Land Ethic Essay 2010
Humanity is a work in progress, and like every progression, we must take the time to observe what we see over time and understand that we do not definitively know what outcome lies in the future. We as individuals must become better stewards of the land, not only for earth’s sake, but for the better being of the entire human population. Many people live in this world caring only about the lifestyle they know and value, but we must recognize that our perception is not the same worldwide, and many suffer as a direct result of our existence. Our earth can no longer sustain our economy, and ecology is feeling the pain. “Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles”[1]. We need to reevaluate our ideologies, especially in the Western world, moving away from consumerism and immediate gratification, and towards sustainability and long term planning. We cannot wait for “when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught [that] we will realize we cannot eat money”. [2]We need intense global environmental education to allow people to become aware about how their lifestyles affect the rest of the world, to allow perceptions to shift, to allow ideologies to change, and to allow the human species to coexist and cohabitate not only with the natural environment, but with other animal species, and other humans as well. “The hope seems to be that once we know how to value ecosystem services, we’ll know how to manage ourselves in relation to them”. [3]
So now, all that follows after this point is a direct result of my environmental education and my perception of the world around me. I truly believe that humans have a chance and a responsibility to keep the Earth’s biodiversity as an integral and stabile part of life, allowing all persons, plants, and animals the right to a good “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
As I’ve learned throughout my education, Native Americans valued the land they lived on highly, respecting and coexisting as equals to all of its resources and all of its plants and wildlife. The tribes were grounded, “they [knew] how to live where they live [and] that’s the lore worth learning”. [4]The Indians valued their food supply, most notably salmon in high regard, and made constant efforts to prohibit any waste of it and to ensure that the salmon runs would be sustained for generations to come. The assumption that the earth’s land is capable of providing for entire new masses of people and that its resources will remain constant and plentiful, is a mistake on modern society’s part that is ultimately ruining the sustainable lifestyle of Indigenous people and the sustainable resilience of the land, while also burdening the third world with problems that some Westerners will never see nor understand. We should not catch more than we can chew if we plan to have leftovers for our family lineage. As Westerners, we need to remember the values of the people whom we drove out, the native people who strived toward connectivity to the land, and lived lifestyles of rewarding sustainability and productivity.
We also need to reevaluate our management processes of ecosystems and put environmental health first, rather than human desire. The first ecosystem that requires discussion is the forest. Right now, forest policy is running counterproductive to social and economic interests. The problems occurring within forest management constantly stem from excessive harvesting, resulting in long term damage for short term benefits. Making a drastic reduction in the cutting of trees as required by law could work toward balancing sustainable levels to support all general interests, without having to enact complex and expensive regulatory systems. Obviously logging will continue for various reasons and benefits, but the rates at which it is happening must be rapidly reduced. Forest land should be devoted to its most productive use for the good of the people and for the environment long term. The purpose of a forest is not to be most productive with a large crop output, but to serve as recreation for humans, provide homes for wildlife, maintain sustainable water flow and natural vegetative growth, and to provide lumber only so much that its removal does not disrupt all the other factors. Forests can no longer be looked at only as trees for timber. If forest land is too overharvested and cannot produce more trees to log, than many people will be out of jobs, homes, recreation, and food supply, not to mention the loss of habitat for a magnitude of wildlife. All the natural resources, wildlife, and natural beauty within the forest ecosystem must be recognized and become an integral part of perception and forest management. All timber cuts need to be performed in such a way that water and soil conditions, and fish and wildlife habitat will not be adversely affected, and harvested lands can be restored. Reducing the amount of cut trees and focusing on better management and conservation would produce monetary benefits because it costs more to cut down a tract of forest than it does to manage it for recreation.
However, it is also important to note that designating parcels of land for national parks does not make a forest ecosystem sustainable, as wildlife and plant growth depend on forest habitat and natural resources that extend beyond designated boundaries. We must direct our vision towards a forest’s value within its natural state, and enforce conservation and protection to keep it in that state before we endanger the personal, social, and economic gains we take for granted when cutting a forest down.
The second ecosystems demanding attention are the grasslands. Most of the western range has experienced drastic desertification, salinization of surface water, loss of native vegetation, and loss of topsoil through wind and erosion due to the poor management of livestock by human beings. When farmers allow their cattle an extended stay in a location with lush vegetation and sufficient water supply, the animals exhaust the available resources, destroy vegetation, and pommel stream banks until they are forced to move on. Benefits of grazing can only be seen if the animals are present in the right numbers and if they are continually kept moving. “If we do not permit the earth to produce beauty and joy, it will in the end not produce food either”. [5]So, if we wish to continue to have the luxury of meat and dairy products, we had better start managing the ecosystems that allow for such extravagance in a much more sustainable fashion. Perhaps if grazing was done on a forced, rotational basis ordered by federal law, there would be means for comparison between different plots of lands as to what works and what doesn’t, and no land would be used to its demise because the forced movement of animals would allow for regrowth and replenishment. The government definitely needs to have more regulations regarding grasslands, as well as more funding for enforcement of such regulations to keep public land sustainable and productive for many generations to come. The government must also take responsibility for unregulated livestock doing damage to the ecosystem, as perhaps only the farmer is gathering benefits while the rest of society in that area is suffering.
