Land Ethics

In today's society, the ethics of the land has changed from a conservational approach to a form of economic l wealth and value. The Earth and soil are viewed as tools to cultivate and make money instead of as living ecosystems that sustain life. With the idea of ethics as preserving something that is valued, understood, and loved; it is shocking to see that the environment has little if any ethical value to 21st century humans.

"In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it." (Leopold, 60)

I agree with this statement because it focuses on the fact that Homo sapiens were primarily interested in colonizing land and cultivating it to demonstrate wealth and power. The more land that one group or tribe conquorered resembled the strength of their leader. Although the mindset of many are very different from one thousand years ago, there is still little change. Today in society, we need to take a step back and focus on being environmentally cautious citizens. Instead of trying to expand as a nation and gather more property, we should be putting efforts into maintaining the land that we currently have now.

                                                           http://www.bigyield.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/farmland-bubble.jpg


"Land-use ethics are still governed wholly by economic self-interest, just as social ethics were a century ago." (Leopold, 64)

Land is definitely viewed as an economic factor as opposed to a vital life force that recirculates nutrients and energy. Based on the readings, I agree that socially we are still stuck in the mindset of the 90's era of manufacturing. Facilities used for manufacturing require a large chunk of isolated land to store their equipment as well as products. The government is aware that no one wants to live by these facilities so they chose to develop them in the middle of nowhere. This disrupts ecosystems that were once uninhabited and causes stress to the surrounding environment. Farmers who dedicate acres of their land for the cultivation and sale of produce are also adding to the problem. As long as money is involved, the land will continue to receive a beating from humans.

                                                      http://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/images/photos/1764/original_Investment.jpg?1317314948


"In each field one group (A) regards the land as soil, and its function as commodity-production; another group (B) regards the land as a biota, and its function as something broader." (Leopold, 73)

I don't believe this issue is entirely black and white. There are some people who depend on the land for an income, however, they do their best to rejuvenate the surrounding habitat. The same goes for people who feel that land should be untouched and preserved. There needs to be middle ground when approaching this issue because both stances are too drastic.

                                                         http://www.topdreamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Landscape-Photo-20.jpg


"In short, land is something he has outgrown."(Leopold, 76)

Land is not something that the human race has "outgrown" because it's a key element in the survival of the entire species. There is plenty of land that is available, the matter is whether or not to preserve or disturb. Land preservation is important because it creates a protected environment for many species of plants and animals. In terms of use, I feel that society has been wasteful when it comes to demographics and creating housing/shopping complexes. Large property homes and three story shopping malls are not a necessity in terms of living a happy life. Both humans and nature can coexist  in a way that benefits each group.

                                                             http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/dustbowl/dustbowl_01.jpg

Nature's Ritalin

Who would have thought that one of the worlds most prevalent childhood disease can be cured by nature? Before reading this except I was skeptical as to how nature could heal a cognitive disease involving the brain and nervous system. The chemical imbalance in charge of firing off neural impulses is something that can only be fixed with medications like Ritalin, or so I thought. After reading this excerpt by Richard Lou and learning about the substantial research behind this movement, I have gained a better understanding about the relationship between nature and urban life.

"Some of the uninformed public tends to believe that poor parenting and other social factors produce the immature behavior associated with ADHD, but ADHD is now considered by many researchers to be an organic disorder associated with differences in the brain morphology of children." (Louv, 3)

I agree that a lot of people choose to blame parents when children experience behavioral problems associated with ADHD. This quote highlights the ignorance that some parts of society still hold on to and focuses on the scientific background of the disease in itself. Every child is unique in personality, attitude, growth, and even development. In addition, everyone's brain develops at a different rate, is composed of a different mass, and has a different dominance. There is nothing a parent nor doctor can do to speed up the development of the brain.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFQvT5pvAld4X8HknTb8QECMm0moMhzwEdv4qfbOSScJ_J912kk7XWT_joGb7IGRwfGCPZwa46lTY5LuUl7NfBxx6SBFEzbyOoDattr389UnGyXKy4BD8NRh-u08hH_OHlkbpONILXN9k/s1600/b-right.jpg

"Our brains are set up for agrarian, nature-oriented existence that came into focus five thousand years ago." (Gurian, 5)

I wouldn't exactly say that the human brain is automatically nature-oriented because many people could care less about the outdoors or their environment. Not everyone has the same fascination or appreciation for their surrounding ecosystem. This statement is too bold to assume that all brains are hardwired the same way in regards to agrarian culture. In terms of cultivation, society has taken a drastic turn from using land to harvest food into using land for municipal growth and recreation. Less land is being preserved or recycled for crops as it was hundreds of years ago. I do believe, however, that as human beings we have a relationship with nature; I just don't  think it's a one size fits all approach.

