Michael Williams, Deforesting the Earth, pp 3-86Charles Mann, “1491,” The Atlantic Monthly March 2002 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/2445/
QUESTIONS YOU MAY CONSIDER:
1. According to Williams, what are the most important processes shaping forest change before the Christian era?2. What sources of evidence do we use to construct our understandings of the distant past? What sources of evidence do we tend to overlook?3. If Mann and Mertens are correct, what are some implications of their arguments for environmental policy?
According to Michael Williams in Deforesting the Earth, From Prehistory to Global Crisis, the first major influence/human disturbance would be fire. Fire was used for a variety of reasons to manipulate the landscape, such as to clear land for planting, to create specific habitat for preferred game species or to “round up” animals for the hunt, among other reasons. Fire changed the landscape by altering the species composition and ultimately the ecosystem- sometimes creating savanna or grassland from forested areas. In some situations, it eroded the soil and affected the fertility of the site. Landscape patterns were also changed in ways that would manipulate storm-water management in an effort to provide moisture for crops.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Mann reading goes, the policy outcome that is interesting to me is the effect that the “pristine myth” has on restoration efforts. My thesis research involves the chasm between managing natural and cultural land-based resources, and one of the major areas of tension is dealing with pre-European settlement landscapes and how they are interpreted for restoration or preservation. If that period is not as unaffected by humans as some restoration folks would predict, the restoration process becomes more difficult. If a human imprint is more pronounced than previously thought, restoration would have to include a cultural element and more compromise would need to be introduced into the process. Williams, too, addresses this issue, by describing the need to adjust the “benchmark” by which decisions are made. The other side of the coin for this particular debate is the role of aboriginal peoples in the “ecological” debate, but I will let others on the blog comment on this aspect, if they so choose.
Pre-Christian-era forests were shaped by several processes, according to Williams. One of them was climate change and glacial advance/retreat, especially in Europe, where glacial movement was much more varied than in North America. But some of the biggest processes derived from human disturbances, especially fire and agriculture, which are to some degree related.
ReplyDeleteFire served several purposes: it could be used to clear land for agriculture, to control undergrowth for easier movement within the forest, to encourage the growth of desired species, and to drive game for hunting. Williams also argues that traditional estimates of the native population in North America are too low; with a higher population, these practices would have a consequently much larger effect on the forest landscape of North America than previously thought. In Europe, the effects of human practices on the landscape also included pre-Christian Rome's demand for wood as a fuel and for shipbuilding.
All of these readings discussed the use of archaeological evidence in some ways—ruins, middens, and other physical evidence of the past, and Willams also talked about palynology. From Mann and Mertens' articles, it appeared that written evidence was often overlooked for the North American past. Williams discussed the written records of the Roman culture, but one reason for this difference might be that Roman writings have been well-established as a canon of work, whereas the records of early Europeans in North America have become thoroughly entangled with the problems arising from their cultural biases.
On the other hand, considering that we're discussing forest history, the cultural biases of people involved in forest history might be preventing people from looking at records outside their area—for example, an ecologist interested in Mexican forest history just might not think to look at the reports of a Spanish conquistador who showed up, pillaged, and left. And there's always the influence of the “everyone knows” blinders, which are applicable across the board.
If Mann and Mertens are correct, and forests like the Amazon have been shaped by human influence, then environmental policy is about to have a problem: preserving the Amazon without human influence sounds good, but if human influence is what keeps the Amazon in its current state, then those reserves aren't going to serve their intended purpose.
Accepting that raises a whole new set of problems: how will you choose which people will do this, will people contribute money, political effort, and social importance to this kind of effort, and is preserving a human-altered habitat important? You could argue that the Amazon's uniqueness and biodiversity is inherently valuable, or that minimizing human impact should be the goal, and we should back off even if it means the loss of the Amazon as we know it.
Plus, if all this time we've been mistaken about what created the state of the Amazon today, how reliable are the conclusions we've based the rest of our environmental policy on? Just that uncertainty in the data backing up their conclusions could have significant effects on the ability of conservationists and environmentalists to work with neutral or hostile governments and corporations, let alone to attract donations and public support.
