Green - 10/23/22

    On hearing my classmates' presentations last Thursday, I found several points of note and worth discussing. The differentiations between mountains and towers, and the idea of the pastoral or "Arcadia", and where we are now as a society; all of these make us question the kind of relationship we should be fostering with our environments. First off, The Ecology of Eden makes a point to discuss mountains, or "natural" wilderness, and towers that signify civilization. Eisenberg says that we as a species are seeking a midpoint between wilderness and civilization that will heal both aspects. The presentation furthered this by saying that people go to great lengths to find places and times where nature and culture are mixed in the right proportions, but everyone cannot lie in the middle as it loses its status as a pastoral (an area mixed with civilization and wilderness in the right proportions). 

    This leads us to the idea of Arcadia: a utopia and a "phase". We can be in Arcadia for a period of time but cannot inhabit it. The suburbs are argued to be a would-be Arcadia of our day, in between the city and country.  This idea confuses me, and I will elaborate below.

    The tragedy of the commons is an idea that any publicly available resource will be sullied at some point simply because some will act in their own self-interest, ruining it for everyone. If we somehow manage to create an Arcadia, it will never last because some will crave more "mountains" or wilderness, and some more "towers" or civilization. Despite how much it helps the group, individuals will tear it down. And being open to all, the people will act selfishly to secure their own positions (e.g. polluting because the society is accessible and makes it convenient, uses more of the natural resources in the wilderness leaving less for others, etc.). This is why Arcadia is a "phase". We may reach perfection, but we cannot hold on forever. 

    This leads me to the idea of the suburbs that I stated above. It only holds its spot as the perfect combination due to the fact that it has just enough wilderness for people to be comfortable, which is not a lot. Some folks get a few feet of trees in their backyards, some have bushes and yards and gardens. Some have access to a hiking trail or small pond. Most contemporary suburbs only have a few of these aspects, and only if they are relatively affluent. I would argue that this hardly constitutes as "wilderness", but the definition of Arcadia is defined by the general populous, not the opinions of an environmental student. This situation is perfect for most who like their worlds air-conditioned and manicured for their safety and comfort. They have seemingly more towers than mountains, but to them it is just right. Perhaps my ideal Arcadia is an unrealistic one, as it opens the gates to much that would make the modern suburban individual uncomfortable. More natural and locally sourced yards instead of copy-paste lawns means more maintenance, more locally sourced foods may be more expensive and lack some varieties that people have become accustomed to. The ideas of students studying ecology will be very different from that of the modern man in terms of the ideal living conditions, and it makes me consider how we can progress to an Arcadia in a sustainable fashion that works for all.