An interview about the phenomenon of environmental generational amnesia - Essay Example

Final paper - Mr. Kahn, it was highly generous of you to accept my invitation for an interview. - Oh, not, the pleasure is all mine! Actually, I am very happy that people are interested in the researches that I make and the works that I write. - Do not you think that many people are concerned with the environmental issues nowadays? - Well, quite a lot, I believe. Nevertheless, the reality shows that really few people think that this is a real issue, you know. Many think that it is a fancy problem that the world should be taken care of while trying to distract itself from other problems, for example economic ones. I believe that many would say that the latter are much more important than the former ones. - OK, let us talk about what you and I think is really important. Having read your work I was surprised by the concept of environmental generational amnesia. Please, correct me if I am wrong, you give the following definition of it: “condition when with each ensuing generation, the amount of environmental degradation can and usually does increase, but each generation tends to take that degraded condition as the nondegraded condition, as the normal experience” (Kahn 165). Am I correct? - Yes, you are absolutely right. As you can see, the three keywords in the definition outline the scope of this concept: it deals with the environment, it changes with generations and it focuses on inability to recollect things. I think that this is a great term, though it might seem a little be heavy. - Exactly! I believe that the term that you use is far better than others that you recall in you work. Would you mind analyzing them for a little bit? - Absolutely. - So, the first one is “nature deficit disorder”. What do you think it is a worse term? - Well, it surely has a better sound to it, but it is too broad. Nature is a vague concept that one can hardly experience deficit of it, only figuratively speaking. - All right. What about “landscape amnesia”? - And do you remember the definition of it? “It is people forgetting how different the surrounding landscape looked 50 years ago, because the change from year to year has been so gradual” – that is what I wrote (Kahn 174). I thin that the issue of landscape is too narrow. - OK, what about “shifting baseline syndrome”? - Well, other than it is too specific, it does not present an easily understandable idea. - I see. Now, let us talk about the study that you conducted in 1995. You know, I was surprised by the findings of it. - Really? How come? - Well, I never thought that little children were aware about the actual environmental problems. - Yes, we were surprised as well. Though they could not give as many details, it is clear that they knew about such issues and that is quite inspiring. - I guess the biggest problem was that they knew about the problems, but did not actually see them. - I agree with it. It seemed that children could identify the pollution in the book, but they were not able to do the same while looking through the window. - And you concluded that that happens because the children could not compare the actual state of environment with the normal one? - Yes, exactly. You know, they were brought up in a polluted area; so, they thought that this is natures. - That is so horrible, do not you think so? - Absolutely! And the most negative consequence of this phenomenon lies in the fact that this process is inevitable. I means as long as we consciously stop environmental generational amnesia. - Could you please talk more about the point that you make about the Northern California? - Do you mean the forests there? - Yes. - Well, I frankly believe that this example shows not only the behavior of the people who live there, but also people all over the country and even the world! You see, the people that I describe did not do anything extraordinary: they wanted to be happy as well as make ends meet. Furthermore, they thought that they have “too much” nature at their disposal and nothing would go wrong if they shared some of it. That is exactly what I want to show: they shared just a little bit, just enough for another person to come in and do the same. - I can see you point. You know, I would like to put emphasis on another finding that you presented. That people take the idea of what is normal from their childhood. While reading you paper, I thought that I do think of nature in terms that are developed in my childhood. To be frank, I never gave the problem a serious thought, but all my childhood memories are connected with the environment and I believe that they define what I consider to be acceptable. - You are not alone in this. Everyone does it and that is absolutely normal. How can a person love and want something that one has never seen? It’s absurd! People all over the world fight for the environment because they are the eye witnesses of how industrialization and globalization has changed the planet. Can you engage a young person in a fight for something that only adults have experienced? No, it is impossible! - I agree with you in this and I believe that you were quite correct while trying to defend you position about the concept that you introduced. I saw that you called it a hypothesis and were able to show that it is valid. - Up to this time I can not believe that more people are willing to believe in the global warming, but are reluctant to believe in environmental generational amnesia. As I have pointed out both concepts sometimes lack scientific evidence, but if you look hard enough you will be able to see that there is some data that supports them. - And you quoted such data in your work. - Yes, I did. Do you remember the passages about the forests in Scotland or the migration of passenger pigeons? Most of the people have never heard about that. Some heard