1. Growing up, my view of the environment was a conflicting mix of connection and disconnection. I was home-schooled for most of my elementary and high school years and for many of these years my family and I lived next to an evergreen forest—it was my extended classroom. I came to love this forest. I could see myself as a creature interdependent upon nature as described in the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap, pg. 333). Midway through my teenage years, the local logging company cut down the majority of trees behind our house, leaving a small buffer strip of what once was. The contrast between what once was (a beautiful forest) and the current state of the land (a clearcut devoid of the life I had seen before) made me value nature even more.
…show more content…
In particular, I can relate to where Bell and Ashwood write about the Western value of individualism. It was interesting to read about the section on “individualism, the body, and ecology” in relation to this period in my life (pg. 206). I definitely felt closed off from my body at this time and it certainly wasn’t something discussed as I become an adult (the natural processes of the body and life). I wonder if I hadn’t moved to an urban environment during this time if I would have stayed more connected to nature and grounded in myself, perhaps discovering feminism or other such connections with the body (as Bell and Ashwood correlate the environmental movement with a rise in bodily acceptance and movements like …show more content…
41). Like Bell and Ashwood believe, I also believe in the beauty of ecology, that every living creature has a place and a right to live and flourish in natural beauty. I see how our wider culture (with its continued environmental movement) has helped me to see nature as something more. I wonder, if I lived in the 1940s, if I’d feel the same way about nature and the environment, because my view of the environment and nature feel like such an integral part of myself. However, when watching the video, Hydro, I see how different people’s view of the Northwest land were and concepts such as the beauty of nature (as expressed in Deep Ecology) and the New Ecological Paradigm were not part of the dialogue. Furthermore, one of the meanings I give to nature follows the wider American view, that land should be set aside with limited people (Bell and Ashwood, pg. 268). As pointed out by Bell and Ashwood, this idea was supported by the actual ability to set up wilderness regions in the late ninetieth and early twentieth centuries (pg. 269). This was possible, the authors continue, because the indigenous people had already been removed from the area, the settlers found the land unsuitable for their purposes, and the remaining low population was easily relocated (pg.
In particular, I can relate to where Bell and Ashwood write about the Western value of individualism. It was interesting to read about the section on “individualism, the body, and ecology” in relation to this period in my life (pg. 206). I definitely felt closed off from my body at this time and it certainly wasn’t something discussed as I become an adult (the natural processes of the body and life). I wonder if I hadn’t moved to an urban environment during this time if I would have stayed more connected to nature and grounded in myself, perhaps discovering feminism or other such connections with the body (as Bell and Ashwood correlate the environmental movement with a rise in bodily acceptance and movements like …show more content…
41). Like Bell and Ashwood believe, I also believe in the beauty of ecology, that every living creature has a place and a right to live and flourish in natural beauty. I see how our wider culture (with its continued environmental movement) has helped me to see nature as something more. I wonder, if I lived in the 1940s, if I’d feel the same way about nature and the environment, because my view of the environment and nature feel like such an integral part of myself. However, when watching the video, Hydro, I see how different people’s view of the Northwest land were and concepts such as the beauty of nature (as expressed in Deep Ecology) and the New Ecological Paradigm were not part of the dialogue. Furthermore, one of the meanings I give to nature follows the wider American view, that land should be set aside with limited people (Bell and Ashwood, pg. 268). As pointed out by Bell and Ashwood, this idea was supported by the actual ability to set up wilderness regions in the late ninetieth and early twentieth centuries (pg. 269). This was possible, the authors continue, because the indigenous people had already been removed from the area, the settlers found the land unsuitable for their purposes, and the remaining low population was easily relocated (pg.