“Island
Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium”
by Roderick Frazier Nash is basically a discussion about how Nash feels the
world will be in a thousand years. He starts it off by saying that his ideas
maybe controversial to some and they may disagree. If so he challenges them to
think outside of the box and create their own descriptions of how the world will
be, but you need to have logical evidence and reasoning behind your theories. Nash used this tactic to grab his audience’s
attention and let their minds wonder how the world could be in a thousand
years. Then, he proposed four theories
of his own on how the world would end due to human interference to nature and
the wild.
The
wasteland theory was the first of the
four. It went into detail about how the earth would end due to a polluted planet.
This is true in ways because today all you ever hear about is how the gas from
cars is breaking down the ozone layer, or how we are dumping trash into the
ocean. Once mankind realized what we were doing to our once aesthetic planet we
tried to repair it by recycling and manufacturing cars that run on electricity.
Needless to say it may be a little too late in my opinion.
The
garden theory is where mankind uses
its technological ways to better nature. This is false to me because as the
years have progressed we have only thought about the human ways of life and
forgot about nature. For instance as we advance technologically we take up more
of the wild and nature. We do experiments with nature and its animals. We have
forgotten that God put us here to look after the animals and show them
compassion not dominance. As time continues to progress we may not have any
food left to eat because we will be used all the resources we have.
The
third theory is future primitive were
mankind goes back to the homo sapient lifestyle of hunting and gathering to
survive. This would be almost impossible to accomplish because of all the
advancements we have made over the years to improve our own ways of life. Not
to mention it would be a waste of all the centuries our ancestors put forth
trying to better the world. We should not have to compromise our ways because of
the wilderness and nature. We are the dominate species of the world and we let
it be known with our improvements to Earth.
The
final theory of Nash’s is Island Civilization.
This being the main theory Nash supports the most. He believes we could drop
the population to 1.5 billion people and learn to adapt to our surroundings.
This is most absurd because it is almost physically impossible to decrease the
world population to that much. There would have to be a mass genocide all over
the world. Honestly I would like to have known how it would be to roam the wild
and just let nature take its course. Unfortunately I may never know what the
fourth millennium holds because I will not be living.
In
reading this essay it helped me to realize that we change our world every day.
Without us helping to reserve some parts of this planet as wild; someday it
might all disappear. This would be tragic because God put it here for us to
love Mother Nature as well as us. It all started with Adam and Eve disobeying
God, so now we all were banished into the wild. Every day it gets worse. We may
not have the wild animals to worry about but we do have each other to be
skeptic about. Nash opened up my mind with his theories and now I will do my
own reasoning for the worlds end or beginning.
Chelsi,
ReplyDeleteYour response to Island Civilizations provided a large amount of feedback for each theory of possible outcomes. I agreed with you on the majority of your opinions minus the one in response Nash's Island Civilization. I feel that if population measures were enforced, we could cut back how much land we used and save apart of our environment to remain "wild". It would be difficult, but I would have to say I dont agree that it is the "most absurd". Also, Nash offers a large focus on wilderness and the idea of what is meant by "wild" in this excerpt. I think the only way to keep a healthy environment would be to preserve it.
Great response though!
Andrew