Why are our habitats disappearing? And I emphasize the "our" because we and the wildlife that is around us are interrelated. This is what a lot of people do not understand. The quote from Robertson's text. however, is just plain fear mongering to forward a certain image of the future. Yes, statistical date is overwhelming leaning toward bad signs, but the "sixth mass extinction"? This is overreaching, especially considering we can only conjecture about the realities of the past and future no matter what evidence we collect. We are inferring that this is so based on the evidence we've collected. We cannot realistically prove this to be true despite deductive validity. It is, as Plato would outline, just a shadow on the cave wall. If we were omniscient. then we could resolutely describe the process that is occurring, but what if, in the next 20 years, regardless of our projections, the natural world recovers some of its past affluence? We must be open to an idealistically future if we are going to change the way we think about the world, and fear-mongering is the least constructive way to create impetus. This begins by asking the question: what is essential to our way of life and what can be overlooked? As Robertson says,"land clearing for crops destroys the largest percentage of terrestrial habitat" (Robertson, 2014). This is a classic case that begs the question: what land do we need for crop production and what and are we using in excess? In terms of market value, just as the SEC has been doing to Securities Law in recent years, perhaps more regulation on land use is an important step for idealistic change, that protects capitalist, personal interests and collectively creates, within reason, safeguards to construct a more healthy worldview. I think Robertson again brings this to light in this chapter despite the fear mongering introduction. For example, she says,"Conserving or restoring ecosystem health involves three broad fields... reservation, restoration, reconciliation" (Robertson, 2014). These are sometimes referred to the three "Rs"... If we take this approach, we aim to repair damages to the environment, which gives us a sense of purpose. We "Reserve" or preserve the natural world untainted by destruction or pollution that already exists. And, lastly, we reconcile our interests with nature; this means applying economic strategies to conserving the natural world and retaining the health of ecosystems, which encouraging further market growth. I think this is the change of mindset that is essentially the right course of action, but I think environmentalists all too often look to the French Revolution,Emancipation, or the Civil Rights Movements as their example of change, abrupt change. But as a historian and someone very interested in the long term effects of change over time in human society, the most lasting and healthy changes have come gradually, have come without revolution. Look, for example, as the Battle of Hastings... The Anglo-Saxon Lords retains much of their land holdings if they swore fealty to King William I. It was only gradual that a "Cross-Channel" Lordship class was created by the Normans. This took a hundred years to really solidify and become a common expression of British society. Likewise, the gradual institutionalization of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages -- do you think Pope Gregory the Great wield uncontested authority through Europe let alone Italy or just areas around Rome after the decline of the Roman Empire? No. This institutionalization took hundreds of years. This same shift in environmental consciousness took hold in the 1800s and continues to grow in our collective minds. Soon this change will be fully evident in our policy decisions as we continue to describe our effect to ecosystems. This is where proper change lies. This is what some of the more vehement Environmentalist need to remember to not affect as much opposition.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7668832/
No comments:
Post a Comment