The Fight for Nature Preservation and Restoration in Round River by Aldo Leopold
In the essay the "Round River" Aldo Leopold was trying to say many different ideas that related together in the fight for nature preservation and restoration.
One of Aldo Leopolds main points in his essay was that we as humans can not replace, rebuild nature. So before it goes to far, and get's to destroyed we must restore it. As people though we can only do so much and we can't restore it with foreign plants, but only the natural plants that originated there. So if we destroy an area's ecosystem then we can never restore, and replenish it to its original state and land consistency. In his essay Leopold said that "we have radically modified the biotic system because we had to. Food chains now begin with corn, and alfalfa instead of oaks and bluestem, flows through cows, hogs, and poultry instead of into elk, deer, and grouse." Therefore we can never restore damage done but only reroute it.
Another point in his essay is that all land is one mechanism and if you damage one part then you intern damage or affect another part. So we cannot fully preserve land because our scientists cannot recognize all of the earth's mechanisms. For instance if you kill the wolves then the rabbit and deer
population may rise without as high of predation.
Another major point in his essay is that if we are going to prevent a species from extinction we must do it everywhere not just in one specific place. The worlds whale population is not going to rise if only the United States bans whale hunting. And if we don't enforce poaching laws and regulations. This also refers to if you tamper with one organism you affect a lot more. If we kill all the whales not only can we not use them but larger sea predators like sharks can't either. So they will be forced to feed on smaller sea life and then damage our sea food supply by eating other fish that we eat. So we as a whole must conserve on our supplies of natural objects with our exponentially growing population.
We are also over concerned with now compared to the future which I believe to be more important . The world is to caught up in todays tinkerings to think about the end effects.
...sion Native Americans made a connection with the earth that was an ongoing affirmation to be close to nature. To witness the beauty of the land and all it had to offer them. Seattle’s address took a strong and powerful stance against the Americans, not only did he stand up for his people but he showed the wrong in the Americans. The essay and art work have affected the progress and solidity of the Native American culture in the past and the present. Each piece possess vitality, power and a drive to move forward, they also coincide on different levels where as to the message, that they bring forth understanding the environment and relationship between land, and man.” At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this beautiful land” (Seattle, 57).
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
...s to remove the selfish entertainment from nature and focus instead on its intrinsic value. This in situ approach to conservation of cod, although seemingly surface level transcends the boundaries of economic, cultural, or any of such approximations and places the value on the existence of the species. Another projected solution for the crisis of the overexploitation of fish is the institution of moratoria, which establish that a certain species can no longer be hunted or fished in this context. This in situ attempt at regulating the consumption of cod allows the cod for time to replenish themselves and their populations. Yet, this type of regulation suggests that all humankind must do is step back and let for the problem to take care of itself, and as has been proven several times before stepping back and letting things resolve themselves do not end accordingly
J. Baird Callicott is probably most famously known as an advocate for Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic (1949.) The Land Ethic is an environmental ethic which Callicot strongly posits is a holistic and non-anthropocentric ethical theory. In other words, The Land Ethic should, if Callicotts position is correct, be an ethical theory that places collectives, as opposed to just individual living things, as having intrinsic value. It should also be an ethical theory that does not focus on, or allow, Homo sapiens to be considered the only “things” as having moral significance. The Land Ethic, originally sketched out by Leopold is a very concise, yet intricate, piece of literature and Callicott has written many pieces of literature which attempt to explain, unfold, apply and defend Leopold's Land Ethic. The purpose of this essay is to, as clearly and precisely as possible, provide an explanation as to what The Land Ethic consists of, with both references to Leopold and several of Callicot's literatures. Following this an identification of any problems that can be extracted from the theory will then be juxtaposed with Callicott's attempt to defend The Land Ethic and remedy these issues. Finally, after the presentation and analysis of The Land Ethic a decision will be made as to whether The Land Ethic is, what Callicott claims, truly an adequate non-anthropocentric environmental ethic.
Time and time again it has been seen that human interaction with his/her environment and it’s ecosystems has shown to be increasingly arrogant and self-serving. These endless accounts are proven by the amount of important biological diversity that is being lost to the surrounding environment due to these threats of human development and population growth. There are two forms of these losses of diversity by human hand: direct and indirect. Direct losses would be the destruction of an area needed for human requirements be it social or economical. Examples of these losses would be housing, agriculture, and others. Indirect losses would be those caused by the destruction of an area also needed for the same requirements but the area’s commodities which are valued, water, food, land in general, is needed elsewhere. These losses are few in number compared with those of direct losses yet they are of the greatest importance. They are important because they involve the removal of resources of an area in which other inhabitants are dependent upon. A great example of this regrettable indirect expansion is the loss of the rich habitat of the area known as Owens Valley.
