urban planning and development, argues for the

social construction of nature and for humanity's ability to re-create

nature. In this paper I will contest his underlying reasoning and his

general leaning, as I feel they disregard what is empirically verifiable

and historically factual about nature.

In the quote above, I do not so much take objection to his

conclusion, that if we can't fix it, then we shouldn't break it--in fact I

whole-heartedly agree with this point. What I do object to is the idea

that we can reproduce nature either through physical means, or through a

shift in the social beliefs and feelings toward nature. What he means by

this is that the concept of "nature" or "wilderness" has not existed, and

cannot exist independent of a cultural genesis: "What a society takes to

be a natural environment is one"(219:A:3). Krieger claims that our

conceptions of nature have changed based on how much of it there has been.
...

... middle of paper ...

...s, our decision as to how to treat the more unspoiled

areas should settle upon that of preservation with a minimum if any

intervention. We simply do not have a very good idea about what we are

monkeying with, with respect to the natural world, to do otherwise. In

conclusion I quote Aldo Leopold's famous formulation:

The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or

plant,'What good is it?'... If the biota, in the course of aeons, has

built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would

discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the

first precaution of intelligent tinkering.***

Works Cited

** Katz, Eric (1991) The Ethical Significance of Human Intervention in

Nature. Restoration and Management Notes 9:2 p 96

***Leopold, Aldo: Round River, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993,

pp. 145-146.

More about A Response to Martin Krieger's What's Wrong with Plastic Trees

Open Document