I like your post, but I often think that ‘Nature’ doesn’t exist. There’s lots of ‘pleasant approximations’ without large carnivores and—in many parts of the world—any poisonous animals, and there’s still lots of ‘unpleasant approximations’, but even if we talk about the latter, we can’t lump them together when deciding on policies.
1) Ozone holes are pretty localized, as are sources of many kinds of pollution. You can specifically and consistently decide to non-impact ‘Nature’ yourself, but indirectly everybody impacts it with much larger effects than what we can allow ourselves to not do. Personal non-impact is a warm-fuzzies resolution; I would even say it is the most significant use of ‘Nature’ for many townspeople nowadays. They see ‘Nature’ as the last luxury to be had, a thing impersonal and within their absolute power, which they might never execute either way.
2) Is a ‘radioactively rich’ forest, in which elks and bears breed, ‘unnatural’? I think it isn’t, but I know people who would say yes. Why? Because the value they assign to ‘Nature’ decreases when they can’t potentially use it. They might even agree that bears should live on Earth, too… just not that they be polluted bears...
I like your post, but I often think that ‘Nature’ doesn’t exist. There’s lots of ‘pleasant approximations’ without large carnivores and—in many parts of the world—any poisonous animals, and there’s still lots of ‘unpleasant approximations’, but even if we talk about the latter, we can’t lump them together when deciding on policies.
1) Ozone holes are pretty localized, as are sources of many kinds of pollution. You can specifically and consistently decide to non-impact ‘Nature’ yourself, but indirectly everybody impacts it with much larger effects than what we can allow ourselves to not do. Personal non-impact is a warm-fuzzies resolution; I would even say it is the most significant use of ‘Nature’ for many townspeople nowadays. They see ‘Nature’ as the last luxury to be had, a thing impersonal and within their absolute power, which they might never execute either way.
2) Is a ‘radioactively rich’ forest, in which elks and bears breed, ‘unnatural’? I think it isn’t, but I know people who would say yes. Why? Because the value they assign to ‘Nature’ decreases when they can’t potentially use it. They might even agree that bears should live on Earth, too… just not that they be polluted bears...