Connect to
Change
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary progress is defined as “a forward
movement” and as “a gradual betterment.” These two definitions do not always
imply the same sentiment. Moving forward is not always better. Even if a reader
can regulate those two definitions with one another it still leaves out a more
intricate layer that it impossible to universally express. What is better? The
same situation may be beneficial to one party involved while diminishing or
deprecating the other. It is undeniable that the world and our nation,
especially, have implemented infinitely many products of progress in essentially
every aspect of life. However, as our abilities and intelligence increases as a
society we become ever discontent with standing still and progress, more
technology, more knowledge, is required to quell our aspiring minds. It is not
under debate whether or not the environment feels the effects of this
ever-developing lifestyle.
By
looking at Anthony Weston, Aldo Leopold, David Abram, and Holmes Rolston III and
other environmental ethicists, an educated reader can see very different yet
equally valid reasoning on how humans relate to the natural world and what we
can expect for the future. Human beings can use their knowledge and progress in
technology to improve upon the disparaging environmental conditions if we are
ever able to come to an understanding of our place in the world as one of many
living inhabitants of this earth.
The
difference between the optimists and pessimists about the future is how they
view themselves within nature. A relationship between humans and nature is
undeniable but it is whether or not an individual views nature as a separate
entity or if they view it as an intricate system of which humans are only a
small part that forms their outlook. Aldo Leopold, in “The Land Ethic,” stresses
that humans are one part of an interdependent system. And by eliminating our
tendencies for extreme domination we can only then begin to hope for our
shortcomings to be rectified.
Each
individual relates to nature very differently. Even if an individual accepts
that he is a part of nature it is still sometime unclear how one is to relate to
the rest of the natural world effectively. As rational creatures human beings
are fully capable of taking in information and forming a reason-based opinion
based upon the facts supplied to them through their surroundings. However, we
each become bias based upon the limits of our experiences and the world around
us.
There
are many approaches to finding a more respectful relation to nature. Just as the
degradation has occurred gradually until it could no longer be pushed to the way
side, the reverse effects are slow and seemingly insignificant. Nature doesn’t
need to be saved so much as it needs to be respected and revitalized. There are
many approaches that would in theory connect humans to the land and subsequently
halt our negative practices; however, no theory in and of itself will stand
against the pressures of industrialism and economic growth. In order for any
change to be met it must be addressed with a combination of factual knowledge,
but not to the point of discouragement, and a connection with nature, but one
that is build gradually and remains sustainable.
There
is a very fragile balance of what is too much versus not enough in the world of
environmental activism. It is vital to remember to adopt the knowledge and
strategies as a small part of everyday life. Each author demonstrates his own
perspective of how to connect oneself to nature so that nature is properly
respected, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual to find what
works for them personally, motivated by what is most important on an individual
basis. The earth can be saved but only if done slowly. The progression of land
usage from the Native Americans to the capitalist second millennium was over
hundreds of years we must slowly turn the tables and trudge our way back through
laborious struggles while motivated by personal convictions.