At a recent public hearing in Eugene, Oregon, a developer defended his proposal to build over a hundred houses on a steep slope with a history of landslides even though he knew little about this aspect of the site. He asserted he did not need to know. He would just alter the land to fit his needs as he went along. He opined, for instance, that he could engineer a network of retaining walls to keep the houses he built from sliding off the hill.
To this developer it did not matter how little he knew about the land he sought to develop—since he saw it as a blank slate on which he could carry out whatever designs he had for it. To him the slope of the hill, its slippery clay soil, its earthquake history, were all things he could erase as he went along– as easily as he could bulldoze the Douglas fir forest on this site to get it out of the way.
In practicing his “blank slate” development that rendered irrelevant the natural characteristics and natural life of the land, our developer was only following historical precedent. On certain beaches in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon, levies must hold back the sea, since the high priced homes perched on the beach front are prone to falling in at high tide. In southern California areas recently ravaged by fire, houses were built on hills next to the updrafts of chaparrals that maintained their ecology through burning.
We have built our major cities on flood plains in the Pacific Northwest, necessitating huge dams upriver. Native people had a different tact: they too knew that living by the river on fertile river bottom land was a great thing—in season. In high water times you would find them in their permanent villages, on the hills, above the flood line.
But we civilized folks weren’t into moving to respond to nature as if it were a living thing. Whites would rather chew through a mountain than go around, Chehalis elder Henry Cultee remarked in 1975. His son Richard Cultee told me there was a joke among the Skokomish people: “We knew whites had arrived when we woke up one morning and the river was moved.”
In the historical development of the Pacific Northwest, indigenous life—human and otherwise—was treated as if it were only so much chalk dust whose writing didn’t have to be read before it was erased. Some Northwestern pioneers recorded such views for posterity with embarrassing irony. As he relied on Indian labor to help him survive, one pioneer and his family in the Willamette Valley camped under a tree. From his meager shelter, this pioneer decried the savage abodes of his Indian neighbors (they lived in planed wood houses sixty feet in diameter), and asserted that they were soon to be wiped off the land anyway– to be replaced with such civilized fixtures as a tavern.
Perhaps he was imbibing already, but Father Blanchet, missionary in southwestern Washington when Portland was just a “mud hole”, likely wasn’t. Blanchet’s journals related his glowing vision of the bustling commerce that would replace the “lonely huts of the Indians”. He neglected to mention that one of those “huts”, near the present day Rochester, Washington, was over 200 feet in length: horses were raced inside in the winter games.
In Blanchet’s “lonely huts of the Indians”, I am most taken with word, “lonely.” I cannot imagine a more lonely existence than that of the man who finds the world empty of everything but his vision for remaking it.
This loneliness is more wrenching even than the loneliness for the life of a world to share our lives. It is loneliness for a lost part of ourselves.
We have inherited this notion along with the idea of the developing the land from scratch: the notion that we can and should reshape ourselves into socially acceptable forms. Naomi Wolf likens this to being trapped inside the Iron Maiden, an instrument of medieval torture in which the victim was locked inside a mishapen metal body.
One who sees nature as capable of being remade without constraint will see our own bodies (espcially women’s bodies) in a similar lens, as illustrated by the harrowing “reality” TV show, “extreme makeover”, in which individuals are physically “made over” with the ample application of plastic surgery. Those who consent to be treated as if their own bodies were blank slates to be carved up, reshaped and thus “improved” are the human version of the nature we also attempt to erase and remake.
We are nature as surely as is the land we remake–no matter whether we see this for good or ill. But if our current environmental crises teach us anything it is that when we attempt erase nature what we really succeed at is erasing ourselves. It is a bald fact that if we destroy the sources of our sustenance, we are going out with them.
I am not saying that we should never change the natural world: we change it with every breath we take. But change is not the same thing as disturbance–and certainly not the same thing as obliteration. We might choose to partner with the life we find on the land, to design our human actions so that, as innovative architect William McDonough has put it, the creatures of nature recognize us as family when they look upon the things we do.
We might give up our impulse to treat our world as if it were only the vision of our own desires– and the terrible loneliness that flows from this.
Another kind of development is possible, one that avoids the blackmail line that we cannot have jobs and a clean environment: great research here on the real effects of development subsidies and alternatives that support working families:
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/
You are welcome to link to this post. Note, however, it is copyright 2008, Madronna Holden. Feel free to email me if you wish to use or copy it.
Filed under: Ecofeminism, Environmental ethics, Environmental psychology, Land use, Our Earth and Ourselves, environmental philosophy | Tagged: development, Ecofeminism, environmental philosophy, Environmental psychology, worldviews
Nice way of describing disturbing natural balance of the earth.
Many people are aware of San Diego’s just-right weather, but perhaps not for too long. Global warming notwithstanding, both sides of I-5 and I-15 are being flattened to build houses and shopping and business centers.
San Diego’s rolling hills are fast disappearing. Moreover, increasingly even the few gorges and small valleys are filled with condominiums. Along the way, whatever plant and animal life resided there are gone. These buildup will certainly affect the natural wind corridors moving over hills and through the valleys. In the long run, the city’s and the county’s fine weather will not be the same.
Thanks for comparing the landscape described in Oregon with your experience in California. Obviously, we cannot continue to draw from our environment without giving back and assume that it will continue to provide those resources we need to sustain our lives.
In reading the essay, it struck me that humans must have an innate desire to control things that surround them. Perhaps they are very insecure?
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to travel with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the Colorado River. The trip took three days to travel to Hoover Dam. It was at the end of the first day, when it struck me, that the River was really no longer a river. It was a pipe. An open pipe but none the less the water contained therein was completely controlled and measured. Water in, water out.
The entire Colorado River functions as a controlled water system. It had been deprived of its natural ebb and flow and its natural ability to flood surrounding areas to recharge the aquifer, provide nutrient filled soils for agricultural purposes and habitat for multitudes of animals and plants.
Today, a moderate to severe drought exists in the Southwest. Many wish the flows could be returned to their natural ways. Many wish the ag lands that still remain could be fed by good water instead of salt heavy water which limits crop type and growth.
We are paying now for our failures to live in harmony with the land. Our need to control may eventually doom us.
The Oregon home developer story, the story of the Colorado River and hundreds of similar stories play out every year. I truly hope that we are learning from our failures.
Thanks for sharing this comment– I concur that the definition of wisdom is the ability to learn from our mistakes. But it seems western civilization is not particularly good at this–and as you note, this may eventually doom us.
