Island Civilization

                Geoffrey Gore

Author, Robert Nash, discusses his views on how mankind’s relationship with the environment has changed over the last several centuries. He states that the purpose of the essay was to find a way to uphold the whole ecosystem (not just humans) and to have it work in the long run. Wilderness, being considered a state of mind and geographical feature, was mentioned throughout the passage. It mentions how people haven’t always shunned the so called “wild.” It didn’t begin until mankind considered themselves above nature, and the domestication of land and animals allowed man to feel superior. These so called barriers between man and nature led to “wild” people, such as the Native Americans centuries ago, to be killed or outcast. As the 20^th century began, some environmentalist and others decided that it was time to modify the status quo of the wilderness and civilization. With hopes of progressing the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed, creating the first national parks, but Nash argues that it was for the benefit of people. In the latter part of the century, a new theory came along in which people realized they weren’t supposed to be the beneficiaries of the protection of the wilderness/environment. Words such as “environmentalism” and “pollution” emerged in the 1960’s causing a rise in support for the rights of nature. People’s minds seemed to be on the right track, but destruction to the environment continued into the current millennium. Nash mentions how there are several ways the world can be destructed a thousand years from now if the bad habits of people carry on that long. Humans have been terrible neighbors to the other inhabitants of the planet and even Earth itself. With limited space on the planet and the increasing amount of people on the planet, it’s only right to admit that people have taken up more than their fair share.  In reality though, what are one’s options if people don’t continue as are? To help the situation, some say reverting back to primitive ways could help, but it seems far fetched.

“Perhaps humans of the distant future could choose on a seasonal basis between ways of life centered on computers or campfires,” Nash mentions, meaning the future stands on sacrifice. Something has to be given up by people for the relationship amongst themselves and nature to sustain. Personally, I’m at a crossroads internally on this battle. A part of me believes sharing the world with all species and nature is the right thing to do, but how could our current society survive with “primitive” ways. Our generation thrives off of technological advances. Not that my view points are the exact same as Nash’s, but I appreciate his efforts to reach a solution. The relationship between mankind and nature is a very important one. It’s just as a man and woman’s relationship. It’s obvious that if either one in the relationship is putting in less effort, it results in a strain on the relationship. For last several centuries, man hasn’t been contributing to the relationship, resulting in the current situation. Hopefully a solution will be offered and action will be taken soon because people are ruining something that I feel was once beautiful. “Growth was confused with progress.” This is my favorite line in the essay. Years of environmental neglect have resulted in the entire ecosystem suffering and some of the effects are irreversible. Nash made good points throughout his writing and as he mentioned it’s going to come down to choice. People, compared to other species, have been selfish beyond measure. Is mankind willing to give up unnecessary treasures to better the ecosystem? It’s hard to determine at this point, but I agree with Nash as far a “glass half full” attitude. Have to be positive for a problem such as this to be solved.