                                                      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/74/15/e6/7415e6ac2efcc11042da813f9745f32a.jpg


"Those with a window view of trees, bushes, or large lawns experienced significantly less frustration and more work enthusiasm than those employees without such views." (Louv, 6)

I completely agree that having a window with a decent view of greenery can make a boring office space ten times better. The feeling of being a room without natural lighting or any windows is cold and unpleasant. With respect to my apartment, I like that my office faces the direction of a group of large robust oak trees with yards of Spanish moss dangling from the limbs. When I find myself overwhelmed with schoolwork it's nice to be able to enjoy the scenery and relax for a little.

                               https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijk_NXEBM4bh0NOykDZ5p86s_l7ZBc3RwrN3brv9NQ2q_49-Mn7wCivmrQZl3K_7LW9t54zwKTvQocKEWG0oktVke1pZ41nJlZfo4IHc72MxB7y0JmUyNI53RlAea7eqbjV5Hcm1pGdNMJ/s1600/corner%20office.jpg


"To take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen." (Louv, 11)

This statement is a little extreme because it is trying to make an exaggerated correlation between nature deficit and living without oxygen. If a child isn't exposed to nature at a young age, that doesn't mean he/she will not survive. There are plenty of people who choose to stay inside and play video games or watch television instead of enjoying the outdoors. This may not be the best choice when it comes to raising a child but it certainly isn't a matter of life or death. In regards to ADHD, going outdoors isn't a proven form of prevention. To my recollection, people who are not environmentally cautious or eco friendly are still healthy living members of society. I do believe that getting involved with nature at an early age is a great experience, however, I just don't think it's as great of a necessity as is oxygen.

                                                                          http://getwellhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/asthma.jpg

Biophilia vs Biophobia

In today's society we have come to overwhelm ourselves with technology, city life, and urban trends. We choose to prioritize our selfish wants and needs over the importance of our environment. As a result, many have gained a sense of biophobia, which is a culturally developed form of isolation with nature. This ideology causes people to forget about the world as a living ecosystem and only focus on personal development or success. As inhabitants on this Earth, it is our fault that the natural environment is struggling. Our constant wants for shopping plazas, theme parks, and housing complexes take a large toll on the surrounding natural habitat.

One quote that I found during the reading that caused me to rethink was " The manifestation of biophobia, explicit in the urge to control nature, has led to a world in which it is becoming easier to be biophobic." ( Orr, 190)

I agree that living in a society where the norm is to be economically successful directly affects the environment. A lot of it has to do with the way people are raised. People who grow up in the city tend to stay in the city and pursue their careers there. Being environmentally cautious can be hard when you live in the city because there's only so much one can do. Many people find it easier to be carefree in regards to the environment and continue polluting because that's how they were raised. Also, it can sometimes be more expensive when choosing to be environmentally friendly. "Green" products are more expensive, which makes it harder for others to contribute.

 

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/120/2/b/hourglass_global_pollution_by_simonebasi-d4y1po7.png

"Third, I think we can safely surmise that biophilia, like the capacity to love, needs the help and active participation of parents, grandparents, teachers, and other caring adults." (Orr, 200)

I believe that being environmentally cautious and aware is something that everyone needs to participate in. As a child, going outdoors to parks and playgrounds were always my favorite thing to do before I grasped the desire for technology. My parents and grandparents both made the effort to make me appreciate the environment as well as understand the role that society played in order for its success. Even in school, I would go on field trips to nature preserves during middle school and I would be educated on the Florida ecosystems as well as animals that reside here. Having this experience as a child defiantly helped me to better appreciate my surroundings.  For this reason, I think biophilia is something that can be learned to appreciate.

http://www.cityguideny.com/uploads2/121713/Walkinthewoods.JPG

"If by some fairly young age, however, nature has not been experienced as a friendly place of adventure and excitement, biophilia will not take hold as it might have." (Orr, 200)

Nature doesn't have to be experienced at a young age for people to appreciate it. There are plenty of people who grow up and work in the city yet choose to retire in a rural area because they want to escape the fast paced lifestyle. They look forward to living a relaxed life and appreciating their surroundings. There are also people who may have never really payed attention to the environment until they themselves had children and experienced as a family. Just because you weren't exposed to nature as a child doesn't mean you will lack biophilia and can't appreciate your environment. 

http://www.movieposterskey.com/postersimages/an-elderly-couple-walking-through-a-bluebell-wood-on-the-shores-of-coniston-water-united-kingdom.jpg

"Nor will the wealthy, fed and supplied by vast, complex global networks, understand the damage they cause in distant places they never see and the harm they do to people they will never know." (Orr, 201) 

I think this statement is a little too dramatic in the case of creating direct harm to others. Not to say that this will never happen, I just feel as though it's too much of a generalization. Many affluent individuals are known for their conservative efforts whether in America or overseas on another country. A few to name off the top of my head include: Angelina Jolie, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg. These are examples of wealthy American citizens who choose to share large portions of their money with those who are less fortunate and otherwise unable to take proper care of themselves. They help raise money to help philanthropy organizations and help to mold small sections of the world into strong communities.

http://blog.cappex.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10-028-Peace-Corps.jpg