You might be interested in this essay here: it turns out that irrigation in areas of the ancient Middle East had the same problems with salination you mention. http://holdenma.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/gilgamesh-and-other-pioneers-in-paradise/
I hope with you that we are learning from our mistakes, since if we truly erase nature and place our own will/control entirely in its place, we will do away with the means for our own survival.
Great connections Madronna! Erasing our very nature is impossible and dangerous. Many developers attempt to do this with land. However, nature acts right back at them. Landslides, erosion, floods.. etc. When we reconstruct the land and other forms of nature (even the female body) we are denying ourselves as part of nature. There is no such thing as creating a “blank slate”. Nature carries a deeply rooted history, many memories. These histories are imprinted on the land, in the water, and in the air. If you attempt to erase them, most likely they will come back, or not even leave in the first place (air and water pollution). Indeed nature is alive! We must except this, embrace it, love and honor it!
I also liked the connection you made with the female body. The media has engrained in women’s heads that what is natural with our bodies is ugly. All the shaving, waxing, and reconstructing isn’t improving if your body denies the changes in the first place.
A powerful amplification of the idea that we can only erase nature at our own hazard. Thank you, Ivy.
I found all of this very interesting. Man belive that they can do whatever they want to our earth without thinking of the concequence it could cause down the road. Now with times being so unpredictable people only see dollar signs and how can i make an extra dollar they dont care what they have to do to it , as long as they do. I really like the comparrison of the human body, expecially the womans body it is so true with everything that there is out there today people belive that they can just start over and Change what we have to make it work for us. instead of embracing on what we have. We always want more and somthing different It defentily makes you think on how more and more people are taking the little land we have left to build on it.
I really enjoyed this article it really makes you think about what we as humans are doing to our earth everyday. I think it is amazing how somone with knowing what they know about a piece of land could just say they will alter it to make it work for them. Its sad with the economy today i feel that people will do anything for a dollar. They dont care at what cost it takes. I really liked the comparisson with the human body expecially a womans body. So many woman today know and want to alter the way they look. but should they? I think you should embrace what you have
Thoughtful personal response, Meagan. Can you see any implications for adapting to nature rather than trying to remake it for our use? How does objectifying nature or seeing it only as something for our use contrast with any other environmental values (and their results) you are aware of?
Interesting article. It echoes many things that I have been saying for some time now. When talking about developers building where ever they want without regard to the environment brings one example to mind: New Orleans, LA. Not to downplay the effect on the people that lived there during hurricane Katrina, but wasn’t that due to happen someday? The city is built nearly entirely below sea level, and it is built next to the sea!! This disregard for nature is obviously not a new thing, but something that is completely ingrained into our culture as we know it.
Another point mentioned in the article was that we try to change the environment like some people try to change their bodies with plastic surgery. This is a reflection of our “Now” society and way of living. No one seems willing to work hard for anything, including a slimmer waist. People almost seem to feel that they deserve everything, but shouldn’t have to work for it. I wish that we could get back to a simpler life, where people grew their own food and traded services between each other. Being in touch with the land around you is something that is lacking in a lot of people’s life expiriences, and that is reflected in how they treat the world around them. I grew up in the country, in the woods, and respecting the land around me. This is clearly reflected in my world views.
As a society, we are forced to view the world as “Ripe for the Picking”. It is the “American Way”. We, as a society, objectify nature to justify the way we treat it when we steal all that we can from it. If we saw the environment as our equal, we would feel bad about ourselves when we do what we do to it. A similar situation arises when we eat our foods. When you bite into a juicy steak, you don’t think about the cattle that had to be killed to provide it to you. By distancing ourselves from the natural world, we make ourselves callous to our effect upon it.
Hi Andrew, thanks for your thoughtful comment. A very important point about the license for mistreating others (of all species) in distancing ourselves from them. Once we look at anything (or anyone) as “raw material”, a “resource”, or simply a means to our ends, we lose all ethical perspective.
The point about the focus on convenience is also well taken: though it is also true that a slimmer waist is not something everyone can work for. Perhaps you are aware that the newest data is actually linking some forms of obesity to exposure to environmental pollutants such as endocrine disruptors. There is also the link between economic well being and nutrition: “fast” food or junk food provides calories for fewer dollars– but scant amounts of necessary nutrition.
When I read your article, the first thought that came to my mind, was what was this builder thinking, all he was after was the money he could make selling these houses. He had a total disregard to the consequences of his actions. However, what it really comes down to is we have lost our respect or our concern for others and our environment. We have developed into an “it’s all about me” society. That builder did not care about what would happening to those houses he built in 10 years when the foundations began to crack and lose their integrety. He only cared about what he would be gaining in the immediate future. By the time the houses started showing the stress caused by the abuse of the environment, he would have had received his money and been long gone. Will we ever learn or will we just continue in this downward spiral?
Hi Pam, thanks for your comment. It is true that the “now” and “me” attitudes leave those who follow us in jeopardy. This is the reason why the “precautionary principle”m, which focuses on the ways in which we should protect those who come after us from harm, is growing in popularity.
The developer’s attitude is all too common in today’s society. Quite often we should ask ourselves just because we can, does that mean we should? I remember reading about the nuclear arms race in the cold war and the emergence of nuclear weapons in the 1950s. The Soviets were making plans to use nuclear bombs in various dam building and civil engineering projects just to display their ingenuity and resourcefulness. Clearly not good idea on any level but yes they had the ability to do this.
Working with our environment causes so many less headaches. This developer might make a few dollars in his project but I would say that the legal liability of building in such a manner would be an issue, let alone the moral liability if something did happen to the homes that were built on such an unsafe site.
Thoughtful response, Joe. The problem is that in our legal system, the developer’s responsibility pretty much ends after he sells his houses. I am all for the proposals that developers must insure the consequences of their work for say, twenty years. For that matter, how about all those clear cuts that are currently causing landslides all over Washington State in tandem with the recent floods? Who is responsible for that after the loggers leave? I think that this is an obvious major flaw in our economic system which rewards people for short term gains–and does not levy any responsibility for long term consequences. In that sense, we as a society, are actually rewarding some for creatiing situations none of us want.
My first impression about the developer is he is very arrogant. I think he is being driven my dollar signs, there for he doesn’t care about anything else. He doesn’t see the big picture of how his actions are affecting nature, the future and other people. This man will just move on with his life after he takes another piece away from nature. It is not right to force nature to conform to our lives. Instead, people should probably be conforming to nature as Indian tribes once did. Whenever we do something we need to keep in mind that there are consequences for our actions. We can’t assume that we know what is best for other people. All things should work together for the good of all.