And as touched on in the previous paragraph, meat is a luxury. Westerners and those in developed nations are blind sighted to this because of fast food chains and local grocery availability. Many nations do not even hold meat as a staple in their diet because its means of production and consumption is too expensive for most to have. “The living things we kill will, in the end, take revenge; for in exploiting their presence we are diminishing our future”. [6]The Western population needs to greatly decrease their animal product intake because it ultimately leads to excessive and unnecessary waste of food, land, and resources. Livestock waste is almost 100 times that of human waste, and most of our grain products are consumed by livestock animals rather than by humans. If we eliminated the perception that meat is necessary in our everyday diet, especially the idea that it should be the main component of every meal, than we would be overworking a lot less land, releasing many less chemicals from waste, lessening the suffering of animals for our consumption, and directly increasing the amount of grain products for human consumption.
Another luxury that most people in developed nations often overlook is the comfort of constant electricity. We have halted our insight on the effects of electronics on the environment while continuing to expand the motorized and electronic industry. Many people are completely unaware that in this moment, electricity is produced from the conversion of heat generated from the burning of coal in power plants. Coal is collected through mining processes, which in turn contaminate water and soil from acid mine draining, heavy metals, arsenic, and mercury that expose wildlife and humans to significant and widespread hazards. Even with the vast social and economic benefits from electricity, the major health ailments caused directly from mining pollution should play a much larger role in the minds of individuals in support of massive mining. Instead of coal powered systems, the world’s human population should direct their attention towards nuclear power. Nuclear waste is much smaller in size than coal waste generated from electricity production; it loses toxicity overtime whereas coal waste cannot be eliminated; and nuclear waste does not cause global warming, where coal waste is the leading cause. We need to stop pondering over the “what-ifs” of nuclear power and get the ball rolling on its development before we continue to dig ourselves into a hole of coal burning damage. “A third of all Swedes have toured a nuclear plant, which helps to explain why 80 percent of the population supports their continued use”. This again goes to show why we need better education to promote awareness and acceptance of processes for the greater good of the global community.
A third luxury that many of us living in developed nations take for granted is the availability of water. Although the earth’s surface is mostly covered by water, only a small percentage is fit for human consumption or applicable for agriculture. There are so many people worldwide dying at the hands of others due to lack of resources, especially due to minimal water supply, that leads me to discuss the necessary acceptance of genetically modified foods. For the amount of prescription drugs we ingest regularly and the amount of preservatives, food coloring, and chemicals we accept in our daily food sources in the developed world, there is no reason to rule out crop modification for those people who genuinely have no other choice but to starve or accept genetically modified food. Developing nations should definitely be allowed the option to grow genetically modified foods if it prevents them from starving as a nation, even if it affects developed nations import of goods or long term agriculture. It is only fair to meet developing nations needs short term in response to food supply, as we dump all of our wastes and hazardous substances onto them without giving them an opt out option. While there could be negative long term effects of genetically modified foods, there are long term negative effects of everything else we have supported in developing our economy through the burning of coal, creation of plastic, water irrigation, habitat destruction, and etcetera. We also need to make more people in developed nations aware that developing nations are suffering right now, and the damage is only getting worse. We must help developing nations now, before time runs out and human subspecies begin to deteriorate.
And just as human species decline, “just about every [other] living creature on earth now contains in its body traces of agricultural and industrial chemicals- many of which are known or suspected carcinogens or mutagens”. We need to pay attention not only to human suffering, but to wildlife and ecosystem suffering regardless of scale as well. It is necessary to equate animal life and environmental elements as co-equal partners with human development, consumption, and production. It is necessary to see life outside of humans as equally important, so that their protection is as valuable as the benefits we reap from that protection. We need to increase our security and enhancement efforts for life outside of humans for the greater good of the people, the animals, and the environment, so all can be mutually beneficial to one another. We need to stop being scared, against, or careless about things we know little about; especially the plant and wildlife kingdom, as they may affect us more than we are currently aware of. To create the equality between humans and other species, and have it valued in the minds of people worldwide, there must be education about the wonders of the animal kingdom and the magnificence of the plant world. We need “to build knowledge about where [we] live in order to take better responsibility for where [we] live”. [7] We need to let native flora and fauna be part of the normal everyday environment of all citizens.
If we destroy the environment, we will not have a society. If we wish to maintain our human culture as a whole, then we need to maintain earth’s culture as well- that of harmony between all species (including humans), natural resources, and ecosystems. Our life depends on the earth that we live on, and if we wish to sustain ourselves, then we must sustain our home. “Real education should educate us out of self and into a selflessness which links us with all humanity”.[8] Inventions or processes that do not benefit the entire global community should not be implemented. We cannot favor ourselves over the rest of the earth’s living things; we are equals to the biotic community, and must adjust our ideologies and lifestyles to reflect just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment