The Everglades Foundation is focused on restoring the Everglades and surrounding estuaries to a natural state for clean water access for the people of Florida. Katz and Light would both agree that restoration should be done but they have differing views on restoration. Katz believes that it creates domination over nature and Light believes in non-dominant restoration. In this paper, I will discuss the two views and how it applies to the Everglades Foundation. As I explain these positions I will develop my reasoning and formulate my position on the foundation. My thesis is that I believe that the Everglades Foundation is headed in a reasonable direction in terms of restoration.
One part of Katz’s argument is being in agreement with Elliot in that restoration of nature does not restore the original value. Katz’s most important argument is that through restoration humans are dominating over nature. Even though Katz knows that restoration is beneficial, humans are at error for thinking that they can shape nature for their own benefit. He is not making humans a caricature, he just wants to prevent people from thinking anthropocentrically in terms …show more content…
For Katz’s he would automatically think of domination over nature but Light would look deeper to see the non-dominating reasons. Light would say that from a non-anthropocentric view, the purpose is to restore the waterways allowing water back to the Everglades, which then will directly benefit the Everglades ecosystem and humans. I agree with this proposed statement by Light because he sees restoration in a positive light. Katz views make restoration sound like it should be forbidden, which should not be the case especially for vulnerable environments. People might be drawn away from the ideas of restoration due to Katz’s negative
One part of Katz’s argument is being in agreement with Elliot in that restoration of nature does not restore the original value. Katz’s most important argument is that through restoration humans are dominating over nature. Even though Katz knows that restoration is beneficial, humans are at error for thinking that they can shape nature for their own benefit. He is not making humans a caricature, he just wants to prevent people from thinking anthropocentrically in terms …show more content…
For Katz’s he would automatically think of domination over nature but Light would look deeper to see the non-dominating reasons. Light would say that from a non-anthropocentric view, the purpose is to restore the waterways allowing water back to the Everglades, which then will directly benefit the Everglades ecosystem and humans. I agree with this proposed statement by Light because he sees restoration in a positive light. Katz views make restoration sound like it should be forbidden, which should not be the case especially for vulnerable environments. People might be drawn away from the ideas of restoration due to Katz’s negative