Thank you for your caring response, Laura. I agree that (since we live in an interdependent world) we should adapt ourselves to the natural world–and seek our courses of action in which, as you say, we “work together for the good of all”.
I absolutely agree with your ideas here. This developer is the objectification worldview poster child. His sense of entitlement over the natural world for his own benefit is incredibly brazen. There is no regard whatsoever for the land he will destroy, or the potential homeowners that he places at eminent risk by housing them there.
Peoples attempts and failures to control their environment is seen more and more with the extreme weather patterns and storms showing up all over the world. Living in Astoria, I can not help but think of the town of Warrenton that is built almost entirely below sea level. Even a relatively minor tsunami will destroy this area. I found it very interesting that natives would stay on the river in season and then go to more permanent settlements at higher ground when flood season came. What a novel idea, adjusting to what your environment gives you instead of forcefully changing it to suit our needs.
Hi Aaron, thanks for your comment. You are right in line with the newest essay just posted on this site: the worldview that values working in careful concert with the natural world rather than remaking it (or even disturbing it) because it is more convenient for us.
Let me play devils advocate for a moment.
Imgaine that you are this builder. You are an ordianary man with a family. You have the ability to aquire what appears to be unused land to make a large profit. You feel that you know how to make the land stable so that it now becomes useful land and does not endager those that live on it. Besides the profit that you and the 50 other familes that will work on the project will make – you can give over 100 familes a nice place to live.
As the builder, lets say in 2 years you will make a million dollars. Would you do it?
How about 2 million dollars? As the builder when you look around yourself, you see all the other builders doing it – so what impact will you 100 homes have… Really? And besides, if you don’t – someone else will, and many of us would buy those homes unaware of the impact we’ve had. How about 3 million dollars? I’m not asking if you would sink a tanker full of oil, just to build a few homes for people to live in.
The sad problem is that we all have a price. We seem so insignificant in this large world that it is difficult for us to look past the financial gain. People are so busy in their daily lives that they don’t look at the bigger picture.
Kudos to those that brought the legal action. Bringing these types of issues to light is what helps us all become aware, probably even the builder. Maybe after we get passed a few generations that were taught of the earth as a blank slate – the natural behavior of the earth will be the what builders see when they look at a potentional site.
You bring up some points to consider, Angie. I might add a bit of info here: the city of Eugene actually offered to pay him a price for the land that would bring him a huge profit, since they wanted to develop it as a park. However, he raised the ante, asking a price they could not afford (which would have given him several hundred thousand dollars’ profit just for buying the land and holding it for a year. Also, a “nice place to live” may not be one on which one’s house may slide down the hill. You ask a question which leads to the ways in which our thought process in modern industrial society too often encourages greed in a way that blinds us to the real consequences of our actions. And our system all too often rewards those who create situations most of us do not want (need I bring up the Wall Street bailout?)
Your thoughtful post indicates the way in which we need to change our cultural values: for there ARE societies which do not reward and encourage greed. Thanks for the perspective: it is always beneficial to see the world from someone else’s perspective. Especially if we are concerned about changing the results that flow from that perspective–and that perspective is tied into a social system in which many of us (including myself) too often unthinkingly participate.
This is something I have thought a lot about and when you mention southern California, I can’t help but think about the coastline where I grew up. Specifically, I am talking about the development of these areas, and the ramifications of doing so. In it’s desire for revenue, the city of Dana Point built a jetty and harbor in an area that was renowned for its beauty and legendary surf break. This all began in the late 60s, and in the preceding years the beach there, Doheny, is now known to the locals as “poop beach.” It is consistently among the worst beaches in the state in terms of water quality. To me, this is one of the worst examples of developers seeing nature as some kind of blank canvas where they can create their twisted homages to capitalism. It’s sickening. It also ruined the surfing!
I also wanted to mention that I was intriqued with the correlation between nature and women, especially in the context of “Extreme Makeover.” I have seen that show, but never thought of it in that light. I am sad to admit that, as a male, I am part of a male-dominated society whose nature it is to subjugate and shape the world to its liking. This is the reason that people like me (those open to enlightenment) need to be more active and dilligent in fighting for the rights of all of nature.
Hi Michael, thanks for your thoughtful comment, and for your personal commitment to being “active and diligent” in protecting the rights of nature. As a woman, I certainly appreciate your consciousness. You might enjoy viewing the page on the “rights of nature” on this site.
Obviously we can add the example of this beach to those who development includes condos that regularly slide into the surf. During the recent floods in Washington State, we can also add numerous landslides directly attributable to clear cuts.
The main theme that I got from this short essay, is the importance of understanding natures limits. I think as a species, we have accumulated a habit of always assuming that we can make mountains out of molehills. We also generally like to think that we have the ability to get around any sort of obstical standing in our way of something that we want. This is a bad notion to walk around with. We must realize that there are certain aspects of nature that are bigger than us, and we cannot always get around certain things that mother nature has the most power over.
Thoughtful reply, Megan, thank you. I like Paul Hawkins’ approach– he states that human resources (such as labor, imagination, etc.) are wide open–and we need to use more of these instead of using up nature’s limiting resources.
I really can’t agree with the developer concerning building on a hill and eradicating all concerns of landslide, however, I can understand where he/she is coming from.
When I was in my transportation engineering class, we had to design a road from the kings and walnut intersection going north to a more hilly community, the name escapes me now. In getting to my point, we had to design the road going with the river leading up to the community, not because it was something we wanted but it was the cheapest way to get up there without harming the environment too much. Now, I’m not saying that what we were doing was right in terms of environment or sustainable development, but we were working for the community that wanted a more direct route down to Corvallis.
So, in terms of then and now, I believe development has improved in terms of being more environmentally and more ethically sound, however, the need for development seems to be the overriding idea. Meaning, if we can build it, and it makes our lives “easier”, then we will. Maybe it’s the idea of accepting things as they are and adapting ourselves to the economic, social, and physical environment rather than changing them to fit our needs that we need to embrace.
Hi Tony, I responded to two of your comments at once in my response to your comment on the NIMBY lie. Thanks for your comments!
A key point about adapting ourselves– takes interaction and listening that cannot help but give us more ideas and options.
