Ultimately, the starting point for addressing issues of environmental justice is to recognize our intricate role and relationship with nature.
The rhetorical situation for which Smith is writing this piece is in response to other arguments that humans are killing nature and that we should work to live in a way that promotes growth for the environment.Smith is chiming in at this time to offer an alternative perspective that humans aren't necessarily a problem that needs to be solved.
The ideology of conquering and exerting dominion on nature was replaced by the belief that it was necessary to preserve nature from humanity.
This is a passage I would like to discuss more. Is the reason for this change in mentality just due to the fact that we are beginning to see the changes that we are making to nature? Have there always been people urging us to try and live harmoniously with nature?
The ideal of humanity existing apart from nature simply does not reflect reality.
This passage summarizes Smith's central argument. Smith wants the audience to realize that people and nature can coexist and that it's not unheard of or particularly rare because that used to be the norm. Just with the changes that have been made and modern technology has made it so we cannot see how this is possible.
Of course, the protection of what is perceived as “pristine” and “virgin” land completely ignores the fact that humans inhabited these lands for millennia without permanently damaging them
This passage connects to the previous readings we have had. In particular I am thinking about Norgaard's article about fire suppression. Norgaard points out that North America was viewed as a place that was untouched by humans before people came to colonize the lands when, in fact, that was not the case at all.