The excerpts we read from
The World Without Us by Alain Weisman both posed and attempted to answer many deep philosophical questions about the environment as well as specific scientific ones. The prelude introduce a tribe living in Ecuador, in part of the Amazon. These people believed themselves to be close descendants of monkeys. The Zapara tribe used to thrive off nature years and years ago until the automobile began to be mass-produced. At that point in time, determined Europeans trampled through the land of the Zapara Indians, in search of materials needed for car-producing. They brutally destroyed the environment, murdered many Indians, and left. The Zapara were considered extinct. In 1999, some reappeared, who had escaped the genocide years ago. That was only one forest and one group of indigenous people used in the example, but this was happening all over the globe. Later in the book, Weisman discusses the Puszcza, which was once a huge landscape of lush trees and nature crosses over an extremely large space in parts of Europe. Because of human development, the Puszcza has been dramatically reduced. Humans are imposing new technology on the earth every day. Can mother nature handle our presence, and all that comes along with it?
Weisman poses many thoughtful questions: Is the earth better without humans residing on it?Is there anything we can do to turn around the negative effect our technology has had on nature? Even if the human race was wiped out tomorrow, could the world return to a place as healthy as the one it was in before humans evolved? What are your thoughts on these issues?
Then, Weisman introduces religion. This was the most interesting excerpt for me. Almost every religion has some type of afterlife or place to go other than this earth. When the world is over, destroyed, gone, many religious people tend to believe they will be somewhere else. How do you think religion and the destruction of our environment are intertwined?
The encyclopedia entry regarding Deep Ecology can be connected to the pieces we read from Alain Weisman. Would you make the argument that he was a deep ecologist or a shallow ecologist? How do you think deep ecology relates the religion and faith?
I found this reading to be one of my favorites. Humans are an interesting species. We have this desire to dominate and control everything. we are innovative and intelligent, yet we fail to see the consequences of our actions. During the last century, we have done irrevocable damage to our Earth that has never been done before. Biodiversity has decreased, ecosystems destroyed, and climates altered. I think the only solution to our actions is to try and fix them. We cannot possibly live in a sustainable manner with our current consumption resources and destruction of natural habitats. The last chapter talked about population growth. I think this is one of the biggest problems the Earth is facing today. If the population continues to grow with the current fertility rate, the human population will surge to 9 billion people in a matter of decades. There are not enough resources and habitats to sustain that many humans. On the flip side, the text mentions that if the fertility rate was 1 child for every female, by 2075 the population will go down to nearly 2 billion people. That is an astonishing figure. The human population growth is exponential so I think population control is key to trying to live in harmony with the Earth. Also, promoting wildlife and decreasing consumption will foster a more diverse and natural environment. I think it is possible for humans to live in harmony with the environment; we just have to change the way we live drastically.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting reading. In response to that question of would earth be better without humans residing on it, I would pose the question what would earth be without humans residing on it? Just another planet. If mother nature is connected with God, I have no doubt that the supreme beings know what to expect, especially if God is all-knowing. There is no arguing that technology is having a negative impact on nature and with a new age comes new problems and the world needs to learn how to shift and adapt to the times because technology has become something very major in human existence. The world will not be able to return to a healthy place it was before humans evolved because there has been so much damage already done. In my opinion destruction of the environment falls under science so then its asking how religion and science are intertwined and they both have their roles and can co-exist and that its humans causing this destruction not God.
ReplyDeleteI also thought this reading was really interesting. It is hard for me to think about if the earth would be better off without humans. On the one hand, humans are destroying the planet. There are too many of us and we are not taking the proper precautions to preserve the earth for future generations. But if the earth would be better off without humans, then why are we here in the first place? Why would God, or evolution, choose to nurture a species that was going to be so toxic to the world? It is a hard question to answer. I also found the idea of limiting each woman to one child very interesting. I agree with Zohra that population control is going to be essential to living in harmony with our planet. But our society is so focused on individual freedoms that I think it will be impossible to institute a one-child law, especially in the U.S. People would rather destroy the world and have their freedoms than give up their freedoms to save the planet.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of relativism claims that there is no absolute truth to anything. While there are many arguments for saving the environment, we, as humans, would sacrifice much of what we find healthy and familiar. Some solutions presented in the reading includes less deforestation and reducing childbirth. We know what comes from collecting timber and populating earth. These are things that we as humans have become accustomed to. Dont get me wrong, I'm not defending us as a race. The points made by Weisman are extremely concerning for the future of this planet. At the rate we are going, the wrong things will outlive the right things.
