An Open Letter to Roderick Nash on Island Civilization Essay

People dump about 70 million tons of pollution into the air every day causing nature to be destroyed even though people can’t survive without nature. The needs of people are not more important than the needs the planet and animals.

The wilderness can be used to measure against the man made world, a “scientific yardstick.” Throughout the entire piece he is arguing that the importance is not what we can actually see or touch, but what we think of and

Roderick Frazier Nash, author of "Island Civilization" wanted to see how the human tenure on Earth could be like a millennium from now. Seeing that the measuring time in thousand years units began in 1582, when the fixed date for Christ was set on December 31, 999, this millennium in present time would be the start of the fourth one. How could humans survive the earth, such as a strategy for occupation that will work in the long run and for the ecosystem."Having such a goal is a vital first step to solving problems" (Nash 372). Surviving the earth, the term "wilderness" may come into place. Having "wilderness" literally means self-willed land, a place where wild animals roam, and where natural processes proceed not bothered by humans. In the

In the essay “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium” Roderick R. Nash proposes the idea of clustering population on a planetary scale, in order to reduce detrimental environmental impact and deter humanity’s current course leading to self-destruction. In addition, Nash’s plan for an island utopia is a solution to which, he believes, will end this man-instigated desolation of nature and civilization expanding past sustainable limits. However, Nash’s proposition does not take into consideration all the atrocities and the problems that can result as a consequence of instigating his proposal of an Island Civilization. Altogether, Nash’s island civilization would not be a viable option for the future

“It is a vision, a dream, if you prefer, like Martin Luther King’s, and it means clustering on a planetary scale.” (Nash) In Historian Roderick Nash’s essay entitled “Island Civilization: A vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium,” Nash not only proposes the ideology of Island Civilization but also challenges readers to be informed of the rights of nature. Gaining insight on the options of preservation and nature from masterminds like John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and Wallace Stegner. Nash devises a plan of action for Earth during the fourth millennium. Realizing the illustrate of our worlds “wilderness” Nash educates on the ways in which the natural world will evolve one thousand years from now.

Roderick Frazier Nash’s book, Wilderness and the American Mind, compiled contemporary debates about wilderness by outlining the changing positions concerning wilderness throughout history. In chapter 11, “Aldo Leopold: Prophet,” Nash discuses Aldo Leopold’s house metaphor. Here, Leopold refers to six vacant lots and what it would mean to build houses on all six lots. He describes how the first few houses might make sense; however once you build upon all six lots you no longer remember the meaning of the homes. He argues that they somehow the sixth house would become “stupidity.” Conversely, I disagree with this theory. I feel each house, so to speak, is built differently and suits different needs and wants. Just as in the wilderness,

I agree with his concern of people always looking to help those not local to them, and they do tend to not realize the help they can do locally as well. This concern easily applies to public health, where many seek to go overseas when they fail to realize how much help is needed locally or nationally. I also agree with how historically, people have changed their views on nature and the wilderness as this was often discussed in art history. However, I find that his view on the wilderness connotations are quite subjective. He viewed “wilderness” through human eyes as it is a culture we created and that we seek to conserve nature for selfish reasons to satisfy our romantic ideals: whether it be recreational sites, religious icons, spiritual healing, masculinity ideals, a place of paradise and escape, primitive ideals or for the

The Earth itself is being neglected and abused by thoughtlessness and waste products of American Feed corporations. There is so much pollution that the atmosphere and Earth are being destroyed. This is a world hit by environmental disasters, the severity of which can only be read between the lines. There can only be synthesized clouds now that the atmosphere will not allow actual clouds to form and is not able to support natural weather patterns. This is a world where living creatures can no longer reproduce without assistance. And this is a world where startling

David Klass, the author of the novel Firestorm, wanted the readers to protect our resources, wildlife, and environment before we use up everything. The character that really cares about nature is Eko. Eko is very saddened by the fact that all of nature is gone in the future and only domesticated animals remain. "Nothing left like this. The beauty. The diversity. All gone. Nothing wild. Nothing free. Everything farmed."(116) in this quote Eko is telling Jack that animals in the ocean are gone only jellyfish and sea lice remain with toxic waters. Eko also describes all the things humans did to destroy the world permanently to be irreparably. "Sure. Pollution. The destruction of the ozone layer. And a hundred other big and small ways all taken

If we choose to keep cutting down trees and consuming natural resources then they won’t be able to replenish fast enough and there will be none left, posing many problems like having fresh water available to drink, wood to build products, and land to farm on. Obviously not many people are properly educated on environmental issues and how they make them worse but if we as a society choose not to educate those who aren’t then they will continue to use too many resources and not think about how their lifestyle is hurting our environment, which will make environmental problems even worse than they are today. Now as humans we’ve always wanted to get bigger and better, but if we keep expanding and building as much as we are then there won’t be as many resources available because we’ll have taken over spaces and land that was needed for those natural environments to live. Although this seems like a drastic point and something that we can’t really stop, if we always think that we need to keep building, someday we just won’t have any land to do it and also at the same time realize that we don’t have resources

The “People First” critic is clearly not an environmentalist. While he specifically addresses that the environment is important, he also counters with “conservation should be kept in perspective”.

This is the primary focus behind environmentalist movements of our time. Environmentalists try to take action in an effort to “save our planet.” But what if our planet doesn’t actually have to be saved? What if you were told that the Earth is actually going to flourish once we are gone? And all the efforts taken now to “preserve the Earth” were actually selfish deeds to ensure the survival of humans on this planet? Several post-apocalyptic works such as the novel The World Without Us by Alan Weisman and the CBS Television Series The 100 directed by Jason Rosenburg, describe the Earth as a beautiful prosperous sight after we are gone. In the book The World Without Us, Alan Weisman describes this flourishing natural world after the existence of human kind. He also describes the beautiful dominance that nature has always had on our world. The 100 provides amazing images of the planet 100 years after a nuclear disaster. With the acceptance of these thriving worlds described, our efforts should be focus on the survival of our own species so that we can continue to flourish. In order to ensure the continued survival of our species we must change our ways completely, preserve our resources and lessen the use of pollutants so that nature doesn’t prematurely over power our society.

We live in a world that offers so many things to us. A home, food, water, life itself, yet we don 't take much care of it and are destroying it instead. The presence of pollution has been around for such a great amount of time now that you would expect us as humans, to start noticing the mass destruction we are causing and start doing something about it. Glaciers are melting, water levels are rising, the water and air around is being polluted if it 's not polluted already. There is little being done to try and stop or at least slow down this fatal event. If we do not start taking care of our own home, we will soon be left with no home at all, and the only one’s we can blame for that, is ourselves.

White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being

The connection between humans and nature is very weak. Due to future advancement we are basically losing our grip on reality, which brings up the point of destruction to nature that we are not aware of. At one point in time nature was the most beautiful thing you could ever witness. Now people exploit it for money. They are selling land, resources, even water for a profit. They don’t think twice or blink an eye at the damage they cause. The disconnect is so huge the debate of protecting the earth is treated as a forbidden topic. “Second, environmental injustices critics challenge the mainstream environmental idea of what environmental problems are in the first place. They say its focused on the beautiful outdoors, it has anti-urban bias, it isn’t engaged enough with artificial human environments like neighborhoods and workplaces” (Purdy 4) That just baffles me how you can turn the place we call home and the wellness of it to a political debate when all we should want to do is preserve it.