I think Dee brings up an interesting point too that I haven't thought of: what if a site is both culturally important and has some ecological significance? What if maintenance of the ecological significance of the site involves human activity doing something contrary to the cultural significance of the site? Who decides which one is more important? I think this question as the potential to either turn into an eternal power struggle between cultural and ecological restoration, or to blur the boundaries between them fairly significantly.
-Erin
Williams points to two primary forces that have shaped forests: climate and humans. The retreat of glaciers and melting of surface ice at the end of the last Ice Age redistributed water and minerals and created conditions for monumental changes in vegetation type and density across the globe. Human-driven changes have been similarly dramatic. For many thousands of years, people have wielded fire for warmth, cooking, and to flush out game, among other things, profoundly altering landscapes in the process. The advent of agriculture marked a new phase of transformation. Settled cultivation required forest clearing on a massive scale. Agriculture supported larger populations, which required fuel, shelter, utensils, tools, and other essentials generated from wood. Meanwhile, technological advances such as the switch from stone to metal axes made it quicker to chop down trees.
ReplyDeleteTraditionally, those interested in comprehending past forest change looked at written records. However, as Erin notes, accounts such as those by European explorers and colonists often bear the biases of their authors. Worse, written records address only a minute fraction of places on the planet. Williams cites pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating as important techniques for understanding changes to forests worldwide. Among other things, palynology reveals the extent of vegetation and the influence of fire. For its part, archaeology yields clues about the presence of people in particular places and times, and the effects of their activities.
As Mann makes clear in his article, fierce debate swirls around the questions of how many people inhabited the Americas at the time of European contact, and how “pristine” the environment was. Research revealing that indigenous peoples have had a strong hand in creating ecosystems long thought to be untouched by humans force us to rethink the idea that for nature to thrive people must be absent (fueling some of the tensions Dee references between “natural” and “cultural” approaches to resource management).
A final note: I am somewhat skeptical that one can build a forest policy around the kinds of factors that seem to have contributed to the emergence of El Salvador’s “secret forests,” highlighted by Mertens. It sounds like the new trees that punctuate the landscape emerged in part as a byproduct of tragedy (i.e., the Civil War that caused millions to flee) and controversial economic policies (free-trade agreements that put many small farmers out of business) as much as from stewardship per se.
-John
Just a quick note- Erin, I thought your portrayal of the nature/culture conflict was really eloquent. (I may use it in my proposal- with the authors permission, of course! :) )
ReplyDeleteAnd, I have been really thinking a lot about Mertens article and how it can re-define what a forest is. When I started thinking about my final project, I would look at an option and think "that's not big enough" or "that's not significant enough." But, after reading Mertens, it's interesting to rethink what forests are to communities and how they can be redefined in a regional context.
Williams shows us that there were many important processes that lead to forest change leading up the Christian Era. At the end of the ice age, circa 10,000 BC the first primitive aboriginals seemed to grasp the idea that using and controlling fire had its advantages. By mass burning of forest, they cleared undergrowth promoting new sprouts, trees and shrubs for their consumption. Burning the forest also drove animals into more favourable hunting grounds whilst simultaneously providing greater visibility for foraging, as well as making it easier to hunt their prey.
ReplyDeleteAgriculture and early farming during the Neolithic and post Neolithic eras had a detrimental effect on forests world wide. Large areas of forest would be slashed and burnt to the ground; effectively cleared so that crops may be grown in its place. As populations increased so did the need for more crops, therefore, more forest had to be cleared.
In more modern Greek and Roman times, civilizations had become so dependant on timber that forests were obliterated to keep up with the pace of growth. The vast amount of timber needed to build ships as trading took place in the Mediterranean, as well as the vast amounts of timber needed for the construction of buildings, metallurgy, heating, cooking, bathes etc, meant that timber needed to be brought in as fas as the middle east and north Africa. Essentially urbanization was the foremost reason at this time for the further decline of forests.
The sources of evidence used to support these claims are predominantly pollen analysis (or palynology) and radiocarbon dating. Taking cores of the peat or soil one could extract the pollen of many types of species that were present at any one time. This combined with the use of radiocarbons in organic matter can place a certain artefact within a 100 year period which provides us with a clue as to what was happening at that point in time. ie what species of trees were present.
If Mann and Mertens are correct than they raise a number of interesting ideas, which should be explored. If forests are influenced by human influence, and are potentially better off from human existence than this raises another interesting point. The Western idea of thinking; this “myth of pristine” where a pristine forest without human influence, may actually not be the best thing for the forests of our world.
-Roxanne
As john mentioned learlier in the Mann and Mertens article, the idea of preservation is very complicated when it comes to human activity on the land. I like what Mertens mentions as 'secret forests' and it reminds me of the huge section in Williams book about Native Americans in the East if the U.S. altering the landscape in to 'parks that looked more like English parks than forest'. I really appreciated this weeks readings because it has changed my own naive assumptions that native americans lived in relative 'harmony' with nature and did not alter the landscape enough to damage it. Apparently this assumption is complicated by the examples of the different points in history in which certain civilizations became too vast and did stress the resources of the environment pre-colonizations such as the Maori of New Zealand finishing off the forests and the Large bird they had and the Mayas creating erosion in the soil or Cahokia and parts of Mississipi tribes cutting down too much of the forest, etc. I also am fascinated about instances in which tribes did enrich the soil. Such as the example of the native people of northern Nigeria fixing the problem of desertification by planting trees recently and also the ways in which salvadorians have cultivated the forest to still balance the ecosystem of the wildlife. The example of the terra preta in the amazon is also very interesting along with the example of the Northeast tribes of new england enriching the soil from burning techniques. I thought it was interesting that the pine tree forests were a result of intentional burning and that even the redwood forests were stronger with the burning of the forest over time too. I think that conservationists are very tied into the idea of 'pristine' forests because it doesn't call into question colonization and the people affected by it and also involves a more complicated and expansive forest history based on anthropogenic finds. I think that the case in Mann's article in the ways thousands of indigenous communities were kicked out of the Tanzania reserve was aweful. I think it is equally terrible to kick out tribes in the Amazon and for big companies to kick people out of anywhere at anytime. Mainly, I know that with the amazon people's water supply will be cut off in the south of brazil very soon. This has happened so much in even the last 15 years and perhaps the excuse is still the idea of 'terra nullis' the british australian notion that the land was empty therefore the taking of the resources is justified because it 'belonged to nobody'. Also evidence of ancient advanced agriculture in places like the Amazon especially challenges notions of land ownership. Overall I enjoyed the readings very much.
ReplyDeleteFebrary 6th, 2011
Diana Carreon
I read the Williams excerpt first this week, and in doing so was left hanging on his suggestion that “rather than 8 million to 15 million native peoples present in all the Americas just prior to 1492 as was previously thought, modern biological and archival reconstruction has put the number at between 43 million and 65 million, some even suggesting double that figure” (25). This range is staggering and the image of an estimate nearer 120 million is a bit unfathomable to me. I was pleasantly surprised by the follow-up: Mann’s “1491” article. In it, he manages to break down the reasoning (“modern biological and archival reconstruction”) behind the wide-ranging estimates for pre-Columbian indigenous population, detailing how the calculations are made and the development of the ever-changing figures from discipline to discipline, and intention to intention. But still, he contends that arguments leaning towards the upper figures for indigenous population pre-1492 tend still to be largely theoretical, lacking solid evidence especially of proof of vast settlements surely required to host such a large population. Also, an interesting thread in Mann’s article is when he tries to validate the theory that a hoard of Soto’s pigs could’ve been capable of such dramatic spread of disease as to wipe out some 96% of 120 million people. He cites one of the worst outbreaks in history, the European Black Death, stating that it took one-third of its victims… not nearly the 90-some percent rate discussed here. I’m not bringing forth these figures for debate so much as to draw attention to the details—if the original population of Native Americans was as high or higher than Williams suggests here, that’s half of today’s U.S. population (nearly 311 million). Long story short, that is a huge figure. If true (which again, is a discussion in and of itself), all three authors debate the same question: What was the landscape like before the indigenous population transformed it and how might their way of living have impacted the “natural” state of the environment? Varying sources of evidence here in calculating the population figure can alter the number drastically, thereby having a huge impact on notions of history which in turn, inform policy. Are people actually the problem, or a part of the solution? Is any place really pristine, and if not, what are we wasting in trying to get back to a pristine that maybe never was?
