The Nature of the Everglades

Marjory Stoneman Douglas writes a beautiful passage on the Everglades in Nature of the Everglades. She details all of the little quirks that distinguish the Everglades from any other type of environment found in the US. It has made a name for itself so much that dictionaries tend to end their definitions of an everglade with a reference to the Florida Everglades (Douglas, 106).

http://www.nswoodphotography.com/assets/images/Everglades_009.jpg 

I enjoyed Douglas’ way of saying that the Everglades is something that is consistently changing even through its long existence, showing that this must be understood before one can take in all of its “wholeness” (Douglas, 107). She further goes on to say that there is a perfect balance with man and nature in this place (Douglas 107). To me, this is comforting to know that there are parts of the world that people are not trying to destroy, or are fighting tooth and nail to take over because it is blatantly known that this piece of land has helped give Florida its beautiful scenery.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1427863/images/o-EVERGLADES-FLORIDA-facebook.jpg

I will go on to say that Douglas did not try to exude her strong opinions onto us, as some other authors of passages that have been read previously. Therefore, it is hard for me to challenge her on any specific topic but I do feel that Douglas could have elaborated more on the subjects she mentioned. For instance, part IV details the relationship between life and the land in the everglades and discusses the smaller animals and insects that can be found in there. I wish she had elaborated more on the tree snails and the moths and butterflies, giving us an idea of maybe the benefit each one possesses to this land (Douglas, 141). We learned in class that every part of a nature pyramid is dependent on the things below it and the things above and below are impacted by their existence. So furthering the details on these pieces of life could have been more relatable to class, and given more insight on the functioning of life in the Florida Everglades.

http://www.livingwilderness.com/everglades/florida-tree-snail.jpg

As far as a ‘muddiest point’ goes, I did not recognize that otters lived in the Everglades! As a Florida native, I feel this is something I should have known, but I am glad that Douglas was able to bring this to my attention (Douglas, 144). Also, Douglas mentioned the intensity of the hurricanes and how they affect the Everglades, but I wanted to learn more about it (Douglas, 119)! Maybe how the land anticipates a storm and how it recovers from the storm? I recognize that this is a passage written in 1988, but it would be neat to look into the damages of recent storms from the early 2000s.  

http://sunnyscope.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/florida-otter.jpg

A Land Ethic

Encouraging a community to be aware of the wondrous surroundings and inhabitants is the main idea I perceive from Leopold's excerpt, A Land Ethic. 

This passage begins with Leopold calling out his country for claiming to have a strong love for it's land, yet he recognizing all of the upkeep that everyone is lacking on. Stating that there are pollutants in the water, hazardous pesticides in the crops and soil, or that some of the beautiful animals of our land are being "extirpated" (Leopold, 60), Leopold's message started to hit home. When put into a perspective like this, it almost makes you feel as if you're telling a lie, whether that be to other community members or to yourself. That is probably the incentive Leopold is trying to make humanity recognize and become an active part in the land ethic. The land ethic would not give us all of this control over the environment, but would instead create us as equals with the environment.

http://sasec.in/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi 

Further, Leopold speaks more on the lack of empathy we have for the environment, based mainly on how much land we choose to conserve (Leopold, 62).  From personal experience in the classroom, I have been made aware of the amount of land-just nearby my place of school-that is conserved strictly to regulate the watershed we get in a large part of Florida. I was shocked with how much land is reserved just for this as well as how much land our University saves for conservation on campus. One could argue that there is consistent development nearby as well, but I do feel that there is already a large amount of conservation land seen just in Southwest Florida. Leopold does recognize that this is progressing, but it is at a very slow rate and that this slow rate is due to the lack of education everyone receives about land conservation (Leopold, 62). At FGCU, we're lucky to be part of this small number that receives education, I will admit that. But as of right now, I do not feel that the amount of land we conserve needs to be rapidly progressing because at this point, it seems as if Leopold want the land to take over, even where we already live. He may want to see our construction and development torn down just so we can carry out the land ethic, but at this point I feel that would be extreme.