ReplyDeleteIn the Encyclopedia entry about "deep ecology" it states "the current human population is already too large in many countries; further human population increases will lower the quality of life for both humans and nonhuman forms of life." There is a limited amount of resources on this planet, and as of right now there is no other planet that is habitable. Therefore is it in our (the human race) best interest to use up all of our natural resources and destroy our ecosystem? Later on it states, "the deep ecology movement argues for ecological sustainability, human development that conserves the richness and diversity of life forms on Earth." Do you agree with this movement? Are there any sustainable resources already being used today?
ReplyDeleteAlso it said that the earths resouces cannot supply the current human population with enough resources. Our population grows and continues to grow exponentially. If we do not have enough resources now, how will we have enough in the future? Should we institute a "one child" policy such as China did?
Let us not forget that we need this earth and its resources more than the earth needs us. I think Alan Weisman does a great job of showing that to readers, by explaining that the world will recover from our destruction, but our race will become extinct. I think it is important to replenish what we use on this earth. For example, we need oxygen to breathe, and trees produce oxygen. So why are we cutting down all the trees? Do you think that using the trees to produce "everyday" items is more important than them producing our oxygen?
Lastly, in the reading from "Our Earth Our Souls" there is a quotation from the Turkish Sufi master Abdulhamit Cakmut. He says, "The world exists to serve people because man is the most honorable of all creatures". After that he goes on to talk about how if man becomes extinct then so will nature. I disagree completely with this quote. Nature does not serve us, we are at the mercy of nature because it is very powerful. Nature has been around long before the human race has, and it will recover from our devastation and still be around even after we have passed. Do you agree with the quote or disagree?
This reading provoked me to think about our capabilities as humans. Sadly, I don't feel that humans will ever be able to acknowledge the importance of taking care of environment. I found the quote “We take care of our bodies to live a longer life. We should do the same for the world. If we cherish it, make it last as long as possible, we can postpone the judgment day" very interesting. Although everyday humans are given information about the dangers in smoking people still smoke. Similarly, humans can be presented with tons of statistics about how we continue to endanger the world we live in and yet still we continue our same practices. Although I somewhat agree with Weisman I think it would be unfair to say that the Earth would be better without humans because expecting the Earth to maintain similar ecological conditions with an entire population living on it is completely unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Anum's comment. As was stated in all of the readings, humans, the tangible earth, and all forms of life are intertwined in a circle of life. Everything that exists in this world exists because of an x, y relationship. As was mentioned in one of the excerpts, seeds spring trees, trees provide food for humans, and humans contribute back to the environment, each in their own, unique way. Unfortunately, human beings are rational creatures, and they have the option of harming the environment, something that has brought this generation much uneasiness. The Deep Ecology movement has a humble mindset, especially since the movement is concerned with altering humanity's philosophical views of the environment; this is a very hefty task. Although the task of getting humanity "back on track" with regards to the environment is a herculean one, I do believe with the basic tenets of the movement. I especially agree that every single creature in this world has the right to flourish, whether they possess the capacity to reason like humans or whether they are the run-of-the mill plan. Putting the beliefs of the Deep Ecology movement into practice may be difficult, though, as it is very rigid with regards to acceptable treatment of the environment; that's the whole point of the movement, though.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Anum and Bryan to an extent. I understand that Humans pose undeniable threats to nature and use technology in harmful ways, but we evolved on this planet just like every other species. In my mind, human existence is natural. While humans can do a lot of things that other species are incapable of, we're just as much part of this world as an plant or animal. It's true that we, as a species, should try to tame our technology for the sake of the Earth, but how do we go about that? How can we make billions of people recycle and start walking to work? I believe that human existence is perfectly natural. But how do we go about implementing laws and rules to save our environment from ourselves?
