Advisability of human restoration of natural balance

Nature

Ecological Restoration: Restoring the Natural Balance of the Land

It is only wise for humans to attempt restoration of the natural balance when they are attempting to do so to restore the value inherent in nature, rather than to restore the natural landscape for further abuse or malicious intent. The natural balance of the landscape may be restored only when the intent of restoration involves righting past wrongs and re-establishing the sacred nature of the landscape.

This notion is supported by many environmental ethicists including, albeit abstractly Robert Elliot. On first glance Elliot appears against all forms of restoration. His apparent distaste for ecological restoration will be examined in close detail throughout the first portion of this paper.

Closer examination however reveals that there are multiple forms of restoration including those with malicious intent and those that are benevolent in nature. Even Elliot supports the restoration of the natural ecology when it takes on a distinctly benevolent purpose, in this case restoration of the sacred nature of the landscape.

This paper will explore the circumstances in which restoration may be considered benevolent, through careful examination of Elliot's philosophy and that of Murray Krieger.

Analysis

Robert Elliot in his work "Faking Nature" rejects the idea that restoration ecology is useful in many instances. Elliot asserts that attempting to restore the natural ecology of the land is nothing more than an attempt to forge that which was once natural and beneficial. In this light restoring the natural ecology of the land seems nothing more than at attempt to fake that which is natural, which in and of itself promotes no intrinsic value.

Further Elliot asserts that one can not reproduce the value that original ecosystems had to offer (Light, 2003). The field of environmental ethics proposes that the natural value of nature should be preserved rather than the value of nature purely for human purposes including survival or consumption (Light, 2003. Under this assumption nature isn't necessarily valued by humans desiring to create artificial landscapes purely for humanistic benefits.

It is important however to realize that the intent of restoration may not be necessarily to reproduce the value original ecosystems had to offer as that may never be recaptured. Alternatively one may support the idea that ecological restoration is valid and appropriate when one is attempting to restore and preserve the sanctity and divine nature of that which is natural. Man can also restore the natural balance when doing so will re-infuse mankind with a sense of humble awe and respect for the natural landscape that support life and existence.

Elliot rejects ecological restoration stating that restorations is simply a "rationalization for the destruction of nature" (p. 81). The author asserts his views under the idea of "restoration thesis" claiming that restoration is damaging because it can convince man that damaging nature is of no consequence if nature can be automatically resorted using artificial means (Elliot 81). Elliot compares nature restoration to art restoration, suggesting that the value of an object can't be replicated thus most replications are in essence useless. Elliot also believes that original nature is superior to artificial nature (Light, 2003).

It is important to note however that mankind can restore the natural balance when mankind seeks to do so out of pure benevolence. This idea is supported even by Elliot. Elliot does make a distinction between what he refers to as "malicious" restorations vs. those that are "benevolent" or created in order to heal harm done in the past (Elliot 81; Light, 2003). Benevolent restorations while of good intent however are not suitable justification "for conditions which would warrant their engagement" (Light 12). Along these lines, Elliot would more likely support the idea that restoration are valuable for preserving the natural value for the landscape, just as art might be valuable for preserving the artistic value of a piece of artwork (Light 2).

Before any restorations are initiated one must first define balance adequately to promote benevolence in restoration. To accomplish this mankind must first asses what his goals are with respect to a certain restoration situation. These goals should include restoration purely for the benefit of nature itself, rather than restoring nature for the benefit of man. Krieger (2005) asserts that it is far too easy for mankind to promote malicious restoration by "sacralizing" nature and referring to this process as design (1). Further, Krieger suggests that design must reflect the natural orderliness or authenticity of a given object (p.1). Hence when mankind creates something that is meaningful and orderly it will probably work effectively.

Krieger counters that it may not be possible to deliberately create something that is "orderly, purposeful or meaningful" and that works well (Krieger, 2005:76). Historically design has focused on structures that are sacred including cities (Krieger, 2005). It is important if planning to redesign nature that mankind takes into consideration the sacredness of nature. It is not geographers that would give meaning to the Earth but rather nature itself; it is too important for mankind to forget the original design and hence become confused about that which is real vs. that which is fake (Krieger, 2005).

Balance may be defined once mankind realizes it's understanding of the natural landscape has changed. Regardless of how much mankind may revere trees for example, mankind rarely treats nature or trees as sacred or relevant; rather nature has become in many ways "disenchanted" (Krieger, 2005: 113). For ecological restoration to occur in a benevolent and beneficial manner it is important first that mankind once again adopt an enchanted view of nature. This will help restore balance and ensure that restorations occur in an environmentally ethical manner.

Before nature is restored nature should be defined as something that is sacred. Only after nature is held sacred can the natural order of things be restored. Once restoration has occurred, the natural order and balance that has been established during the creation or design process must be maintained. This means that mankind must continue to value and hold sacred that which nature has to offer, even if nature is 'artificial' in some sense as it has been restored. Maintaining the natural balance of things after restoration however will ensure that mankind is moving toward creating natural harmony, rather than moving in a pattern that is destructive.

As Elliot points out restoration is useless if mankind adopts restoration as a means to further his own interests rather than as a means to restore the natural landscape and sacred nature of the land. It doesn't do any good at all for mankind to restore the natural balance if man doesn't learn how to stop abusing nature and causing the very destruction that leads to a need for restoration in the first place.

Conclusions

Many environmental ethicists would argue that natural restoration is a futile attempt to restore that which is sacred. On further examination however one can identify appropriate uses for ecological restoration. Elliot asserts that environmental restoration is a useless attempt to fake nature if not approached in a benevolent manner. The author notes that ecological restoration serves little purpose if it occurs purely to serve the materialistic needs of society.