Before recorded history, environmental changes have affected thing people value. In effect, people have migrated and even changed their ways of living as we come face to face with issues such as global warming as the ice advances and retreats, farmers failure to plant crops or alter them when temperature and rainfall patterns change. Each year is different and each year is a little more difficult than the year before. As humans we do what we must do to survive even if it means to destroy another living things habitat to offer more room and living space for our people. Although we often ignore the signs of global changes as it happens right in-front of us as that is one thing we can not stop. Just as we are killing our planet, we are killing ourselves too.
Relatively untouched and thick forest treat that are located just outside of a major urban area should be left untouched. As stated in the National Geographic article How Urban Parks Are Bringing Nature Close to Home, “ We have got to bring the natural world back to the people, and not have them live in an environment where everything is paved over with concrete” (K. Otterburg, How Urban Parks [..], p 14). This illustrates how we’re absurd with our surroundings as we prefer to be surrounded by sky scrapers and buildings that have been abounded for months. As humans were satisfied with the thought of having one nice park within the city and every with that responsibility we still manage to trash it. Many children have never seen a Redwood tree, countless amount of pine trees, or wild animals within the Forrest. In fact many people today could not define the difference between a sharp shinned hawk and a Cooper’s hawk. We can not destroy other living environments to produce our own. In fact, as humans we’re known to move around never really settling down and leaving areas abounded then occupied.
How does a forest provided a real habitat for a range of wildlife? The more and more we see the wildlife the more we recognize new species that have never been seen before. The forest is used by many such as: insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals and birds. All in their proper habitat for breeding, hibernation, reproduction, sheltering and more. Animals migrate but the forest is never left empty, their facility is used year-round. As stated in Down to Earth “the various elements that made up the woods — trees, plants, insects, and animals — functioned as a unit.” (Steinburg, Down to Earth p. 141) This illustrates that the smallest changes can effect the living of the animals dramatically. The best use of the Forest is to let it be as it has its only filtering cycle, the animals take care of their home and having us removing dead trees and causing forest fires disrupts everything they work for. This is one reason the a timber company ran into because some forest are restricted to step upon as they hold homes to rare animal. Steinburg also mentioned that “ the woods could yield a constant source of timber if its trees were harvested at the proper time and then replanted, creating a second-growth forest even more manageable and in tune with the heads of the American Economy than the original stands it replaced” (Steinburg, Down to Earth p. 140). This shows how the timber company was producing wood, although we fail to see that after time the soil begins to be no good and planting after destruction ruins the growth and ecosystem. Plants grow in mysterious ways and it takes trees decades to fully develop before its ready to be and before we know it we are destroying more trees then what can be reproduced.
Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson have their similarities and differences. As mentioned in Where I Lived and What I Live for it states that “ let your affairs be as two or three, and not hundred or thousands; instead of a million count a half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumbs-nails. In the midst of this chopping sea of civilized life, such are the clouds and storms and quicksands and thousand-and-one item to be allowed for, that a man has to live, if he would not founder and go to the bottom and not make his port at all, by dead reckoning, and he must be a great calculator indeed who succeeds” (Walden, Where I Lived, p 101-102). This related towards Henry David Thoreau as he is explain how instead of cutting a ridiculous amount of trees down that has no exact reason on cutting down more than nature can reproduce. Also being considerate on the environment were building a civilization on that we must deal with at least one of natures creations. As for Ralph Waldo Emerson beloved in seeing nature as something more than a resource for nature. In relation Steinburg stated that “ trees in this view were just like any other resource human or natural” (Steinburg, Down to Earth p. 140). The transcendentalism perceived nature as a new God and their body, as they become one with their surroundings. I would agree more with Ralph Waldo Emerson as he prefers to leave nature untouched by humans hand as it represent the mark of Gods work. Although God created this nature for us to survive not destroy what he created and as we destroy his work we are slow destroying ourselves.
For those who don’t know the tragedy of the commons was defined as a situation in a shared-resource system where each user acting independently according to their own self-interest. Although on the contrary users blemished their resources through their own collective action of selfish wants. Tragedy of the commons in the nineteenth century is viewed as a situation in our shared resource system. It was known as a time where each user acted selfishly by producing in their own self-interest in contrary to the common good. As the spoiled their resources through constant collective actions. With in this essay we will further our view with in the tragedy of the commons and how they affected them in the nineteenth century in comparison to today. In many ways the tragedy of the commons has not only affected up in the past but as well in our society today.
The tragedy became a struggle due to over population. As humans we’re producing fast and consuming and demanding more and more every time. With earth being our commonly held pool we’re inherently selfishness and rationale outcomes. For example, the gold rush that occurred in California once word had reach around many migrated to find gold and consume as much as they possibly could. In their selfishness cause many positives and negatives. As stated in the The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin mentions “We want the greatest good per person; but what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another it is factory land. Comparing one good with another is, we usually say, impossible because goods are incommensurable. incommensurable cannot be compared.” (G.Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, online). This illustrates the good of change that was trying to be produce as each human receives the same equal good as the next with out selfishly taking more than needed. This often happened with tearing down the trees as one person could have created a system of tearing down trees but planting new ones afterwards. Where as you have that single person who wants more and goes above and beyond to meet it by cutting trees down else where and now a chain reaction has occurred. Hardin states that neither a utilitarian ideology nor a policy system solves overpopulation, but we could instead look at the argument of utilitarianism. Under utilitarianism, it is understood that overpopulation will always be counterproductive in this current day and age without current population size and work to combat over-population in a way where the maxim. As illustrated the greatest good for the greatest people often reflects towards the current and future people.
In conclusion, one way we could have the adverse environmental impact of the development is by assigning ownership over resource systems to the state, secondly divide the resources into packages and assign them to people. Lastly, being able to manage the resources responsibly and as there are various manageable alternatives. As the Tragedy of the commons and transcendentalism perceived nature as a new God. They both contradict each other as many people from the Tragedy were overly consuming wood for specific need damaging their environment around them. They were blind to the beauty of the forest and for what it has to offer. Where as transcendentalism refused to take away from something that was a sign of God creations. By those needs we have settle national parks instead of a concrete jungle.