ReplyDelete-Stevie
Mann and Mertens both explore what they call the “myth of the pristine forest” and reveal that perhaps forests are not truly expanses of wilderness “untrammeled by man,” as so many of us would assume. In Deforesting the Earth, Williams explains the impact that humans have had on the Earth as our cultures have co-evolved alongside biologic evolution. I was particularly interested in what the implications are for restoration ecology and environmentalism if forested lands have been manipulated by fire and agriculture, as well as by many millions of people. Environmental policy would need to further address questions such as: should we restore ecosystems that have been managed by humans? How do we determine where a restoration goal should be set? What should the future of forests look like? And: how should humans use, conserve, and/or preserve the land?
ReplyDeleteIt becomes difficult to reconcile restoration ecology with the understanding that forests have long been managed by human cultures because the decision to return an ecosystem to a previous state in time essentially becomes random. In some ways, I think it also reinforces the idea that nature somehow should be static and unchanging.
Even more relevant to most people is the question of how land should be used in light of its history of being “run by human beings for human purposes.” I really liked Mann’s comparison of American Indians to keystone species. This comparison implies that humans are a part of the biosphere and therefore it is okay for us to use some of its resources but that we also must realize that other species have inherent value as well. As idyllic as this sounds, I realize that environmental policy will still have to contend with issues of land ownership, issues regarding who gets to decide how to use the land, how land might be regulated, and which “human purposes” of land use are acceptable and which ones are not.
-Kendall King
Deforesting the Earth starts just as the subtitle indicates, at prehistory. The world was a much different place and extremely dynamic as temperatures warmed coming out of the last ice age. During the times of reduced sea levels and land bridges, an exotic species gained a stable foothold in the Americas, humans.
ReplyDeleteWilliams obviously points out that fire was the main cause of deforestation, followed by agriculture and livestock. Native Americans used fire in many ways; to clear land, encourage growth of grasses and forbs, as a hunting tool, to clear underbrush in forests, to improve habitat, and to increase crop yield. The idea of an unpopulated America with a pristine untouched wilderness prior to European exploration is just a fallacy, albeit, popular concept.
Fire was a main tool across the rest of the world, however, with increased interaction among cultures in the Eastern hemisphere, technology evolved at a much greater pace. Innovations in manufacturing bronze and later steel, gave rise to the sedentary lifestyle typical of many Europeans of early history. Increased population density strained forest production for need of shelter. Agriculture and livestock from sheep to pigs to cattle also impacted the land, as well as forests.
Mann and Mertens seek to bring to light further the idea that “natural” ecosystems without human interaction may be an unrealistic goal to set for conservation. Humans did not evolve separate and isolated from other species and landscapes. Ever since man developed the capacity to manipulate plants and animals, their interactions have been interlinked. Mann and Mertens even go as far as implicating there was nothing natural about the Americas as discovered by Europeans. A shoot off of this is the suggestion that excluding Indigenous populations from parks and preserved areas (cited as walled parks in Africa) is not the answer to meaningful conservation. Surely in Africa, Humans have been a part of the “natural” ecosystems forever.
