A Land Ethic - A discussion on Aldo Leopold's excerpt

                                                                          Source

Quote 1: "Conservation is a state of harmony between man and land."

I completely agree with this statement. Although I don't believe we should live in a world void of buildings and technology. We should definitely find a happy medium so that we don't destroy all of the world's habitats. Even though I don't believe that is likely due to the fact that a lot of the world's wonders are nature-based.

Quote 2:"Science has given us many doubts, but it has given us at least one certainty: the trend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify biota."

I'm not sure where this author got this information from. Not only does he not provide a source for this information, he makes a scientific claim without backing up his beliefs. Of course everything we know about science can have some doubt but, for the most part science has been able to explain several phenomena that has helped us realize the importance of nature. If science has given us many doubts then why is it that the author keeps discussing food pyramids, food chains, and evolution. Everything the author believes in that has any scientific foundation is without a "doubt" true and worthy of much attention. I believe the author is a bit biased towards his beliefs and I'm not sure why he made a statement like this.

Quote 3:"Agricultural Science is largely a race between the emergence of new pests and the emergence of new techniques for their control."

I'm not sure why pest control is such a big issue. Why would we let mosquitoes and other insects/animals like them harm us? That just makes no sense to me. I don't know what pests do for the environment but if they harm us and hurt our species, why is it so wrong to find ways to control them? Species of plants and animals find ways to keep out of harms way by either having poisonous skin or venomous fangs. Why can't humans use technology and intelligence as their tools for keeping out of harms way and advancing themselves? From my knowledge, all animals mostly have the same goal, it is to live long enough to reproduce and populate the earth. Why can't humans have a goal of their own? Why must we be altruistic, warm and kind when other species can be so unforgiving?

Nature-Deficit Disorder - A discussion on Richard Louv's excerpt

                                                                                             (Source)

Quote 1:"...detachment of education from the physical world not only coincided with dramatic rise in life-threatening childhood obesity..."

I completely agree with this statement made by Richard Louv. Physical is an essential part in any school environment. I remember when I was younger and taking PE classes, I would look forward to those classes to get some fresh air and blow some steam while I prepared for the next round of school-related tasks. Big companies like Google and Apple let their employees relax and have fun in the work environment because it has been proven that it helps with work productivity and creativity. Additionally, physical education courses help children learn about how to eat correctly and how to stay active. Some children end up displaying athletic talent and they should be able to learn more about physical activity so that they can pursue their interests. 

Quote 2:"For many of us, intuition emphatically asserts that nature is good for children."

I don't agree with this statement because it's relying on intuition to prove something scientific. You can't just say that nature is good for children. No focus is put on the activities that the children are engaged in once outside. One could state that one cure for ADHD is physical activity or to engage in constructive tasks in lieu of watching television shows. The author did not state any research on children performing the same activities they do outside in a different environment with less vegetation. Whether or not this type of research exists, the results of such an experiment would help aid those who wish to prove that nature is good for children.

Quote 3:"To take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen"

I don't understand why the author would make this correlation. It seems as if the author is attempting to employ a scare tactic to further prove his point. The author is also attempting to describe the effects of nature on ADHD. Why is he now preposing that a lack of nature leads to suffocation? I don't understand how they both correlate and feel that the author should have taken this statement out. The statement could have also been replaced to something more appropriate and less extreme. 

Biophilia vs. Biophobia - A discussion on David W. Orr's excerpt

                                         (photo taken by me)

Quote 1: "A third possibility is that at some level of alertness and maturity, we respond with awe to the natural world independent of any instinctual conditioning"

I completely agree with this quote. I recently traveled to South Lake Tahoe with my girlfriend during the winter and I loved every bit of it. As soon as we started approaching the area we came across creeks that were absolutely beautiful. We stopped and got out of the car just to admire the beauty of the nature around us. Even while driving up the mountain we were completely in shock at how beautiful everything was. There was definitely an innate feeling of happiness as we admired the trees, plants, bays, and the lake. We also went snowmobiling up a mountain and had incredible scenery of all the trees and also got a great view of the lake. We even planned a return trip for the summer to enjoy the numerous trails and tours available to us because we enjoyed the experience so much.

Quote 2: "Fifth, we have it on good authority that love is patient..."

The author quotes the bible and then uses the bible's definition of love to connect nature and love. He then goes on to quote a theologian's proposed six dimensions of love. I don't agree with the fact that the author attempted to insert religion into his excerpt in order to prove a point. Additionally, the paragraph is completely useless and does not help move the author’s message forward. The paragraph should be taken out entirely or a different point should be devised in order for the author to back-up his beliefs about Biophillia.

Quote 3: "How long will it be until the genetic engineers or nanotechnologists release an AIDS-like virus?"

I'm not completely sure what point the author was attempting to make with this statement. Why would nanotechnologists and genetic engineers release an AIDS-like virus? Why would they be making viruses in the first place? One possibility could be to study their behavior but I'm sure there's ways to contain something so dangerous in the unlikely event that we would create an AIDS-like virus. Additionally, why is the author bashing genetics and nanotechnology? These are two fields that could potentially cure most fatal diseases and help extend our lives. Furthermore, how are genetic engineering and nanotechnology harming the environment? The statement was very misplaced and I'm not sure what point the author was attempting to illustrate.