Conservationism Versus Preservationism

 Before reading Professor David Barnhill”s article, “Major Western Views of Nature”, I was fairly certain that conservation and preservation were very similar ideologies. Upon completion of Branhill’s article I now understand the clear differences between the two. After reading the article and following up with some further research of my own, I have decided to be a firm believer of preservationism as opposed to conservationism. It is ideal to have a preservationist ideology because it will be better for nature, as well as human’s relationship with it in the future.

 Barhill explains Conservationism as being a “long-term view of preserving natural resources rather than mere short-term exploitation”(3).  This of course sounds good at first glance, and makes people think of having resources for future generations, which is a typical decision maker. Nature was seen in this sense as “primarily a set of resources for human use”(3). This begins to give the view that humans are the only thing that mater on the planet, and that everything else on it is here to serve us in some way. If nature was not meant for human benefit, then it must just be a wild waste of space. Barnhill explains that people were of the opinion that, “nature as lacking value unless humans control it, which is our duty”(3). So now not only is it meant for human benefit, but also it is now completely useless unless we superior humans control it how we see necessary. Who are we to say what is best for something that we did not create, and are constantly learning more about?

 The description of preservationism that Barhill presents appears to be more intelligent as well as less arrogant on how humans are interacting with nature. There is the idea and understanding that nature is a, “living system that deserves to fulfill its natural development”(4). Nature has been doing fine on its own since it evolved, so the idea that “the ideal here is to leave nature alone”(4), makes wonderful sense. It makes so much sense that people have been protesting for years and laws have been passed to protect the land. Laws such as the, “Wilderness Act of 1964, which set aside areas where people could not log, mine, build resorts, drive cars, or live”(4). Law makes it apparent that we have to protect our land from ourselves if we want any nature left in the future.

 Our willingness and ability to participate in, “the preservation movement reveals aspects of the culture and social structure of each society”(Barthel 88).  Societies and cultures that are able to realize the destructive problem and want to do something about it signifies a certain heightened awareness within that culture. America is getting more involved in the preservation of our land, however, “up until 1930, federal involvement in preservation was minimal”(Barthel 95). In order for mass change, the government needs to be able to create and enforce laws that they implement for the sake of the planet and all its inhabitants: being plants, animals, and humans.

Works Cited:

 1) Barnhill, David. “Major Western Views of Nature”. 14 March 2007. University of Wisconsin Ohkosh, Director, Environmental Studies. 26 August 2009. http://bit.ly/iENtO.

 2) Barthel, Diane. “Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analyses”Sociological Forum, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1989): 87-105. Springer. 26 August 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/684437