Human beings. We are an exclusive species. Humans are able to achieve abstract thought, while most of the creatures in the animal kingdon have an attention span of only minutes. We are able to extract the purest elements from the most barren lands. We are also able to destroy the fragile biodiversity that has taken the earth millions of years to create. Should humankind, however, be punished for pushing so many different species into extinction by becoming extinct itself?
In Thomas Palmer's essay, "The Case For Human Beings", Palmer explores the topics of human accomplishment, the diversity of humankind, and the havoc that said diversity has caused on the environment. Using irony and sarcasm, with the occasional clever analogy, he burdens the reader with his cynical outlook on humankind in regards to its brutish treatment of the earth's delicate ecosystem. In one paragraph, Palmer states, "The only way to...restore biodiversity to its greatest possible richness, would be to arrange for every human being on earth to drop dead tomorrow" (323-24). Palmer's combative literary form, however, is not entirely lacking its own beauty and grace. When he uses human acheivements such as a Bach chorale, man's first journey to the moon, and three-masted schooners, he is bringing glory back to humankind. Although he explains the splendor of the Bach chorale, he still states, "Human consciousness...cannot, in this view, contribute to biodiversity, except by staying as far out of the picture as possible, so as to avoid tainting still-intact landscapes with unnatural influences" (324). No Bach chorale, no three-masted schooner, no Apollo landing, Palmer reveals, contributes to the ecosystem.
Palmer isn't a misanthrope. He isn't out for the destruction of the human species. His writing strategies, such as comparisons, distortion of the opposition, and smokescreening the obvious issue at hand, which is the destruction of the ecosystem, indeed tell the reader of his belief in his writing. Palmer writes this to Everyman--an average person of average intelligence with only an average curiosity about the destruction of the species.
In the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, there are many themes, symbols, and motifs that are found throughout the novel. For my journal response, I have chosen to discuss nature as a prevalent symbol in the book. The main character, Montag, lives in a society where technology is overwhelmingly popular, and nature is regarded as an unpredictable variable that should be avoided. Technology is used to repress the citizens, but the oppression is disguised as entertainment, like the TV parlour. On the opposite end of the spectrum, nature is viewed as boring and dull, but it is a way to escape the brainwashing that technology brings. People who enjoy nature are deemed insane and are forced to go into therapy. Clarisse says “My psychiatrist wants to know why I go out and hike around in the forests and watch the birds and collect butterflies,” (Bradbury 23) which shows she is a threat to the control that the government has put upon the people by enjoying nature.
As it is stated in the quotation, everything on earth has its own story which may be hard by real listeners. In order to be an enthusiastic listener, one should give enough attention. What is called modern today is erasing the link between people and the nature day by day. People have exploited nature continuously thinking that it is a mere entity in order to serve them. In this respect, I will explain Linda Hogan’s book, People of the Whale, in the light of Christopher
More than 150 years have passed since the peak of the romantic era. The world has inconceivably reached heights unknown seemingly at the expense of nature. The very paper that this has been written on has come at the killing of countless trees. It seems that in the war between the genius against the noble savage, the scientist against the romantic, man against nature, those who believe in nature have lost all the battles. However war is not always starkly clear. The complex relation between man and nature creates a base for conflicts and resolutions between human and nature in Frankenstein by Mary Shelly and the film Beasts of the Southern Wild. Despite seeming to be on the losing foot, it is nature that wins the war ultimately.
