This Humans of New York Facebook post reminded of what we did in class.

“I’m retired now. But I was the CEO of the NY State Energy Research and Development Authority.”
“What’s something about energy that a lot of people don’t know?”
“Energy is the main source of pollution. I don’t think enough people make that connection. They think of pollution as giant industries spewing smoke into the air, but in reality it mainly comes from the energy that we use everyday– driving our cars, lighting our houses, even that camera you’re using. We’re never going to stop needing energy, so we just have to find the most efficient ways of creating it.”

The era of the colonists was one of wonder and exploration.  Imagine the awe-inspiring feeling of landing on a massive new continent, never before mapped or seen by a European person.  Seeing a social structure that greatly differed from their own, the colonists did not deem the Native Americans “civilized” and in their wide-eyed greed claimed the vast expanses of rich and fertile land for themselves.  In the eyes of the colonists, all of this land was simply an enormous bonanza to be utilized as they wished.  This habitual hegemony of less powerful peoples and unresisting environments practiced by Colonial era European nations is well documented.  Consequently, it should be of no surprise that those elements of the environment that seemed superfluous were either discarded or altered to fit the needs of the colonists.

Although the fundamental value system of earlier civilized nations was flawed, I think that part of the impetus for these destructive tendencies in colonial America was the most basic of all urges: the need for survival.  In order to acclimate to a strange environment with a relatively difficult living situation, the colonists resorted to whatever means they thought would help them flourish and survive.  It is obvious that the colonists did not have the technical wherewithal or the mindset to be concerned with potential damages that were inflicted on the environment.

While our intellectual and scientific capabilities may have dramatically improved since the times of the colonists, our values have not.  We cannot be afforded the same leniencies that are granted to our ancestors because, put simply, we know better.  Even with our knowledge of the havoc we wreak on our environment, we as a society continue our opportunistic harvesting of our planet’s resources with myopia more severe than that of our predecessors.  We can either continue to be aware of, but neglect the consequences of our actions or use the knowledge that we have been blessed enough to acquire as a tool to repair the damage we have caused.

One of the fundamental roles in determining the state of the various ecosystems found throughout the planet is perception—how does one view the world around him? In order to study the effects that perception, closely tied with culture, has on the treatment of the natural environment, we can focus on the history of the area now known as the northeastern United States. The Native Americans that lived in these areas had a unique relationship with the earth, vastly different than the one most European societies shared. They had a deep reverence and respect for the elements of nature, which caused them to treat the natural environment with great care and conscientiousness. Their sense of identity was inextricably tied to the earth, partly because of their religious beliefs but also because of their awareness that logically, we as humans depend on the earth to sustain us; that the very condition of the human race is a reflection of the condition of the earth. And yet, how many years must it take the modern day civilizations, with their proud developments and unnerving manipulations of nature, to realize this very thing? Or perhaps, in a tellingly more sinister reality, they already have realized it.

When the colonists arrived in the Americas, they began to alter the environment in an unprecedented manner. They treated it with a relative indifference inherent of many technologically developed societies, viewing the natural world as a conglomerate of unexploited gold mines. Things were becoming all about the market, all for commerce. If it wasn’t profitable, then it wasn’t valuable. At first, we may be able to be a little more forgiving of the colonists’ treatment of the environment—of course, only if we look past their obvious encroachment on the Natives’ lives and lands. But it was certainly the case that the Europeans were not aware of the true effect that their actions had on the environment. With lack of scientific evidence, the colonists’ were probably able to maintain their perception that the earth had a nearly infinite amount of exploitable resources. This led to their relentless pursuit of the precious materials that the environment provided. While at first salt marshes were prized for their salt hay, which served to sustain livestock, the perception of this valuable ecosystem changed quickly as the market demand fluctuated. And when they became increasingly associated with undesirable pests, the New England salt marshes turned into an object of persecution. The filling of these wetlands had a tremendous impact on the environment, only fully realized well into the 20^th century. And so, the question remains: Now that we knew this information, what were our subsequent actions? Did we finally stop destroying our ecosystems without first assessing the effects that it would have on the environment? Let’s look at the facts.

As early as the 1960s, and probably even earlier, a new environmentalist consciousness began to emerge. With the scientific data now piling up, people began to speak out against the practices that were destroying our planet. And so, many laws and policies were put into place. But the signing of a law and its enforcement are two different things. A 2011 article in the New York Times reports on a massive lawsuit against big energy companies such as BP and Exxon Mobile, demanding that they “should be held responsible for fixing damage done by cutting thousands of miles of oil and gas access and pipeline canals through the wetlands.” Yes, despite the lengthy laws, the destruction of our precious resources continues well into the 21^st century. And if that isn’t enough to irk you, just take a look at these powerful statistics about our environment:

Posted from Worldcentric.org

• We are losing forestland at a rate of 375 km2 each day. This is more than the total area of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware combined!

