The manliness of Theodore Roosevelt by Harvey Mansfield
I saw this article over at No Left Turns. It is pretty thought-provoking. Mansfield does use my line (I am sure he has never heard it) about the difference between conservation and environmentalism. Worth a look.
Environmentalist is a very general term. Mansfield groups all environmentalists into one group when in reality there are many different types. PETA members are considered environmentalists and so are ELF members. So are Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and Sierra Club members, yet they are all very different in how they view environmental protection. Grouping them all together is rather sloppy.
He states, "Whereas environmentalists today do their best to exclude human intervention in nature—“nature” for them means what is non-human—and thus to confine human beings to the role of concerned and caring observers, Roosevelt wanted us to live with nature and react to it." It's true that there are environmentalist groups that preach wilderness preservation without any human interaction...but they are certainly on the fringe of environmentalism. I think he is on the mark by stating that TR wanted us to react to nature and that hunting and fishing can be very valuable forms of human/nature interaction and I agree with him that TR's idea of conservation is very appealing.
But I think he over-simplifies the issue. The people that are turning Yellowstone National Park into Disneyland (which is true only if you stay on the beaten path around Old Faithful)are not "environmentalists" but rather work-a-day suburbanites that can only afford the drive-thru version of nature in their busy schedules. I think TR would advocate a return to a time when the average American was more actively involved with nature, whether it be through hunting, backpacking, farming or fishing, and not so involved with modern, technological life (as I type on my computer on a 75 degree day).
Our country is vastly larger in terms of population than when TR was in office and I think it is silly to assume that his idea of environmentalism or conservation would apply to our society today the same way it did a hundred years ago. He would certainly have to adapt his beliefs to the times and I believe the sight of vastly changed landscapes on the fringes of urban areas (you know the type Steve) would be a large factor in his newly-formed conservation ethic.
Environmentalist is a very general term. Mansfield groups all environmentalists into one group when in reality there are many different types. PETA members are considered environmentalists and so are ELF members. So are Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and Sierra Club members, yet they are all very different in how they view environmental protection. Grouping them all together is rather sloppy.
He states, "Whereas environmentalists today do their best to exclude human intervention in nature—“nature” for them means what is non-human—and thus to confine human beings to the role of concerned and caring observers, Roosevelt wanted us to live with nature and react to it." It's true that there are environmentalist groups that preach wilderness preservation without any human interaction...but they are certainly on the fringe of environmentalism. I think he is on the mark by stating that TR wanted us to react to nature and that hunting and fishing can be very valuable forms of human/nature interaction and I agree with him that TR's idea of conservation is very appealing.
But I think he over-simplifies the issue. The people that are turning Yellowstone National Park into Disneyland (which is true only if you stay on the beaten path around Old Faithful)are not "environmentalists" but rather work-a-day suburbanites that can only afford the drive-thru version of nature in their busy schedules. I think TR would advocate a return to a time when the average American was more actively involved with nature, whether it be through hunting, backpacking, farming or fishing, and not so involved with modern, technological life (as I type on my computer on a 75 degree day).
Our country is vastly larger in terms of population than when TR was in office and I think it is silly to assume that his idea of environmentalism or conservation would apply to our society today the same way it did a hundred years ago. He would certainly have to adapt his beliefs to the times and I believe the sight of vastly changed landscapes on the fringes of urban areas (you know the type Steve) would be a large factor in his newly-formed conservation ethic.
3 comments:
Environmentalist is a very general term. Mansfield groups all environmentalists into one group when in reality there are many different types. PETA members are considered environmentalists and so are ELF members. So are Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and Sierra Club members, yet they are all very different in how they view environmental protection. Grouping them all together is rather sloppy.
He states, "Whereas environmentalists today do their best to exclude human intervention in nature—“nature” for them means what is non-human—and thus to confine human beings to the role of concerned and caring observers, Roosevelt wanted us to live with nature and react to it." It's true that there are environmentalist groups that preach wilderness preservation without any human interaction...but they are certainly on the fringe of environmentalism. I think he is on the mark by stating that TR wanted us to react to nature and that hunting and fishing can be very valuable forms of human/nature interaction and I agree with him that TR's idea of conservation is very appealing.
But I think he over-simplifies the issue. The people that are turning Yellowstone National Park into Disneyland (which is true only if you stay on the beaten path around Old Faithful)are not "environmentalists" but rather work-a-day suburbanites that can only afford the drive-thru version of nature in their busy schedules. I think TR would advocate a return to a time when the average American was more actively involved with nature, whether it be through hunting, backpacking, farming or fishing, and not so involved with modern, technological life (as I type on my computer on a 75 degree day).
Our country is vastly larger in terms of population than when TR was in office and I think it is silly to assume that his idea of environmentalism or conservation would apply to our society today the same way it did a hundred years ago. He would certainly have to adapt his beliefs to the times and I believe the sight of vastly changed landscapes on the fringes of urban areas (you know the type Steve) would be a large factor in his newly-formed conservation ethic.
Environmentalist is a very general term. Mansfield groups all environmentalists into one group when in reality there are many different types. PETA members are considered environmentalists and so are ELF members. So are Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and Sierra Club members, yet they are all very different in how they view environmental protection. Grouping them all together is rather sloppy.
He states, "Whereas environmentalists today do their best to exclude human intervention in nature—“nature” for them means what is non-human—and thus to confine human beings to the role of concerned and caring observers, Roosevelt wanted us to live with nature and react to it." It's true that there are environmentalist groups that preach wilderness preservation without any human interaction...but they are certainly on the fringe of environmentalism. I think he is on the mark by stating that TR wanted us to react to nature and that hunting and fishing can be very valuable forms of human/nature interaction and I agree with him that TR's idea of conservation is very appealing.
But I think he over-simplifies the issue. The people that are turning Yellowstone National Park into Disneyland (which is true only if you stay on the beaten path around Old Faithful)are not "environmentalists" but rather work-a-day suburbanites that can only afford the drive-thru version of nature in their busy schedules. I think TR would advocate a return to a time when the average American was more actively involved with nature, whether it be through hunting, backpacking, farming or fishing, and not so involved with modern, technological life (as I type on my computer on a 75 degree day).
Our country is vastly larger in terms of population than when TR was in office and I think it is silly to assume that his idea of environmentalism or conservation would apply to our society today the same way it did a hundred years ago. He would certainly have to adapt his beliefs to the times and I believe the sight of vastly changed landscapes on the fringes of urban areas (you know the type Steve) would be a large factor in his newly-formed conservation ethic.
Sorry for the double comment.
Post a Comment