Leopold A Land Ethic

Getting a kiss from a cow at a sanctuary. Photo by J. Lane

"In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it" (Leopold 60).

This quote is very powerful and truthful. All throughout humans' history they have thought of everything as theirs. Animals, plants, the sun, the wind, water, and all the other resources. They are not respected by humans but used. Clearly, by the state of the environment and world today, it is not working. It is time that we look upon animals as our neighbors on earth. Animals are not ours to own but to be valued for what they give and respected. We are not the conquerors or rulers but fellow citizens. The people will not protect the environment until they admire and protect their neighbors.

CREW. Photo by J. Lane

"On the back forty we still slip two steps backward for each forward stride" (Leopold 62). 

Overall, I disagree with this quote.  I can see both sides to this argument and understand where Leopold was coming from. Yes, it sometimes seems like no matter what kind of advocating for the environment is done nobody seems to listen, or a worse mistake is made. For instance, the Black Rhino is endangered right now. To combat this the Namibian government will allow a hunting permit of them for a certain amount of money. The idea is that the money 'donated' will be used for protection of these creatures. That is the most backwards thinking I have ever heard. My disagreement stems from my feeling that this quote is basically discrediting all the work activists have done by saying it did not help at all but hurt their cause. Every voice counts. Eventually, change will be made.

CREW. Photo by J. Lane

 "In human history we have learned (I hope) that the conqueror role is eventually self-defeating" (Leopold 60).

I am unsure of why Leopold chose to add this in to his argument. While I would like to believe this statement to be true I do not think it is. Humans will continue to try to conquer things over and over. They have yet to learn you cannot be successful that way. I do not know what it will take for humans to realize this but I hope it happens soon. The idea that we know what is best for the rest of the world's inhabitants is selfish and has proven to have terrible effects. This quote basically discredits some of Leopold's other points. In short, humans have not yet learned from their mistakes.

Louv Nature Deficit Disorder

Trees in the FGCU Nature Trail. Photo by J Lane

"They found that greenery in a child's everyday environment, even views of green  through a window, specifically reduces attention-deficit symptoms" (Louv 8).

Though I am no longer a child, and have never suffered from attention deficit disorder (ADHD or ADD), I agree with this finding. There are times when being inside is necessary and you are unable to go outside. For instance, when I am in classes I find my stress level to be significantly less when there are windows in the room and the curtains are drawn back. When the windows are blocked, or there are no windows at all, I begin to feel stuffy and trapped. I am unable to concentrate simply because I am concerned with leaving the classroom. I can see how kids with underlying attention deficit disorders could find this even more troubling. The view of greenery through the window while in class can relieve stress for me. Also, after being coped up for an extended period of time it is relieving to finally step outside and take a breath of fresh air.

Children's playground. Photo by J Lane

"In the era of test-centric education reform and growing fear of liability, many districts considered recess a waste of potential academic time or too risky" (Louv 1).

I know this is not Louv's beliefs but I strongly disagree with this statement. Some of my fondest memories in elementary school were spending recess on my school's playground. It was a time to socialize and take a break. I was able to enjoy myself on the playground while still scoring above average on all the standardized tests and even making it into advanced classes for middle school. It became glaringly obvious as I got older that the amount of time spent during recess was increasingly cut back as I aged until middle school when it just stopped. With the end of recess I noticed an increase in teachers telling us how to pass the FCAT. Also, the idea that cutting back recess will help increase test scores is backwards. There is only so much nonstop learning a human can take. Everyone needs a break to soak in the knowledge they just obtained. Recess would allow the perfect opportunity for a break in order for the children to fully retain the new information. It saddens me to think that some of today's children do not get to enjoy recess as I once did.

A child watching TV. Photo by Alamy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/10138281/Letting-children-watch-hours-of-TV-improves-academic-ability-study-claims.html

"More time in nature---combined with less television and more stimulating play and educational settings---may go a long way toward reducing attention deficits in children, and, just a important, increasing their joy in life" (Louv 10).

 I both agree and disagree with this quote, therefore I find it confusing. While I agree with the positive affects nature has on society and children I am not sure how I feel about it reducing attention deficits. It mentions more stimulating activities would help when in fact I think the problem they face is too much stimulation. I do not know much about attention deficit disorders but I do know that they have trouble focusing on one thing because everything grabs their attention. Therefore, on this explanation TV would help more. Perhaps television grabs their attention in the wrong way though. Maybe, by reducing their television time and increasing their time in nature it will teach their brains to relax and focus on one thing. I do believe that children with attention deficit disorders have it ingrained in their genetics and biology. It is not something that can be cured purely from nature but maybe nature will reduce the symptoms.

Orr Biophilia vs. Biophobia

Biophilia:  the love, appreciation, and concern for all things in nature and that are alive

Biophobia: the feeling that nature exists solely to serve humans and no passion for it

FGCU Nature Trail Entrance. Photo by J Lane

 "Protecting animals in the wild while permitting confinement feeding operations and most laboratory use of animals makes no moral sense and diminishes our capacity for biophilia (Orr 208)."

Being the stereotypical vegan that I am I had to pick a quote regarding animals.  However, I truly do agree with this statement made by Orr. Animals are a major part of nature. I will never understand how someone can say they love nature and yet give money to a zoo. If we truly love nature we should be allowing it to live as it was meant to be. It should be left alone in its natural habitat. By continuing to hold animals captive in zoos, slaughterhouses, and laboratories we are using animals and nature for our benefit instead of appreciating them. In my opinion you cannot be a biophiliac while contributing to the exploitation of animals.

Elephants in a Zoo. Photo by Peta
http://www.peta.org/features/zoo-animal-abuse/

"But is it possible for us to be neutral or "objective" toward life and nature? I do not think so" (Orr 193).

 Orr makes this statement that you cannot be neutral towards biophilia. However, his reasoning more so describes why humans must take a stand instead. While I agree with the fact that we have to own up and pick whether we want to reverse the damage of a biophobic world or not I disagree that a person cannot mentally be neutral to the matter. I think that there is a range between biophilia and biophobia. I do not know anyone who is 100 percent on either spectrum. For me, I love nature and animals and want to do what I can to protect them but I love being indoors and using modern technologies. Based on Orr's description I would be considered biophobic because I am not taking a definitive stand.

Fallen Trees on the FGCU Nature Trail. Photo by J Lane

"We have tried utopia and can no longer afford it (Orr 211)."

 I am confused about most of Orr's conclusion in Love it or Lose It: The Coming Biophilia Revolution, but, in particular this last sentence. The main confusion probably comes from the fact that we must define utopia differently. This sentence seems to insinuate that we are currently is a state of utopia, or perfect world. How could the world we are living in be a utopia currently. If everything he has said thus far is true we are far from a utopia. We would be closer to a utopia in a biophilic world, at least in his opinion. To me, there is no one utopia, or one idea of perfection. Everyone would have their own idea of what an ideal society would be. So by saying that the utopia did not work does not make sense to me. Also, in the few sentences before he goes on to mention what a sane civilization would need. He mentions fewer lawyers and fewer wealthy people. These people should not necessarily be blamed for making society 'insane'. There are millionaires and billionaires that are giving a lot of their worth back to society and helping make the society more biophilic.