The Finite Earth
Environmental Politics
The Finite Earth
The discourse of Limits and Survival conceives nature as an inherent limit on human activity, and the discourse of Prometheanism conceives nature as a malleable resource for human activity. Focusing on these different conceptions of nature, which discourse do you consider more persuasive? Describe the basic features of each discourse (including different versions of each), assess each discourse's strengths and weaknesses, and present an overall argument about which discourse you consider most persuasive. Draw on Cronon, Dryzek, and at least one other course text.
Henry David Thoreau once said “wildness is the preservation of the world” (Cronon.1). Since Thoreau many great minds have gazed upon nature searching for ways to define such perfection. For Thoreau it was absolute beauty, while for Cronon it was man’s creation (Cronon.1). Yet, for me nature is the place where humanity lives in harmony with the natural environment. Environmental discourses in the 20th century have been conceptualized and articulated by many scholars in a wide range of differing viewpoints, each of them offering different accounts on the relationship between humans and nature.
Two of these discourses I have elected to examine are the Limits and Survival discourse well as the Promethean discourse. On one side of the coin, Limits and Survival suggests nature has an inherent limit on human activity, while the flip side, Prometheanism asserts nature is a malleable resource for human activity in which limits do not exist. However, upon examination of these two opposing views, I have concluded that the Limits and Survival discourse is one more persuasive as it best describes the relationship between human beings and the natural environment. Although, both sides of this coin deserve equal consideration as they seek to illustrate the relationship between human beings and natural world as it further shapes 21st century environmental discourse.
The Finite Earth
The discourse of Limits and Survival conceives nature as an inherent limit on human activity, and the discourse of Prometheanism conceives nature as a malleable resource for human activity. Focusing on these different conceptions of nature, which discourse do you consider more persuasive? Describe the basic features of each discourse (including different versions of each), assess each discourse's strengths and weaknesses, and present an overall argument about which discourse you consider most persuasive. Draw on Cronon, Dryzek, and at least one other course text.
Henry David Thoreau once said “wildness is the preservation of the world” (Cronon.1). Since Thoreau many great minds have gazed upon nature searching for ways to define such perfection. For Thoreau it was absolute beauty, while for Cronon it was man’s creation (Cronon.1). Yet, for me nature is the place where humanity lives in harmony with the natural environment. Environmental discourses in the 20th century have been conceptualized and articulated by many scholars in a wide range of differing viewpoints, each of them offering different accounts on the relationship between humans and nature.
Two of these discourses I have elected to examine are the Limits and Survival discourse well as the Promethean discourse. On one side of the coin, Limits and Survival suggests nature has an inherent limit on human activity, while the flip side, Prometheanism asserts nature is a malleable resource for human activity in which limits do not exist. However, upon examination of these two opposing views, I have concluded that the Limits and Survival discourse is one more persuasive as it best describes the relationship between human beings and the natural environment. Although, both sides of this coin deserve equal consideration as they seek to illustrate the relationship between human beings and natural world as it further shapes 21st century environmental discourse.