• The world has already lost 80% of its original forests.

• 1.1 billion acres of tropical forest were cleared in just thirty years, between 1960 and 1990.

• Brazil lost 91.4 million acres of its tropical forest between 1980 and 1990. This is almost the total area of North and South Dakota combined.

• At the world’s current rates, 5-10% of tropical forest species will become extinct every decade.

• 75% of all the fish stocks in the world are already either: exploited, over-exploited or recovering. 27% of coral reefs have already been and 70% of Earth’s coral reefs will cease to exist within the next forty years. The world has lost half of its coastal wetlands, including mangrove swamps and salt marshes.

• In the next 30 years, as many as one-fifth of all species alive today will become extinct. 23% of all mammals and 12% of all birds’ species were considered “threatened” in 2003.

If I had been asked about my knowledge of and opinion on salt marshes prior to this class, to be quite honest, I would not have had much to contribute. While I do consider myself environmentally conscious and I strive to lessen my own personal effects on our continually damaged habitats, never had I before considered the importance of salt marshes and the devastation they have endured. It is no surprise, then, that when the Europeans first encountered America, curiosity laced with fear and ulterior economic motives were their instinctual responses to this new earth. While I would never attempt to justify their actions – as they not only caused great harm to the environment, but also ruthlessly annihilated hundreds of thousands of Native Americans – I can try to understand their actions through their perspectives in the context of their political and social times.

Greeted in America by such vast, lush land, Europeans feared what they had never before seen, and subsequently saw quick, impulsive destruction as the solution to undermining the power of what they could not categorize or control. In addition, they arrived with Western ideals of economic success, as during that time, acquisition of land equated greater power. Thus, they viewed America as a land full of open opportunities for new products and economic markets. Fur trade, for example, became one of the first and most lucrative endeavors. Striving to prevail in this international power struggle, Europeans from numerous countries began arriving in greater numbers, hunting animals carelessly and reaping the land with only greater profit in mind. Such poor intentions rendered them blind to their negative impacts on the salt marshes, as well as the Native Americans, who were both dwindling in number and becoming increasingly indifferent towards a nature they had previously revered and treated with respect.

Although I do believe there was a degree of innocence involved in the Europeans’ actions – as it is true they lacked the scientific knowledge and foresight to understand the impact they left on the environment – I recognize a greater correlation to human nature. While we sit in this present future debating the intentions and culpability of the Europeans, we inadvertently continue to destroy the environment, today. Such actions, to me, are not all that dissimilar from that of the early colonists – in fact, they are in many ways, even worse. This brings me to the question we posed earlier in class: are human behaviors natural or unnatural? I truly believe the central distinction made in answering this question is that we have the ability to reason and make choices. Though technology and distribution of knowledge have changed through the centuries, such human reason has not. I thus hold the Europeans accountable for their actions, as they most certainly had the choice to contemplate their actions and possible repercussions. Furthermore, we often underestimate the abilities of our brains – I highly doubt not one individual considered the damage he imparted at some point.

What trouble me most, however, are our current practices and culture. Today, we no can no longer use lack of understanding and scientific backing as an excuse – with the growth of research and the advent of the Internet, each and every one of us has the ability to learn about our various impacts on the environment and strive to make improved decisions – we just choose not to. Here, again, it comes down to choice. It is so very unfortunate that until we refuse to view the environment as a commodity and choose to pause and reflect upon our own actions, we will continue to cause irrevocable destruction to an environment that has generously provided for our survival for so long.

We are living in an era of unprecedented conservation efforts: hybrid cars, organic produce, An Inconvenient Truth. However, we are also living in an era of unprecedented destruction to the natural world. In the past 150 years alone, we as a species have wreaked more havoc upon the natural environment than our collective ancestors. It can be argued that this was initially a form of “innocent destruction,” that our predecessors were not consciously aware of the monumental after effects of the abuse of natural resources. It can also be argued that the Western culture which eventually infiltrated the coastland salt marshes of the United States is deeply rooted in a culture of greed, and thus, a conglomerate of thoughtless actions has built up to the current destruction of salt marshes, amongst other natural habitats. 

