Island
Civilization Summary and Criticism
Island Civilization by Roderick Frazier Nash gives
background history about the trajectory of human progress and presents
solutions to pressing obstacles in humanity’s near future. He begins by
explaining the origins of idea of wilderness and the wild. According to Nash,
the drive to settle wild lands began after the Neolithic Revolution with the
advent of farming and animal husbandry when humans were holding territory and
began building settlements. This drive has been a major part of western
civilization for the past centuries and over time the west had become practiced
at the breaking “wild” territories and peoples. Nash accuses western
capitalistic society of being dangerously driven to expand to the point of self-destruction.
Nash continues by laying out stages of progression in
thought on the subject of wilderness and the value of nature. As Manifest
Destiny took hold and the wilderness dwindled in size, people began to assign
more value to nature. Wilderness took on a utilitarian purpose of being the
object of human appreciation and a tourist attraction. The protection of
wildlife was only a side effect of the protection of the wild lands for
entertainment and inspiration. The next stage of thought occurred in the past
century as biological sciences gave new insight into the “purpose” and possible
necessity of the natural order and the wild. Today only 2% of the mainland United
States is officially wild territory.
With the population growing at a staggering rate and the environment and global balance in jeopardy, Nash lays out four outcomes for the future of our planet. His first scenario is a wasteland scenario. In this scenario the human race could expand and consume to the point of self-destruction taking much of the planets ecosystem with it. His second scenario is the garden scenario. In the garden scenario humanity inhabits every corner of the earth and farms resources from the most useful domesticated animals, pushing larger wildlife to extinction. The third scenario is future primitive, a future where technological civilization is written off as a bad experiment. The fourth and final scenario laid out is the island civilization. The island civilization consists of islands of humanity with 15 million person populations living in efficient and self-sufficient mega cities scattered around the globe. This scenario is important because it would allow evolution to occur naturally outside its borders.
While I think Mr. Nash has many good ideas and a valuable historical perspective, his island civilization may have some flaws and may be too idealistic. I think the number one priority should be to slow population growth worldwide and as Nash suggests try to reduce the world population significantly in order to avert global catastrophe. The second priority should be to reduce the consumption of resources in the United States and other “first world” countries. These two things should bring stability to the planet even under the current conditions.
With the population growing at a staggering rate and the environment and global balance in jeopardy, Nash lays out four outcomes for the future of our planet. His first scenario is a wasteland scenario. In this scenario the human race could expand and consume to the point of self-destruction taking much of the planets ecosystem with it. His second scenario is the garden scenario. In the garden scenario humanity inhabits every corner of the earth and farms resources from the most useful domesticated animals, pushing larger wildlife to extinction. The third scenario is future primitive, a future where technological civilization is written off as a bad experiment. The fourth and final scenario laid out is the island civilization. The island civilization consists of islands of humanity with 15 million person populations living in efficient and self-sufficient mega cities scattered around the globe. This scenario is important because it would allow evolution to occur naturally outside its borders.
While I think Mr. Nash has many good ideas and a valuable historical perspective, his island civilization may have some flaws and may be too idealistic. I think the number one priority should be to slow population growth worldwide and as Nash suggests try to reduce the world population significantly in order to avert global catastrophe. The second priority should be to reduce the consumption of resources in the United States and other “first world” countries. These two things should bring stability to the planet even under the current conditions.
I believe professor Nash reached his conclusion about
island civilizations due to the immense value he assigns to nature operating
free of human influence. While I think having ongoing evolution and thriving
wildlife in the future is something to be desired, I wouldn’t build my entire
civilization around that sole purpose. With that purpose Nash reached the
conclusion that “wilderness” should dominate the Earth in the future with
humanity occupying a fraction of the planet. Why not have humanity evenly
distributed around the globe with relatively low and even population density
with large pockets of protected wildlife?
Another problem I see with Nash’s Island Civilization is
the incredible amount of personal freedom that must be relinquished in order to
reach his utopian society. It would take an enormous amount of cooperation and
could result in dystopias. One last problem I have with Nash’s scenarios is
that they are all very extreme directions with no middle ground. I can imagine
blends of these different scenarios playing out on smaller scales and around
the globe at some point in the future. Realistically however, I can see the
garden scenario playing out if we continue down the course we are on as it
would not require us to give up on consumerism
"Why not have humanity evenly distributed around the globe with relatively low and even population density with large pockets of protected wildlife?" That's a good point. This seems to me like a much better alternative than a few huge cities.
ReplyDelete