A lot of the information presented in Chapter 8 of City at the Water’s Edge was not as shocking after reading (and discussing in class) “Manahatta: An Ecological First Look at the Manhattan Landscape Prior to Henry Hudson.” Instead, I was expecting to read the same facts about New York’s previous natural life. The articles previously assigned in this class has made me realize that humans are willing to destroy for their inherent greed. It may be cynical of me to think that but history constantly cycles back to this belief that people only care about their own good fortune. Therefore, a little deforestation here and a little pollution there won’t make that much of a difference, right?
Betsy McCully briefly discussed the Native American’s lifestyle in comparison to the Europeans. It was slightly biased, but she articulated that unlike the Europeans, whose sole purpose was to exploit the land, the Native Americans did not unnecessarily or excessively use their resources. Perhaps it is due to their reverence for nature and other living things that allowed the Native Americans to tend to the land properly. There was a mutual benefit for the Native Americans and the environment, while the Europeans devastated the forests for profits and urban development.
Can human civilization advance with the coexistence and preservation of nature or will humans continue to clear and befoul land to build bigger cities? Is reforestation remotely possible in New York City and other densely populated cities?
