Eric Katz’s The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature, written in 1992, he discusses the moral responsibility humanity has to restore nature. He starts by saying that current policies give the message that humanity has the responsibility and means to restore nature, and that these beliefs have become principles of environmental philosophers. Katz’s argues against the belief that humanity has the responsibility to restore nature, or the ability. This belief is based on a “misperception of natural reality” (Katz Restoration, 444). Any restoration would be a technological fix, which is what caused the problem in the first place. The notion that humans can repair or improve nature is anthropocentric, and any restoration would only serve human interests. Eventually by restoring nature, we will dominate it.
Katz then analyzes an article written by Robert Elliot, in which Elliot compares nature to a work of art. To Elliot when nature is restored, it is analogous to copying or forgeding a work of art; in the process it loses its value. The problem Katz finds with Elliot’s argument is that because a land developer nor a strip mining company would never actually restore nature to its original state, it is not analogous to coping a piece of artwork because at that point is is completely different. Nature is different from art in that it is always changing, so there is no original, therefore, restoration of nature is not forgery, it is the creation of an artifact, which is made to serve human need. Restoring nature would be more similar to restoring a piece of artwork, not forgeding a piece of artwork.
Katz’z next focus is the difference between natural objects and artifact, and their relation to restoring nature. Artifacts are objects...
... middle of paper ...
...d artificial world.
While Katz argues against restoration policy, he notes that it is needed in cases such as the Exxon oil spill and Alaska. He believes that Exxon should be responsible for cleaning up its mess. To him restoration policy is a compromise, and we humans are not doing what we are attempting when we restore nature. Instead of restoration policy, a better policy would be to prevent the incidences the caused use to try to restore nature in the first place. If a preventative policy were advocated instead of one of restoration, nature would be free to develop by its self without the intervention of humans who restore nature in a way that serves their own purposes.
Works Cited
Katz, Eric. "The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature." Kaplan, David M. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009. 443-451.
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
Man has destroyed nature, and for years now, man has not been living in nature. Instead, only little portions of nature are left in the world
He believes that the wilderness has helped form us and that if we allow industrialization to push through the people of our nation will have lost part of themselves; they will have lost the part of themselves that was formed by the wilderness “idea.” Once the forests are destroyed they will have nothing to look back at or to remind them of where they came from or what was, and he argues everyone need to preserve all of what we have now.
Regardless of some of the differing views between the two authors, both Berry and Turner seem to share the belief that an unchanging natural landscape with which humans can develop a healthy and peaceful relationship is most ideal. The timelessness, calmness, and welcoming aura that nature brings will forever be there for us, as long as we do not destroy it with carelessness and ignorance. Works Cited Baldwin, A. Dwight, Judith De Luce, and Carl Pletsch. Beyond Preservation: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
Daniel Duane addresses a pressing modern anxiety surrounding technology’s destruction of the natural world. Duane is an author of seven books and many articles featured in The New York Times and Food & Wine. Also an editor for Men’s Journal, Duane’s experiences in rock climbing, science, and the beauty of the outdoors make his writings seem more passionate and credible. He recently wrote the article “The Unnatural Kingdom” in The New York Times explaining his ideas towards technological advancements and their effects on wildlife. In his article, Duane offers insights to the question, “If technology helps save the wilderness, will the wilderness still be wild?” (Duane 1). He utilizes kairos, pathos, ethos, logos, and other rhetorical devices,
Human beings have made much of purity and are repelled by blood, pollution, putrefaction (Snyder, 119). Nature is sacred. We are enjoying it and destroying it simultaneously. Sometimes it is easier to see charming things than the decomposition hidden in the “shade”.We only notice the beautiful side of nature, which are benefits that nature brings us: food, fresh air, water, landscapes. But we forget the other side, the rottenness of human destruction. That is how human beings create “the other side of the sacred”. We cut trees for papers, but we fail to recognize that the lack of trees is the lack of fresh air. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge “the other side of the
The environmentalist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries presents a picture of America at the time: torn between the desires to expand while seeking to protect nature. Although all members of the movement sought to protect nature, there were two predominant schools as to how to go about this. In their two philosophies, they created two methods for human interaction with the wilderness. The conservationist movement can be called the utilitarian movement, and sought the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest term. In contrast, the preservationist school aimed at keeping nature in its current state, although the individual members had differing reasons why. From these two conflicting views, the American public land system developed into its current state, in which it pursues a two headed program that preserves and conserves.
