Research Paper On Mother Nature

Mark Fiege, the author of The Republic of Nature, was able to capture the past history through the lens of nature. Nature by definition is something so simple but so broad. We as the readers must analyze the history and the effects of nature of the United States, but we must first understand what Mark Fiege was able to see through the lens of nature, how he was able to define nature. We can see such effects in the chapters of Satan in the Land, King Cotton, and Nature’s Noblemen.

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.

Author, Henry David Thoreau and Mary Oliver are both very passionate about nature and what it has to offer in life, as well as the symbolism behind nature and its creatures in their works of literature, in “Walden”, and “The House of Light”, Both authors discuss their views of nature and the beauty of the world that they want to make familiar to their audience. In this essay, I’ll provide my reasoning behind this statement.

Let’s take David Henry Thoreau for instance. He was an old poet who lived in the beginning of the 1800’s. He loved writing and most of all, he loved being in nature. He lived in the wilderness on Walden Pond for almost two years. He experienced nature, wrote about nature, and in all technicality, escaped from the real world and society he was raised in to go explore and see what nature had to offer to him. Thoreau loves the goodness in nature and states that society as a whole can and is ruining it. A fellow colleague named Emerson also thought similar to Thoreau, and also sought out to see how beautiful nature is. Emerson in his writings, talk about how pure he thinks nature is and how he (and also Thoreau) believes that people isolated provides them to be essentially closer to nature and see they can see how pure it is and the purity it gives to people. To Emerson, being in nature can get rid of evil for he thinks that god gave nature to people as a present. He sees nature valuably and believed that men could essentially be completely relieved if only in and connected with nature. (Brandon

As human beings we’re all affluent to live on this fascinating place called earth. We live everyday normally just as every other human, animal or insect. But we eradicate insects and animals as if they aren’t as important as we are. Nature is being inherently demolished by humans who are oblivious to know that all living things on the earth have a purpose . However, Annie Dillard, well-known for her ambiguous nonfiction books help support the importance of nature and why we shouldn't intrude upon it. For example, Dillard’s excerpt from “The Fixed” about a Polyphemus Moth uses countless rhetorical strategies to construct a compelling message about the peace and beauty of nature, but it also illustrates how easily mankind can destroy it. Therefore, a part of nature is to be naturally

From the mightiest of Redwoods to the tiniest bacterium, nature encapsulates mankind. Nature surrounds humanity as a sovereign witness to man’s most astounding triumphs, and the disgusting atrocities perpetrated by man against his fellow man. Regardless of the circumstances, nature remains unbiased in the face of all conflicts and struggles. Nature cannot deceive or mislead like humanity can. It is for this reason why nature has an ideal perspective to view history. As shown through Mark Fiege’s book The Republic of Nature: an Environmental History of the United States, the lense of nature is extremely important to both readers and historians alike due to the fact that unlike almost all other sources, nature is unbiased and honest. This is exemplified through Fiege’s exploration of the history of the the construction of the Lincoln Memorial, the Salem witch trials, and natural law.

A good example that support the theory that “Western Society assumes that humanity and nature are disconnected and that the environment is subordinate to human needs.” are first, Puritans belief that they had the God given right to subdue both nature and any Native Americans they saw, which was all for the glory of expanding the Christian society. A second example is the key beliefs of d’Holbach’s and other philosophers that “humanity towers above nature because of humanity’s capacity for thought and rational decision making. With these abilities, people could decode nature’s laws and more efficiently tame it for the betterment of society.” Colonist believed that the environment existed solely to support human needs.

‘The sheer popularity’ of stimulating nature or using nature as ad space ‘demands that we acknowledge, even respect, their cultural importance,’ suggests Richtel. Culturally important, yes. But the logical extension of synthetic nature is the irrelevance of ‘true’ nature— the certainty that it’s not even worth looking at. (Louv lines 9-19)

In both Kate Chopin’s The Awakening and Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, nature is paradoxically symbolized as both a liberator and a destroyer- intellectual maturation and hubris- through the “awakenings” of Edna Pontellier and Chris McCandless.

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Since the beginning of time, mankind has depended on nature for survival. Although, throughout the years society has learned to manipulate nature for their own selfish advantages. In the passage written by Richard Louv, he utilizes rhetorical questions, repetition, and a tone of nostalgia to stress that sad truth about the separation of mankind and nature.

The people nowadays also abuse on what nature can provide to them. People are influenced by the western Culture, Man is more powerful and can have dominion over nature and that nature as they see become merely an instrument to satisfy human needs and wants. This kind of thinking or we can say attitude towards nature is called the “Anthropocentric Attitude”. Man reduce the value of nature as it is and it’s important because nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man and that the value of non-human things in nature is merely instrumental. An opposite thinking would be the Eastern Culture, for they value nature very well and they treat nature being one with them. This thinking or attitude is known as “Ecocentric

In life we are all confronted with the idea of nature along with society. Although both have their pros and cons they work together to give us freedom and order among individuals.

Nature is merely our instrument of conquering one another. By manipulating what already exists, we create everything from nuclear warheads to high speed internet. The continuous competition between men feeds off of our technological advancement—none of which would be possible without the resources Nature provides for us. And rather than being grateful for the unequivicable power so generously offered us by our environment, we instead mock its existence. We distract from the cunningness and cruelty of our efforts toward mankind by relabeling our target ‘Nature’ rather than ‘each other’. By convincing ourselves we are somehow beginning to have Nature within our control and understanding, we forget that Nature is really only the means, not the end of our conquest. We will not be satisfied until we have defeated ourselves. As Lewis puts it, “Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won… But who, precisely, will have won it?” (The Abolition of Man, 421)

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.