The purpose of these arguments seeks to weaken the foundations of history as we all learned. The often romanticized views of times and cultures past fails to acknowledge interaction between humans, plants, forests, and cultures. If our goal of conservation is to restore to a state which includes no interaction of humans, the question becomes what is natural and what are the motivations in doing so? Some people talk of restoring to the point before European settlement. This view ignores impacts of Native Americans who have lived on and vastly affected the land for millennia. Seeking to go before the time of Native Americans is equally absurd, seeing that ecosystems evolved with Native Americans straight out of the ice age. Conservation goals set on a date in history must also include the “who” of the time and area. When these questions are answered, maybe a more achievable goal or view of conservation may be obtained. Until then, we are left with ambiguous goals that may not end up being in the best interest of the ecosystems we live in.
All of these readings were interesting and held my attention well, although I feel charts and figures could have been presented in a more effective manner. These readings really bring to light a lot of history that is shared quietly, despite its importance. Man has a place in nature and the sooner we come to terms with that, the easier it will be to move forward on environmental change.
I agree with John’s final note. The same thought occurred to me when reading through his article. I would also be skeptical of arguments saying these forests are similar in composition and ecological value than the original forests. I’m not an expert, but the environment takes a long time to recover from vast changes. This needed time coupled with the influx of exotic species worldwide makes me question the how (for lack of a better word) important they are to understanding the ecosystems. And as John has mentioned, probably not the best form of forest policy. Sorry for the long winded response - Cory
Williams dismisses the notion that North American forests were only anthropogenically altered post-Columbian as Eurocentric and untrue. The widespread use of fire opened up the forest, created vast grasslands, and even transformed tree composition within forests. Williams even blames the use of fire as a hunting tool for causing the great “overkill” and extending the Midwest prairies.
ReplyDeleteInstead of the illusion that Europeans were the first to manipulate the North American forests, Williams says that “the forests of 1750 was probably thicker and more extensive than the forest had been at any time for the previous thousand years” (60). Williams cites the massive population wipeout of the Native Americans along with fire control for causing the regrowth. This statement really impacted me, I have always thought of the Native Americans as living in perfect equilibrium with the land, and it was the evil Europeans that began to shape it for their own gain.
Although I think Williams attempts to make the Europeans seem far too saint like, I have never thought about how after disease decimated the Native American populations, the forests were probably more dense than before European settlement.
Additionally, I have never considered Mann’s implication that the only reason the settlement at Plymouth was successful was because the Native American population had already been drastically reduced from disease. Mann continues to give some insight into the controversy of how much the Native American populations had been reduced. Although all of the authors agree that the population of North America, pre-Columbus was much higher than previously thought, the upper limits of these estimates are massive. I thought the over ninety percent death of Native Americans from disease was especially staggering given the bubonic plague only took a third of its victims.
Sam Reuter
February 7th, 2011
Williams argues that climate coupled with past human disturbances are the foundational factors affecting forest changes. The influence of fire in the pre-Christian era was significant and suggests dynamic, human-driven landscape patterns. Oftentimes these areas were patchy in composition that would favor and promote hunting. In Mann’s article, the abundance of terra preta soils on the landscape signify human habitation and the amicable manipulation of the environment around them.
ReplyDeleteMann and Merten’s arguments against the pristine myth landscape have incredibly complicated implications in policy-making as researchers, the government, outside interests, and the public in general all have varying ideologies of what is considered pristine and whether or not humans are involved. Both of their arguments look at the physical evidence of human habitation, as was previously mentioned, middens, mounds, cultural artifacts, and the anthropogenic terra preta soils. These reminences disband the notion of “pristine” and add to the complexity of forest management policy. As more cultural artifacts are discovered, the proof of human habitation in forested areas becomes easier and therefore might increase the tension between governmental land agencies and indigenous populations.
Restoration ecology is scientifically and culturally debated often without a clear consensus of what the landscape “should” look like or portray. Additionally, as Williams suggests, changing climate makes environmental policy more challenging as essentially there is no target for management but rather the land is adaptively managed and depends on governmental land stewardship policy.
I agree with John’s note about how forest policy in El Salvador might have been shaped in other ways besides stewardship and the image of “pristine”. Some ways include after some environmental crisis or tragedy or as a response to overall economic change.
