Nature Argument

            Moderation and simplicity are important in living with nature. Without moderation and simplicity it is simply impossible to live with nature. Moderation saves nature from being completely wiped out while simplicity creates a life for humans to fully enjoy nature. I see simplicity as meaning enough tools and technology to be confortable but the extra frivolous gadgets are not used. If these gadgets are present someone cannot enjoy nature in a true way. Edward Abbey and Henry David Thoreau are two authors who would agree with this argument.

            For example, Abbey stated, “How much is enough?” (p. 2) this plays into both simplicity and moderation. Abbey was worried about the road being built in Arches National Park. True this road made the park more accessible but to what price. Now there are families in big RVs who have TVs and other fancy gadgets. These are not a necessity and with these distractions how can someone truly enjoy nature. The road is very big and the traffic on it disturbs nature to a great extent. With roads and technology when do you stop—when there is no nature left?

            Thoreau stated, “…so occupied with faction cares and superfluously course labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” (p. 350) this again ties into Abbey’s question of “how much is enough?” Is luxury worth the price the human race pays—a life without true nature enjoyment. In Thoreau’s novel Walden he proves that luxury is not a necessity in life nor is it a true outlet of happiness. A life of simplicity will lead to true happiness and a prosperous life in nature and the wildlife among it.

            A prominent nature issue is deforestation. This issue does not follow the rule of moderation and also plays along with Abbey’s problem—how many trees had to be cut down in order to make that road? The amount of trees cut down each day in the United States is the size of Panama. It is true that trees are used for many things in modern day life but they should be used in moderation. If this problem continues there will be no trees left—do we want to discover a solution after the demise of trees or while we still have some left on the planet?

            On the other hand who decides how much is in moderation and what is the definition of simplicity? For many people moderation would be the amount of trees cut down daily—there could be a lot more cut down. Simplicity for many people however would be where this argument crumbled. Simplicity is made by the development of new technology. The smart phones and other portable devices give people the world at their fingertips. They don’t need to go across the country to see a national park they can see pictures and videos on their portable device. Many would not see the problem with that.

            Personally I feel that there is middle ground on the issue. With the smart phones and other technology it is true that life is simpler but what are we truly getting from that (maybe twenty pounds heavier than previous generations?). I think that technology is important to be happy in life but I don’t think everything we have is a necessity. I think we need technology but we also need to truly embrace nature. I don’t think this is impossible with all the cool gadgets we have lately. For a life of true happiness a relationship needs to be created between technology and nature.