In "The Future of the Environment Essay" Savoy is talking about how only one view of nature and the environment is shared. She is troubled by this and believes that other views are important and offer contrast to the current conversation. Savoy also believes that the definition "environment" also needs to be expanded.
In "The View from Point Sublime" Savoy shares her personal experience at the Grand Canyon. The article also helps articulate what she talks about in the first article. When she talks about the Grand Canyon she shares historical examples of how people were amazed by what they found in the canyon and she shares how Kant thinks the canyon is an emotional experience, but Savoy herself describes a much different experience. I think that in this way, her personal experience is a prime example of what she talks about in "The Future of the Environment Essay".
What are some ways that the conversation about the environment could be expanded? Why are these ways important and what do these views bring to the conversation?
I think that we can expand on the conversation of environmentalism by bringing more issues and perspectives into the fold. We seem t focus a lot on local issues and problems, while there are plenty of other problems out there in the world, with regards t the environment. If we take the time to highlight and expose worldwide issues and perspectives as well as local and and/or national ones, I think it would go a long way toward making the world a better place. This is important because it broadens the conversation of environmentalism in a meaningful way, letting us look at the world through an entirely different lens in order to enact meaningful change.
ReplyDeleteSo far we've read a lot of different essays and perspectives saying that our definition of the environment and the way environmental essays are written needs to be expanded. Some of them have pointed out that we need to acknowledge all forms of nature as worth while or that we need to define nature as other than what is untouched by humans, but these essays bring a different perspective and one that is very much worth considering.
ReplyDeleteThe first topic brought up is that we need to include different cultures, peoples, and backgrounds. We need to hear the voices of ALL people because we can't fully understand the struggles we face world wide with trying not only to protect our natural environments but also the struggles to survive in them. Whether it is people living in tribal areas or struggling to survive in a poor part of the city or even someone who isn't perceived to be struggling we need to understand EVERY view point to find a way to fix our treatment of the environment. For someone who isn't struggling to survive it can be easy to say what we should or shouldn't do, but these claims rarely take into consideration the views of people who don't want to make those changes because it would mean increasing their personal struggles. When considering Maslow's heirarchy of needs it can be easy to understand why one group of people may care less about pollution if the system causing pollution might mean they eat better food, have a chance to raise their family out of poverty, or other such very serious social issues that may conflict with proposed environment change. This is one way in which different voices and people from different backgrounds need to be heard, because if we are going to successfully change our treatment of the environment we can't leave out ethical treatment of people. Humans are a part of the environment, and if we want to change things for the better, we need to also improve the lives of people.
Another type of voice that needs to be heard more is how people have historically responded to nature, both good and bad. I think if we are to understand where we have erred when it comes to our treatment of nature we need to understand what led to those harmful perceptions and beliefs. Some of it may have been just plain ignorance, not knowing or fully understanding the consequences of our actions, but some of it, maybe a lot of it can also be traced back to cultural behaviors that led people to care little about their environment, feeling they had some innate right to do what they pleased. This is not a perception that has existed in all cultures. Every human culture has had an impact on the environment and made major changes, but in many cases the environment was able to adapt to these changes over time. Yes, sometimes humans drove species to extinction or dramatically altered environments for their own needs, but many cultures also did this in ways that didn't harm the environment long term. The thing that makes these changes so different from what we are doing today is the time it took for them to happen. Today species are disappearing all over the world so fast we can't save them, and faster than the environment can evolve to accommodate their loss. If we are to change how we treat the environment we need to understand better the cultures that have a healthier relationship with their environment. We need to understand how these voices that have been overshadowed viewed the environment and their own place within it. We can't keep viewing the environment as something separate from us, and we can't keep acting like the environment doesn't affect us or vice versa.
It helps with starting the conversation with an open mind and understanding that one's experience with the environment may be drastically different from another's, but both are personal and both are just as equally important and significant. I think it helps to be open with expanding your view on the environment and allowing yourself with not getting too emotionally involved with the context of the conversation. While the environment can be an emotional topic, it is hard to open your ears and listen during a conversation about the environment if you allow your emotions to get in the way.
ReplyDeleteI think the conversation can also expand by trying to have a different understanding of the environment and trying to look at it through a different lens or in a different perspective. Often times we simply look at the environment as an ecosystem or we look at it so deeply that we see at as almost a religious entity. I think by expanding our thoughts about the environment, we can then expand the conversation.