Blog #6

From what I can understand of this reading, it starts out talking about evils place in the world. It is not that all the polutions and such that we put into this world are a bad thing even though they do damage the earth. I understand that we just need to seek to protect the earth, not destroy, or to save the world if it is considered to be good. So if people use nature for the benefit of humans then it is okay. An example of this is oil, it comes from nature so it is a good thing that we use it because that is how nature would want it. As stated in the reading Ecological Activism is thinking of the earth as something good but flawed. This part of the reading had me kind of confused, but I did my best to figure out what was going on.

One belief that goes on in the reading is that nature and humans are both good in their natural state. The other belief is that humans have war encoded in them because of evolution. However, this is something that flannel ecologists never worry about. They just get to work and try to fix the damages that humans are doing to nature. They can not do enough to repair the damages that humans have caused but they do whatever they can. The gases that humans put into the air cause so much damage that companies would rather just pay the damage and pollution fine rather than try to fix it. This is where the argument comes up of whether or not ecologists should be subjective or objective.

Those two topics were the ones that I found to be most intrigueing, but for most of the reading I was somewhat confused. I did not really understand what was going on. I kind of gathered that all in all humans need a change in attitude towards nature. However, I am not sure if that was what I was supposed to gather or if I am totally off. I would have to agree thought that we as humans need to be more cautious with our use of nature. I think we tend to take advantage of how easy it is to consume parts of nature to make our lives easier.