Donald Worsters Natures Economy - Book Report/Review Example

Bооk Rеviеw Essаy: Dоnаld Wоrstеr, Nаturе’s Есоnоmy Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction The book to be reviewed in this paper is entitled Nature's Economy: A history of Ecological Ideas by Donald Worster. In the book, Worster concludes that we cannot feel that we are living in an ecological age because there is inadequate consent in the idea of ecology regarding its prerogatives that people and their surroundings are mutually dependent. This is because the ecological relationships only base on the political and scientific ideas. I chose to review this book simply because I support Worster’s idea because human activities have had adverse impacts on the environment, which in turn end up affecting human activities. We all know that human activities such as the emergence of industrialization have emitted poisonous gases to the environment, which leads to formation of acid rain and damages the ozone layer. The results are ecological imbalances that affect agriculture and the damage to the ozone layer has led to the penetration of harmful sunrays that causes complications to human beings, such as eye diseases and skin disorders. Worster provides a detailed look at the ecological relationship through focusing on the traditional and modern look of history. This book is written for policy makers who put into consideration the scientific and political thoughts in formulating their policies without taking into account the ecological effects of human activities. It is important that before formulation of any policy, some digging must be done into the preceding procedures of life postulate the ecological effects of those policies (Hagen, 1992). Summary The author starts by looking at the origin of the term ecology and its definition. He states that the real meaning of ecology came into existence some years earlier before the term ecology became a vernacular. The idea of ecology, as perceived by the author, has a modern history dating back to the eighteenth century when people considered it a more wide-ranging way of regarding the form of life on earth. From a scientific point of view, the author point out that ecology fails to highlight what nature really is (Worster, 1998, p.X). Worster therefore argues that basing some ideas on the scientific point of view may at times be at very least context specific. In the eighteenth century, there existed two forms of traditions on ecology. Gilbert White formulated the first one, which is the Arcadian. This view supports a humble and a simplified form of life for man aiming at building a closer relation with other forms of life that exist in his surroundings. Carolus Linnaeus in his work represented the second form, which is the imperial tradition that aims at using reason and hard work, how man can become dominant over nature (Worster, 1998, p.2). A study of science in Arcadia points out the existence of a tree that provides a shade to the St. Mary’s church provides a clear synergistic liaison between nature and man which is a clear indication of how both man and nature need each other for survival (Worster, 1998, p.4). Worster illustrates that these schools had presumptuous influences that led to the improvement of the ecological thought. David Thoreau inherited the legacy left by Gilbert White and the prototype of the sabotage in the American ideology that honoured the transcendent divinity of the natural world, laying emphasis on the existence of interrelationship between man and nature (Worster, 1998, p.58). To the present days, David Thoreau and Gilbert White, through their establishment of the existence of a close relationship between man and his environment can be viewed as environmental activists. In the sixth chapter of the book, there is a shift from man’s relation to nature as pointed out by David Thoreau to a more cynical form of life as was brought out by Charles Darwin. Darwin stood on the idea that resources necessary for a sustained life are limited and as a result, the living organisms compete where there is elimination of the unfit (Worster, 1998, p114). Darwin’s proposition explains some important issues in the surrounding such as biodiversity; it legitimizes exploitation and invasion of nature (Worster, 1998, p121). According to Worster therefore, the competitive struggle does not apply to the people hailing from the sub continents but to the cultures with advances technology and industrialization like the United States. The proposition by Darwin therefore views nature from a utilitarian point (Weiner, 1999). Worster views the onset of the twenty-first century as a turning point especially, on the West American Lowlands. In the twenty-first century, ecology began to be viewed as an academic discipline. At this point, there emerged the main advocates for a theory on the advancement of the natural environment constructed on the observations of various forests and grasslands on the western parts of America. The main advocates in this field were Frederic Clements and Henry Cowles. The competition between organisms to survive established succeeding stages of development with dynamism until an equilibrium state was attained where there was an achievement of the local climate (Worster, 1998, p205). There is a clear view of human activities impacts to the environment after the end of World War II when people began to notice how the war drastically affected the environment. People saw the earth as a single living organism that was afterwards reborn into a modern organism (Worster, 1998, p387). The environmental impacts felt by people after the Second World War clearly indicates how human beings are closely attached to their surroundings and any slight change in the environment affect human activities too. In conclusion, Worster argues that advancements in ecological thoughts do not do not detach it from the social and economic attitudes nor become eliminated from the world of human values. The ecological improvements become opposed to the technological