The Everglades Foundation is focused on restoring the Everglades and surrounding estuaries to a natural state for clean water access for the people of Florida. Katz and Light would both agree that restoration should be done but they have differing views on restoration. Katz believes that it creates domination over nature and Light believes in non-dominant restoration. In this paper, I will discuss the two views and how it applies to the Everglades Foundation. As I explain these positions I will develop my reasoning and formulate my position on the foundation. My thesis is that I believe that the Everglades Foundation is headed in a reasonable direction in terms of restoration.
One part of Katz’s argument is being in agreement with Elliot in that restoration of nature does not restore the original value. Katz’s most important argument is that through restoration humans are dominating over nature. Even though Katz knows that restoration is beneficial, humans are at error for thinking that they can shape nature for their own benefit. He is not making humans a caricature, he just wants to prevent people from thinking anthropocentrically in terms of restoration. The mission of the Everglades Foundation states that they are dedicated to protecting and restoring America’s Everglades. It goes further to state that they are trying to restore the estuaries to its natural state. Katz would find this statement problematic because his first argument is that you cannot restore something to its natural state because it loses its value. Katz would also criticize the foundation for even saying that they can reverse the damages. In relation to Katz’s domination argument, he could criticize the foundation for anthropocentric reasons of restoration. Initially he would be displeased that the foundation wants to restore the waterways for people’s water supply. In fact, one project called the “Central Everglades Planning Project” is focused on water storage, water quality, and water distribution. Also, looking further into the website the foundation has a greater purpose by restoring the waterways so that the lakes, rivers, and estuaries are able to flow naturally southward instead of heading in other directions. However, Katz would still argue that the foundation encompasses a domination over nature concept because they are shaping the environment for human use instead of allowing some room for freedom and autonomy. Light on the other hand, does not agree with Katz’s domination argument. Light believes that through restoration nature can again pursue its freedom. He thinks that restoration can create a relationship between nature and humans. Light is trying to say that there is no domination over nature because any form of restoration even if it is bio-activating soil is beneficial than leaving nature in a vulnerable state. He believes that restoration is a way to give value back so that the environment can again pursue its autonomy. One aspect of the everglades restoration is restoring water flow from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. Light would support the foundation because this is a non-anthropocentric reason for restoration. In addition, Light believes in building a non-dominant relationship with nature. This can be developed through restoration because it allows humans to realize mistakes from the past and learn from them. Light says that it teaches humans to think about the consequences of their actions and working to prevent or even fix the mistakes. Indeed, the foundation admits that in the past people have damaged the waterway supply for agricultural and housing purposes. The foundation is trying to mend those mistakes to return the waters natural flow so that it can provide accessible water to the Everglades. However, Light’s only criticism is that the foundation does not focus on …show more content…
For Katz’s he would automatically think of domination over nature but Light would look deeper to see the non-dominating reasons. Light would say that from a non-anthropocentric view, the purpose is to restore the waterways allowing water back to the Everglades, which then will directly benefit the Everglades ecosystem and humans. I agree with this proposed statement by Light because he sees restoration in a positive light. Katz views make restoration sound like it should be forbidden, which should not be the case especially for vulnerable environments. People might be drawn away from the ideas of restoration due to Katz’s negative
One part of Katz’s argument is being in agreement with Elliot in that restoration of nature does not restore the original value. Katz’s most important argument is that through restoration humans are dominating over nature. Even though Katz knows that restoration is beneficial, humans are at error for thinking that they can shape nature for their own benefit. He is not making humans a caricature, he just wants to prevent people from thinking anthropocentrically in terms of restoration. The mission of the Everglades Foundation states that they are dedicated to protecting and restoring America’s Everglades. It goes further to state that they are trying to restore the estuaries to its natural state. Katz would find this statement problematic because his first argument is that you cannot restore something to its natural state because it loses its value. Katz would also criticize the foundation for even saying that they can reverse the damages. In relation to Katz’s domination argument, he could criticize the foundation for anthropocentric reasons of restoration. Initially he would be displeased that the foundation wants to restore the waterways for people’s water supply. In fact, one project called the “Central Everglades Planning Project” is focused on water storage, water quality, and water distribution. Also, looking further into the website the foundation has a greater purpose by restoring the waterways so that the lakes, rivers, and estuaries are able to flow naturally southward instead of heading in other directions. However, Katz would still argue that the foundation encompasses a domination over nature concept because they are shaping the environment for human use instead of allowing some room for freedom and autonomy. Light on the other hand, does not agree with Katz’s domination argument. Light believes that through restoration nature can again pursue its freedom. He thinks that restoration can create a relationship between nature and humans. Light is trying to say that there is no domination over nature because any form of restoration even if it is bio-activating soil is beneficial than leaving nature in a vulnerable state. He believes that restoration is a way to give value back so that the environment can again pursue its autonomy. One aspect of the everglades restoration is restoring water flow from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. Light would support the foundation because this is a non-anthropocentric reason for restoration. In addition, Light believes in building a non-dominant relationship with nature. This can be developed through restoration because it allows humans to realize mistakes from the past and learn from them. Light says that it teaches humans to think about the consequences of their actions and working to prevent or even fix the mistakes. Indeed, the foundation admits that in the past people have damaged the waterway supply for agricultural and housing purposes. The foundation is trying to mend those mistakes to return the waters natural flow so that it can provide accessible water to the Everglades. However, Light’s only criticism is that the foundation does not focus on …show more content…
For Katz’s he would automatically think of domination over nature but Light would look deeper to see the non-dominating reasons. Light would say that from a non-anthropocentric view, the purpose is to restore the waterways allowing water back to the Everglades, which then will directly benefit the Everglades ecosystem and humans. I agree with this proposed statement by Light because he sees restoration in a positive light. Katz views make restoration sound like it should be forbidden, which should not be the case especially for vulnerable environments. People might be drawn away from the ideas of restoration due to Katz’s negative