about the American buffalo, but it is more a legend now. What surprises me the most is that the society has all the answers to the potential questions that it has, but it is whether too lazy or too afraid to draw the connections. A careful examination of the changes in the environment that took place in the recent centuries can easily reveal the truth. - I follow you. But I think that another approach that you used is far more effective. I think that when you describe Pyle’s experiment, you wanted to engage people’s emotions to help them see the problem. - That is exactly what I had in my mind. You see, many people think that the world does not change if they do not see it. However, it one considers some parts of the personal history, one will see that the environment change and everyone is able to experience it. What is more important is that people often feel sad about it and this sadness allows them se the actual scope of the problem. You know, loosing a favorite place in the forest and one think and loosing the entire forest is another thing. - I know. And how far do you think the environmental awareness reaches? - Have you read in my text an abstract that was written in 1935? - Yes, I have. - So, I believe that this indicates that people almost a century ago were as much concerned about the nature as we are today. - I just thought that they did not have such big problems with it, but still thought that they are in trouble. - Exactly! - It never occurred to be that in 1935 people did not think about the global warming or the greenhouse effect. However, they were able to sense that the way they treat the nature is not right. They saw that the society should change its ways and develop a different approach towards nature. - It is a pity that people a century ago understood it better than we do now. - Yes! I like how you were able to show that the perception of the world has changed. Indeed, what our contemporaries call wild is not wild at all for the people in the beginning of the previous century. You know, in several decades, one might say that the area is wild if it does not have Wi-Fi connection. - I believe that you are quite right. - You wrote that “noncongested” now “can refer to a packed freeway in the middle of Los Angeles as long as the cars are moving along in a timely fashion” (Kahn 169). I can see irony there, but I also see that you are right. - If you read my work close enough, you will see that I give an explanation to this phenomenon. I am strongly convinced that the modern people are not able to understand what it means to be in the wild, you now. They are so accustomed to asphalt and electricity, the running water and the Internet and they will that all this is a natural part of the landscape. Figuratively speaking, they were born in a cage and were knew the world outside of it. This means that people simply do not know that they have loft and are not able to feel the genuine sorrow. - I know that you have encountered a considerable amount of skepticism while proving you point. Those who do not share you view often states that “the plural of anecdote is not data”. What do you think about this position? - Well, I can understand why some people experience skepticism when it comes to this issue. You know, it is always difficult to change you views about something that you thought was right. Take the example of the planet Earth. One we all thought that it is the sun the rises and goes down and it was a ridiculous thing to say that it is not the Sun goes moves around the Earth by vice verse. Of course, people experienced skepticism about this new fancy idea, but gradually the science found more evidence with regard tot his new “impossible” theory and now every student in the school knows that it is the Earth that goes around the Sun, not vice versa. - But you do try to give some evidence. - Yes, I do. Do you remember the passage about the study which was carried out by Evans, Jacobs and Frager? The one about the perception of smog? I believe that it is scientific enough for the people to see that the problem exists. Of course, they might dismiss the validity of it by stating that the sample is small, but the same experience can be duplicated anywhere in the country under the necessary conditions. Or that study about the birds. They all prove my point. - Nevertheless, I think that the most convincing point that you make is about the Easter Island. I would never think that there were so many trees that would shape the environment and production on the island. In the end you say that in the eighteenth century the island was completely defenestrated. I think that this is rather interesting information as it shows how dramatically one ecosystem could change because people were not able to establish the proper boundaries of their activity. - I am glad that you understand me. The tragedy of the Easter Island is actually the tragedy of the entire humanity. You see what happened on a small island can be repeated on the planet scale. The only difference is that it would take more time for this to happen. - And the point about cannibalism. It is so frightening! - Yes, I find it frightening as well. But this about these poor people for a moment: they lived on a great island and everything was all right, but gradually, there were less tress and less animals to hunt. No body wants to die and no body wants to give up, especially under extreme conditions. That is why they did what they could. I think we can never blame them for this. It is the human nature to survive. Otherwise, we would not be able to populate the Earth so much, you known. The mankind is surely a winner of the evolutionary race, but we a dangerously close to lose it because of our arrogance. - All right, I can see where you are going with that. Let us talk about the solutions that you designed. Do you really think that each of them