Response 9

While interesting, I was excited to get away from the first part of Robbins and into Part II. The perception of what is considered “natural” that Robbins addresses on page 89 immediately sparked my interest. I have found the concept of “natural” an extremely interesting one and something that comes up in a variety of contexts, including my study of anthropology. Being culturally or linguistically relative automatically assumes that there is no “natural” or “norm,” thus allowing room for each individual society to be accepted for what it is, regardless of comparison to others. However, the concept does come up in a similar way as it is used in political science when a culture is compared to a former version of itself. What religious practices are “right” or “natural” in modern Australian Aboriginal culture? What language is accepted as “natural” in a changing Brazilian tribe? These questions are repeatedly posed in a variety of contexts. As Robbins notes, “the way we view what is ‘natural’ is predetermined in the first place by social and cultural concepts/filters/structures” (90).

The definition of such a fluid concept as “natural” is a difficult task, yet an admirable one that Robbins takes up. He has chosen four ways that an area is considered degraded, or therefore unnatural. While reading, I found plenty of faults in these descriptions, yet the author himself also reveals his concerns and argues for the use of caution in using the defining factors due to their difficulty of measurement. I found additional issues than those mentioned, however, particularly the discussion of native species versus invasives. However, this too, as Robbins says, follows “claims of degradation or environmental change [being] inherently specific” (98).

Environmental ethics also seems to be an important concept throughout this chapter, as issues of anthropocentrism are central to many ideas, including those determining what we decide are measuring factors to environmental degradation. Does land usefulness truly describe an area’s degradation or is that merely information for humans to note (and to researchers to cite when gather funding if the usefulness is degraded)? The note that “anthropogenic disturbances can mimic ‘natural’ disturbances” (98) especially stood out to me as begging the question of “does that make it okay?” Obviously, there are serious concerns with the idea of environmental degradation and its definition, as Robbins certainly points out.