This post is just more of my thoughts on the theme we have discussed throughout the course of man manipulating nature for use or for entertainment. As far as use goes, Wendell Berry shows us a more sustainable way to use land, although he admits to some of his own faults in the farming process. He reminds us of how long nature can take to heal, when he talks about the mistake he made trying to dig out a pond in a place where naturally one would not occur. However, he does many things in such a way as to preserve nature and use it sustainably: trying to keep soil fertile, attempting to reverse industrial damage to the ground, plowing without heavy machinery, and more. I do have to stop and wonder, how feasible are these methods for farmers who grow to make a living, or even just to feed more than simply their family. It seems to me that anyone farming an area much larger than Berry’s may encounter difficulties attempting to use his techniques. I do think that his ideas about preserving all nature, not just our National Parks, is something important for anyone who uses land, whether it be for farming, industry, or for tourism.
On another note, McPhee’s narrative describing the effects of human control of nature struck a chord with me. I have grown up with the opportunity to enjoy so many natural sights. None as grand and large as this canyon systems seems to have been based on McPhee’s description, but sights nonetheless. These sights have been protected mainly due to their rural surroundings, but I think McPhee’s description is common when industry, and money-makers, come into play. I am still shocked that such a large-scale project as filling hundreds of canyons with water was able to pass governmentally, but I think it goes to show just how little people think of preservation.
Perhaps if these canyons had been a huge tourist destination, there would have been enough pushback to stop them from creating a lake of the entire system. However, if they had been a major attraction, would they have been left undisturbed, or would humans have altered them, just in a different way. In my utopian imagination I would like to say that they would have been left as-is, but as we have talked about so much in this class, oftentimes we as people prefer accessibility and comfort to nature, and therefore alter nature to fit better into our lives.
I don’t think I will ever have an answer to the question of whether or not it is okay for us to make nature more accessible. A large part of me would like to say no, but if no one can see the natural beauty around us, who will fight for it if someone wants to destroy it? And when do efforts to increase accessibility begin to destroy nature? I think this can only be answered on a case by case basis, and if accessibility measures are to be attempted, they must be closely supervised by people who truly understand nature and how it may react or change based on our efforts to change it.
On another note, McPhee’s narrative describing the effects of human control of nature struck a chord with me. I have grown up with the opportunity to enjoy so many natural sights. None as grand and large as this canyon systems seems to have been based on McPhee’s description, but sights nonetheless. These sights have been protected mainly due to their rural surroundings, but I think McPhee’s description is common when industry, and money-makers, come into play. I am still shocked that such a large-scale project as filling hundreds of canyons with water was able to pass governmentally, but I think it goes to show just how little people think of preservation.
Perhaps if these canyons had been a huge tourist destination, there would have been enough pushback to stop them from creating a lake of the entire system. However, if they had been a major attraction, would they have been left undisturbed, or would humans have altered them, just in a different way. In my utopian imagination I would like to say that they would have been left as-is, but as we have talked about so much in this class, oftentimes we as people prefer accessibility and comfort to nature, and therefore alter nature to fit better into our lives.
I don’t think I will ever have an answer to the question of whether or not it is okay for us to make nature more accessible. A large part of me would like to say no, but if no one can see the natural beauty around us, who will fight for it if someone wants to destroy it? And when do efforts to increase accessibility begin to destroy nature? I think this can only be answered on a case by case basis, and if accessibility measures are to be attempted, they must be closely supervised by people who truly understand nature and how it may react or change based on our efforts to change it.
Lake Powell
Comments
Post a Comment