The advent of the Industrial Revolution created a world unseen before: an urban landscape thriving on industry and its subsequent economy. Things were being produced and services were being provided for profit. But this system of goods and services is not new or novel. The scale of it, however, is. Examining the Native Americans (e.g. the Lenapes) who a few generations ago inhabited the same areas dominated by smog and factories at the turn of the 20th century would show there was a system of economy in place, but a much more egalitarian one. Each member of the society took merely what was enough for him/herself and the family or community he/she was providing for. Even if one were to move away from the communal aspect of Native American life and examine other cultures, one would realize these are cultures invested in trade rather than industry. Pre-industrial trade was checked by a variety of factors: travel routes, time, specialization of labor. Those checks created a flourishing economy, but kept human use and abuse of natural resources in check, as well.

With respect to the colonists, they of course had major reasons to engage in “innocent destruction,” for the sake of mere survival. However, they were met with indigenous people who had been surviving for generations beforehand. This is not limited to the New York area, but to all areas subject to Western colonization. As previously stated, there is a greed culture tied to the Western psyche. To take a huge step back, one of the major causes for colonization was profit, through channels of religion, glory, or money. The colonists completely disregarded the “eco-friendly” habits of the Native Americans for their own personal gains.

The ways of the Native Americans were completely lost when the efficiency of modern industry came about. When profit became the sole motivator with little to no regulation, the environment suffered terribly. Any and all reverence for the natural world went out the window. In the early 20th century, northern Queens become a literal dumping group in the years immediately following New York’s industrialization period, even referred to as the “valley of ashes” in The Great Gatsby. The area was eventually buried and paved over to create Flushing Meadows-Corona Park with little attention paid to what those substances would mean for the neighborhood’s health and the natural surroundings. In addition, as industry flourished, so did the need for usable land, and since there were no immediate uses for salt marsh estuaries, many developers in the 1950s began to uproot these ecosystems and fill them to create areas for homes, businesses, and public spaces, with no real understanding or interest in the consequences.

Luckily, many safeguards have been put in place to preserve the remaining salt marshes we have. In addition to providing scenery, their ability to act as a buffer against storm surges has proved very utilitarian. Considering more than half of the United States population lives near the coastland, it is incredibly important we conserve these natural habitats. Although there is no reversing what has already been done, it is critical we as a society find ways to check industry and prevent anymore destruction to salt marshes and other natural environments.

Many of the worst things done to the environment throughout history were done without knowledge of their harmful effects. When Europeans first started colonizing the Americas, they saw the new lands as resources to use for their benefit. At the time, the standard in Europe regarding land was that if land was not usable for agricultural purposes, it was useless. This standard was simply based on a lack of proper knowledge that would come out years later. One of the biggest mistakes that these settlers made was draining the salt marshes.

Before the settlers arrived, Native Americans occupied the land, and were very respectful. They came from societies that focused on hunting and gathering, and a lot of Native American beliefs were based on respect and love for nature. The natives took only what they needed from nature and always made sure to “give back” by performing ceremonies to honor nature. European society was very different, and to them, respect for land and nature was a rare quality. They used the land somewhat carelessly because they needed it for survival. It was no surprise that when they started settling in the Americas they needed arable land as quickly as possible.

Salt marshes, seemingly useless to the first settlers, are actually an extremely productive ecosystem. Various organisms depend upon salt marshes for all or part of their lives, and salt marshes produce more basic food energy per acre than any other known ecosystem. Salt marshes also keep natural water clean by filtering out sediments, nutrients, and other toxins from upland runoff. The European settlers of course had no idea the harm they were causing when draining these salt marshes – they were simply trying to survive. They had an agriculture-based lifestyle, and destroying the salt marshes provided easily accessible land to serve their purposes. It would be unfair to blame them completely for the damages they caused to the ecosystem during this time because they simply did not know any better. Though the side effects were extremely harmful, it was probably not intentional in any way. The environmental cost of creating arable land was unknown to them at the time, and they were simply doing what they needed to get by.

There is no excuse however, for the continued destruction of salt marshes today. Since the mid 1900’s we have been aware of the damage we inflict by destroying salt marshes. We continue to learn more and more about how precious our ecosystem is and how important it is for the future of our planet to preserve it. However, we have continually contributed to the destruction of salt marshes, along with other natural resources, to make room for our industrialized society. These behaviors should not be tolerated, especially since we now have knowledge about how harmful this is for the environment, which the European settlers did not have. Somehow we still manage to eat away at our natural resources and destroy our planet even with this knowledge that our ancestors lacked.

We can blame whomever we’d like for the destruction of salt marshes, but in reality were just blaming ourselves. It’s now our job, being more educated, to put a stop to the destruction of our planet’s natural resources and work to fix the destruction we’ve caused in the past.