The developers attitude is unfortunately a reflection of our whole society. The barrier islands of the east coast are subjected to numerous forces of nature which attempt to continually move and reshape them, but now these islands have become tourist destinations populated by expensive homes and resorts. Many beaches lose sand due to storms which threaten this now valuable real estate. Local governments , with help from the state and federal levels, spend millions of taxpayer dollars for beach replenishment projects which in the end provide only temporary solutions. People buy property in risky locations because they know that the insurance companies or the government are usually there to bail them out, which relieves them of their own responsibilities.
The native cultures had a respect for nature that we do not have. The examples of reports by pioneers that minimized the accomplishments of the native peoples only made it easier to dismiss and destroy them.
Hi John, thanks for sharing your a cultural perspective here; obviously we are suffering the results of minimizing any type of environmental knowledge (including that which comes from our own senses). About time we started to learn from our past, I think.
I have lived in the Applegate Valley of Southern Oregon for the past nine years, and have seen what building in flood plains can do. It is interesting how much disregard for mother nature exists until she demonstrates her “destructive” power. The 1997 flooding in Southern Oregon, specifically in the valley, damaged multiple homes which were built in the surrounding low-lying plains. We were saved because my parents, respecting the natural terrain and thinking preemptively, chose a clearing elevated 150 feet above the flood line. This simple prevention kept our house from being damaged or destroyed in the flooding. My parents have advocated respecting nature for as long as I can remember, which many people, as is demonstrated in this article, do not do. I think awareness is the most important thing we need to have in order to survive as a species, and not wanting to have that is just a giant step in the wrong direction.
Hi Calin, thanks for your comment. Seems you are lucky in more ways than one to have the parents that you do.
I thought it was very interesting that you compared what humans to do the land to what we do to our bodies as in the tv show “extreme makeover.” We are taking what nature hs given us and reshaping it completely. People don’t realize that we can not keep doing what we are doing to our land with out consequences. Yes our land may be in okay condition now but what about for a our children or our children’s children? We think we can fix everything to our liking but in reality nature will always find a way to do as it had planned and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Thank you for your comment, Danielle. For myself, I am not sure that our land is in “ok” shape, given the evidence of climate change and topsoil loss and drought around the globe. Though in the US today we may feel personally insulated from some of those changes so far. Certainly for the sake of our children’s children, as you note, we need to act.
Oh my gosh this is so eye opening. I love the comparisons that are in this article. Extreme Makeover is absolutely genius. When people finally realize that they are hurting not only the earth but themselves it will maybe finally come to the attention of the public. It is just ridiculous how disrespectful the human race is to the environment. I mean everything comes from nature and not only do we use everything in nature nature gives us so much. Including all the essential things we need to survive along with all the accommodations we have and use on a daily basis.
Thanks for your comment, Chelsea. I would like to see us honoring our bodies for the incredible things they do for us in giving us life itself–and for their uniqueness and power– rather than trying to remake them.
Dr. Holden,
I admit that I am guilty of thinking like the developer in Eugene at one point in my life. The very first house I bought was in a flood plain in east Portland. The house was a good deal and we thought, realistically would there be a flood here? We didn’t stay long enough to find out but my point is I was more concerned with market values than what impact the home I was living in was having on the environment. We had to purchase flood insurance in the event that it does flood so that we could rebuild and damages. It seems so silly now to build a home where nature will inevitably wash it away just to rebuild it so the process can happen all over again.
I think much differently now, and this class has really helped to harness the realization of the damage that we cause to our own world. I do sincerely hope that we stop treating the “world as if it were only the vision of our own desires” (Holden) and we can see the earth for it true beauty just the way it is rather than a commodity or as a slate we can clear to design our own ideas of nature.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience here, Jessie. There are likely very few folks who grew up in a Western industrialized culture who have not had some re-thinking to do in terms of their values in the wake of the current environmental crises. You are modeling the open-mindedness and critical thinking that we need!
Individuals often face difficulties when distinguishing between causes and effects of i.e. daily decisions. In this case, the natural world does not make any difference. The media permanently confronts us with new natural disasters that take place around the globe causing the death of many people and the loss of their property. The causes of these disasters are not sufficiently covered by the media, because viewer do not seem to be interested in these causes. Surely, many disasters are not under the control of humans and therefore, they cannot be prevented and humans do not have to blame themselves for those tragedies. Nonetheless, there are instances where there is nothing and nobody else to be blamed than humans. Sometimes we are not only disturbing nature, but destructing willingly by creating embankment dams, canals, changing the direction of rivers, banking up or scooping earth etc. The benefit of those activities is soften only a financial one.
Thanks for your comment, Nick. As you indicate, sometimes the causes of “natural” disasters are humans — but this is something we don’t see in the short term. Instead, these result from complex interactions over the long term. One of the reasons, I think, why the precautionary principle is so important. It is so much easier to prevent a problem before it happens than to undo it afterwards.
How ironic are our views of nature and beauty, that we spend so much energy on “fixing” them. When did we stop learning about life from observing nature, and getting to know those around us? Now, instead of learning, we spend all of our energy trying to fix everything to be an impossible vision of how we think it should be.
The views that the builder in the above article was defending probably should be shocking, but really, they are not. It is common to hear how we can “fix” the imperfections of the land to accommodate our own needs. Today, somehow, we do not even stop to think that maybe the earth does not have imperfections, that it is made a certain way and these hills and cliffs and natural wonders, are not just obstacles. Perhaps we should focus more on the shape of the earth, the miracles that have existed and evolved long before we ever on this earth. We should be respecting these wonders, and not destroying them to build houses for ourselves, completely unnecessarily.
Hi Erin, thanks for your comment. Great point indicating how it is impossible to learn from nature and try to “fix” it at the same time. Interesting point about what we see as the earth’s “imperfections”– which are really things that are somehow inconvenient to ourselves. I agree about the miracles we should be attending to instead–we might take the wondrous gift of life itself, for instance. I am also amazed at how all the parts of the natural world fit with one another.
In reading this article, it reminded me of the recent devastation of New Orleans. Here is a city where, in all logic, should have never been built. It lies below sea level with only the levies built by arrogant humans to try and keep the water out. What happened with Hurricane Katrina, as unfortunate as it was, was also a foreseeable outcome.
The mention of the abuse of plastic surgery made me think of the Dangers of Pricing the Priceless article that said “All human bodies now consist of a certain percentage of plastic” caused by the overabundance of plastics and its pollution of our environment. Yet here are people who choose to modify themselves by implanting plastics like you would a choose accessories for a car. I’ve even seen the pictures of a woman who made herself into a cat! Humans are constantly trying to out maneuver, engineer and defy nature instead of working with it. The sooner we wise up and realize that nature cannot be contained and its design works better than any that we can come up with; the better off we will be.
