Humans Ignorant to their
Surroundings?
David Abram gives somewhat of a
pessimistic view of humans as he analyzes human behavior compared to that of
salmons. One passage from his writing “Reciprocity” that warrants further
discussion says, “It seemed so similar to… so much like, like… well, YES! Of
course, so much like us, us humans!- our own species, Homo sapiens, steadily multiplying and proliferating these last
several centuries without much noticing anything else, seemingly deaf and blind
to the presence of all other species with whom we share this wild world”(p.78).
This statement above shows the
complexity of Abram’s thoughts. On one hand I kind of agree with him but on the
other hand I cannot agree with him. He claims that humans are just like salmons
and we are oblivious to our surroundings but is that really true? He claims
that humans have always been oblivious to other species since our creation and
that needs to change. The other part of me does agree with him because humans
do not care about anybody but ourselves and will do anything to advance our own
species at the cost of other species.
The main problem I have with this
statement is that Abram is saying that all humans are oblivious to the other
species around them but that is not true. Majority of the society of people are
ignorant to their surroundings but there are people who care about the
environment and the species that live within it such as the Green Party in the
United States or the Native Americans who came to understand the true value and
appreciation of the buffaloes in the 1800s. The Native Americans are a good example to use
because they understood the true value of nature and grew to appreciate it. The
Native Americans never tried to harm the environment at all because they saw
that all species are on this world with a purpose.
Now Abram is correct in his thought
that many of the humans on this Earth are oblivious to their surroundings
because humans constantly destroy the environment around them. For example, the
Amazon Rain Forest is home to thousands and thousands of wild species but this
rain forest is slowing dwindling due to the rapid human population growth in
Brazil. People in Brazil need a place to live so they are cutting the forest
down to build houses but at the same time destroying one of the most important forests
in the world. Humans do not care for the environment like they should and it
will come to harm them just like how Global Warming is a major issue today.
Everything in nature has a purpose on this Earth so there is no need to destroy
it but rather humans should learn to accept it. Humans are growing at record
pace but there is way to live amongst the other species of this Earth without
destroying them.
Finally, I leave this question for
you guys to ponder on. What kind of an event needs to happen for humans to
appreciate the environment around them and not to harm it anymore or are humans
truly that ignorant and will never learn from their mistakes?
Humans always learn how to adapt and overcome. Humans have this idea that nothing is impossible but is this truly the case? For example, when the levees failed during Hurricane Katrina, they believed that it was simply human error that caused these barriers to fail. Its not the fact that humans are ignorant, we just chose to focus on the present instead of the future. Humans also learn from their mistakes, but we chose to ignore it. It is human nature to survive by any means necessary and if that means destroying nature to live comfortably, we will do just that. We try to stay one step ahead of nature, but I believe that nature has no limit, we as humans do.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good question. I am not sure if there is an "event" that needs to happen...I think that people as a whole essentially need to see that WE have something at stake in "maintaining" our world. I am thinking about the way we see the relationship between us and the economy--in some ways we see ourselves as separate from the abstract idea of "the economy", like when we are not making any purchases or not at work or just somehow enjoying ourselves in certain settings. But in other ways, we KNOW that we ARE the economy--that even when we are not necessarily outrightly participating in it, we are somehow supporting it and are all connected through it (if you are just hanging out at the house your parents bought, if you are enjoying food at a restaurant, etc.). And meybe the most important part of this analogy is that when "the economy" is "doing well", this IMMEDIATELY says to us "WE are doing well." The article "Reciprocity" does a good job of focusing on how we are a part of nature, but McKibben stressed the meaning of nature as "un-human" and "pure." I don't think that either one of these ideas need be rejected as "wrong"; instead, perhaps "nature" can sometimes be something that we admire for the sense of purity or "other-ness" that it fosters in us and helps us "escape" when we need, and sometimes we can more clearly see ourselves as cogs in a bigger system of nature which can give us "the sense that we are part of something with roots stretching back nearly forever, and branches reaching forward just as far" (McKibben 73).
ReplyDeleteSeeing "what is good for nature" as COMPLETELY simultaneous with "what is good for ourselves" will either take a huge amount of time or, like you suggest, a devastating "event" that then would have to lead to a huge ideology change.
I agree with you that Abram's comparison between the behavior of humans and salmon is not a completely accurate comparison as not all societies are oblivious to their surroundings. However I do believe that some society's, either intentional or unintentional, ignorance of nature is still a frightening problem as more natural forests and other environments are being destroyed by human beings. Regarding your question, I am not entirely sure if any one event may cause humans to become more aware of their environment. I do think that societies can become more conscious of nature through learning more about nature itself and the different ways that human beings have negatively impacted it.
ReplyDeleteThe Abram reading makes reference to humanity as “steady multiply and proliferating” while remaining “blind and deaf to the presence of all other species” (page 78). Yet, if humans are dependent upon the environment for sustenance and global populations are increasing, then the preservation of these resources will be crucial to our own well-being whether selfish or philanthropic. For example, large-scale monoculture farming has increased the percent yield of foodstuffs on plots which has largely accounted for the modern world’s ability to support its current population growth. However, herbicides and fertilizers necessary for these large crop rotations have induced eutrophication (water hypoxia) in surrounding rivers and watersheds. Water eutrophication has resulted in dramatic decreases in marine biodiversity which is also an important source of food, particularly in the developing world. If we continue to over exploit natural resources which causes harm to others, where can we find the balance? What are rate limiting factors to our exploitation of nature? The Author above makes reference to the Amazon and the question continues as to the balance between the wellbeing of Man as opposed to the wellbeing of natural and how the two are interconnected. If we reduce fertilizer consumption to address eutrophication there will be an effect on the annual yield of crops which would impact global hunger. How can we address both concerns so as to properly coincide with nature in a sustainable way?Eutrophication information:http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/about
ReplyDelete