Sanderson and Brown’s article felt much like reading a eulogy for New York City’s ecology. Like reading any other eulogy, I felt a sense of sadness for of all the diversity, lushness, water, and resources lost. At the same time, I questioned if the city’s development over the years is really all that bad? New York City is notorious for its skyscrapers and urban lifestyle. People travel across the world just to see it, because there is no other place like it. The New York City I know and I love was unidentifiable in these pages and pages describing an area filled with biodiversity.
While I found it interesting to read about what once was, I do not believe “by providing a vivid, ecologically sound, geographically referenced reconstruction of Mannahatta, we can encourage interest in conservation of wild places and wildlife in the city” (547). In many people’s eyes, New York City is not meant to be a natural oasis and they do not long for that in place of what exists. Also, it is very unlikely that the city will ever be what once it once was unless God forbid it is destroyed, which we do not wish for either.
Are ecologists asking for such commercialized areas to be natural? Is that their ideal? Of course, we must preserve the environment, but to what extent? Just as nature provides benefits, a developed city also brings along its own perks. After all, New York in part became what it is today in 1825 when the Erie Canal allowed for goods to be imported from the Midwest and Europe. Such developments played major roles in enhancing quality of life. As much as I value the environment, it is important not to lose sight of human’s accomplishments and progression. It may not be perfect and come along with catches, but thanks to cars the fields are not too far away.