... life. What we are able to do is treat all species with respect and do what we can so that they can thrive in a world that we have altered. We can preserve a species without alienating another. Preserving the Australian fauna at the cost of some feral dogs is the choice we have to make for the good of the biological make up of that region. Dogs themselves won’t go extinct and we’ve also eliminated a threat to other species including ourselves. Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
He claims “nature is, in truth, little more than a source of catastrophe, using as proof the upsets that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and the formation of fossil fuels. We humans cannot accept this explanation because we are
Many of the readings that we have studied in class have discussed the idea of human beings and our relationships with nature. The different authors we’ve studied and the works we’ve analyzed share different views of this relationship – a very interesting aspect to study. Human relationships with nature are truly timeless – nature can have the same effects on humans now as it did millions of years ago. Two of the works in particular which offered differing views on this relationship were “Entrance to the Woods” by Wendell Berry and “The Invented Landscape” by Frederick Turner.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
The advent of industrialization and mankind's insatiable quest to devour nature has resulted in a potentially catastrophic chaos. Our race against time to sate the ever-increasing numbers of hungry stomachs has taken toll on the environment. Man has tried to strip every resource Earth has to offer and has ruthlessly tried to eliminate any obstruction he perceived. Nature is an independent entity which has sustained and maintained the balance existing within it. Traditionally, spring season hosts the complete magnificence of nature in full bloom. It is evident in the very first chapter when Rachel Carson talks about a hypothetical village which was the epitome of natural rural beauty and was a delightful scenery for the beholder. The village
Humans can not be the only thing that is hurting the Earth. When you really think about it, Earth goes through a lot of natural disasters, which cannot be controlled. According to an activist, Tim Haering, “Tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, disease nature kills more than we kill each other.” Earth throws in all of these natural ...
Quinn made it clear that human behavior and culture are root causes of their increase in unsustainability. He describes that the story in which mankind is enacting is one that makes them the enemy of the world. Ishmael pushes the narrator to provide an explanation of how things came to be this way. How humans were able to cause so much destruction. The explanation given was that The world was created for man, man was made to conquer and rule it and turn the world into paradise under human rule. However, the paradise cannot be achieved because man is flawed (Quinn, 47). Ishmael compares the implication that humans are above any law to an airman who has built a flying contraption that does not obey the law of thermodynamics. He explains that man is on this craft and completely unaware of the law that must be complied to achieve civilizational flight (Quinn, 63). The first craft went well and they felt as if the flight was never going to end. However, they were in freefall because their craft was simply not in compliance with the law that makes flight possible. Their ignorance to the law continuous use of the same unstable craft will accelerate rate that which they are falling. This comparison is a metaphor to how humans live without considering the law of living which is what has brought them to the brink of catastrophe. The culprits for the biodiversity loss include climate change, habitat loss,
"Humans are sound bad things to the earth." This quote emphasizes how people treat the earth wrong. In the story "A Dirge" it shows how the earth cries because the humans are wrong. In addition to that, the "from Plastics: A Toxic Love Story" states how the humans are wrong by polluting plastics. A couple creates fine art from the plastics but then realizes they polluted the beach, also.
The world is categorized into many ecospheres, among all, water and land. Upon further analysis, it is evident that both nature and humanity are interdependent. However, our anthropocentric views on the world have led to a golden age of mass production, accelerating beyond natures ability to regenerate itself. In the late 1950s nature was not seen as an item of importance, during the time civilization was captured by the topic of civil rights for the human being, rather than the detrimental natural surroundings. Often times, society does not utilize all the resources provided by the environment and can fall into the mindset of hurting the environment without knowing the full consequences. In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson exposes the hidden
The human nature can be seen to have adapted to all the situations in the environment while showing whatever the circumstances, there is always an advancement in the human nature as they get smarter and adapt to their own surroundings. They also shape their own surroundings according to will. Driftglass tries to lay the power lines about humanity on an ocean floor habitat with a better precision at hand . Such a message depicts that there is no failure or rather, the human kind often tends to possess a greater ability for adapting towards their own environment and surroundings (Delany, p. 109).
In the last hundred years, over 160 species of flora and fauna equating to millions have gone extinct (“The Sixth Extinction”, 2013). The harmful and selfish acts of man, with absolute disregard for the lives of non-human organisms, have caused colossal and devastating damage to the earth (Bekoff, 2014). All these destructive actions have been themed by Bekoff as “unwilding”. We are living in the Anthropocene, the age of humans. In a world where “unwilding” has unfortunately become a norm. Rewilding is the opportunity for us humans to reverse the destruction we have brought upon the natural world (Monbiot, 2013) if we humans did not “unwild”, rewilding would not be necessary now (Bekoff, 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine and evaluate the issues fuelling the controversy between proponents advocating rewilding, and opposition groups. It studies the movement of rewilding the earth, and the “rewilding” of people’s hearts (Bekoff, 2014), together with their positive impacts. In addition, it looks at the potential obliteration of our
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.