Thanks for your response here, Allyson. I certainly concur that we need to start working with nature rather than attempting to re-design. It certainly takes a bit of arrogance to think we can outdo nature in this way.
When I read through this article, I couldn’t help but think about our beautiful Northwest landscape and how it can so easily be wiped out by our development. We are so fortunate to have gorgeous rivers, luscious greenery, and terrific hills and mountains gracing our state. Long ago, a much larger percentage of our country had similar beauties, but they have been wiped away by the settlement of the white man.
The developer at the beginning of this article certainly had no care for the well-being of the earth he was going to build upon. It was a place of danger to humans but also a place where organisms reside. Changing the makeup of this land will have an affect much larger than in the mind of this ignorant developer looking to make a profit by building some homes. I do understand the need for expansion in some areas, but I also realize the need for it to be smart expansion that preserves the great quality of our earth.
You are right about the residence of non-human life here, Allie. There are also endangered species on that land. I say “are” because the neighbors in the neighborhood association spent several thousand dollars out of their own pockets to challenge the development before the Eugene Planning Commission. After a long battle, the city of Eugene condemned the land (so that it could not be developed) and the developer sold it to the city (still for quite a profit). So this particular story has a happy ending.
This is a powerful message, Professor. The builder you speak of does not surprise me. We only need to watch the evening news to see that we build in places we shouldn’t. There is no doubt we erase nature. But this is not a new concept. These types of activities have been happening since the beginning of homo sapien sapien. It’s an ironic name when we think of the destruction we’ve caused since just being homo sapien.
Indigenous peoples from all over the world, however, have used resources at a great extent and not over used them. So, what has happened? When did we become parasites? I think when we disconnected ourselves from belonging to nature we disconnected our responsibilities. And in so doing, we disconnected our spiritual ties as expressed from Bartholomew 1 to the citizenship view of Christianity.
About the discussion on the “lonely huts of Indians,” it probes me to think about the dominance worldview. When we conquer and dominate we regress to learn from the conquered.
I appreciate your facts given here about our resources. We are directly linked to what we ingest–even if it is plastic as discussed elsewhere. And, I agree that when we erase nature-we erase ourselves. But, I am also reminded that when we try to harness nature; control it; conquer it–we fail either in the short or long term. That, however, may be a dangerous way of protecting ourselves on the trapeze with concrete.
Powerful image here about flying on a trapeze with concrete for our safety net, Tina! This comment brings up what I like to call the “dominator paradox”. The dominator hopes to control, manage, overtake nature (and others of all species), but in the end winds up more powerless than those with partnership views. Partly because in an interdependent world the consequences of our actions come back to us (or sadly, to our children or grandchildren). But also because knowledge is power and the dominator stance refuses to look fully at the world (to learn from those they “conquer”, for instance, as you point out).
Ultimately, as well, the dominator stance is wracked by wrenching loneliness– for we can only control those who actually do not exist for us in their own right. In attempting to control our world, that is,we behave as if we are the only ones in it.
This article brings up a lot of great points: “if we destroy the sources of our sustenance, we are going out with them.” I agree that if we continue to destroy our natural landscape to make room for skyscrapers and power plants, we will all suffer eventually. At first, the beautiful landscape will disappear. 500 year old trees that house many rare species of birds and other life will be replaced with needy consumers that desire bigger homes, and bigger cars. So where do we draw the line? Do we keep letting individuals manipulate local politics and develop their investment properties while the natural beauty of our earth suffers? Or will we finally draw the line when we realize the only natural beauty left are the scattered national parks. By then it will be too late.
Thank you for your sharing your personal concern, Jason. I think we obviously need to consider some long term consequences in making development decisions before we lose things that are irreplaceable. I think, for instance, it is a bit facetious to call certain old growth trees replaceable when it takes 500 years to grow one. I down think this is a fair term unless we can do it as individuals in our lifetimes– leaving a legacy comparable to the one we found. I have seen some excellent models of selective logging.
Scroll down to read a comment or two of mine in response to another comment on this point to read the good news that resulted in this particular case.
One lesson here is that we must each take responsibility for caring whatever is most precious to us in whatever way we can–as did the neighbors of Southeast Eugene in this case.
I agree with a previous contributor who noted the unfortunate circumstances that lead people to make decisions like the developer in this article. Sometimes we are blinded by circumstances in the short run that prevent us for understanding their long term consequences. I wish people would adopt the wisdom on the indigenous tribesmen discussed in this article. I think summing it up as common sense would be unfair, but it is certainly practical knowledge will very appreciate outcomes. Maybe if we could convince those who would build homes on hillsides that are prone to mudslides and earthquakes to adopt this pratical framework we wouldn’t have to hear about homes being swallowed by the ocean or engulfed in flames so often…
Thanks for your thoughtful point , Allison. It is important, as you note, to consider the sources of the thinking that causes us to be so foolish.
I’ve watched a similar situation unfold in Clackamas County. The hillsides have been cleared away of all trees. If water is a problem it is engineered to run off into fenced of manmade collection areas located in the middle of the housing development. Houses are basically stacked on top of each other terraced into the hillside all complete with a view of the back of their neighbor’s home; while being held up by a massive retaining wall. I understand the need for jobs and progress and development. But what I don’t understand is how community leaders think this is ok. Why is it ok to clear all living things from these developments? Really, how much more would it cost to leave a portion of the trees? The soil is mostly clay in the area and it seems that it is only a matter of time before there is a massive landslide. The situation is even more unfortunate now because most of the builders in the area are bankrupt . As you drive up the hill there are hundreds of vacant lots and vacant homes. The green hillside is a giant pile of dirt waiting for the next hot real-estate market. The area is “lonely” there isn’t a sense of community in the neighborhood. My friends who live in this development have been there for about 4 years and do not know any of their neighbors.
This is a sad example–and one that tells us much about the considerations we ought to be making when we decide to “develop” any landscape by wiping out the natural life and replacing it with something we choose to place there. Short term benefits– even if that, as you point out, for all concerned. Thanks for this comment, Anedra.
The image you painted when you talked about Father Blanchet’s description of the “lonely Indian huts” is very effectual and beautifully described, however, very somber in a way. I imagined very crudely built huts in the middle of a outstretched terrain when I first read “lonely Indian huts,” but your next comment indicates that these huts were very well engineered and constructed to fit a large amount of people. Its very interesting how some individuals do not see beauty in nature or structures created from purely natural things. To be honest, I don’t understand the mindset. How is it possible that a part of society today find no beauty or uniqueness in natural habitats or environments? Must this appreciation be learned, as well as inherited, or do these individuals shut out their inner desire to look upon something natural without alterations by living in a society that promotes environmental change? This article states clearly that “we have inherited this notion along with the idea of the developing the land from scratch: the notion that we can and should reshape ourselves into socially acceptable forms.” Does this statement directly imply that the society is the prime cause of this desire to change or are their other factors, as well? It is clear that in Native American societies, they had a strong kinship with other living beings, but the Western mindset seems to have never been this way. One might wonder what causes a society to travel down such a path until the society sees no beauty in nature… nor in the memoirs of the elderly who have shaped and upkept the environment for current generations to destroy its natural beauty.
Could question here, Kristen. It think that there is no doubt that this failure to see the natural world (and natural peoples) is a cultural attitude that must be taught to us. Firstly, the earliest and most sustainable of human cultures do not exhibit this tendency. Secondly, if ALL humans were so blind to the natural world as it is, I don’t see how we would have survived as a species.
First of all, great essay. As a former mortgage broker I have talked to many developers, and real estate agents that think anything can be done to the land in order to get their way and make a buck. Having worked in this industry for 8 long, long years I found myself hating money…and what it does to our spiritual being, which should include earths natural resources.
I like what you say here, ” But change is not the same thing as disturbance–and certainly not the same thing as obliteration.” I will go a step further and say that disturbance is not the same thing as natural disturbance. I think you meant disturbance in this regard, however, I think disturbance can occur through forcable human action (developers-bulldozers), whereas natural disturbance just happens…uncontrolled. And good, natural change results from natural disturbances. Sure, at first the change (e.g., floods, volcanic eruptions) may have a negative impact on humans, but for the long term of the whole…it’s all good! As you put it our breathing (natural disturbance) is change…I’ll say, good change (trees need us and we need them).
I think you may have, in the same paragraph from which the quote came, summarized what I’ve wrote here. Let me know if I’m on track here.
I think you are very much on track, Patrick. Thanks for the comment–and the bit of personal insight from working with developers.
The lonely hut paints a picture with many connotations. The new people in this land did not see these structures and the land from the same perspective as a native. This is normal and expected. Native peoples when brought to modern cities must have felt little for the towering buildings and new technology. The values imparted on and learned by an individual shape the view they will have of different things. Our current culture and lives in general place minimal importance on the land, and place an objective value on it. This has lead to a misuse of our land and a missed opportunity to preserve that which is natural.
Thank you for your comment, Ross. Good points about being unprepared to see differences given particular cultural backgrounds– still I am not sure seeing a nearly two hundred foot long house as a “hut” can be chalked up to this alone. I can imagine that indigenous folks entering a city do not see nothing there. And though they might see parts of cities as a wasteland (a point well taken, I think, given the conditions of parts of our cities), they would not see them as things it was up to them to transform so that they could use them for their own ends. Thus there is a particular cast to the type of cultural relativism/limited vision in the sight of those who “developed” the Pacific Northwest. Pointedly, it was more than human life that the explorers often missed as well. You have an excellent point about missed opportunity here: if wisdom is the ability to learn from the past, perhaps we can pick this opportunity up once again in the face of our current ecological crises.
It’s really sad that even when the Indians were helping the pioneers survive in the new world, they still saw them as disposable. I can’t imagine being saved by someone and at the same time thinking about how soon, they won’t be there anymore.
Blanchet must have been a lonely man, not being able to see the world for what it is, but only what he could make it. He was missing out on so much learning, inspiration and discovery. If we view everything as something we already know, there is no room for creativity or invention.
You have made some excellent points about loneliness and perception here, Chris. I do think you are right that there is a vast loneliness in the modern dislocation from nature–and sometimes we can only console ourselves in this (perhaps even feel we are actually here?) by asserting a supposed “mastery” over the world around us.
I often wonder at which point will the majority of people realize what negative damage humans cause that is unnecessary. So many projects overlook the underlying effects that they have. I remember learning about the architecht that was going to build on the land that was destined for landslides. It is unfortunate that some people do not possess the trait of seeing something from different angles. He could have found another “slate” to build on. I also see these traits carrying into our physical world. How did it ever become okay to change the way we were created? I know there are cases when plastic surgery may deem to be a good choice, but don’t people see the negative effects that also come with that. Every action has a reaction, I think it is possible to open out minds more and see further into the future if people stop concentrating on the immediate wants and present moment. Great article.
Thanks, Lorena. I think your point about the assumed necessity of destroying our environment is well taken– we need to think a bit more creatively as well as carefully. There was a great quote that came out of a student protest in Paris in 1968: “The worst oppression is the sense the reality is the only possibility”. You make an excellent point for the precautionary principle in terms of assuming responsibility for the future consequences of our actions.
It is surprising to me the uncaring nature that many big business men have towards the environment and their consumer. The developer did not care whether or not his homes could withstand being in a land slide area; he was simply out for a quick building job, to make quick money, without further consideration on the families that may be moving into the area, or the lives he may be destroying by building on the site. I find that one of the most important aspects of this article is the comment made towards the end about the fact that if we destroy our sources of sustenance, then we are going with them. This is a true statement, and it is scary to me to think of the future of humankind. We have become an uncaring society, which is unfair to the rest of the beings that share the planet with us.
Thanks for your comment, Katie. I think that there is hope in the changes among many us–even as we must face these such crises head on.
I find the thinking behind drastically altering the landscape for development to be almost ironic: I assume that the developer wanted to build houses on a hill like that for the view, but the view is fundamentally changed by building the houses there in the first place. Someone would want to own a house on the beach for the view of the ocean, but then they have to hold back the ocean with levies to keep it from destroying their house. It’s almost as if they want too experience nature, but don’t want to bother experiencing it in a natural way. They are doing the equivalent of putting up a TV with a nature movie playing instead of a window, but changing the landscape can have serious ecological implications that they most likely have not bothered to consider.
What is your opinion on changing the natural world for a reason that might possibly benefit the natural world? For example, bulldozing a forest to build a preserve for some endangered animal species.
Great point about the irony of wanting to experience nature– but not as it is– that is, what we wanted in the first place. It is as if we want to put nature in a museum. Good luck with that when we come to the ocean or earthquakes and landslides–and as you point out, the museum we create for nature is not why we desire to live on certain landscapes in the first place. The issue of changing the landscape to “benefit nature” is one that is coming up in certain restoration work– for instance, cutting down fir trees to restore oak savanna. Or destroying invasive plants (which I certainly don’t have a problem with–they can make very useful compost) with herbicides (which I do have a problem with). I think we need to assess each case carefully– defining “natural” is a matter of controversy-what restore point do we want to go back to? I think in tact ecosystems have important values–and I wouldn’t want to ravage them in any account. Two ideas we might use to assess such cases are the honoring of nature’s resilience and the “rights of nature” (in the essay I just put up here). And I think when given the choice, we ought to focus on managing ourselves and our own relationship to the natural world–in that arena less attempt to control and more support for nature’s own processes is the preferable course. That is, we should be careful to keep our own ego involvement our of the issue. This is, of course, just my own opinion. Thanks for the question.
The Eugene developer is a good example of how we have not yet learned from our mistakes. I think part of why we don’t learn is because we do not have to, at least initially. The ‘winners’ write the history books. Anything we learn of our own history in school fails to ever mention the injustices committed or differing views from our own (with any integrity, at least). So far we have not had to learn because we can continue our domination and requisition of natural resources from somewhere new and maintain status quo. At this point we are reaching the limits around the globe. Change is necessary, but slow.
The metaphor of Extreme Makeover is appropriate and powerful.
We obviously need to find a way to speed up our learning process here!
The beauty of the nature is a source that we must keep, however, sadly enough this can be simply wiped out by developments. After leaving in Mexico City for 15 years of my life, I can truly relate myself with this article. Due to the development of skyscrapers and many other powerful and unnecessary material things, the presence of nature, green trees, a blue sky, clean air, healthy water and green grass was destroy and ruin in Mexico City. Now we are facing pollution, sickness and many other consequences that in the future will be even harder to fix. The nature is an important source and we should not destroy it, let’s be smart and let’s draw a line on our developments and our actions. Its important to let nature become part of our lives, not only because is a great resource, but also because its beauty can bond us in many ways, physically, emotionally, spiritually and mentally. I cannot stress out how badly I needed the beautiful presence of the nature when I lived in busy city like Mexico, City.
Thanks for sharing the perspective gained from living in Mexico City, Ruth. I think we all need this beauty.
One of the most interesting points made in this article is that the concept of a “blank slate” can be transferred from development to other “objects” such as other humans or other species. In the example given where individuals see their own bodies as capable of being remade, it echoes not only our dominant worldview but also our superficial worldview. The Western worldview cares more about aesthetics and monetary values than it does about knowing and appreciating something. In ‘Dwellings’ Hogan states that she wants to “know what dwells beneath the surface of things.” We seem to have lost the mystery that comes with believing that things can be more than they seem. We are not using all of our senses anymore to search, explore, and connect with the natural world.
Another example of this dominant and superficial worldview can be seen in the breeding of animals, particularly dogs. Dogs are breed to have particular qualities humans determine are valuable or aesthetically pleasing. However most breeds have deficiencies (bad hips, bad eye sight, etc.) or would probably not survive without human intervention (i.e. the English bulldog). We have decided to play God and alter the evolutionary track of the canine species. However if God is all knowing … why do we even try? All knowing implies a greater understanding of the past, present, and future consequences of our actions.
Great point about what we might call “deep” beauty-and mystery. I for one am heartened by the idea that we will never quite know everything about how the natural world operates. It is sad that we have bred so many creatures that could not exist without us– some of these breeds would vanish immediately, for instance, if they did not give birth by Caesarian section, since the body type we have bred into these animals will not support natural birth.
I have had a few experiences with engineers, two of whom were my roommates and another being my older brother. This lets me know that they don’t all think alike however there does seem to be this notion that because they’re able to build they are more powerful than the land they build on. It’s sad but a reality I have came face to face with the last two years living with my roommates. We seem to want to build in unnecessary places in order to make a profit. The homes that are built alike all right next to each other with no yards involve taking hundreds of trees down don’t look better than that natural beauty that was removed to do so, so why do we insist on continuing this behavior?
Thanks for pointing out that not all engineers are alike– we have had many with sound environmental values over the years in this class. Whereas many engineers do inherit the cultural idea that they are more powerful than nature, others are focusing their ingenuity and impulse toward designing and building things toward more creative partnerships with the natural world. We certainly need the latter. You make like the stories of the engineers in Gaviotas. And why do we persist in such destructive behavior? I don’t think there is one answer: we have backward economic system which rewards such destruction, for one thing. For another, there is that worldview issue. And both of these are places where we can begin to turn things around.
I live in Bend, Oregon where there is always a resort or golf course trying to purchase land in a pristine spot or a housing development knocking out Junipers and Ponderosas while prying out huge bolders so more people can move here. What’s more is then large turfs of green grass are put in that take mass amounts of water to keep green (this is the desert, for crying out loud!). After the housing boom went sour many of the houses that were built sit empty and lonely and around them is a barren landscape that was once full of trees and life. The evidence of greed surrounds this town and if it wasn’t for the plummeting of the housing market it might have kept going until Bend was no longer a desirable, beautiful place to live but a sprawling suburb void of it’s true sense of space.
Thanks for your observation, Jessica. It seems that “vacation destinations” are set up to make their visitors feel that they live in a world without day to day worries or limits. Bend is not Shangrila– though the native desert is gorgeous, sensitive desert landscapes need substantial care of the type you obviously feel.
First, I have to say that this quote, for some reason, stood out to me more than any other part of the reading: “We knew whites had arrived when we woke up one morning and the river was moved.”
This quote stirred some kind of deep-rooted sadness in me; sadness for what we’ve done to the original landscape of the Pacific Northwest and for the indigenous peoples who had to witness the uprooting of all they held dear…their homes. It is disheartening to know that at one time, humans lived in complete harmony with the “natural world”. I say this is disheartening because I so wish I could experience that harmony, without the war, disease, and complete devastation of humanity. I could honestly go on and on about my despair in regard to the current state of the Earth, but I don’t want to be depressing lol. I just hope that some day, we can end the tragedy in this world so we can reunite and become one with nature again.
Thanks for your comment, Randa. I know there is much grief over the ravaging of the wonders of the natural world that sustains us. Actually, the indigenous world was not without disease, nor was it perfect: it WAS a world in which there was recognition and honoring of the life-filled natural world. The earth needs our care no less than it once did. There is much to appreciate and attend to today as we work our way back to the vision you present in your last sentence.
