Launch Post- Defining Nature

When thinking about nature conservation there are many different view points on how to obtain this or even what it means. Emma Marris and Bill McKibben both have very strong stances on wanting to preserve nature but their perception of what nature is and how to save it are very different, but both have good points to consider. In the book The End of Nature McKibben talks about his own experiences in natural environments and how over the years it has grown harder and harder to escape the presence of humans and find areas that seem uninhabited or untouched. He revels in a deep appreciation for the places where nature feels undisturbed by human presence and often describes how the occasional presence of a human interrupts this feeling such as when people bring speed boats out on the lake or how he has to sing while walking through the forest in hunting season to not accidentally get shot. He seems to dread these interruptions to what he considers a peaceful environment. McKibben seems to be of the opinion that we are destroying our natural environments and no one is really doing much of anything about it. In his eyes nature is disappearing as he recognizes the definition of nature as being untouched or undisturbed by human presence.

In contrast to that Emma Marris sees nature all around us. She talked about how an empty city lot could have a thriving micro ecosystem that might harbor milkweed, the food Monarch butterflies live off of, or how an old abandoned raised railway path has become overgrown with tons of different plants, creating what is called a novel ecosystem. These novel ecosystems typically have lot of invasive plants and pop up as micro-environments when an area is cleared then unmanaged. We actually see these all around us in Indiana because we live in an area of second growth forests after the old growth was cut down for farming. These novel ecosystems may be predominantly invasive species but they are also thriving ecosystems with hundreds of different plants species (sometimes even endangered species) and also provides a great habitat for bugs, birds, and other animals. These areas actually have great biodiversity, which is typically considered one of the key things necessary for a healthy ecosystem. Marris argues that we should define nature not by the absence of human influence but instead by "The presence of multiple species, the presence of thriving life." She argued that humans have been altering the world for as long as we've existed. On every continent we have hunted animals to extinction as far back as paleolithic eras and these extinctions have dramatically changed the environments around us.

Emma Marris pointed out that even in so called "wild" places like the Amazon there are still humans living there, who have been there for hundreds of thousands of years. She said that "They have a meaningful relationship with the landscape" which is to say they depend on it for survival and because of this they also take better care of it. Today it is hard for some people to understand their dependence on the natural world and natural environments because they no longer see the direct link. They don't have to hunt or grow their own food, they don't have to get their water from a stream or river or other surface water source. Therefore the destruction of natural environments doesn't seem as perilous to them.

McKibben said, "We never thought that we had wrecked nature. Deep down, we never really thought we could: it was too big and too old; its forces- the wind, the rain, the sun- were too strong, too elemental." This basically shows the mindset some people still have because the consequences of altering our natural world don't seem real enough yet. To McKibben all of it seems like a lost cause. His writing seems to say that he believes nature is gone and we can never get it back now the way it was, that it is lost forever. In some ways maybe he's right. We have changed things beyond repair, and probably within the last few hundred years we have changed things so drastically that it can't ever compare to what our ancestors did to change the environments and the world as a whole.

Marris has a very different approach. Her view is that we need to harbor an appreciation for nature in future generations by getting kids out in nature, no matter where it is or what kind it is. She believes it is important for kids to go out and play in nature, to really get their hands in it, build forts, climb trees, whatever they want to do in order to explore and learn about the natural world. She said in relation to this, "That which is untouched is unloved." In order to get kids today and future generations to care about nature they need to touch it, they need to play in it, they need to see it all around them.

One thing that both of these authors show is that no matter their view points, fears, or feelings of desolation, nature can regrow and come back if given the change. The environment will adapt if we give it a chance, but it will never adapt if we keep destroying it faster than it can change and grow to accommodate how it has been altered. It is almost impossible to get rid of invasive species, so for better or worse they are here to stay, but if the environment is given a chance it will change over time to work with that species. Even McKibben showed that a natural environment can come back when he spoke about the abandoned mills and farms and cabins that began to break down and how nature took them back over and Marris shows how environments can grow to thrive despite invasive species and turn into healthy ecosystems if just allowed to grow, adapt and work themselves out.

We can't change what has already been done, and the reality is humans have been changing climates for hundreds of thousands of years. What we can do is reduce factors that contribute to climate change and global warming, make more efforts to preserve habitats and natural environments, and try to prevent further introduction of invasive species into other environments. If we give nature a chance to adapt to the changes that have already been made and are irreversible then it will eventually balance itself out, but we have to stop destroying more environments and stop making irreparable changes to let it catch up. The best way to get this done is to encourage future generations to care about the natural world in all of its forms, whether its a well managed national park, an empty lot in the city, a park, or even their own back yard. The important thing is getting them excited about the outdoors and teach them to care about our world and every living thing in it by encouraging them to become a part of it rather than viewing themselves as separate.

That's what I've taken away from it at least and the view points I have on it. Here's a few questions to think about.

• What do you think nature should be defined as? 

• Are we fighting a losing battle against endangered species and if so should we just allow the environments to change how they will? 

• Where should we draw the line between allowing nature to adapt and trying to prevent changes in ecosystems? 

• What do you think if most important in preserving nature (what should we focus on)? What can we do to minimize our impact on the environment?

•   Do you think humans are a part of the environment or do you see our behavior as unnatural? If you said humans are unnatural at what point did we cease being a part of the natural world? What defines human behavior as unnatural?

•  How do you see nature now after reading/watching these pieces? Do you still see it the same as you did before or do you have a different perspective on what nature can be? How has your perception changed and why?