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.
Henry Thoreau’s relationship to nature underwent many changes throughout the course of his life. He especially made a much discussed shift from Emersonian Transcendentalism, to scientific data collection. Thoreau followed varied paths on his quest to understand the world in which he lived. As he grew older he managed to amass a huge collection of information about the plants and animals in the Concord region of Massachusetts. But his greatest contribution to the world is not his scientific research; rather it is the example of respect and thoughtfulness with which he approached nature. This individualistic and spiritual approach to nature differentiates him from modern day ecologists. Thoreau’s quest was to understand better and appreciate nature as a whole and the greater role it plays in connection to all things. Not only did he succeed in doing so, but he has also inspired his readers to question, observe, and appreciate the natural world. His thoughts on nature are recognized today as precursors of the conservation movement and also inspiration for the creation of national parks. Thoreau’s approach to nature varied throughout his life, but his purpose did not. His myriad approach to his work is exactly what brought about his success, and sets him apart from other nature writers and ecologists who share his quest.
I think that in this chapter Leopold is showing the reader how the different people see the land and the things in and around that land. He also tells us that even the conservation commission feels impelled to kill animals and birds to help the production of a lesser species.
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
Muir’s ideas are not relevant today as he wants people to see and admire the romantic value of nature. Leopold wants people to be responsible for the affect they have in the environment and Muir wants people to see and admire the romantic value of nature. Pinchot’s idea put people in the center, and on the other hand Muir put individuals in focus This can be better explained.
...he environment. Back then whaling had to be evenmessier and was not good for the water to leave parts behind, or take away an animal from it’s natural habitat for human use. uNowadays there are ideas of global warming that take o the same concept. People get mad because society as a whole does not take care of the environment. There are laws about littering and many activists groups that try to persuade society on how to live their life. In the end of this book nature won, but in the end of the world who will come out on top?
The term "environmental refugee" was first proposed in 1976 by Lester Brown. In 2007, The International Organization for Migration (IOM) determined the following definition for environmental migrants: “Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad,” (Migration and the Environment, 2007, p.). In actuality, the IOM proposes three types of environmental migrants. First, the “Environmental Emergency Migrants”, are people who flee temporarily due to an environmental
What is also becoming increasingly clear is the effect that forests have on the climate and the climate has on forests, and how changes in one system will affect the other. Losing forest makes it worse. Clearing forests also releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. Worldwide deforestation means we don’t have as many trees to absorb the extra CO2. This means more of it stays in the atmosphere, trapping more heat. Forest are cut down for many reasons, but most of them are related to money or to people’s need to provide for their families. The biggest driver of deforestation is agriculture. Farmers cut forest to provide more room for planting crops or grazing livestock. Often many small farmers will each clear a few acres to feed their families by cutting down trees and burning them in process known as “ slash and burn” agriculture. Therefore, not all deforestations is intentional. Some is caused by a combination of human and natural factors like wildfires and subsequent overgrazing, which may prevent the growth of young trees. Deforestations has many negative effects on the environment. The most dramatic impact is a loss of habitat for million of species. So seventy percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forest, and many cannot survive the deforestation that destroy their homes. A more workable solution is to carefully manage
Firstly, restoration undergoes the processes of human intervention and disturbance. It could never be as natural as it was born (P. 178). Moreover, it is fake because of imitation of natural. Some people may argue that ecosystem restoration is a deception for it changes people’s knowledge to the natural environment. According to Katz (P. 179), “a natural system, by contrast, is one that lacks a purpose imposed from outside. Instead, free from human domination, an autonomous natural system is one that ‘pursues its own independent course of development’ (P.
Deforestation is a current problem in this world, and it’s happening every day, more and more. Deforestation is the clearing of the world’s forests on a massive scale. Every year, the amount of forest we lose is equivalent about the size of Panama. It is everywhere, look at where we attend college. Once upon a time, Eckerd College was all forested area. Every time we build something here on campus, more and more trees get knocked down.