Pinchot: The Relationship Between Humans And The Other

592 Words3 Pages
The relationship between a group representing an ideology, and its counterpart, “the Other” has been on of strife and conflict in human history. Indeed, one must look no further than recent past for this uniform pattern: The North Atlantic Slave Trade, the Japanese Canadian Interment, and the Nazi regime. Although varying in context and motivations, the former all share one unifying characteristic: A definite disparity between “Us” and “the Other.” The relationship between humans and the non-human world, regrettably, is incorrectly held to the same standard. It is in fact this exact differentiation – a false segregation between humans and the wilderness -- that poses a threat to responsible conservationism. Therefore, it is the innately human disassociation with wilderness that hinders the implementation and effectiveness of conservational efforts. Perhaps Gifford Pinchot (2000) offers the most economically conscious commentary on conservationism, noting it as “[…] the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time” (p. 34). Although…show more content…
As previously explored, while Pinchot’s argument for resource utilizations holds bearing, it fails to recognize the social ramifications of such actions. Contrastingly, Aldo Leopold (n.d.) brings forth a compelling, almost polar argument: Rather than seeing nature as a means for private gain, true conservational efforts rely on a dual responsibility to both use private nature for the common good, which is only possible under the requisite of the second responsibility – developing a fundamental understandings of how nature works. By achieving these two, we reinvent the human-natural relationship; rather than setting wilderness aside, we may understand its essential place on modern society, thereby promoting ethical and responsible

More about Pinchot: The Relationship Between Humans And The Other

Open Document