An Analysis Of E. M. Forster's 'My Wood'

In “Tree Hugger: The Tyranny Viewpoint,” attorney Gerry Spence argues that society wrongfully ignores the rights of nature because they are not viewed as living human things. According to Spence the reason being is due to the many ideologies humans are enslaved by. These ideas encircle the power of religion, corporations having rights but not living trees, and saying that humans must eat certain foods at certain times of the day.

With this Locke is of the opinion that properties do not have much value as a divine ordainment rather he is of the view that labour adds the deserving value to the property which is regarded as the principle of the first appropriation. The way we think about environmental concerns or when we deal with the question of the common use of resources, the phrase ‘The Tragedy of the Common’s almost inevitably props up. Our thinking is heavily influenced by Garrett Hardin's pivotal 1968 essay with the same name "The Tragedy of the Commons”. In his essay, Hardin described the fate of a common pasture, unowned and available to all. The tragedy of the commons lies in the anticipation that a resource will be overused when it is part of a “commons.” As Hardin explained, in such a situation it is in each herder's self-interest to maximize his use of the commons at the expense of the community at large. Each herder captures all of the benefit from adding one more animal to his herd. Yet the costs of overgrazing the pasture are distributed among every user of the pasture. And when all of the herders respond to these incentives, the pasture is overgrazed - hence the tragedy. The tragedy is that people don’t look at the bigger picture; the over use of

A big part of Ishmael’s problem with humans is that we’re selfish with our planet. We’d rather destroy our planet to benefit our needs than try to tame our requirements. “You’ve been doing what you damn well please with the world. And of course you mean to go right on doing what you damn well please with it, because the whole damn thing belongs to you.” (Page 61) Throughout the book, Ishmael brings up humans using the world to their own advantage and not caring what or who gets hurt in the process. I feel like this is one of Quinn’s greatest examples of what we’re blind to. We don’t realize that our oceans, our forests and wildlife and our environment aren’t actually ours. This is another example of humans thinking they’re the top of the ecosystem and using the world because it “belongs to us.” We realize that we’re ruining habitats and using an excessive amount of resources, but we do nothing to stop it. We ruin our world but don’t get that we need our world. We’ve created a cycle that’s holding us captive but we don’t know how to reverse it.

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

According to National Geographic, 40% of the Earth today is farmland—soil being manipulated to feed the 7.6 billion human beings on this world. We have taken over this world like ants swarming to a piece of rotting fruit, without much thought to the organisms that have been on Earth long before us. Our lives may be easier in that we do not have to forge for our food or water anymore, but with the stress of today’s world, was the tradeoff worth the natural land? Willa Cather’s novel, O Pioneers! brings attention to the way we choose to use the land, whether it is in our best interests, the land’s, or both. The characters in O Pioneers! demonstrate how in order to maintain a successful relationship with the land we live on, it is necessary to be able to both adapt to the land and mold it to fit our physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.

(p. 105) The property owners are often of the upper class and have control of their life situation. In contrast those who own no property are primarily of the lower-middle classes and have little control over their life situation since they must follow certain societal rules put in place by the ruling class (those with the most property/greatest economic status).

Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).

The book “Changes in the Land” by William Cronon in summary is based on environmental history where science, social science, the way society affects human nature and vice-versa is all combined into his narrative. With that being said, he believed that humans are dependent on nature, and nature is something that’s either made or broken by humans. Same goes for vegetation and land area. He wrote about conflicts between two cultures, where when the settlers came in to New England, they took over the Native American’s home. The power the settlers had over the Native Americans grew so strong that it got to a point where the rule of usufruct was put in place, where Native Americans could make use of any natural resource on earth as long as it wasn’t being needed by another person.

When people decided to gather, communicate, and cooperate to make their livings around beasts, they also had to decide the ownerships of trophies. That was the time when the idea “property” was invented. Many wise men in the past, while thinking about a better format for people living together, argued meanings of property to people. British philosopher John Locke in his work Second Treatise of Government separates property as public goods shared by all humans and necessities for living created via labor. The value of property has changed over time, when later French philosopher Voltaire in his novel Candide, or Optimism expresses that property becomes for what people in a world where Candide lives keep fighting: land, gold, and even ownerships of women. Necessities and public goods becomes luxuries. Voltaire’s work shows this trend and it can explained by the worry about the risk of losing current living standard in the future when easily accessible things are no more available to everyone. In fact, Candide also reflects scarcity of property, a nature which Locke never mentioned. Thus Candide is a strong critique to Second Treatise of Government for the nature of property when Voltaire demonstrated scarcity in material and philosophical ways in Candide.

“Nature is rich; but everywhere man, the heir of nature, is poor.” Lloyd begins his work by complaining about how the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor; however, as the essay progresses, one can see the accuracy of his views. He references the creation of Adam and Eve, stating that, “Never since time began have all the sons and daughters of men been all warm, and filled, and all shod and roofed.” It’s been true throughout history that because of monopolies that a very small percentage of men control a majority of land and resources. Lloyd states that individuals holding a majority of resources and land believe that that there is a scarcity; that there is not enough. And in order to survive, in order to be happy, in order to be prosperous, they must contain and constrain. Men must hold on to any and everything they can get their hands on. The minority has an opposing viewpoint. It feels that there is an abundance of resources, but because of unequal distribution, there is never enough to go around: “There is too much iron, too much lumber, too much flour―for this or that syndicate. The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell.” Lloyd concludes by expressing that we have become a “mutual deglutition.” He states that we have advanced too quickly and implicates that we are beginning to reverse

Property has always played an important role in the life of an individual, community and country. The practical significance of the property lies in the fact that it enables us at least the necessities and amenities of the routine life if not the means of comfort. The property rights give the successor a way to overcome the sufferings and to fight the battle of their lives.

Novelists such as Willa Cather and F. Scott Fitzgerald used themes of desire of wealth as a fundamental element to motivate their characters. In their novels, the theme is reflected by the rich Americans who primal desire is to obtain more and more wealth. These characters are so infatuated with and blinded by money that they no longer regard the more noble qualities of life. In each of their works, these authors present intricate, self-conscious characters that desire wealth in order to attain their dreams. In reality, wealth cannot buy people, ideas or even time.

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

It was the land, when mixed with man’s labour offered the means of turning that outcome into money. Since land ownership is a prerequisite to making money and money is a pre-condition to owning land, the two became inexorably linked. In short, the introduction of money led to unlimited accumulation, scarcity and, ultimately, conflict. Although the sufficiency limitation remained intact, there was no longer “as much and as good” land for everyone and, as a result, a visible disparity between “owners” and the “wage makers” appeared and conflict between them arose. Locke commented on the problems inherent in accumulation of property in the state of nature;

“The Land Ethic” written by Aldo Leopold was critiqued by J. Baird Callicott. “The Land Ethic” in short explained the idea that humans are not superior to animals or species on earth, but humans should live on earth as simple members. (Leopold, 2013) Callicott found three things that lead to the confusion, contempt, and contempt of Leopold’s writings.