ReplyDeleteThat brings up a good point that was also mentioned in “Deep Ecology.” Most people would recognize that humans have irrepably damaged the Earth in some ways and would also support reforms or other preventative actions aimed at restoring/ protecting our planet. At the same time, it is unreasonable to think that we can solve the problem ourselves. In my opinion, it would take generations to start a lasting change in the way we interact with our enviornment- not only because one will undoubtedly come across “shallow” ecologists, but also because we are not prepared for a radical change at this point. Each one of us has become accustomed to certain lifestyles, each of which has a different effect on the Earth. As Helen Gaynor mentioned, it is impractical to imagine forcing everyone to walk to work or make such an alteration in his or her life for the sake of being enviornmentally friendly. An effective change is one that will endure, and an enduring one is one that must be fully supported and thoroughly outlined. I agree with the writer of “Deep Ecology” in stating that through cooperation people will be “able to avoid crises likely to occur if ecologically responsible policies are forced too soon and too fast on populations that are not prepared for them.”
ReplyDeleteEach generation of human inhabitants lives differently to the previous one, and hopefully one of the future generations will develop a standard of living that does not force them to choose between comfort and conscience. Yet, we do not only have to hope, our generation can reveal to the next our errors and successes for them to build upon.
Deep Ecology suggests that humans are one with nature, and nature does not simply serve to provide resources. This reading combines well with Weisman's chapter because I believe Weisman sympathizes with the "deep ecologists". As Weisman describes the tribe and the habitat, a message from deep ecology offers a solution to forests' problems: "Such changes can emerge only from a philosophical or religious basis that nurtures a sense of personal responsibility, not simply to persons living now but also to future human generations as well as fauna and flora." The destruction of nature for manufacturing or production purposes are actually hurting humans; rather than viewing nature as a tool, we ought to live in a more cooperative way with nature.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the "shallow ecologist" would prioritize the short-term than the long-term, only looking to his or her generation's security. Weisman is concerned with the long-term, as the thought of destruction worries him for future generations not only in natural habitats but also around the world. Technological advances are not bad; however, we do need to find ways to progress in ways that are sustainable and allow for future generations to have the same opportunities to advance.
I really enjoyed this reading because it ties religion and environment together in a new way. Weisman suggests that unless we change our ways, the Earth will not be able to sustain us for much longer. Even once humans are gone, I don’t believe that nature will recover to what it was before humans. There has been too much damage to the environment for that to happen. The suggestions offered to remedy the damage seem unrealistic because they are so different from our ways and we as a society are too unprepared to take on such a challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe readings were extremely thought provoking. They brought to surface many contemporary global issues and made me ponder about it's importance. Humans have dominated the earth for thousands of years. Our existence has marked a great deal of progress intellectually and technologically. However, when reading Weisman’s pieces, I was shocked to realize the magnitude of damage our race has done to the planet. Although it isn’t so apparent, we are causing damage to nature and forests all around the world for as long as history has told. And, with our ever growing population, it only makes sense to expand to less populated parts of the world. Weisman explains the destruction of forests in Poland and then compares it to the nearly extinct wisent population. Both tragedies are the result of ill human action. Because of our adept talent for innovation as a population, we will never cease to circumvent development. And because of this, our world is forever altered and will never be what it once was. To answer the question of whether religion and the destruction of our environment are intertwined, I must disagree. Human development is the central cause of environmental destruction. In other words, science is the downfall of our planets well being. It is none other but our own fault for the demise of planet earth.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Weisman was able to get his points across without beating them over the head. His tactic of sharing the story about the European forest really made the reader understand that nature has fallen into the hands of humans, and more often than not that power is abused. I think it is so interesting how Weisman is able to link in the political power shifts and how those have also affected this natural space. In these circumstances, nature has turned from the board of a chess game to simply another piece. It seems like the injustice shown towards nature and the environment isn’t taken seriously because the most harmful effects can never be seen in one lifetime, rather it takes hundreds of years for the consequences to appear. Weisman’s questioning about what would happen if humans no longer existed on earth and it had the chance to either revert back to its natural “Eden” status is an intriguing one; would the earth slowly heal itself or would it continue on the same path humans have forged for it? The religious aspect brought up in the third chapter was refreshing because I have never considered that viewpoint before. There are so many different theories about what will happen to the earth without humans; with a topic as broad as religion, is there ever a right answer? Is everyone right? There is never any way to actually know.
ReplyDeleteAs most said, these readings were very interesting. I honestly sat down and thought about what would occur if the entire earth ceased to exist, never mind the simple idea of humans being wiped away. It is strange to thing about how fragile the earth really is, and how we seem to take advantage of the fact that there is no way to know if tomorrow, the entire human population was taken from the earth. However, when we die, many assume this is what happens in the mind. It is impossible for the human brain to grasp the concept of things that we cannot establish in time; therefore, it is unfathomable to believe that we can know what happens one our existence is completed (which is what religions attempt to explain).
ReplyDeleteAnother topic that I found particularly interesting was relating to the Eastern European forest. Most Americans who have trekked into the "forest" often think that it is only because of the protection agencies that these woodlands still exist. I found it fascinating that the most intimate forest is actually one which is isolated from the rest of the world. If one was truly trying to reach a Nirvana-like phase, it is truly through this location where the idea is possible.
It is very interesting to think about what the earth would be like if humans were not on it. What would be different? Would animals evolve the way that they have? While there will never be a way to know if the earth would have been better off without humans on it, we can look at how humankind has affected the earth. While many say that humans have hurt the earth and polluted it, I think that humans have also done a great deal of things to help better the planet. On this planet there is a food chain, and if you take one link out of that food chain, everything is going to fail. Humans play a major part in the food chain and if they were not part of the food chain it could be very detrimental to the environment. Now, one can argue that if humans were never on the earth, they would never be a part of the food chain, but if you think about it there are things that humans do that really help contribute to the environment. Humans have helped the earth advance in such a way that would not be possible if humans did not roam the earth. If humans never existed then I personally do not think that the world would have changed much from before humans walked the earth. Humans have changed the earth in a lot of ways and I do not think that it is fair to say that the earth would have been better off if humans never existed.
ReplyDeleteI found the text to be extremely interesting and valuable, not only because the subject matter is intriguing, but also because I would like to think of myself – our generation a part of the Green Movement. After reading the different excerpts I would say than in some aspects I feel that earth would be better off without humans residing on it. But in a different tone I think that we are supposed to be here and part of our role should be to maintain and protect our planet. At a deeper level I think that’s what the Green Movement is about – it’s about getting back to our natural state, our planets natural state. This idea made me think of Rousseau’s theory natural man in which he says, “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754. And isn’t that the point of this? That this earth belongs to all of us, and that we must protect and share it equally? I think so.
ReplyDeleteI thought these readings were very interesting as they pose several questions that we as humans have always asked ourselves. The readings suggested that the earth will renew itself and carry on after a few hundred years if humans were to be immediately removed. I agree with this statement, that it will just take time for the earth to rebuild over the human footprint we are carving into the earth. Religion plays a role in the destruction of the earth, as many define what will happen as the earth ends, and science also claims it knows how the earth will be destroyed. Throughout the course, I have begun to look at religion as a way to answer the unknown, or rather a way to justify why science does not understand it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as world population, I believe that the earth can handle us, we just have to figure out how to best allocate resources. I forgot whose theory this was, but I think that population takes care of itself. When there are too many in a given area, epidemics or sickness breaks out and stabilizes the population without outside intervention. In one of the readings it is mentioned that the earth was made for humans. Is it? I don’t think so, I think that we are here, regardless of how, and we take what we can use while leaving the unwanted resources to waste, if you will. This is such an interesting question, I think it would be great to discuss.
