The Europeans who came to America in search of
commodities and riches possessed a capitalistic
mindset; individual wealth and accomplishment trumped the communal good and
respect for indigenous peoples. They
also brought Christian attitudes about property; i.e., God gave the earth to humans
in kind to rule over or exercise dominion over , (but the earth still belonged
to God). They saw the wilderness as unused land, or
what Locke and others refer to as “wasteland”.
The idea that nature was something to be conquered conflicted with Native
American ideas of stewardship. Europeans may have felt they had a God given
right to take such property, either by deceptive means or force (colonization).
This attitude is reflected today in some
extreme anthropocentric views that nature has instrumental value only; animals
and ecosystems are resources for our exclusive usage absent any consideration for
individual members.
Do we still carry the residue weight of our ancestor’s opinions that humans have an inherent right, perhaps even a duty, to subdue nature for our purposes, to view everything in nature as a human resource, a means to an end? Are we burdened with a religious vanity of sorts?
Sorry to make this even a little more confusing but, the way you're posing your last question it seems as though you don't really consider us to be part of "nature." While there are countless ways we have ruined nature and used it for our own personal gains, we are still a part of it, and you could say we are only doing what any other animal in nature would do if they had the chance. Such as a beaver building its dam, it's similar to the dams we build, but of course on a much smaller scale.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess my answer would be that we are entitled to use nature for our purposes and needs just as much as any other creature in nature. That being said, we, like others, have a responsibility as well to do our best to preserve it for future generations. That is simply something we should aspire to.