Roderick
Nash begins this essay by speaking about millenniums; he says what exactly they
are and how they came to be. He then ties together millenniums and wilderness
and civilization. Nash continues to say that the purpose for his essay is to go
over the history between humans and nature and how it will turn out in the
Fourth Millennium.
Nash
explains that his idea involves dramatic changes in the world and in humans
especially, but he explains that Island Civilization is possible and is a topic
that needs more discussion in order to progress the thought. The purpose of his
essay is to kick-start a discussion of how to change the Earth for the better
before it is too late. He asks the readers to consider the word ‘wilderness’
and explains that it “literally means self-willed
land,” land that is untouched by humans. Humans depended on growing a
civilization rather than survival skills in order to stay alive. Nash explains
that the reason for doing so, especially when colonists arrived in the New
World, was because the Bible cursed ‘wilderness’ due to Adam and Eve’s
punishment of being banished to the wild.
Nash
continues his argument that turns into an explanation of ecology. He also
mentions the Protection Act and Endangered Species Act that allowed other
species to have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness just as
humans do. Nash explains that humans are not the only creatures that are occupy
the planet; therefore other species should have the right to wilderness just as
humans have the right to civilization. Towards the end of his argument, he mentions
possible outcomes by the time the Fourth Millennium rolls around; they are the
wasteland scenario, garden scenario, future primitive, and island civilization.
Each one is explained, and he points out that island civilization seems to be the
best choice. In order to bring island civilization about, humans must learn
self-restraint and put Earth before them. Nash believes island civilization will
be possible by using our knowledge of technology in good ways.
Nash’s
essay was an extremely detailed report on wildlife and human interaction with
nature. There were many fascinating facts that I had not known, such as the
four possible outcomes Earth may end in. I do agree with Nash in saying that
island civilization does sound the best when compared to a wasteland, or
manmade garden with no wildlife, or even backtracking to a more primitive
state. Island civilization sounds best because it is combining the human need
to build and be civilized while keeping the earth pure and untouched.
Island
civilization would mean limiting humans to confined spaces and letting Earth
flourish and the animals return to their homes in the wild. It would also allow
humans to learn basic survival skills if they should decide to leave the
civilization and travel into the wilderness. While all that sounds fantastic,
there are some concerns that I have. Obviously, predators would return to the
land; any human that walked into the wilderness would be endangering their life
by crossing into the wild. It would be especially dangerous for children to
travel alone. When the time comes to make a decision on which path Earth should
follow, if island civilization is the choice, a very well thought out plan of
security and protection for the lives of humans would need to be considered before
finalizing any decisions.
Another
problem that arises is the idea that the human population would have to be
brought down to 1.5 billion. Nash states that “one version…might mandate that
1.5 billion people live in five hundred concentrated habitats scattered widely
over Earth.” 1.5 billion is, according to Nash, roughly a quarter of the
current population. This would have to be done within the next about
nine-hundred years, and I am not sure that is possible to do. Nash believes it
is achievable if people put Earth above themselves. However, more than likely
that will not be done and there will be even more people in the future than
now. If a successful, safe, and thoroughly thought out course of action was
brought to the table in order to fix this issue, island civilization would be
possible.
You made several excellent points; I had never considered the problems with predators returning to the wilderness. Of course, Nash would probably argue that predator attacks would help to keep the human population down, even if that is a little cynical. And indeed, how do we simply 'get rid' of over three quarters of the global human population? Who has the right to determine who is killed or who is sterilized? I can't imagine that very many people would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the Earth; very interesting points.
ReplyDelete