Ecological Balance Conversion - Essay Example

Ecological Restoration Course: Tutor: Institution: City: Date ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION Introduction Ecological restoration is the process of bringing up the usefulness of nature through the human act. It involves acts of creating nature by involving human interaction with nature. In most cases, what is restored are the destroyed element of nature that make its existence impossible. Though a lot environment philosophers have argued against the idea of ecological restoration, there is a lot of importance that comes with its practice. In fact, it is the surest way of cultural conservation of people in a given environment. Environment philosophers’ argument have tried to oppose the notion that human beings can help in restoring the ecology. Based on their argument, nature and human beings are two separate entities which do no interact with each other and any attempt to restore the ecology through human act is only perceived as a form of malicious acts. This has led to the cases of witnessed destruction of ecological systems by improper policies formulation. The environmentalist has separate the issue of the environment very far away from the public, and any attempt to involve the public in helping to bring back the life in the ecological system is countered with a lot of argument from the environment philosophers point. According to them, nature should be allowed to take full control of itself without the involvement of human beings. In their argument, they tend to forget the fact that human beings interact on a daily basis with nature and involvement in restoring the ecology will be very important to the ecosystem. According to Katz’s argument, ecological restoration is the act of inducing artificial to nature or the process of coming up with fake nature. Karts argue that the process of restoring environment or nature by human beings is fake as it involves the destruction of the very nature. From his observation, the real nature cannot be achieved through ecological restoration. Human activists cannot initiate and create nature but instead, harm the nature in the process of restoring it. For him, any human involvement to restore nature is malicious, and nothing benevolent can come out of the act. However, Edwin Light counter argued against this notion very well. Not every act of human being restoring nature is harmful to nature. Though he agreed with the fact that the process of restoring ecology does not lead to real nature being achieved, it is the only possible way of restoring the destroyed parts of nature. According to Light, when the act of restoring ecology is done in good faith, it leads to a good ecosystem suitable for the life of living organism. Most of the environment philosophers based their argument on the malicious acts of human being on restoring the nature. It was a way of preventing the malicious acts from being perpetrated. To enable them to achieve their aim, they separated human from nature. However, the argument of Light concerning human beings involvement in restoring the ecology is very interesting. According to him, restoration of nature does not lead to artificial or fake nature as most environment philosophers such as Katz argued. To prove this, he gave a very interesting example. If we take the act of restoring back ecology as fake, then the act of restoring back any form of art should also be perceived to be fake. However, the process of redesigning a form of art to meet the need of the people have always been used and supported. Nobody has ever considered the newly generated art to be fake simply because it is redesigned to meet the expectation of the people. This analogy should be applied to the act of people restoring back the ecology. So long as the act fit humans’ needs, then it is worth consideration. Though the environment philosophers’ arguments such of Katz separated human act from nature, this cannot entirely happen. Nature as the like of Katz takes it to be no longer exist. What we have as nature today are things that have been activated to exist through human activity. The soil where nature find its existence have been spoiled with a lot of chemicals most of which are human-made and as such, human beings still interact with nature in one way or the other. Some of the human acts as observed by Light only aim to help the continuity of nature. One of this example given is the removal of road or bridge to allow the nature interact with each other freely. Taking the argument of karts on the involvement of human beings, the act of removal of such like obstacle is not allowed. According to Katz, such kind of act lead to the creation of what he termed fake nature. On his point, any involvement of human beings in interaction is for the malicious goal which is not the case in this scenario. Arguing from Katz point not to allow ecological restoration will only make some of what we perceive to be natural to extinct due to their inability to survive. Human beings involvement is very necessary towards ensuring that living organisms are able to survive. The environment philosophers such as Katz first argued that nature and human beings should be considered as two separate entities and any act of human being interacting with nature is only for the malicious purpose. However, the same people do consider the fact that when nature is not taken care of, then there is a lot impact it has on the life of human beings. This argument rejects the point that nature and human beings are two separate entities. There is existence of culture between the human and nature, and the relationship seems to be able to affect each other. Due to these relationships presented by the consequences nature may have on the life of people, human beings have the moral duties to restore the ecology to avoid the harm that can be presented to them. Ecological restoration is therefore necessary to curb the consequences the environment may pose to the life of human beings. The relation of human beings and the ecosystem should therefore be for the mutual benefit of the two objects. Just the same way nature play a role in the life of people, human beings also play a role in the life of nature. Separating the two from each lead to inability of either to continue existing. As have been observed, some of the animals continue to exist due to the act of the human to tame them. These animals ought to have extinct if not for the act of the human beings. However, though human beings should be involved in restoring the ecology, a lot of care should be taken. Identification of malicious act of human beings such as quarry should be condemned as this is not one way of restoring nature. Malicious act of human is what the majority of environment philosophers such as Katz have used to object the ecological restoration. In the witnessed argument of the like of Katz, any interaction between human beings and nature is destructive and lead to the extinction of the real nature. To minimise cases of malicious act of human beings, the formation of appropriate policy that provides and advocate for the conservation of the environment should be done by the government. It is good to restore ecological system which has been destroyed rather than leave it and base our argument on Katz position. Conclusion Ecological restoration is very necessary for the conservation of culture. There is a relationship between nature and human beings, and this can only be preserve if the destroyed ecology is restored. Taking nature and human to be two separate entities does not allow us to take our responsibility of restoring ecology. As argued by most environment philosophers who did not consider human beings to be actively involved in the ecosystem make us to continue with the destruction of the environment upon which our culture lies. Human beings as such should be involved in the process through appropriate formulation of policies that enhance preservation of the environment. References Light A. (n.d.). Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: a Pragmatic Perspective. Read More