Island Civilization

After reading Island Civilization my mind has been opened up to a different view of how we as human beings view our ownership of the wilderness and space around us. Throughout the reading Nash introduces several different scenarios of how the world around us could end up. 

First he introduces the wasteland scenario, which I gathered would be a trashed planet with nothing left as a result of our greediness as humans. We obviously do not know how to share with our neighbors of the wilderness therefore using up every bit of resources we can get our hands on. With the wasteland scenario we would basically be left with nothing.

 Second, the garden scenario was discussed. In this situation the human race would be in control of the wilderness but would use it in a beneficent way to the people, by planting crops in virtually all empty land, not taking the biodiversity of plants and animals into mind. Once again the selfishness of the human population is taking over the wilderness in order to obtain “progress” for themselves.

 The third scenario is the future primitive. I believe that this scenario is basically erasing the so called “progress” that we have made into civilization, and going back to the practices of millions of years ago such as the methods used by the hunters and gatherers. Although this scenario loses the achievements of civilization, this evolution would give every member of the biotic community an opportunity to survive.

 The fourth scenario Nash calls Island Civilization. I have gathered that this scenario means placing limitations and boundaries around the human population instead of around the wild life. Although this option takes away much of the freedom we have always had, it provides wilderness with its chance to be what it is supposed to be, wild. Since we are supposed to share this planet with the wilderness, it makes sense to place limitations on ourselves instead of taking over what isn’t really ours. Yes Island Civilizations would cause the human population to be contained into smaller areas and not give us the opportunity to wipeout wildlife around us, but it would give the wild life its chance to grow as it should, since it is wild. 

After reading all of the different scenarios my mind has been opened to the fact that the human population might have taken control of what isn’t rightfully ours, even though we thought it was. The statements made by Nash about us not being good neighbors to the wilderness really opened up several thoughts in my mind that I had never thought about. As this reading discussed the fact that technically the wilderness should have just as much freedom as the human population has, I began to think about how unfair it is that we have ruined so much of the biodiversity of the world around us. We have gone into the homes of animals and completely wiped them out just to have space for what we call “growth” and “”progress”. But is it really growth or progress if we are ruining the life of another species while doing so? 

After reading this it makes sense that the wildlife have just as much right to “civilize” as we do as human beings. I think that so many of us forget that we aren’t the only group on earth that needs space, and after reading this I realize that. It amazes me how selfish we can be as human beings and not even realize it! I thought that the explanations of the different scenarios were very helpful in deciding my own opinions concerning how unfair the human population is towards the wilderness. Also the connection Nash used of us being “bad neighbors” really helped me in my understanding of the relationship we have with different biotic groups, because I had never really thought of it as a relationship of that kind. The reading was kind of difficult for me to get into at first, but I gradually began to understand what Nash was saying and in the end I really enjoyed it.