Protecting the natural environment - Essay Example

? Comparison Essay September 22, 0 Comparison Essay The environment issue has two sides. The research delves on Will Cronon’s proposal to prioritize wilderness conservation. On the other hand, the research delves on Kevin Deluca’s emphasizing human conservation should be a top priority compared to wilderness conservation. Catriona Mortimer aptly states that there should be a balance between Cronon’s wilderness-based environment view and Deluca’s human conservation-based environment concept. The key issue is whether to prioritize preserving or protecting the natural environment or filling the people’s need for wood, animal, and other natural environment needs. In Will Cronon's “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature," the author insists that ''only by exploring the middle ground will we learn ways of imaging a better world for all of us… (85).” The quote clearly shows that environmentalism should include caring for both humans and nonhumans. Environmentalism should focus on helping both the poor and the rich, men and women, all individuals (without discrimination). The quote clearly shows that Cronon’s concern for the environment includes preserving the forests, plants, and animals. Further, Will Cronon insists that the natural environment includes the presence of freely roaming animals and abundant plant growth by indicating that the romantic legacy defines wilderness as a wonder topic (88). People should not abuse burning or cutting the forest in order to make homes or communities. The garden tree reminds the people that there are other trees living in the far distant natural forest environment. As proof, Cronon (73) insists that Edmund Burke, Immanuel Kant, William Gilpin postulated that sublime landscapes gives one more chances to have a personally commune with God. In addition, Will Cronon(85) emphasizes that humans should preserve the natural environment. Cronon insists without trees, people will no longer be able to have forest camping trips. Cronon defined people as having the selfish interest to destroy the natural environment. Cronon prefers that the forests and national parks should be preserved instead of hiring a jobless resident to cut down the trees. Cronon desires that it is preferable for the jobless tree cutter resident to be jobless when compared to the cutting of trees. The jobless resident’s life is secondary when compared to the preservation of the natural forest and wildlife environment. In terms of survival, Will Cronon (85) puts the human needs behind the need to preserve our natural forest covers. Cronon (85) goes to state that cutting down trees is described as environmental abuse and irresponsibility. Norton further reiterates that people have a worst impression that people live the comforts of the urban industrial civilization and pretentiously create a beautiful image that the individual’s real home should be in the wilderness, working on a nine-to-five hectic job. Cronon (81) proposes that the defenders of biological diversity balance should appeal others to ensure the untouched virginal ecosystems should be retained at all costs. Consequently, people can retain the beauty and existence of the richest and most abundant animals and plants. Cronon (69) insists that man’s last cure his too-muchness is the wilderness. The wilderness is an unexplored place where human touch has never infected (touched or encroached).Cronon further states that the wilderness will is the only antidote to the environment-debilitating human disease. Clearly, Cronon persuades that both people and the wilderness must live on equal terms, preserving the plants, animals, and humans. On the other hand, Kevin DeLuca's “A Wilderness Environmentalism Manifesto: Contesting the Infinite Self-Absorption of Humans” directly criticize Cronon's insistence that people should prioritize saving the forests, plants and animals. Kevin DeLuca opposes Cronon’s belief that the survival of the forest should higher than preservation of human life stating Cronon's view is old-fashion and outmoded. DeLuca (40) proclaims himself to be a "wilderness environmentalist” by proposing that forests are made to serve the needs of humans, not humans serving the needs of forests. Kevin Deluca reiterates environmentalism centers on removing discrimination in terms of finding jobs, homes, etc. The environmental justice focuses on the creation and implementation of environmental laws or policies. Environmental justice must prioritize on all affected individuals and groups having equal voting rights in terms of deciding the fate of the environment. Further, Kevin Deluca (29) defines the environmental justice is the fair treatment of all people, regardless of race, age, gender, etc. The environment includes the home, office, school, city, suburbs, outskirts, forests, and other locations. Deluca states “The Environment Justice Movement is about PEOPLE and the place they live, work and play.” Deluca shifts from Cronon’s theory that the environment represents the wilderness to a different type of environment, human environment. Choosing between man’s survival and the forests’ survival, people should prefer man’s survival. In addition, Kevin Deluca and the new environmentalist movement insists that people should use the wilderness parks or national parks to generate jobs. Daluca states “…the greatest value of wilderness is that it prods us humans out of our infinite absorption (39). People should hire the jobless tree cutter to cut down the national parks’ trees. Consequently, the jobless man will have salary to buy his hungry family’s food and other needs. The national parks and wilderness park should be cut down so more people will have homes. Lastly, selling trees from the use of banned DDT chemicals will fill help generate other tree cutting related jobs (Daluca31). Focusing on the middle ground, Catriona Mortimer reiterated that man’s cutting down the trees and killing the animals has a positive consequence and a negative consequence. The positive consequence is that trees can be used to build roofs to cover the family from the deadly rays of the sun and rainwater. The negative consequence is that cutting trees lessens the number of trees. Trees convert the growing population’s increasing volume of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Without oxygen, people will die (Mortimer 108). Mortimer insists that preserving the environment may trample on the people’s equality rights. Mortimer prefers that there should be a balance between wilderness preservation and human preservation (Mortimer 108). In terms of personal stand, the Mortimer proposal is the best alternative. A man should not be made to sleep without a home because the trees cannot be cut down. The wilderness should not be damaged in order to fill the businessman’s desire to sell trees, a profitable business venture. Weighing both man’s need for wood and the preservation of forest trees, controlled or reduced cutting of trees will help both the wilderness and people. Without the trees’ oxygen product, people man cannot breathe. Further, an excess cutting of unnecessary trees will increase global warming. Carbon dioxide contributes to the increasing global warming temperature. On the other hand, man cannot have a cozy bed and a home unless trees are cut down. In order to reduce cutting of trees, people should strive to reduce the population growth rate. With the population growth reduction, people will need lesser oxygen-generating trees. With lesser oxygen need, the tree population will increase. With the increase in tree population, global warming will decline. The decline creates a healthy community environment. a health environment reduces the number of sick people. Consequently, people should exercise maximum restraint in cutting trees for homes and killing wild animals for food. Summarizing the above discussion, the environment issue has two valid arguments. Will Cronon’s insists on the preservation of both wilderness and human. Likewise, Catriona Mortimer offers that there should be middle ground between preserving the wilderness and humans. On the other hand, Kevin Deluca emphasizes human conservation should be preferred over wilderness conservation. Evidently, the above discussion indicates that people should preserve both the wilderness and humans because one cannot survive without the other. Works Cited Mortimer, Catriona. Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire. New York: University Press, 2010. Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: Norton Press, 1996. Daluca, Kevin. Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement. Masssachussetts: MIT Press, 2007. Read More