Conservation
Going with or Against the Flow: Planet Managers vs. Planet Fetishers
In the book Ecology of Eden, Evan Eisenberg introduces two different extreme approaches on how humans should interact with nature: planet fetishing and planet managent. Eisenberg describes what a planet fetisher would believe, “Instead of trying to remodel our earthly home, we ought to fade into the woodwork like the other residents…In any case, it would mean returning most of the earth to the wilderness” (284). Planet fetishers believe we should retreat back to a dream of Eden, trying to go back just far enough to have a mutual relationship with nature. Planet managers, Eisenberg describes, as having a scientific world view, arguing that with science, technology, and industry the earth can be managed and therefore saved. The problem that both views face is that neither will completely work, because not everyone will agree and a mixture of these ideas on a local scale could possibly work. Planet Fetishers are eliminating technology and asking for humans to make a drastic change of lifestyle. Although sooner or later there will need to be a drastic change it is doubtful that because of a drastic event we will all become fetishers, if we make changes now. Planet managers are putting ridiculous regulations on a regulated flow of nature and in turn putting all faith in technology. The problem is that not everyone agrees on one of these, hence no extreme solution will work.
At this point in the book he is specifically talking about the mountain and the tower to show the impossible balance between humans and nature Eisenberg states, “Humankind does not belong in one or the other, or at one measured point in between. Nor is any person consigned to a certain spot or a certain way of life.” (389). Eisenberg suggests for us to be-bop with nature and improvise, which sounds great in theory. For a more realistic approach humans can actually start to recycle, not rely on cars so much, or start to design an environment where we are not changing the earth to fit our surroundings. Since nature has been adapting with new changes for millions of years, with humans we need to slow down and try to get the environment caught up with our changes. Hopefully nature will balance out all the harm that humans have done in the past 150 years with cars. Sadly from the past 150 years we have seemed to cause more damage than the thousands of years humans have been here. To cause that much damage in that short amount of time has left the environment crippled and almost unable to adapt and recooperate.
Eisenberg’s idea of people on the planet to acclimatize\bebop with nature is not very likely because the majority will not accept the idea much less act on it. Eisenberg writes in his book that the flow of nature has been disrupted by human intervention which has led to a break down in biodiversity: “The broad tendency of human meddling over the last ten thousand years has been to cut off flow within bioregions and to increase flow between bioregions. Whatever we may be thinking, this is how we act: we flow globally and choke locally. Both ways, we reduce biodiversity” (404). The end of biodiversity leads to extinction of species, infertile hybrids, and food pyramid disruptions. There are many examples of how division through human intervention, has harmed creatures and habitat: dingo fence in Australia, overpopulation of mice, and a human example of Indian reservations.
If humans are the problem and the only way to fix the environment is for all of us to become planet fetishers or planet managers, there is no hope. Yet, most people are in between both extremes which leads to this growing global problem. At the local level, there is hope. Little changes in everyday life could postpone earth’s collapse of ecosystems. Eisenberg gives us an idea of how to flow with nature: “More exactly, they,our allies, should behave less like the weedy, opportunistic, spendthrift things that human allies—and humans—tend to be, and more like the creatures they and we have been displacing” (342). Humans need to realize what is happening to the environment and make changes in everyday life that hopefully will lead to a dominoe affect in the world.
The global scale problem of making a decision for a mass amount of people will probably never be determined, yet making the decision on the local scale could work. An example could be shown in how in California you are not allowed to drive a car that emits a certain amount of pollutants, or even locally of not being able to smoke in a public conveyance (taxi, bus, or airplane) or as of January 1, 2007 you cannot smoke in a public restaurant or smoke in a car with a child under 8. Some people believe that this is the government over stepping the boundaries of free will. Perhaps these are the small inconvenieces that will turn into larger scale demands such as not driving a car at all or restricting smoking everywhere. One thing can be said that on the local scale there has been a lot of debate and appraisal yet these laws are being implemented and only time will show how they affect. The hope is that with these local demands will lead to a better environmental flow.
(see also Planet Fetishers; see also Planet Management)