Social Construction Of Nature And Environmental Change

1. Karl Jacoby book brings the remarkable accounting of the negative aspects of conservation movement to the sunlight. Jacoby uses the early years of Adirondack Park, Yellowstone National Park, and the Grand Canyon Forest Preserve to demonstrate his theme of the locals’ reactions to the creation of the park and the actions from the conservationists. And the fantasies the early conservationists’ promulgated of the locals of being satanic rapists of the environment are dispelled (193).

Decisions regarding environmental problems require both knowledge and values. Placing value on specific issues can be sorted into four categories of justification: utilitarian, ecological, aesthetic and moral. California Blue focuses on the interplay of environmental issues and ethics emphasizing the conflict between industry and species preservation. Timber cutting in the Northwest United States is a mainstay of the economy. Although clear cutting is not as environmentally sensitive as selective harvesting and redwood cutting, some is essential to America's continued growth and prosperity. To ban timber operations and to throw people out of work, all to preserve an endangered blue butterfly, is to test the limits and logic of ecological priorities. The national policy of preserving endangered species serves the purpose of promoting biological diversity, which if not followed might threaten the ecosystem. This national policy of species preservation is a matter of social policy balanced with the competing interests of the local economy and human needs. Under the utilitarian approach one must balance the benefits of species preservation with the detriment of stopping human activity which threatens that species or the environment in which the

Leopold expresses, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopesided,” (p. 251). The self-interest economists who are only interested in the profit of which they gain from the land cannot spread the importance of the respect for the community. The people who share a knowledge and passion for the environment will educate those who are unaware. As well as being educated on the land, it is essential for humanity to understand that we are not users of what Earth has to offer us, but associates,

Even if the lands are protected, they are not safe from the ecological burden of protecting our borders. Due to changes in legislation the Border Patrol Agency is exempt from stringent environmental laws. This is true in any of the areas surrounding the border, and they are looking to expand the radius of exemption, to better protect our borders. The Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Northern Jaguar Project are looking to reinstall a social rule which the United States already implemented with the Endangered Species Act. This legislation created the social rule that no species should be forced into extinction due to human activities. Riders on the Illegal Immigration Act and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Real ID act of 2005 allowed this social rule to become obsolete. Social rules changes in favor of the environment occur when the public is largely in support for saving the environment. However this support can be splintered by another need of the country especially when the opposing discourse has a crisis wave to ride. This case shows how the issue of border security triumphs environmental needs due to the pertinence of immigration reform along with the crisis impact caused by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Biodiversity Treaty sanctioned that countries whose biological resources are exploited by bioprospecting companies have a right to share the financial benefits resulting from the sale of these resources (Adair, 1997). National parklands are owned by the federal government. Therefore, our national parks have the legal right to share in the financial benefits that

Duerksen, C. & Snyder, C., (2005). Nature-friendly communities: habitat protection and land use. Case Study for Austin, TX; Washington, DC: Island Press Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.apus.edu/lib/apus/Doc?id=10149942

All around the world we have National Parks that are protected areas by the government. John Muir was enraptured by it and Ansell Adame immortalized it, while Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park Service to protect these National Parks. These nationals parks are very important to keep for the environment, we all need to work together to keep these parks as nature as possible.

The national parks of the United States are a part of the few remaining regions in the country where nature is relatively untouched and natural beauty can be observed. For over a century, national parks been popular vacation destinations for citizens and international tourists alike. Regulation and conservation of these areas is necessary to allow for continued visitation and enjoyment. The National Parks Service of the Department of the Interior was created with The National Park Service Organic Act (“The Organic Act”) to maintain the nation’s parks and ensure preservation of the land while encouraging use by the general public. Whether or not conservation and recreational use are independent of each has been argued within the government as well as among the general public for decades. Vague language used by The Organic Act’s authors has allowed for manipulation of the phrasing of the fundamental mission statement of the National Park Service to support or oppose a variety of decisions that will environmentally impact the parks. Personal opinions and conflicting priorities lead to much ambiguity in the long-term implementation of the National Park Service Organic Act.

We need to protect and restore the nature. To achieve this goal, we need to set up effective environmental policies. Two mainstreams guide our current view towards protection of nature: utilitarianism and preservationism. These terms may sound similar to most people. In fact, when we disclose the meanings behind them, we will see that the ways they treat the environment behind these two doctrines are distinct. From lecture, utilitarian means that “the value of any part of nature is determined solely by its usefulness to human” (Robbins et al. 70). Meanwhile, preservation states that “the management of natural resource or environment for protection is for nature’s own sake” (Robbins et al. 71). To further explain these two concepts, we can

UNESCO biosphere reserves are considered some of the major ecosystems in the world. According to UNESCO, biosphere reserves are “sites of excellence where new and optimal practices to manage nature and human activities are tested and demonstrated”. However when an individual’s actions are expected to negatively impact the Niagara Escarpment, limitations must be imposed on the individual in order to preserve the biosphere for the greater good of the world. Humans must respect and follow the regulations of an UNESCO biosphere reserve in order to maintain it. Before one looks to expand on the Niagara Escarpment, economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors should be considered.

This paper uses the terms natural resource(s), resource(s), and reserve(s) in many different contexts. Please use care when interpreting their usage and context.

One of the major issues confronting western America is that of environmental conservation and protection versus agricultural essentials and needs. This issue includes the environmentalists' fight against herbicides and pesticides, reservoirs for irrigation water, and livestock grazing on public land. The controversy that this essay confronts will be that of the desire to use public land for livestock grazing versus the importance of preserving the rangeland ecosystem. Importance is found on each side of this controversy by various groups of people. What will there be for tomorrow's generation if the ecosystems of public lands are not preserved?

The connection between society and Environment is very crucial. However, to be able to understand the connection between the two first it is important to understand what the two terms mean individually. A society is a group of people involved in a social interaction and the deeper study of society, human behavior and related concepts is called sociology. Furthermore, Environment is our physical and biological factors along with their chemical interactions which affect an organism or a number of organisms.

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.

Humans are taught to act and behave in a certain way. They are told what is wrong and what is right based off of the society they live in. They are given social norms and expectations depending on their race, socioeconomic class and gender. Our calculated behaviors are controlled by the perceptions and consequences from the outside world: society. But what if humans were born and lived within a nonsocial world, how would we behave and what would be our main concerns? In a world of no structure or class system, how would we treat one another? This is the question of the state of nature. The question of whether humans are innately violent, indifferent and/or loving beings have been discussed and debated by many philosophers and political theorist. Two philosophers who talk largely about the state of nature are Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. There are key similarities between the theories of both philosophers, as well as significant differences that alter the conclusions that both theories propose about the state of nature and ultimately the development of society. Rousseau 's theory includes that a natural state is changed to a civil one when there is an understanding of sufficient resources for all and the innate quality of pity. While Hobbes theory states humans natural state is a violent and threatening one.