The
ideas of Roderick Frazier Nash in Island civilization: a vision for human
occupancy of earth are completely abstract. The concept of “island civilization” is far-fetched and not
promising for the future. It is true that the earth is running out of space and
Homo sapiens are the cause, but it is also true that Homo sapiens are stubborn
and many are not for change unless it will benefit them. For many citizens of
earth, the existence of another species is the least their worries. Humans
often take action to fulfill the greater good, but the greater good in their
eyes is not aiding the planet and its other species, but themselves. The idea
of an “island civilization” is quite brilliant, yet if it is put in reality many
will conclude that the theorist is a fool.
The
cost of living in an island civilization will outweigh the benefit for most
people. Today people prosper and flaunt on how many acres they have and how
they have over 6000 sq ft homes. It will be hard to convince any sane human
that we should go live on a “island civilization” that is isolated and
condensed with millions of other fellow humans. Even if it were to save
biodiversity, I am sure people would be envious of how other species on earth
can have so much space and freedom while humans are confined to a 1000 sq ft or
less apartment or cottage. It sounds as if an island civilization would
be an isolated New York City, except more advanced with cool technological
features and barbwire to keep us in, with even more citizens than there already
are. I have lived in Manhattan for over 11 years and to this day I prefer being
out in the “country” with wilderness and trees, and readily available Oxygen.
People will feel caged in these “island civilizations” and either there will be
many riots or the government will have drug its citizens. To have the entire
human race agree to live within “island civilizations” will be terribly
bewildering. Hostile countries such as North Korea and Iran would be just the
pinch of the problem.
Besides
the fact being incarcerated on an island, with so many people
there will be many deadly diseases. If one person attains a virus, you can
almost guarantee that it will be transferred, especially in such close
quarters. Nash is trying to convince
us to care for the ecosystem and biodiversity but at the same time he is
convincing us to wipe out our own biodiversity. If an epidemic did break out
there could be many causalities and the epidemic may even wipe out the entire
“island civilization”. It can be anticipated that there will be technological
advancements that can most likely ward of any virus or bacteria, although, one
thing that will never change is the characteristic of micro organisms, in which
they will always be able to mutate for the better or worse.
Nash
makes an effort to convince us by using words and publications of renowned
environmentalists. Those he recites have a strong background and knowledge but
never do they say we should contain ourselves on an island. It is a fact of
life that we will ever die out or flourish, and Homo sapiens chose to flourish.
It is natural selection in which the smarter species survive. As humans we
should protect other organisms from extinction. It is essential to sustain biodiversity
but we will not confine ourselves to an island to support it. By the next
millennium technological advancements will be extraordinary where we will be
able to have sustainable living with the minimum footprint on diminishing
biodiversity. There are many possibilities to protect mother earth. It is rumored
that if mother earth reaches full capacity, she will have natural disasters to
dissipate the population. As you may know the prophecy of the end of time on
December 21, 2012 is inching up, can it be the extermination of millions of humans
on earth by mother earth? It is for destiny to decide the course of planet and
its inhabitants. Like Nash states, live in pursuit of happiness.
I completely agree with Daniel’s argument that people will not jump at the chance to change their lifestyle for the benefit of the Earth. People are greedy, and most would rather take care of themselves before helping the environment. Even if this civilization were obtainable, the materialism of the human race would only make it collapse upon itself. The idea of getting to choose which “island” to live in would only magnify problem by making some location more attractive than others. I also agree that any sort of epidemic would devastate an “Island civilization.” Our history has shown us how damaging a deadly disease can be. We have the ability to protect the environment around us, and because of that I think we are obligated to try our best to save it. That doesn’t mean we have to do something as dangerous as reducing the population.
ReplyDelete