I told myself I was going to begin reading this document entitled “Island Civilization” with an open mind. I have a tendency to pre-judge things before I know what they’re really about. When I first read the words “island civilization” I thought I was in for a Robinson Crusoe meets Star Wars type deal. Not even close.
Roderick Nash has some interesting ideas about how to further help the civilization in which we live. I can’t blame the guy for wanting to fix our society. It’s extremely corrupt and I definitely agree that there are ways to go about making the world we live a better place. I enjoyed reading Nash’s version of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. What I liked most about Nash is that he encouraged others to create their own vision if they didn’t necessarily agree with his. I respect Nash in the sense that he isn’t trying to shove this “environmentalist” idea down anybodies throats, but rather challenging his readers to use imagination of their one to come up with ideas to better the environment. His main goal is to sincerely get as many people on board to want to help the environment, not to gain prestige and fame from writing this article. And I looked him up on Google; he’s not that famous. I trust he’s being sincere with this.
Nash believes that nature should come before humans. Humans are here for nature, the nature isn’t here for the humans. He argues that humans have been “horrible roommates in the earth household” (377). Nash sees civilizations that existed thousands of years ago seemed to be more simple yet healthy for nature and humans. Nash wants to go back all the way to hunter and gatherer societies because it proved to be so successful. He acknowledges that if society could somehow regress back to this lifestyle, all technology breakthroughs could no longer exist. He suggests the solution of Henry David Thoreau that I find quite interesting actually. He says that Thoreau “wished ‘to secure all the advantages’ of civilization ‘without suffering any of the disadvantages’ ”(377). Boy do I wish this was possible. Coming from a technological nerd, I appreciate people that thing technology and advancement of that sort are actually a good thing. I like the fact that Nash doesn’t just deem all human advancement a negative and hurtful thing in society. After all, I’m sure he wouldn’t be wanting to write this article on a stone tablet.
What Nash means by “Island Civilization” it to not live like Robinson Crusoe, but in a utopian type place free of war and even common transportation. A contained society in which the humans were part of the wilderness. No wonder Nash liked Henry David Thoreau so much. The other thing that Nash pointed out what that in order for his vision to work, the world population would have to be cut down by about...one fourth. Not really sure how that’s going to work and I don’t really want to know Nash’s solution to that but I do like Nash’s point about “only limited numbers of humans can enjoy unlimited opportunities” (377). There must have been a lot of good stuff in page 377...I just went back to make sure that not every page was marked 377. We’re good.
Anyways, I think that Nash has a lot of inventive and creative ideas that I’m sure no one else has ever thought of before, but I don’t think those ideas would actually ever pan out. I mean obviously, you can’t just kill one fourth of the population, move them to an island that has no transportation, and expect no war to break out. The more I think about it, I believe the point that Nash is trying to make with this article is that he wants us, this generation, to be creative and stand up for what you think is right. Don’t be lazy and sit on your butt all day when you think that something can actually be done to improve our environment. Think of creative ideas and share them with others around you. Imagination can go a long way. Cheesy, right? I mean I could be wrong about the interpretation of Nash’s article. Maybe he really did plan on cutting Earth’s population by one fourth and creating his own little island, I don’t know. But what I do know is that even though Nash has some pretty crazy, far-fetched ideas, he’s definitely inspired me to be somebody and to take action when I know I could make a difference. It might not be an environmental issue you’re dealing with, but with absolutely anything. Be somebody and make a difference!
Sincerely,
Megan T. Stahl
Roderick Frazier Nash, “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium,” Environmental History 15 (July 2010): 371–380.
Roderick Frazier Nash, “Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium,” Environmental History 15 (July 2010): 371–380.
In the first paragraph I like how you analyzed the title before you even read what the article was about.
ReplyDeleteIn the second Paragraph I like how you researched the author and talked about one of his other works, the "I had a dream speech". I also agree with you that his idea is not to "shove this idea down peoples throats", rather to just get people aware of what is happening and if they do disagree then challenge his idea with a better one.
Your third Paragraph is pretty straightforward. But I do disagree with Nash in that the way things were ten thousand years ago were better for humans. Humans barely had enough technology to survive ten thousand years ago and were among the things hunted in nature. I think that it is a good thing that we have eliminated Humans from the inter-species hunting board. Also I would argue that hunter and gatherer societies would be successful in the future. In today's world kids are being told to challenge what they know and the case ten thousand years ago was opposite. I think of it like a function in math that one x value can only produce one y value. Ten thousand years ago the x value was hunters and gatherers and today I believe the x value to be Capitalism. Soon I believe that our x value will again change and to what I don't know, but the change will only be temporary.
In the fourth paragraph I too definitely want to know how the world is going to shrink its population so much. You should probably eliminate the last two sentences in this paragraph as they stray from the purpose of the paragraph.
I like how your last paragraph was all your opinion and just summing up your ideas about what Nash is really trying to say with his article. Good last sentence. Don't start the paragraph with Anyways, my opinion is that is too informal. And remember you can never be wrong interpreting an article that is primarily opinion. You can only agree or disagree with opinions of your own.