I think it is sad that we have come to disregard our earth and land as something that we take for granted. Similarlto the beginning of this article we have come to expect that the land is just ours for the taking with a complete disregard for the wildlife and plants that take refuge in the places that we are rapidly building upon.
It is sad, Alana. We are facing the tragic results of this attitude today. How do you think we might change it?
As I contemplate where I want to live these days, I have been looking into sustainable communities. This article reminds me of my experience in my search. Often times, I look at homes in communities in the area, and the developers proclaim the great atmosphere, and the new houses, with the well-laid out community. When I visit the neighborhood, I find plots of land with all the trees and vegetation removed. The landscapes have been changed to adapt to how they want it to look, and look nothing like the surrounding area. Trees are scarce, and in reality, only saplings that they recently planted in strategic places. Everything begins to look like it was made from a cookie-cutter.
BUT, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I have found a few communities that seem to have the aesthetic, sustainable preservation at it’s core. These communities build houses with as little disruption to the surrounding environment, often with the ability to preserve many of the centuries old trees. The houses are built into the landscape instead of the landscape moved around to fit the house. The houses and the communities in general allow the ability to walk or ride your bike to some of the common destinations, such as the grocery store, bank, pharmacy, movie theatre, and so forth. The lots are odd shapes, and allow to feel like you are in a natural setting, that you are a part of the earth, instead of man as the king of the earth. Unfortunately, it seems these communities are far and few between. Let’s hope we can begin to change the way we think.
On a side note, this article reminds my of my parent’s neighborhood. Originally, when they built their house, there were only a few houses in the area. They built it in a section that was solid, and good for building. Then, twenty years later, developers bought the adjacent lands, which were all bogs and swamps. The builders developed communities upon these lands, and for the next 10 years, many of the homes began to have issues due to being built upon a swamp!!! Plus, there were severe drainage issues because the developers thought they could “change the way the land moved.” How sad.
The sustainable development you describe– which also conserves natural aesthetics– is a heartening trend, Danielle. Who would not wish to live in such a community? There is a developer in Portland who adheres to these norms in building low income housing. Ironically, his developments are so popular that higher income people are buying in– let’s hope they don’t force out their original clientele by raising the prices. (I am sorry I read about him but don’t remember his name).
It is about time that development became integral– setting those businesses we patronize close at hand.
There is another new trend in this regard rating the “walkability” of particular neighborhoods. Turns out it is real selling point to have such things close at hand.
Long term results of stupid — or take the money and run– development habits are everywhere-as in a whole hillside of houses that slid down the hill not so long ago in Berkeley. I recently heard about a house built on an “elite” hillside development in Eugene that will need an entirely new foundation going down to bedrock to stop it from sliding. Sinking is another issue you bring up: the high school in South Eugene is built on a wetland and it has sump pump in the basement to pump out the water that would otherwise sink the whole school.
At the same time, wetlands are bad for building they are good for water filtration, species diversity and in general conserving our precious water resources. Thank goodness there are now rules that discourage building in such areas– if only they had come fifty years earlier. That is why we need the precautionary principle so someone won’t be saying that about our actions in fifty years.
Thanks for your comment and good luck in pursing a better place to live!
Building in areas that flood, burn and fall down are so common in the US, it is almost unbelievable. The scary thing is that we rebuild after our homes are destroyed over and over again. Seems like we haven’t learned our lesson yet even after we have been taught the same lesson many times. I think you care right that people think that they can change things with technology or machinery and build anything anywhere without considering natural conditions and how they might be impacted by what we build.
Indeed, Christina– we haven’t learned out lessons about locating our houses in harmony with the natural world– in appropriate places for what we build. I think the problem is that there is still money to be made from such mismanagement–and those that build such developments aren’t responsible for what happens to them a few years down the road. Perhaps that is one way to address this issue: by making developers responsible for the repercussions of their siting choices.
I took a soil class last year and did some testing on the flowerbed where I am currently living. I found that when the building “developers” built houses here, the scraped away the topsoil to level the lots before the houses were built. This was pretty ignorant of them as by doing this, they scraped away the majority of the nutrients for the soil. It seems that we think the land is here for us to manipulate so that we can live on it, not with it.
It certainly is a dumb idea to scrape off topsoil, Jennifer. Now you are left with the task of remaking your garden soil so you can grow anything. Likely the developer had no appreciation of what good land means.
I know developers like the man mentioned in this article and have experienced the disaster that can occur when people don’t pay attention to nature and the history of the land. Five years ago my aunts house literally slid down the side of a mountain and into the ocean after a year full of heavy rains. The developer acted like it was her fault and refused to take responsiblity. She lost everything because of his cavalier attitude about the history of the land.
I am so sorry this happened to your aunt, Ashley!
I think that it is arrogant when people try to drastically change the land for profit. Not only is it arrogant, though, but it is unrealistic to think that a person can alter the “behaviors” of nature simply by moving some dirt around. While it is unfortunate that people lose their homes to natural disasters, in some cases I find myself thinking: who in their right mind would build a house there? What were they expecting would happen? Sometimes people don’t have a choice where they build their houses or the natural circumstances, but when it comes to building multimillion dollar homes, a sensible person would think that something so expensive would be built somewhere safe from natural disasters. Sure, you can’t prevent earthquakes, hurricanes, and flooding, but when I lived in California I often wondered why people built their homes on cliffs and hills, leaving them subject to the inevitable earthquake and/or landslide. When rain in Southern California a few years ago resulted in mudslides and tore apart homes on hills, I couldn’t help but think it was irresponsible to build them there in the first place. On the other hand, there is little more devastating to see than big muddy holes in a once fertile and green landscape or forests clear-cut and left unseeded and bare (in this case, it doesn’t even seem to be done to clear land for houses).
Thank you for your comment, Lauren. I think it indicates that arrogance and ignorance often go together– along with more than a dash of greed.
It is wrenching indeed to see such gutted land!
The reshaping of nature and of people to fit into a mold of ideal beauty reminds me of the Riceur’s idea about Nature being a puzzle to be solved. The doctors and developers are figuring out how they can maniulate, shape (or misshapen) human body and landscape to suit their own needs–and make a profit. It comes back to dominance and control over others. We are conditioned to accept and allow it without question.
This is certainly a system of control as you point out, Erin. It is a sad fact that so many willingly accept re-shaping of our own bodies–and of the world that sustains us. Thanks for your comment.