Introduction
The issue of environmental protection is a sticking point of today. The question is that a man is a real danger to nature. A man did not learn, unfortunately, how to reach harmony with the environment out. This hereby provoked the extinction of definite species of animals and plants. In fact, people are going on into the pitfall of self-destruction. They will get into much trouble unless taking the right decisions at the moment.
In this respect, the United States is one of the leading countries where natural resources are used irrationally in most of the points. Two environment-directed movements are contradicting in their views on nature in America at present. These are conservation and preservation movements. The paper is aimed at analyzing the peculiarities of each movement in particular. Thus, the contemporary global environmental situation gives grounds to suggest the preservation way of attitudes to nature as the most rational.
Main Body
To begin with, it is better to take a look at the conservation movement. This movement as opposed to the preservation faction leads toward using natural resources in order to cover the needs of humanity. Headed historically by Gifford Pinchot, the movement laid more emphasis on the wise use of nature and human management as well (Colorado 1). The term of this movement appeared in 1907 to encompass the benefits of nature for huge numbers of people in the long run. Such interpretation of the conservation trend can be narrowed down through managing natural resources to satisfy the needs of people.
The conservation movement was highly popular within the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The thing is that Americans were trying to use the enormous deposits of fossil fuels and other natural resources to make them of great use for the national economy. In fact, the outcomes of such resource management went into a decrease of some kinds of plants and animals. It is possible to note: How men can hurt things of non-man-made character? These rhetoric questions could be answered through the conservation philosophy by means of logic. It means that such eminent persons as Gifford Pinchot, David Brawer and others explained that, historically, a man was suggested to use everything around. Such assumption is stated on the fact that there is no other power on earth higher than a man.
The main claims of conservationists are that they are for sound biosphere management not to ruin or misbalance the ecosystems in it (Colorado 1). Such an idea was shared by David Brawer in his intentions and plans to provide effective water management in the Western states. The issue with the Colorado River was the point to think over nature quite rationally. Brawer, as a conservationist, would rather make the dam to satisfy the needs of people community, but not to take into consideration the consequences on nature. In fact, conservation trends and Pinchot, particularly, stated that even forestry is the result of tree farming in the past (Clorado 1). The interests of Americans in utilizing trees in the major forest areas were supported by the claims of conservationists as well.
All in all, conservationists saw the ideal development in using natural resources by providing regulations in this aspect of the issue. They stated usually on the extreme necessity to provide a rational and well-planned approach toward the environment. However, this conservation theoretical background was highly criticized by the preservation movement.
The preservation trend according to the environment sought to keep nature far from the scientific and technological progress that is directly implied in human use and development (Colorado 1). This statement is fair, for the urge for money motivates people more than a reason to keep everything that was given to a man in safety. One of the founders of this counter-trend in terms of conservation one was the American writer Aldo Leopold who wrote The Land Ethic in 1930 (Colorado 1). It is logically grounded that the preservationists appeared as a result of conservation theory on the use of natural resources. It is fair to suppose that the worries were quite apparent. The nature of the United States was getting through constant change of its shape.
The idea is that preservationists tried to get people away from the natural resources for nature’s sake (Colorado 1). The main stimulus for that lied in the idea that, finally, humanity will have no place to live. Such point can gain more emphasis when taking a glance at what preservationists sought for:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain (Colorado 1)…
This idea can lead toward the discussion on whether preservationists were right or not in their counterarguments. The followers of this movement were insisting actively on the significance of wilderness as a “cradle” for every living being on the planet despite a man. This treatment was marked by Leopold as “the healthy, ecologically balanced land” for normal processes within different ecosystems (Colorado 1). This position should be valued from different sides.
First of all, an independent position of one according to both movements can be solely achieved through highlighting a rational approach. In this respect, human beings should manifest their civilized and rational peculiarity, as it may sound weird, in using natural resources without danger to nature. It is a great deal, in fact. The situation during the twentieth century was likely of bad, aggravated character toward the environment.
Several examples are proposed to weigh all pros and cons of the struggle between two movements. Documentary on Seton and Lobo is applicable in this case. The thing is that it is a representation of how a man struggles with nature and which lessons are taken afterward. In other words, a bounty hunter Seton was highly motivated to punish an outlaw, Lobo (a wolf, to be precise). The story amazes by the fact that Lobo was not attacking the livestock of people living in Currumpaw, New Mexico in the 19th century (PBS 1). Ernest Thompson Seton was hired to catch the animal. He did his best, but the journey was longer than he could have expected initially.
Seton was trying to catch Lobo by means of different baits. However, it was in vain. Seton reached the point when eventually he had found traces of Lobo who was at that moment with Blanca (female wolf). Seton did harm to Lobo by catching Blanca and then killing her. Finally, Lobo was caught and kept afterward within the ranch. However, he died soon.
The morale is in the fact that Lobo and his pack were deprived primordially by ranchers. It was their natural areal which delineated measures of wolf “authority.” On the other hand, Seton’s approach was no good for a wild animal. The death of Lobo showcased that a man by personal reasoning over the natural processes can provide the only harmful effect.
Another way to analyze both movements is on the example of Bower and Domini. These two were trying to make changes in the area of Colorado by rationally using the water resources. Brawer and Domini were trying to make sense of building a dam in the Colorado River, as it was mentioned before. The idea is that searching for a way to provide people with water as well as their pastures or soils people rarely take a deep look at the hazards of such initiatives to nature. It is well-described in the book by John McPhee. The thing where Brawer talks with Domini on the issue of condors living in the area where the dam was built distinctly illuminates the intentions of both. On Brawer’s statement “No one likes to see something get extinct” Domini replies: “The condor was alive in the days of the mastodons” (McPhe 218). These outrages, for how could people be so indifferent toward nature that was designed to please a man and which was changed negatively? That is the question.
Conservationist philosophy by outlining the sound use of the biosphere cannot guarantee that it will be so in the future. The wild world is on the edge of constant extinction due to the growing human interest in forests, lakes, rivers, fields, etc. Such changes that were done due to the progress across the United States have a peculiarity. It concerns the fact that an extinct species will never be restored.
The arguments by Nash imply several ideas that get people into a broader discussion on the use of nature and a man in it. The first remark is that a man is a “visitor” in the open air. A man should get wiser about what has been done and what he/she is about to do toward nature. Having highlighted the views on biological diversity, it is vital now to glance at the “wilderness as a Guardian of mental health” (Colorado 1). Everything is balanced in the world. Changing something globally will reflect global consequences in response. In this respect wilderness is a guarantee for peoples’ psyches to be healthy. The question is that it is true that leaning to wild areas people are trying to find an alternative to their urbanized or civilized life. It is an inner intention living in every human being. Thus, whatever position one takes (conservationist or preservationist), think what if there will be no opportunity to get closer to nature. What will you do?
Conclusion
To conclude, in the course of the past few decades the environment is at the edge of total extinction globally. In this respect, the preservationists’ conception should be determined in the natural issue across the United States as the only righteous way to stop degradation. Hence, humanity should consolidate aggregate opinion on keeping the environment in safety. Otherwise, the next generations will be left with nothing..
Works cited
Colorado. Understanding the Ecology of Nature. Class notes, 2010. Web.
McPhee, John. Encounters with the Archdruid. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971.
PBS. The Wolf That Changed America. Nature, 2007. web.