The Colorado river, The Nile river, the Jang cï¿½ tiang river. They have one incommon. Every of them is polluted and somehow destroyed by humans. The modern establishments of people have brought us a new possibilities how to treat with nature. As far as I am concerned, nowadays, it is a question of business. No matters whether it harms the environment or not. But who cares?
Mr. Edward Abbey was looking for some objections in the environmental perspective in his article ” Damnation of a Canyon,” first appeared in 1971 in Beyond the Wall: Essays from the outside, canyonlands did have a heart, a living heart, and that heart was Glen Canyon and the golden, flowing Colorado River.
”(Abbey, 2003) He concluded the nowadays conditions of canyonland country and the effects of industrialization of society in this beautiful and untouched environment. Abbey examines, that the Glen Canyon has not ever needed any change for better conditions. First, when he was a park ranger at the new Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, there were many animals, plants in symbiottical relationship.
It was wilderness itself. Second, Abbey argues that the damaging of that region started with transformation of nature into a business profit ceremony. Finally, he speaks about the dam, which caused this horrible situation and he does not find any benefical point of this building. Abbey refers to the bad living conditions of animals as well, as we can see in disappereance of many of them by flooding the Glen Canyon.
Although Edwardï¿½s analysis has a strong relevance, In my opinion, he underestimates the current situation in the Colorado river and he forgot to mention who caused those changes in the region of Glen Canyon.
A responsibilty lies on every human being, not just people living in the region, but it is all about us. Abbeyï¿½s decisive morality acitvated a serial of hypothesis about future and the heritage of Mother Earth; he pointed out how this area will be damaged soon, if all involved do not take some decision and sum up their priorities; posing a questions to those people would make some challenge and stop the industry to take profit from marvellous places in our World; he asserted many aspects in his explanation, but did he gave some sollution to the problem?
Edward, speaking to all people, provides a deep insights into the topic of environmental pollution even though he underestimated the economical utilization of Lake Powel and the Dam. Many of Abbeyï¿½s point are right and cannot be argued by any scientist and also he got my angle of vision. I completely agree that now the Lake Powel is not a true lake, but just a fake lake and a big reservoir. Overall the calmness and the wilderness has vanished from the nature. There is no doubt, that people should do something with it. The simple discussion on the issue is useless. It reminds me a one situation, when woman found a garbage on the floor and she started to report about it to men around her, instead of removing it by herself.
In spite of fact, the status of the Dam is very bad, Abbey did not do anything for years to change it. He made some speech and summarized the weakest points of that huge construction, but did not look on the other side. Did he ask himself on the public opinion? Abbey offers alternatives like solar energy system and to destroy the dam like a feather. Apparently, he does not allude the price, of the building. The workers, who worked there for ours benefits. In addition, whole economy policy should be change at all. This exploration leads him into overgeneralization of the problem. Particularly, Abbey appealed on the destructive activity and ecological catastrophe for the region, however the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam did not caused anything. If he want to judge people who brought investments into the area, he should blame the society as well.
Besides overgeneralizing, how long would the nature resists against the human ecological pressure? In fact, the comparison of former river canyon and nowadays reservoir is not suitable implying those informations he demonstrated. Relying on promises of people Abbey assumed to not being with opposition with natureAccording to his wishes, it is impossible to do something with it; neverthless he asserts about lazy americans and the possibilities of access, but it reveals into a mistake, which could offend many honest inhabitants of U. S.
Furthermore, Edward encourages himself to be a protector of commonalty; being favoured in the eyes of people is “in” and it makes him famous. Greenpeace and another communities trying to call attention to globalization are useless too. I would like to cite the author who think the nature will defend itself and will safe her majesty: ” I say give a nature a little time. In five years, at most in ten, the sun and wind and storms will cleanse and sterilize the repellent mess.”
In conclusion, mr. Edward Abbey did a very good, when he started a discussion on this serious problem, perhaps this step will motivate others to make some important moves towards nature. The tendency of thinking of humans would be change, if they realise the true significance of our envirnment and climate conversion. I think Abbey did excellently. If this was the action of Marathon, I hope he will come to the finish as soon as possible.