While for most of modern human history the European way of living has been depicted as the best and most superior way of living, this has, as the result of more recent reevaluations of our historical lineage, come under fire for many good reasons. One aspect of this changing perspective is the view that it is destructive European practices that began a cycle of environmental destruction and natural resource waste that continues to this very day, particularly in New World regions which would have had vastly different natural trajectories had European colonizers not arrived.

This argument is that as Europeans occupied the New World and expanded their industrialization of the old world, they rapidly eroded and denigrated the various environments, completely disrupted ecosystems and food chains, and rapidly depleted natural resources. This trend can actually be traced to pre-industrial times when in order to implement more “efficient” agricultural practices, Europeans, through artificial means, transformed distinctly non-agricultural ecosystems into farmland and, through non-sustainable farming practices depleted existing farmland of nutrients essential to producing nutritious and bountiful crops.

Europeans are often contrasted with various New World cultures which, historically, have a relationship with the environment and natural resources that is by far superior to the European- Environmental dynamic. From a anthropological perspective, New World cultures are characterized by rituals emphasizing a conservation and appreciation of nature. In many Native American cultures, for example, food preparation rituals are designed to utilize as much of the food source at hand as possible. For example, almost every single part of a hunted animal, no matter how small, is used for some purpose or another, whether nutritional or for a cultural practice that is meant to utilize it. In these cultures there also tends to be defined rituals used before eating that usually fall along the lines of thanking certain spiritual forces for the food at hand. In general, the more scarce and unsustainable a resource is the more rituals put in place to celebrate and appreciate that resource. It has been argued that these cultural practices that explain why during times when ecosystems occupied by Native American groups, such as East coast salt marshes, they flourished and sustained themselves.

The flip side of this argument is that it is European cultural practices, practices said to be characterized by the view that natural resources are meant to be fully used not conserved, that are responsible for the decay and destruction of ecosystems that came to be occupied by these groups. While this is certainly a valid and logical argument, I would like to argue that there is a are encompassing and precise answer out there as to why colonized ecosystems, such as the salt marshes, came to destruction.

The first of these arguments is that it is agricultural practices, not the cultural practices associated with agricultural society that are responsible for environmental destruction. Anthropological and agricultural research has indicated that while agricultural practices allow for more efficient food production and larger population growth, foraging and hunter gather practices provide a better option for long term and stable growth. So, to be more precise, it is the technology and characteristics of agricultural practices such as overplanting and forest clearing that cause environmental damage,  not cultural practices themselves. It can be argued, however that it is a lack of cultural practices designed to appreciate nature that exacerbate the extent of the harm caused by agricultural practices.

Throughout history, there have been a select few themes that we see countries entering into wars for. Religious warfare, political domination and overall need for power have driven nations into total war with one another. An overarching theme that we see is that more land leads to more power. This is why Europeans all competed with one another to find new areas of exploration. Although the Portuguese and Spanish had started off trying to find new routes to India for spices, the day that Christopher Columbus accidently stumbled upon the Americas was a different kind of turning point. The knowledge that there was a whole new world out there was exciting to the Europeans because it meant there was a new frontier to economic growth. Finding the Americas provided a possibility of imperializing a huge mass of land, people and all. There were natural resources that had never previously been available to them and to them; it meant they had to exploit it for what it was worth before competition challenged them. At the time that Europeans first settled, I think that they were unaware of the long-term effects that their destruction of salt marshes was causing.

Europeans only understood that there was money to make from the destruction of the environment. For them, it was never about stopping and thinking what their actions were causing because during the time, there was little knowledge of the consequences. Now in hindsight, we are aware how their actions have altered the natural environment in a way that can never fully heal. But we only know this because of the knowledge that has been instilled upon us. Now we know how harmful our actions can be to the area around us because studies have been conducted and proven. We are constantly bombarded with facts about global warming and rising sea levels and know that humans have contributed to these ongoing disasters. Back then, people never fully realized how damaging their actions were.

European settlers had the constant pressure of other nations stealing their lands so them, if they didn’t cultivate the land, another nation would. They knew that the only way to secure the wealth of the land was to exploit it and send it back to their motherland to be sold for a profit. Leaving the area intact was out of the question because for them, what was the point, if not to make profit? This lack of knowledge showed how their impact on the environment was more of an “innocent destruction” rather than intent to destroy paired with a lack of concern. Had the Europeans been well educated in the consequences of their actions, perhaps they would have stopped to think of their impact and in some ways tried to lessen the destruction that can never be truly undone to salt marshes.