...to an extent

http://seenaturalresources.blogspot.com/2013_05_01_archive.html 

 

I find it funny that Leopold extends the reasoning of land ethic to the birds, motioning that they have a biotic right. This is his segway into saying that we, as a country and community, need to have land ethic, seeing as we do not have it yet (Leopod, 65). But he further speaks of the economic advantage we hold (Leopold, 65). I'm not too clear on what he means by economic advantage, but I can conclude that he means we are the dominant species that controls the rest of the environment. I could see this as true, but because we are doing all of this legwork for the environment, isn't that making the birds and plants and ecosystems dominate us?

Nature- Deficit Disorder

In the Louv's excerpt Nature-Deficit Disorder and the Restorative Environment, he emphasizes the importance nature has on children with mental conditions, such as ADHD. According to multiple studies, those that have trouble focusing or learning will improve drastically if they are exposed more to nature. This also stands true for those without disorders, but that nature can promote a more positive demeanor.

The effects of nature can be wondrous; it provides tranquility, serenity, and awe. For example, Louv mentions that in a survey of state workers, those that had window views of tress and nature were less frustrated and more happy than those workers that had no windows (Louv, 6). I agree with Louv and this study that nature can have a positive effect on stress reduction. I also find that when I am outside doing homework I am more content. Being at FGCU, I've been given more of an ability and more opportunities to be outside and do work. In South Village I would love to sit on the gliding swings, or in North Lake and West Lake I would bring out textbooks to the waterfront or pool. Having the ability to balance free time and homework can be made easier by bringing work outside, while it also provides for a more enlightened mood.

North Lake Waterfront. Photo by Angel Chiaracane and Brianna Logano 

West Lake Village Pool, perfect place to study. Photo by Angel C. 

Louv further stated that some other studies also emphasize the positive effects of nature. This time, he mentioned that children's proofreading skills peaked after a backpacking trip, and that day care children had better motor skills after playing on the playground (Louv, 6-7). For me, this is a bit of a stretch. Yes, they may have better motor coordination but I think that is more of a factor of the toys that they are playing with outside rather than the fact that they are in an outdoor environment. Also, some feel there is a correlation with nature and the influential effects it has on children. More specifically, it was stated that when a girl has a better view from their home they will be more prompted to make better decisions when under peer pressure, and avoid problematic behaviors (Louv, 8). Decision making, in my eyes, is more of a trait that is emphasized through parents' actions and ways of teaching and reprimanding, not necessarily what nature 'sways' them to do. With these examples, I still do not believe that being out with nature will enhance learning performances but I do feel that nature solely benefits the mind and attitude.

Towards the end of the passage, three misfit teens and their venture to a small village in Alaska were mentioned. They had been through a few bad times and were sentenced to an alternative punishment by being exposed with nature. While the passage claims they were changed for the better, it also mentions of an interaction a girl had with a young native boy who tells her she can touch the sky but she hasn't even tried (Louv, 14). To me, I feel that there is more to this line than just explaining an interaction with two drastically different people. He didn't go into this line, but I believe it was placed for the reader to interpret. When thinking more into it, I feel that perhaps Louv is trying to emphasize that if you try to be in contact with nature or if you try to delve deeper into nature, it will expose you to more eye-opening experiences.

http://www.agegroupdiaries.com/project-ironready/diary/

Tying in, I really appreciated the fun fact of Central Park and that it was a designed urban park to help benefit the city's "civic consciousness and public health" (Louv, 11).  This was something I did not realize New York had done and I think it's great that it was built for that reason! Having not had the opportunity to go there, I've seen beautiful pictures that really set it apart from the rest, and it must be great to have a touch of nature in the middle of a busy city. This also reiterates how nature impacts the mind and attitude and serves as a bit of a getaway from the hustle and bustle of an overwhelming day.
                                          
                                             http://myonlinedestinations.com/new-york-central-park/
                                          

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3021-Central_Park-Sheep_Meadow.JPG

