The relationship between man and nature, the topic about which we talked on Monday, is significantly more complex than would initially appear. Felstiner neatly sums the differing views in a profound yet simple question: “Should water and wildland be managed for of protected from people?” (Felstiner 5). Robert Burns, at least at the beginning of “To a Mountain Daisy”, seems to side with the latter. The daisy “cheerfully…glinted forth amid the storm”, easily survived nature’s persecution but fell quickly at the hand of man (Burns 15-16). Such destruction comes from an apparent objectification of nature by man; we look to use it as a means for progress. I thus agree with Victoria that it seems Burns’ confirms the “definition of nature as what man has not touched—because man only has the potential to destroy nature, rather than construct or add to it” (Victoria).
""
With that said, Burns ends denoting the convergence of the fate of man and nature. His declaration, “Ev’n thou who mourn’st the Daisy’s fate, / That fate is thine—no distant date,” details the similarity between the two (Burns 49-50). We, like the “modest crimson-tippèd flow’r” share the same, inevitable, fate: death. I think this alludes to a more profound point, one at which we have discussed at length (Burns 1). Our ostensible dominion over nature is misleading. We are, arguably, one in the same with our destinies aligned such that we should view our relationship symbiotically, not parasitically. As such, I tend to disagree with the polarity of Felstiner’s question, for vs. from, and instead believe we should focus on answering the question, how do we manage nature and man, together?
I think William Blake makes a very valid point in “Ideas of Nature” that relates to this question. He states, “In our complex dealings with the physical world, we find it very difficult to recognize all the products of our own activities. We recognize some of the products, and call others by-products; but the slagheap is as real a product as the coal.” It’s hard to imagine companies elevating the ecologically damaging “by-products” to the level of the products they market for a profit and giving them the same amount of attention when making decisions, but unless they do they won’t truly be able to recognize the consequences of their actions. Every time people manage nature for man they inevitably do something that the earth should be protected from, and both must be addressed at once.
ReplyDelete