The Redwoods. Tall mighty old growths. The ground lush with spongey soil. As I walk through the forest my eyes are locked to the sky. I am in Northern California and the sky is a dull grey but I cant even tell for above my head is a vast network of branches and leaves and life. A lush humidity touches my skin as I breath in wonder…..
The discourse surrounding the question of whether or not we should save nature is troubling in that it is based on two flawed assumptions. The first one is that we are separate from nature. In the tradition western view, humans, because they are rational beings are thought of as being able to transcend nature and the environment. Through technology and reason, humans were to be able to tame the environment and change it for their own conveniences. While people now tend to see the need for environmental protection, nature is seen as something “out there,” that we can visit but are not part of. This brings us to the second assumption: that nature can be secluded from human influence. Environmental protection usually comes in the form of creating national parks or forest preserves. While these places are important sources of peace and well-being for people it is a fallacy to think that they are untouched by human activities. Thus I don’t think we should be asking the question “should we save nature.” Instead we should be asking ourselves how can we be better members of the ecosystem? Or how can we best help maintain biodiversity or natural beauty?
No comments:
Post a Comment