is effective? - Yes, I am convinced that they are effective. - The first one that you name is titled “Get Children out into nature”, but is not that what all good parents do? - Partially. Just like I said: the modern understanding of nature is quite different from what it used to be like. Nowadays parents take their children into nature for a limited amount of time and civilization always follows them, you know? There is always electricity, there is always artificial light. It looks like as if nature is just a big playground, nothing more. - OK, I see you point. What about the second solution: “Tell children stories of how it was”? Every generation tells stories about how good it was before and nobody really listens. Do not you think that this will be just another negative experience for the children that want to spend time in a different way? - I can understand how playing on a tablet PC can be more interesting than listening to a story about nature that does not exist any more, but if people do not do anything about it the process of degradation will become even worse. We must share our knowledge about the past, because if we don’t there will be no future! - Future. Exactly, you talk about the need to imagine the future, but everything that you say is so pessimistic. - Let us be frank here: the relationship between the human civilization and Mother Nature is a long one, but I can’t remember times when people worked hard and succeeded in making the planet a better place. Can you? Well, there were times when people did not have any industry, but that is not what humanity is: we have the necessary knowledge about different processes; so, why can be conduct those processes in a way that would not be harmful. Unfortunately, the common answer is that it is not profitable. I believe that the distant future will have no other way, but to carry out sustainable practices. - And that is exactly what you think the new technologies will be about? The next step? - Well, it depends. If we all think that new technology will save the planet and restore the balance in nature, we are wrong. Technology can not do that. Only we can, with the help of technology. It is ridiculous to think that is we all drive electric cars there will be no air pollution. The state when electric cars substituted all other known cars will be achieved only when all agree on this, but the latter is more a fantasy. In other words, the science might provide us with great technology, but as long as the majority sticks to the old ways, there is no use in it. - You talk a lot about the effect that harmony with nature will have on our well being. Could you please be more specific about that? - Do you remember that I told you that people think that it is not profitable to care about the environment? Well, my position is completely different: I believe that the mankind will be able to benefit from correct treatment of nature. Nowadays, the human civilization lives as if there is no tomorrow, you know. Nobody cares about the real effects of the global warming that we all will experience in the future. However, people fail to realize that this will be the end of the world as we know it since many of the traditional activities, including industrial ones will not exist. - And you also talk about the need to develop the nature language, right? In what way do you think this will help? - I often noticed that the nature does not have a distinct identity in our minds. We say "Mother Nature", but that is merely a collocation. The language that the contemporary people use to describe nature is short of words that are able to describe the real beauty of it. I amount strongly convinced that if people start using the right words to describe the environment, the latter will be on its way to restoration. - Just like that? - No quite. When people understand what they are about to lose, they will work hare to save it. - You conclude your text with a rather moving story that is taken from The Secrets of Savannah. Could you please explain why you wanted to make that your final statement? - Well, do you remember our discussion about the emotional constituent of the environmental problems? I noted that people tend to want more evidence while in reality they are not able to develop a genuine emotional bond to the problem. I think that the situation that I engaged is something that nobody wants to relate to. Indeed, when people are young and full of energy they do not care about the consequences. They think that whatever life throws at them they will be able to overcome with the strength that they possess. Nevertheless, every one learns sooner or latter that there is one force in the world that always wins: it is time. No matter how hard people try, they are not able to reverse time. That is why if people want to see any changes in the future, they ought to change something in the present. Let is consider the story of the character in question. Is he sad, because he is no longer able to hunt as much as he used to? I believe that the answer is negative. He is sorry that he was not able to see the consequences of his actions and now he is not able to change anything. He feels betrayed by his own actions and that is the worst feeling that a person can experience at the end of ones life. Let us hope that the humanity in general will not have to feel the same at a certain point. - OK, thank you very much for the discussion. - Thanks for having me. - Are there any last thoughts that you would like to share? - Well, it just hope that the discussion that we had today would not end with us. I mean, I would like other people be engaged in the discourse, regardless of whether they agree with my point or do not. I am strongly convinced that various problems, including the phenomenon of environmental generational amnesia can be tackles with a combined effort of the humanity. Read More