While Rachel Carson’s “The Obligation to Endure”, Christopher Kemp’s "Medieval Planet", and Jared Diamond’s “The Ends of the World as We Know Them” all cover subjects relating to environmental issues, each author goes about purveying his or her message in a different manner. Kemp’s New Scientist article explains humanity’s environmental effects by imagining a world in which we never existed and hypothesizing how it would look and function with our absence. Carson’s essay depicts a frightening reality about the current state of humanity and the environment. She warns readers about how we are the only species who possess the capability to disrupt and even destroy Earth’s natural patterns. Diamond articulates his work with an unusual spin, using examples of historical civilizations that have snuffed themselves out by their own progress or poor relationship with the environment. The main message conveyed in Diamond's essay is that we are just as capable of choking ourselves out by our own doing today as were the historical civilizations that suffered the same fate. Despite their differing focuses, each article agrees that humans are outgrowing the finite amount of resources that the Earth can provide. A delicate symbiotic relationship between life and the environment has been maintained throughout time. Life on Earth was shaped by the constantly changing climate and surroundings. However, humans have gained the capacity to transcend this relationship. Through our ingenuity and industrialism, we have separated ourselves from natural restrictions. Because of this progress, we have been destroying the natural cycles of Earth’s environment and continue to do so at an alarming rate. Humanity has become Earth’s infection, ravaging the worl...
Leopold’s view is a glorified dream at best. While most people do acknowledge the need for some type of ecological consciousness, the one illustrated by Leopold is far from probable. Today’s society is overrun with the desire for speed and convenience, and driven by competition. Asking the busy world to stop, step backward, and work the concerns for such things as soil, rocks, or oak trees into its contracts and agreements is a foolish notion. It has come to be that to most individuals, the sight of a city skyline that is bustling with business and life is just as pristine as the sight of a natural forest.
As a human race I could not with a good conscious say that we have all done that is possible to preserve our planet. I believe it partially should be blamed on our lack of knowledge on how we are actually affecting it. If you ask the common college student results prove that most would say they care to a certain extent. However, they also know that they are just one person in this world. Therefore, I believe this would be an excellent article for The Shorthorn. Geologist might say that it is too late to turn back from what has already been done. Simply buying a Prius or turning off the air conditioning won’t save our Earth. The fact of the matter is that “this civilization is already dead.” Now the key
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.
Mannoia, Jim (1997, May 15). A philosopher looks at the effect of modern technology on our view of human life. At http://www.houghton.edu/offices/acad_dean/Techpap.htm.
Throughout history, many individuals wish to discover and explain the relationship between nature and society, however, there are many complexities relating to this relationship. The struggle to understand how nature and society are viewed and connected derives from the idea that there are many definitions of what nature is. The Oxford dictionary of Human Geography (2003), explains how nature is difficult to define because it can be used in various contexts as well as throughout different time and spaces. As a result of this, the different understandings of what nature is contributes to how the nature society relationship is shaped by different processes. In order to better understand this relation there are many theorists and philosophers
...dearly-held, unconscious collective assumptions may impede our chances for survival. Or, as Poliakoff, et. al., noted, “fundamental changes in technology are adopted… only when they provide real advantage” (810). Are human beings inherently selfish, or are they capable of rising above that? Will we use this power we have developed to help ourselves, or to attempt to help the world? “Why can’t we achieve a better balance between people, resources, and the environment? … The complete answers to these questions lie deeply within the complex realms of science, philosophy, religion, economics, and politics.” (170). The answers may be complicated. The truth is, industrialization has changed our relationship to the environment. It has enabled us to hurt it far more than any other species, but it has also given us the ability to help. The power of choice now lies with us.
study of young and old forests says how this is in fact not true. Loggers have