I support the wilderness ethic because it is more adapted to urbanites that are disconnected with nature because of the ethic's separatist take on human-nature interactions.
Hettinger and Throop clarify in their 44th footnote that humans can have a “wildness” to them and be integrated in a “wild” environment (199). They make this point in order to respond to an objection that states wild nature as more valuable than human-involved nature, and the conclusion that people (specifically subsistence farmers) will be kicked out of the land (194). I believe this distinction strengthens the wildness argument because it puts a limit on the level of seperatization between humanity and nature.
Through this specification, it can be argued that the wildness ethic is constructed more towards humans who are out of touch with nature, rather than those who depend on it wholly for their livelihood. As Leopold argues at the end of his “Land Ethic”, many modern humans are disconnected from nature (171-172). Nettinger and Throop acknowledge resistance from Urbanites because of their fear of the “wild”, however they posit that rationality can lead to such an appreciation of the wild (194).
In theory, if the wildness ethic were to catch on and be implemented, many “non-humanized” ecosystems would be left (relatively) alone, and continue to exist somewhat undisturbed. To the conceptual Urbanite who does not interact with nature, this relationship would be functional as long as the respect and division between humanity and the wild nature is rigidly respected. The ecosystem services would continue, and humanity would forcefully check its population growth through the taboo-attribute to the use of wild-land. Through this implementation and possible success, the wildness ethic could have positive results on our relationship with the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment