 |
| Source: http://watchdogwire.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/florida/files/2013/06/government-land-grab-630x286.jpg |
Humans exist primarily from the resources that they thrive on. Take a look at farmers for example: They till fertile soil for miles and utilize water for irrigation in order to create a edible resource. In order to continue making more fruit and vegetables on the same soil, they have to respect the land and fertilize it with compost.
I read an excerpt from
A Sand Country Almanac: "The Land Ethic" by Aldo Leopold and he discusses on how humanity still treats the environment as property rather than an entity that requires respect. He goes on to state that this land ethic includes "the boundaries of the community to include soil, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (Leopold p.60). He continues: "This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Certainly not for... soil... waters... plants... animals (Leopold p. 60). I agree with Leopold here as humanity typically takes these biomes and other for granted. In the past, we as humanity don't necessarily have the best track record with mother nature. See for example: DDT, surface runoff, Dumping grounds and the list goes onward. More or less our natural enviornment has been exploited (or in some cases harmed due to ignorance or accidents) and its imperative that we at least make an effort to have guidelines and safety in place in order to create a better ethic or respect for the land. Otherwise we could soon see a future where wearing masks and large-scale filtration systems are common-place.
 |
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Runoff_of_soil_%26_fertilizer.jpg
|
I completely understand the outcry and how much importance humanity needs to place on the situation, however Leopold's points continue to fall short into melodramatic tones. "Would Boone and Kenton have held out? Would there have been any overflow into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri? (Leopold 61). "Will the tax base carry its eventual ramifications? At what point will governmental conservation, like the mastodon, became handicapped by its own dimensions? (Leopold 67). If Leopold had not switched tones and continued his pace into a deeper understanding, maybe he would have kept his point across. He is painting any minor step for conservation efforts by creating a negative outlook, simply implying "this won't work." Any step, no matter how minor, is a great step in the right direction, no matter if its the federal government or local.