Biophilia vs. Biophobia

Upon reading Orr's passage, I found myself to strongly agree with him when he states, "The manifestation of biophobia, explicit in the urge to control nature, has led to a world in which it is becoming easier to be biophobic." (Orr, 190) This is very prevalent when one considers the influx of technology in the past years, especially with my own generation. We are growing up in a time where it's almost necessary to have a cellphone within your proximity, watch TV regularly, and be more conscientious of material belongings that will set you apart (or higher) from the rest. With this, there has been a lack of focus on nature and our surroundings because everyone is becoming more materialistic. Orr also mentioned, "... it is possible for us to be inconsistent, hypocritical, and ignorant of what we do" (Orr 193), Therefore, Orr truly recognized that it is easier to become biophobic because we are surrounded with so many distractions.  

The only way some people are enjoying the beauty of nature; through a computer screen

http://juliewight.com/computer-screen-wallpaper-3/ 

"...we will have no choice but to manage nature, even though it will be done badly...Beyond some level of scale and complexity, the effects of technology used in a world we cannot fully comprehend, are simply unknowable. When the genetic engineers and the nanotechnologists finally cause damage to the earth comparable to that done by the chemists who invented and so casually and carelessly deployed chlorofluorocarbons, they too will plead for forgiveness on the grounds that they did not know what they were doing" (Orr, 201-202).

Predicting that our world will only degrade from here is first, not keeping a positive attitude and second, poor judgement based on, presumably, negligence. Yes, society does seem to lack an interest in nature and all the wonders it possesses, but this does not stand true for most of the world. We all may not be hugging trees as much as Orr would probably like us to, but we do appreciate it. For example, with more nature and cultural based organizations "sprouting" up, it is more likely that generations will get involved in helping their world, whether it's through Girl Scouts, Habitat for Humanity, or even WildEarth Guardians. There are plenty of opportunities for us to still be connected with nature, providing that when it is future generations responsibility to manage nature, they can have experience and the exposure needed.

Coming from a science and technology background I find it hard to agree with Orr that technologists do not understand the repercussions these technological advances will have on nature. We do know our impacts! It's those within the business industries that seem to be more greedy when it comes down to having more technology for all age groups, as it lures them to stay inside. It seems to be quite ironic that there are some technological simulations that give the audience the feel that they are outside, when in reality they could just as easily go outside! 

Nature being cultivated in the lab

http://articles2day.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi 

From my personal experiences during my college career in Bioengineering, when we are going through the process of manufacturing our own products, whether it be medical devices, prosthetics, machinery, etc., we always include the part of 'Design for the Environment'. While initially we all grumbled about completing this portion, it really does show the differences one can make on the environment. We mostly look into alternative fuel sources, ways to limit radiation and chemical exposure, and even using recyclable materials. While Orr may state that chemists carelessly continue on with their jobs and engineers unknowingly cause damage to the earth, this proves that the earths' best interest is always considered, from my point of view.

To some: Technology controlling the world. To others: technology carefully taking care of the world
http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/et/

"Biophobia is not OK because it is the foundation for a politics of domination and exploitation. For our politics to work as they now do, a large number of people must not like any nature that cannot be repackaged and sold back to them" (Orr, 192). Upon initial reading of this phrase, I was very confused on the relationship Orr sees between nature and politics. Where does he see that exploitation comes into play with nature from those that are not 'one with nature'. Puzzled, I thought more on the word exploitation and found that it could mean treating someone unfairly. Perhaps he feels that with biophobia comes the actions of not only having a disinterest in nature, but also abusing it. Maybe by showing disinterest and not taking care of the earth, we would be classified as biophobic even without strong opinions towards nature. Orr then went on to say, "They must be ecologically illiterate and ecologically incompetent" (Orr, 192). I can try to gather from this that Orr scorns every biophobic individual and presumably thinks that they have no knowledge of ecology. From the entire reading, this theme does appear to be very prevalent, so it emphasizes the awareness society should have of nature.