HANNAH PARK:
ReplyDeleteI don't think the world "would be better without humans", because humans are such an integral, necessary part of the world. Weisman was right about thinking about the long term when he speaks of environmental damages and repercussions. The environmental crisis may not directly affect the emotional/personal side of adults, but economically speaking it will eventually decrease the standard of living of all and deplete resources related to worldwide commerce dramatically in the coming decades. Even "small" things like the coffee industry in South America, the impacts of over-fishing, or the dying of bees is evidence of the grand scale influences that human's history of careless behavior produces. Alan Weisman is a deep ecologist because he takes into account the more meaningful, esoteric aspect to all living things in the world--not just in terms of short term outcome, their functions, their commercial value, etc. His interest in ecology is more of a philosophical, almost religious way to connect to the environment and make an effort to reverse the harms humans have already made. I do not know if the damages done can be reversed at this point. Even if humans try to repair what has been done, the species that have dwindled away or the climate changes for the example, the only way the people of our day know how to fix problems, is to "innovate" or use artificial, scientific, chemical methods. As written in a recent CNN article exploring wildlife preservation, "habitat destruction is slowly but surely killing our planet's mammal diversity" (Dr. Jorge Ahumada, CNN)
I think that the damages can not necessarily be reversed, but they can be healed. The earth will naturely heal, but as humans we can take part in helping that process along. Whether that means planting trees, staying away from fossil fuels, or disposing of waste properly. All these things will help the earth and eventually ourselves. By providing us with sustianable resources. I found Ashley's thoughts on population very interesting. I agree that nature sometimes keeps our population in check with natural disasters or disease, but I dont know if it so common that it is really having an impact. If you look at the "J" curve of the human population, the bubonic plague doesnt not affect the world population that drastically. I think that population is a major concern, because we are running out of resources.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the reading and your comments on the blog. I began to ponder what would happen after the human race became extinct. What would be the legacy of our brief but dramatic sojourn on Earth? This relates back to Dillard’s text we read—imagine the complexity of just one individual on this Earth--and multiply that by trillions. The structures we have created, individual homes, possessions, and a seemingly infinite amount of waste in the landfills really amount to almost an irreversible contamination of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteI think that the problems of pollution and environmental deterioration are primarily moral and spiritual in nature. The prevalence of this pollution stems from a lack of proper understanding of the real purpose of life and man’s place in the eternal plan provided by God. Specifically, many of our environmental problems arise from the fact that our society has become obsessed with materialism. We must come to realize that there are higher motives for human existence than technological advancement and the acquisition of material gain.
Hence, I agree with Weisman’s implication that ecology is a faith. The reason we are in trouble ecologically is because of our inability to see ourselves as a part of nature. We have not seen ourselves for what we are: part of the web of life and part of the total environment. As cynical as this sounds, we have behaved as though we have some sort of divinely provided right to desecrate the physical world. And I think often times we think only of our own generation as though it exists alone, with nothing to owe to the future or without any heritage from the past.
As humans its in our DNA to want to be better, stronger, faster, etc. Everyone wants to wind up on top. I agree with Helen in that human existence is natural and that we've evolved in a way we were supposed to. The issue I see with regards to technology is "obsoleteism" (the act of making things obsolete). Yes, its fantastic that I know own the iPhone 65 and that holograms pop out of it, but the creation of a new iPhone every six months IS destructive and unnecessary to our society. When one new technology - a faster, cooler, better version of something - reaches the market, the products it is making obsolete then vanish. Without these products the workers lose their jobs. Thus increasing the unemployment rate. How long will it be until no human works because robots are more efficient?
ReplyDeleteThe cool this is is that our generation is working hard to protect our planet from ourselves. Go Green movements across the world have been HUGELY successful and continue to enlighten people on what our actions are doing to this planet.