Anytime there’s a major environmental crisis the government will respond and “look” like they’re doing something by creating forest laws and policies. In Merten’s article, for example, in the Selous Game Preserve 40,000 people were kicked out of their native homeland due to fears of overpopulation and the human “destruction” of the forest ecosystem. It’s hard to tell from Merten’s article how much the game preserve was harmed by human presence or what the image of pristine actually was. It is fair to say, however, this is an extreme example of how rapid and hasty decision-making on the part of government has negative effects on not only environmental policy but the livlihoods of indigenous people. This isn’t to suggest laws that set aside game preserves, sanctuaries, and parks are bad, but rather land is set aside oftentimes without regard or acknowledgement to cultural evidence. Take our own university for example that reportedly had Bascom Hall built on top of an Indian burial mound.
Economic changes also have a profound impact on policy as oftentimes this is the counterpoint to ecology. Although Mann and Mertens don’t delve into great detail about what affect their argument will have on an economic basis, managing forested areas in the same way as “the native americans saw fit” rarely is good for the economy.
Joelle Baird
After reading this book and these articles I have totally reevaluated the way I think of “natural” or “pristine” forests and forests in general. Before reading this I had never really heard about the controversy of pristine forests of the assertion that Native Americans had been altering the landscape and forests purposely long before Columbus arrived. I find this extremely interesting. I had always known that ancient man had learned to manipulate fire, but I had no idea to what extent. The idea that Native Americans used fire to alter the landscape to manage animals and hunt to the point that they were a key stone species is incredible.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading the 1491 article I also had no idea that the Number of Native Americans, before contact from Europeans, was so contentiously debated. It is not hard for me to believe that such a great percentage of the population could be wiped out by waves of disease to which they had no immunity. However I do have an issue with the means of calculating the number of Native Americans by using the approximate death percentages and extrapolating from that. As shown in the article that is an imprecise means at best. I also wonder if there was that many Native Americans present why are there not more archeological remains that could further verify that? With the idea that Native Americans shaped North America it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that Amazonians could have shaped the Amazon in the same way.
Above all the reading for this week makes me question what I think of when I think of restoration ecology. Before when I had thought about restoration ecology I had thought of restoring the land to what it was before the impact of man. However, this reading tells me that the land has always been affected by man, so what are we restoring it to? I do not think less of restoration ecology now, but it does change the way I think it.
Williams starts with a discussion of the climate after the last ice age starts to retreat. Forests are constantly changing to keep up with a changing climate. Then as humans become more prolific fire becomes the main tool for shaping forests. Fire is used to clear land for agriculture, to promote growth of desirable plants and animals, and to protect communities from things that may be in the forest. Population was also an enormous factor in the effects of humans on forests. Williams lays out several diagrams and talks of acres needed per person with larger groups versus smaller groups that move around more.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Mann and Mertens discuss about the lack of “pristine” forest is definitely an interesting one. Yet if they are also correct in the high numbers of native people in the Americas before colonialism the lack of pristineness seems completely plausible. I think that we focus too much on landscapes being pristine without any human influence, but this is just not possible. We are animals and like every animal, have an effect on our environment. We cannot live anywhere and leave no trace of our being there. We shape our forests as they shape us.
One of the biggest implications of the idea that pre-Columbian times are not pristine as we have previously thought is the idea of restoration. Many places are trying to be restored to what they were like before white settlement, but how can we pick this date when the landscape even then was influenced by humans. I think that we need to look more at crucial aspects of a landscape such as biodiversity and as Dee says, cultural significance, than trying to put a landscape back to how it was at a single point in history. The fact is that we have shaped the landscapes around us. Is there really a way to take us out of the picture and make a forest pristine without the complete extinction of humans?
-Mallory Berrey
In Deforesting the Earth, it was good to see that in the first chapter Williams noted that vegetation co-evolved with humans even when humans were present in low densities. I liked that he sees humans as being connected with the forests and not just affecting them from the outside. Then he goes into detail on how humans began to more drastically alter the forests by burning them to facilitate hunting and later agriculture. These changes were perhaps “unnatural,” but how can anybody define “pristine” when every aspect of the world is in constant change. I think you can still set goals for preservation and restoration based on history, but I do not think you can really consider any of that history “pristine.”