There has always been the question of whether the Earth is being ruined because of human’s inability to develop the means to take care of nature or their careless and lack of concern towards a healthy environment.  What we do know is that man has not always destroyed the Earth to the level that we see today.  When humans first started to live off of the land, they learned how to exist peacefully with and respect their environment.  Some of these early people include Native Americans.  As people from more developed places, like Europe, began interacting with them, they introduced them to more destructive ways of using nature for their own good.  This is what started the thoughtless of the nature around us.

Unlike Native Americans, European settlers did not have the mindset of taking care of the land around them.  They considered all land that could not be used for planting food as useless.  Once they came to America, they came across an abundance of open land that could, as they thought, be used for whatever they desired.  This also gave them the idea that they could afford to waste however much land they wanted.  Because of this idea, Europeans found ways to “get rid off” the land that they deemed useless.  For example, when the Dutch settled in New York, they decided to drain the salt marshes because there was no way to grow the food that they needed.  Although the settlers needed some land to live off of, for planting food and spices, they felt entitled to all of the land.  This may have been where the problem began.  Europeans were using the land for their survival and there were not enough of them at the time for their disregard towards their environment to make a significant impact on the Earth as a whole. Unintentionally, this set the standards for the world we live in today.

Compared to today, Europeans had less information about what wasting land and nature could do to the planet.  Though their actions were still relatively careless, they did not have the advantage of technology and science to give them a look into what their activities would do to the Earth as a whole.  Since then, we have learned that land is a great resource.  Even if it cannot be used for agriculture, it can contain nutrients, oil, and even precious metals and gems.  Perfect examples of that are swamps and salt marshes.  They cannot serve as planting ground, but the unique nutrients and organisms that live within them can be used for many different purposes. Without these valuable minerals, nature is still important to our environment.  It provides the oxygen we breathe and a balance in the world’s ecosystem.  We have also learned that because of careless and wasteful behavior our environment is at an extreme risk.  We are already facing problems with global warming and shortages in natural resources.  Even with this information, we continue to disrespect the environment.  People still litter and cause excess pollution.  Business still cause harm to bodies of water and waste large amounts of land that could be valuable in many different ways.  Unfortunately, we have not learned from our past.  People continue to destroy nature without thinking about how much of a difference caring for our environment would make.

Imagine the excitement the colonists experienced when they arrived in North America, particularly New York, and were overwhelmed by the acres of land and salt marsh estuaries.  The colonists had cattle, and their cattle needed a place to graze.  First the land surrounding the estuary was used, but eventually that land was no longer fertile and more land was needed.  The colonists may have drained the salt marshes to serve their own purposes, but they did not understand the consequences of their actions.  The colonists had only one main idea in mind, and that was to survive in this New World.  By draining the salt marshes, the colonists had more pasture for their cattle.  The colonists could then continue eating their cattle for food and using the animal skins and bones for clothing, tools, building, and trading.  This was innocent destruction.  There was no science to cure the simple diseases they were dying from, let alone understanding or science that proved that salt marsh destruction has negative effects on the environment ranging from the loss of certain species, an increase in costal flooding, and an increase in mosquito population.

It says in the Scientific American:  “Such lands are not only unproductive of anything which can subserve any important purpose, but they are productive of numerous evils.” The Scientific American has already taken the next step in actively destroying salt marshes.  The magazine states that salt marshes are hotbeds of evil and should therefore cease to exist. This quote is from 1868, more than 200 years after the first colonist step foot in America.  While science was still lagging behind in 1868, society had some understanding of salt marshes if they could attribute evils, whether correct or incorrect, to estuaries.  They might not have known all the positives of salt marshes, but they probably had a better understanding than the colonists.  By this point in history, people are destoying salt marshes because they lack a concern for the environemnt and are selfishly pursuing their own goals.  However, the colonists did not consider the salt marshes to be troublesome, because once again, they had no understanding of science.  Even if their homes were filled with mosquitoes or bad smells, they probably did not realize the cause was salt marshes.  They did not destroy salt marshes maliciously as the Scientific American is advocating.

The colonists were not concerned with the environment, but I do not think their actions were thoughtless.  The colonists were probably aware that they were destroying part of nature, but the colonists made what they considered to be a thoughtful choice.  The salt marsh was not a productive element in their society, so they chose to drain it.  What is interesting though, is that the colonists’ actions might not fit under the category of technology.  When the colonists decided to fill the salt marshes, scientific understanding was certainly lacking, but the colonists did not use fancy technology to drain the estuaries.  They  simply filled them by blocking stream outlets.  Science does not only need to catch up with technology, science needs to stay on track or even ahead of human intervention of any sort, including, actions taken without understanding the consequences in the big picture, actions taken to try to help a situation but might actually hurt, and of course actions that actively and knowingly destroy the environment.