So far in our course, I have enjoyed reading the ecology pieces with this reading being one of my favorite. I find it strange how much information humans have regarding our destruction of the planet yet we do very little to prevent further damage. We live in a country where we have the ability to recycle our resources because we have the technology and the money, yet very few choose to actually recycle. Most people also do not recycle fully, as I know I do not. I, like most Americans, recycle the bottle and glass, but very rarely recycle my mixed paper. As Americans, we are also privy to scientific data proving that our evolution and technological advances are harming the environment, yet very few people choose to have a major difference. However,l this has become our way of life. Our society would almost need a complete cultural revolution to fix all of the problems we are facing regards to our damaging the environment. It would have to involve not only our government, but governments of many other nations to address the issue of natural resource destruction as a whole.
ReplyDeletePhilip Tateyama
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting read as Weisman brought up a lot of deep questions. Like the question of whether or not the Earth would be better with or without humans. I mean I do think our existence is ok but we are the ones who have caused these problems through over population, polution, technology and a complete lack of respect for the environment. Therefore it is our responsibility to solve these problems and change our practices inorder to ensure our existance on this planet.
I honestly think our main problem is over population our planet can not handle this many people. There are not enough resources for everyone and the more people there are the higher the poplution rates. So I think this population issue needs to be addressed since otherwise we will continue to grow at this exponential rate.
It was really cool reading Weisman's words on the environment, how different types of people throughout humanity have related to their environments, how those environments have responded, and so on. The section about the Puszcza forest was particularly interesting to me, as it enlightened many aspects of the environmentalism movement that I experience today, on a day-by-day basis. It talked about how the forest once stretched from Ireland to Siberia, how the creatures within it were more diverse than other forests, because of the forest's decaying parts as well as its areas in full growth and bloom, and it talked about the human relation to the forest.
ReplyDeleteAll of these things were very powerful to me. Reading about this forest, as well as the other sections of Weisman we read, inspires me to be more aware of the environmentalism movement in my everyday life. I think that human beings and Mother Nature can coexist peacefully, but as smart as we are, we aren't educated enough to realize the full breadth and consequences of our actions. No matter the argument over global warming or other such controversies, I say there is no harm done in doing everything we can to protect the environment, because, worst comes to worst, whether or not the world ends up heating to a boil because of humans, or because that's just the way it works, at least we saved some of the natural beauty of the Earth.
I agree that this was very interesting. It made me think about a lot of things I've never considered. Would the earth be a better place without us? It probably wouldn't be spiraling down, but it might be. If we weren't here would something be in our place? Without us on the planet, would things in the world change so much? It's so odd to consider that maybe we are a mistake but picturing the world without humans is impossible. Since we are here and we have received the gift of life, I think we should do whatever we can to preserve the planet. I do not think we will ever be able to have a one-child law though, because no one is willing to give up their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe Earth is naturally no better or worse off with any species. Humans are doing what has happened throughout the planet's history, a population grows to large and when it is not sustainable there is a mass die off back to sustainability. Nature is continually self correcting. As human impact expands nature pushes back with more limited resources. Nature will be fine with or with out humans. The city of Prypiat is an excellent example. Chernobyl caused a mass evacuation of the city and despite the radiation caused by human activities, there are flora and fauna throughout the region that thrive in the area. The city itself is being reclaimed by nature. We can see this in this very city. Every time there is grass growing out a sidewalk crack or tree roots breaking through concrete, it is nature pushing back. The was a very interesting show called Population 0, when humans no longer exist. It shows the progress of nature as it reclaims everything humans have done. Within 20,000 years, a blip on the planet's timeline, the only recognizable part of our existence is the Cathedral of Notre Dame. The only problem with considering the planet without us is our numbers. Humans are so numerous that even an extinction level event will likely not result in our extinction, but will decimate our numbers. It does appear that short of a calamity that significantly decreases the human population, we will continue to place the burden of conservation on someone else until action has to be take for the preservation of the species itself.
ReplyDelete