ReplyDeleteIt is valuable to document the course of the changes brought about by humans. As much as the forests have been evolving, and as much as you cannot really define a pristine forest, there can still be both positive and negative changes, at least in the sense of how they are valued by humans.
The history has been preserved by the changing composition of the layers of pollen interspersed with charcoal, giving us the details of forest composition and the effects of fire. Of course these changes were also occurring alongside the changes in the climate. It is interesting to think that during the Romantic Era the forests were viewed as dark uninhabitable wilderness when really, there had been humans shaping the landscape for a long period of time prior to then. It is also interesting because currently the disconnect between humans and “wilderness” is growing. Overall, I see that disconnect as one of the biggest issues we face in conserving the forests we still have today.
--Amanda Rudie
Williams discusses the fact that in the development of what are today’s forests the Earth underwent vast climatic changes but the story is not complete and rather naive not to acknowledge the effect of people in shaping present forest structure and distribution. For all the technological advancements of Western society and the ability to explore these new lands it would seem fairly unbelievable that the cultures and civilizations they found didn’t or couldn’t develop ways to exploit there environment and forever change the landscape to make life easier for them.
ReplyDeleteReading Mann, “1491”, brings to mind one word ‘perspective’ which draws on the idea of the pristine. An issue with the labeling of pristine is the binary yes or no response where really a continuum of functionality would be more telling then its pristine-ness. More importantly when looking at a forest or landscape questions of its function should be examine. For example does it contribute some type of ecosystem service (water storage, soil retention, etc), does it hold some type of spiritual significance, culture significance, biodiversity. Mertens discusses secret or anthropogenic forests, which are not glamorous tracts of land “untrammeled by man”, instead for many places it is the reality of their natural areas. I think there are many examples especially in South America where the desire for protected areas or preserves, not taking into account the human variable, lead to paper parks. The area looks good on paper, but the reality of it is that villages and towns rely on the resources from it and the attempt to sever that link leads to poor conservation. Instead this link should be embraced which then drives many community based conservation projects across the world. All these readings make it very clear that human influence has been a key factor in forests structure since the beginning and modern environmental conservation can find many opportunities to enhance this link for better forest and human health.
-matt smith
I agree with Amanda’s comment on the “pristine” – the concept of a completely “pristine” and “wild” forested area is not exactly reality. Humans have had a significant impact on the landscape since the species has been on the earth. But the type and intensity of the relationship that existed between people and the environment has definitely changed over time. With such a huge population and more advance technology I think we have been changing the world and impacting the forests at a much faster rate than before, and perhaps with some new consequences.
ReplyDeleteIn Deforesting the Earth, Michael Williams spent a chapter discussing early farming. This is one major reason for deforestation throughout history, and a phenomenon that is all too familiar today. Farming practices were widespread across civilizations in different areas for at least 7,000 years. It appears that a lot of research as gone into looking into the history of agriculture, and in trying to understand the real extent in which these farming practices impacted the landscape. The research and the history that Williams presents to us is actually a little surprising for me. A common misperception that I once had is that the changes in forests and the land due to human behavior is fairly new phenomenon. This is not true, as we have derived from the first chapters of Williams book.
What does this history say about forests today? Can we be more hopeful about the future of the forests we see today?
-Molly
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe readings for this week succeeded in impressing upon me the fact that that many features of the natural world that the members of the conservation community today take for granted (for instance, the concept of “the natural world” as a commonly understood and static entity) are really quite contestable. This contestability has ramifications for not only how to best proceed with modern conservation efforts, but for how we look back to our pre-Christian era ancestors for guidance. The story of forest development over time and throughout a changing climate certainly introduces a lot of variables that need to be considered in restoration. Which era should we look to as a model? What if nothing in history matches our current circumstances – should we still try to emulate a specific forested environment from the past?