advancements. The answers to the doubts of the author lie on the Arcadian thoughts but not on the imperial thoughts as argued by Carolus Linnaeus (Worster, 1998, p388). The author leaves the reader to make a value judgment on the science of ecology and decide whether it is leading or not(Worster & Worster, 2004). Critique The author points out that there is no simple dialectical scheme that could to separate the complex nature of ecology and the clamour of the years since ecology emerged. Therefore, according to Worster, the age of reason only gives conflicting set of ideas (Worster, 1998, p2). Therefore, it is difficult to establish which tradition tells the truth and which one is based on the false ideas. There is no clear indication of whether the suggestions of early thinkers were put into practice in any meaningful way. Worster only gives a description of people’s view of their land but fails to show how people treat the land. People came to realize the adverse effects of their activities after the emergence of the Second World War. Another conflict arises when the society was looking for professional guidance from the scholars from the field of ecology on how to solve the problems of damage of human activities to the environment but the author failed to give a detailed explanation on whether solutions were given or not (Weiner, 1999). Worster only used his book to conceptualize his field of study but failed to induce upon the sources that only base the grounds that concentrate on the purpose of his work alone. His work blames Christians for participating in activities that abuse the environment thereby affecting the ecosystem (Worster, 1998, p4). There is no empirical evidence to support Worster’s work on the nature of Christian activities that negatively affect the environment leading to environmental degradation. The size and age of the church has no effect on the environment. It only affects the ecosystem by consuming some space in it (Schwarz & Jax, 2011). According to Worster, Darwin religiously depended on Malthus and failed to view fertility as an artefact of natural assortment. Therefore, there is a dismally in the ratio of sexual productivity and the fabrication of food. This weakness favors Darwinian view of nature in terms of competition. Malthusian ratio does not usually apply to all conditions but is limited to the presence of ecological disturbance (Worster, 1998, p155). The condition does not sufficiently account for the need for species to turn out to be differentiated as a way of asphyxiating competition. Therefore, instead of conflicting for the similar food, organisms can differentiate themselves and discover a different type of nourishment. Worster did not consider divergence as a way organisms could use to for survival without engaging in competition (Rhizomes.15 2007 para3). Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution on organisms as a way of conforming themselves to survive in the ever changing environment. Worster overlooks the Darwinian concept of evolution and makes the features applicable to countries. The author goes further to analyse the economies in which Darwinian Theory is applicable and to those that it is not (Worster, 1998, p181). This does not hold because with time, countries with minor economies are likely to rise and reach the state where the countries that Worster user are. The central ideas contained in Worster’s work on the Darwinian Theory about economies of countries like the United States are only applicable in the short run. A good definition of ecology should be the study of how organisms relate to their surroundings. The surroundings include other forms of life and the physical features (Chapman & Reiss, 2000, p3) but not how countries relate and their dominion over others. Recommendation Even though I strongly agree with the author on the idea that ecological relationships are mainly based on the political and scientific ideas without putting into consideration the real effects, I would not recommend it to anybody interested in exploring ecology. The author himself points out that the book is only written on the historical aspects without making any efforts to establish in details how man is related to his environment and other living organisms in it (Anker, 2001). In addition, the book does not consider the ecological field and goes ahead to look at the theories formulated by non-ecologists like Charles Darwin. This rather complicates the issue on ecology by bringing in the idea of competition and survival for the fittest than considering what features the living thing in an ecological niche possess to fit them to their respective environments. Darwin and Malthus view a reduction in population as an effect of competition while a reduction in population according to ecology, is due to natural selection (Chapman & Reiss, 2000, p5). References Anker, P. (2001). Imperial ecology: environmental order in the British Empire, 1895 - 1945. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Chapman, J. L., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Ecology: principles and applications. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. Hagen, J. B. (1992). An entangled bank: the origins of ecosystem ecology. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. Rhizomes.15, (2007). The Rhizomatics of Domination: From Darwin to Biotechnology Michael Mikulak. Retrieved from http://www.rhizomes.net/issue15/mikulak.html Schwarz, A. E., & Jax, K. (2011). Ecology revisited: reflecting on concepts, advancing science. Dordrecht, Springer. Weiner, D. R. (1999). A little corner of freedom: Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbachëv. Berkeley, Calif, University of California Press. Worster, D. (1998). Nature's Economy: A history of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge u.a, Cambridge Univ. Press. Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas A Review Worster, D., & Worster, D. (2004). Dust Bowl: the southern plains in the 1930s. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More