Collapse of the Natural World -- and The Cause

What have we lost?

Around 1730, "a ten-square-mile section of deciduous hardwoods in eastern North America might have maintained 5 black bears, 2 or 3 catamounts [cougar or lynx], and 1 to 3 gray wolves, as well as 2 elk, 30 red foxes, 400 deer, 200 turkeys, and up to 20,000 squirrels." [pg. 19, Chapter 1 'Into the Wilderness' of "War on the Run: The Epic Story of Robert Rogers and the Conquest of America's First Frontier" by John F. Ross]

The wilderness that was to become the U.S.A. contained marvels long ago removed and forgotten: "Cohas Brook, its banks lined with magnificent specimens of arrow-straight white pine (cohas in Algonquin), some towering 250 feet and stretching eight feet across. The [British] Crown had laid claim to these trees for the masts and spars of its world-class Royal Navy...When a gust of wind passed through these cathedral groves as yet untouched by ax, the canopies shook and sighed like the murmur of distant seas." [pg. 18, "War on the Run"]

Author of "War on the Run" John F. Ross describes the way early colonists dealt with the idea and reality of wilderness. Juxtaposed with the descriptions of Eastcoast rivers teaming with fish and salmon, are descriptions of the colonists' attitudes. For instance, the Puritans considered the pristine eastcoast forests the dwelling place of "Satan and his fallen angels".

The Puritans' myth-based notion seems to have colored the way we Americans have dealt with our 'wilderness' areas for the duration of our presence here. Those stories of colonists who lived at the western edges of the colonies surprised and shocked those living along the the eastern coastline, inspiring fear and dread.

Did the colonists embrace this wilderness? No. Much indicates they only feared it -- with a fear both existential and religious. It appears the overall approach adopted maintained the goal of totally, permanently taming and dominating the Natural landscape of North America.

[Taking steps in conservation were only considered once a system was devised to have that conservation system serve as a land leasing system at the beck-and-call of mining interests and cattle (meat-eating) interests. That's a history I would like to read next.]

Living with/in the wilderness wasn't an option as a matter of policy. Or as a matter of Western history.

The colonists who came to populate the North American continent came from a Europe that had lost its natural landscapes centuries before. "No other man [besides Rogers] could imagine growing up in a true wilderness: For the most part, the frontier had disappeared from Europe by about 1400, except for relatively small areas in northern Scotland, Scandinavia, and Russia, with a few pockets in Germany and Sicily. No human-eating animals roamed there, except occasional wolf packs in the central and southern continent, and by the eighteenth century, even those only rarely....This [North American frontier] world blurred the line between savagery and civilization, perhaps the very difference between human beings and beasts --men skinned animals and scalped their enemies or were themselves eaten or scalped. This was no long-tamed forest in England, rich with folktales about fairies and Robin Hood's merry band, but a geography dark, unknown, and endless, capable of devouring those who ventured into it." [pg. 4, "War on the Run"]

And what is the point of bringing up this fearful Western European attitude now? This is the point: The BP Toxic Failure in the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean Ocean Basin and Gulfstream is a continuation (and possibly a culmination) of this Western Culture viewpoint that Europeans are entitled to do anything they please to the Natural World. They interpret their role as despoiler of Nature as good in a relationship where Nature is bad and Dominion is good. Whether it is expressed by mountaintop removal, or drilling down deep passed normal oil and gas deposits into the "abiotic oil" deposits, these decisions and actions are embraced as justified. Indeed, when our society starts calling the BP Deepwater Horizon Well Pollution by the name "The Gulf Spill", we get an inkling of the attitude that -- if there is a manmade disaster that interfaces with the Natural World, the fault rests with Nature because Nature is evil. The cold, mysterious, unknown ocean depths where no man can go indicates that the Gulf did it!

Those who are safety-minded can move to regulate (or try to regulate) these polluting industries, but does that come close to changing the cultural viewpoint behind the repeated destruction and sense of entitlement to pollute and destroy the Earth?

The following quote gives an idea of what this attitude has rendered. And the adjoining paragraph illustrates the struggle to create ways to continue to work WITHIN this anti-Nature attitude; even the proposed solution is about the best way to exploit forests--

"Humans have consumed 60 percent of natural forests worldwide and over 95 percent in the US.[4][5]

"...It's possible for us to take what we need from forests without destroying whole ecosystems in the process. But it requires thinking about all forest benefits over the long term, rather than the easiest to exploit over the short term. Preserving all remaining natural forests, while employing responsible, selective logging practices in designated forests, would provide necessary forest products, jobs and stimulation of local economies, while protecting the ecosystems that keep us alive. "
http://www.truth-out.org/forest-biomass-forest-use-or-forest-abuse56935

Questions that can be asked at this point:

o After Western Man has freely exploited the Natural World to the point of collapse of the Natural World, at what point does Western Man admit his dominionist exploitation does not work?

o As a matter of practicality, must we finally acknowledge that the Natural World is composed of Organic Entities that must be respected singly and also respected as components of larger Organic Entities?