ReplyDeleteSimilar to how our modern society is dependent on oil for both increasing the potential for work (with one barrel of oil providing orders of magnitude more work potential than one man) and for enabling the productivity of our soils through the gallons of fertilizer and pesticides needed to produce a bushel of corn, many pre-Christian era societies drew extensively on forests for fuel and fertility. Through cues from artifacts like "archeological, pollen, and macro-plant remains" Williams pieces together a narrative about these societies' participation in forest-clearing agriculture, like swidden, and their incredible dependency on wood for heating and construction (36).
As several other entries have touched on already, it is astonishing that the story of the ecologically faultless native that most of us took for granted as we grew up is so far from the truth. Based on hints from both the Williams and the Mann "1491" piece, it becomes apparent that the modern "global crisis" of deforestation is not a unique or modern problem at all. Civilizations in Central and South America were on the verge of collapse due to resource exploitation, and if Native American populations hadn't suffered devastating population loss due to disease epidemics during European settlement, they would have likely found themselves in exactly the same position we face today. Though most conservationists decry modern fuel dependency as the root of ecological destruction, I think that these examples from the past show that it’s more complicated than blaming it all on unsustainable lifestyles. To me, it appears that throughout history we can see that it’s just really difficult to support a large population on the natural world and maintain ecosystem integrity.
Even before reading Merten's article which discussed the concept of "pristine" forests or areas, I had always questioned what "pristine" really meant. According to many humans, if a forest is to be pristine then there should be no human interference or involvement, but as far as environmental policy goes then I am questioning how exactly we are to go about fixing the problems that we have apparently caused without overstepping the boundary of human/forest interaction. Although my heart does say to halt/decrease human/forest interaction, I also constantly find myself thinking "Well, aren't humans part of nature as well?"
ReplyDeleteMann's article explores our obliviousness as a society (particularly the Western hemisphere) to the history of our people and the people before us, which leads me to believe that we are much more ignorant about a) forests/the environment in general and b) how humans interacted with the environment before Europeans invaded and wrote up the history books. If we have to question our understanding of how we have interacted with the environment in ways that may have benefitted and destroyed it, then how can we possibly create and enforce policies regarding these actions?
Deforesting the Earth lays out many more examples that outline human interaction with the environment that may have been overlooked, such as fire-usage (fire used for agricultural purposes particularly grabbed my attention), other forms of agricultural land misuse, technological advances and more general ideas of climate change and landscape transformation. Many of these forms of human interaction can be done sustainably and with benefit/care toward the environment, but at this point mankind has moved beyond being sustainable into almost purely competitive "more is better"-driven lifestyles.
First, I would like to apologize to everyone, I thought that I posted this Sunday night, but I was exhausted and did not check, so here is my blog post, even though it is a little late.
ReplyDeleteThe readings this week were surprising, but at the same time made perfect sense. Until now, all of my education had taught me that there were few Native Americas before European settlement and much of the landscape was untouched, “pristine wilderness.” I accepted this because it was common knowledge and I had never heard any contradictions, until now. The readings highlighted the debate over native populations and there effect on the forests. So, now we must take this new historical information and apply it to restoration efforts today.
The statistics were surprising, but almost simultaneously in my mind I said – duh – how have I not heard this debate already? Humans have been evolving with the forests and using them for survival. The forests impacted our evolution and we – in turn – impacted theirs. The idea that there is a pristine forest, untouched by humans, I would say is a myth. Directly or indirectly, humans have had an impact on every nook and cranny on this planet.
So, how does this impact restoration ecology? There’s a question I don’t think anyone has the answer to. We can learn a lot from our past, from the history of our impacts on the forest, but should we try to turn them into what they once were? What they were when we thought they were “pristine?” Or have we been evolving together just as we should? And should we just leave the forests to fend for themselves? Once again, I don’t believe there is a “right” answer. Perhaps evolving together means we try to restore what we once had, maybe that is the evolution; that we had something truly spectacular and we need it back.
-Hanna Engevold