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.
ABSTRACT: Robert Elliot's "Faking Nature," (1) represents one of the strongest philosophical rejections of the ground of restoration ecology ever offered. Here, and in a succession of papers defending the original essay, Elliot argued that ecological restoration was akin to art forgery. Just as a copied art work could not reproduce the value of the original, restored nature could not reproduce the value of nature. I reject Elliot's art forgery analogy, and argue that his paper provides grounds for distinguishing between two forms of restoration that must be given separate normative consideration: (1) malicious restorations, those undertaken as a means of justifying harm to nature, and (2) benevolent restorations, or, those which are akin to art restorations and which cannot serve as justifications for the conditions which would warrant their engagement. This argument will require an investigation of Mark Sagoff's arguments concerning the normative status of art restorations.
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.
Throughout the centuries, technology has been advancing nonstop. Whether it be a television, some gunpowder, or even a watch, humans keep on creating more contraptions. However, accompanying these inventions is the increasing separation between mankind and the world. As Richard Louv discusses in a passage from Last Child in the Woods, scientists and researchers continue to invent technologies that they claim to better connect humans and nature, although in reality, they are doing the opposite. In the passage, Louv debates against these technologies with the use of anecdotes, imagery, and anaphoras.
He understands the careful balance that mankind must strike in his essay, "Last Child." Well placed literary devices pull the reader in and keep them interested. Louv's article addresses the conflict between nature and technology by utilizing rhetorical questioning, introducing the topic through nostalgic storytelling, and supporting his argument with eyewitness accounts. Louv teaches his reader about the importance of nature, technology, and real world experience in a well organized essay that incorporates numerous literary devices. In conclusion, mankind can learn more with the careful combination of nature and technology than ever
Look at the civilized, beautiful capital cities in every developed country all around the world which is the central of high fashioned and convenience facility. To live in the city, it seems like the nature surrounding is not important to us anymore. In “The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature” David Suzuki presents the connection between human and the nature and how we depend on the surrounding environment. However, within the past century, most of our modern technologies have been developed in order to provide people needs of goods and products (63). Many of the products we made are causing much more harm to the environment than the value that products provide. Technological development has damaged our environment to the point
America’s wilderness areas are vitally important for our nation's health and well-being. Preserving America’s Wilderness areas is necessary for conservation of resources, it is necessary for the survival of Human, and necessary in maintaining biodiversity.
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
In Does a Place Still Have Value When It’s Not Use to People the author Jason Mark, writes about how nature is taken over by man. Beginning his article, he talks about how the peaceful noises that make nature peaceful are overpowered by mans machines. These being background to his journey to find a place untouched by the noises and destruction of man, article talks about how in order to find a place untouched by man one must go to great lengths to find it, as is his journey. Once it has been found there are many parts of nature that go unnoticed that will continue to be but just because they are unnoticed does not lessen their value to nature or make them any less beautiful. Mark ends his article by talking about how man is ending multiple species on earth and how his peaceful oasis will no longer be full of the natural beauty that it once held. Mark overall discussing how there is natural beauty that will go unnoticed yet that doesn’t take away from the beauty of it.
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.
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.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
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.
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.