Over the course of history, three important ecological myths have taken root and influenced the way we look at human-environment relationships and environmental problems. The only way to truly understand the past regarding human impact on the environment is to analyze and evaluate these myths critically to understand where they came from and why they came to be.
The first of these myths suggests that the humans of the past had a more harmonious relationship with the environment than the current generation (Roos 2018). This type of thinking assumes that harm to the environment didn’t occur until fairly recently, when in fact every action ever done by a human has had some kind of effect on the environment. This myth accuses modern society of …show more content…
In essence, we as a society should set aside parcels of land that would be completely free of any human contact (Roos 2018). This line of thinking reveals that our society assumes that a majority if not all human interaction with the environment is negative. If all human-environment interaction is negative, then all human-environment interaction should be shut down completely. Similar to the first myth, disciplines such as human ecology can determine if human contact with the environment has such a negative impact that such interactions need to be terminated immediately. Findings by archaeologists can also reveal the ways in which humans interacted with their environment and if such interactions caused major harm or just major alteration to the environment. Such problems as deforestation, pollution, and habitat loss are reasons why many people advocate for the complete pristine and natural preservation of land. They believe that the environment cannot heal itself until all human contact goes away. It is easy for this myth to exist when one does not consider the effects of completely cutting off interaction with the land. (Redman 1999:32). Different industries such as logging and agriculture will be greatly affected by the complete preservation of land. Because our society is made up of people from different backgrounds, it is difficult to say …show more content…
Present day humans believe that with advances in science and technology, we are better armed than our ancestors to address and deal with environmental problems (Sabloff 2008:40). The error with this assumption is that this has been a myth that has existed for each generation. Each generation thinks it knows more about how to fix the situation than the previous but they usually all fall into the same trap. Each generation assumes that the environmental problem isn’t that severe and that they can afford to take their time coming up with a solution. Historical ecologists can debunk this myth by monitoring the long-term effects that humans have on the environment. Their research coupled with the knowledge of historians can prove that there is a trend towards overestimation among major societies, not just from ancient times, but even in the recent past. Modern humans believe that they are rational enough to combat issues like climate change without ever having to go deeper than the surface of the issue. But not asking questions and being skeptical allows a large margin for error and can produce “solutions” that could potentially have a larger, farther reaching negative impact. For example, Los Angeles, like many other major cities, has a severe problem with pollution (Sabloff 2008:41). The people of the city thought that the most logical
The first of these myths suggests that the humans of the past had a more harmonious relationship with the environment than the current generation (Roos 2018). This type of thinking assumes that harm to the environment didn’t occur until fairly recently, when in fact every action ever done by a human has had some kind of effect on the environment. This myth accuses modern society of …show more content…
In essence, we as a society should set aside parcels of land that would be completely free of any human contact (Roos 2018). This line of thinking reveals that our society assumes that a majority if not all human interaction with the environment is negative. If all human-environment interaction is negative, then all human-environment interaction should be shut down completely. Similar to the first myth, disciplines such as human ecology can determine if human contact with the environment has such a negative impact that such interactions need to be terminated immediately. Findings by archaeologists can also reveal the ways in which humans interacted with their environment and if such interactions caused major harm or just major alteration to the environment. Such problems as deforestation, pollution, and habitat loss are reasons why many people advocate for the complete pristine and natural preservation of land. They believe that the environment cannot heal itself until all human contact goes away. It is easy for this myth to exist when one does not consider the effects of completely cutting off interaction with the land. (Redman 1999:32). Different industries such as logging and agriculture will be greatly affected by the complete preservation of land. Because our society is made up of people from different backgrounds, it is difficult to say …show more content…
Present day humans believe that with advances in science and technology, we are better armed than our ancestors to address and deal with environmental problems (Sabloff 2008:40). The error with this assumption is that this has been a myth that has existed for each generation. Each generation thinks it knows more about how to fix the situation than the previous but they usually all fall into the same trap. Each generation assumes that the environmental problem isn’t that severe and that they can afford to take their time coming up with a solution. Historical ecologists can debunk this myth by monitoring the long-term effects that humans have on the environment. Their research coupled with the knowledge of historians can prove that there is a trend towards overestimation among major societies, not just from ancient times, but even in the recent past. Modern humans believe that they are rational enough to combat issues like climate change without ever having to go deeper than the surface of the issue. But not asking questions and being skeptical allows a large margin for error and can produce “solutions” that could potentially have a larger, farther reaching negative impact. For example, Los Angeles, like many other major cities, has a severe problem with pollution (Sabloff 2008:41). The people of the city thought that the most logical