Island Civilization Response/Summary

            Time and time again, it has been argued that since the Industrial Revolution, human impact upon the environment has been so detrimental that is has now become a leading cause of environmental decay. With as large an impact that has been made, environmentalists have been scoping out possible future conditions of the environment and society should the current rate of environmental impact continue. Roderick Frazier Nash’s “Island Civilization” explores several future scenarios that have been argued and put forth, and then refutes those by suggesting his own original futuristic utopia in the form of island civilizations. Although the name “island civilizations” has not been used to describe a futuristic scenario before, it is not as original or successful of an idea as Nash leads the audience to believe.

            Upon introducing his “revolutionary” concept of “Island Civilizations”, Nash first argues how his idea is better than other outlooks by refuting their credibility and probability. The first is a wasteland scenario, in which Earth is entirely used up as a nonrenewable source and humans have fled the barren planet in search of another capable to support their parasitic existence. Sound familiar? The first thing to pop in to my head was Pixar’s “Wall-E”. The second scenario is called “garden scenario” and has humans in what appears to be an entirely utopic society, yet it is all synthetically produced from the flora to the fauna. Once again, Pixar pops into my mind (it might just be my two younger sisters dragging me to all of their movie premieres).  This time around, it is the more recent “The Lorax” which beholds an entirely plastic society and follows one boy’s quest to restore natural “truffula trees” to his town. At this point, I read each new scenario as if it were a game, trying to match each with its movie-counterpart. Next on Nash’s docket of disapproval is one called “future primitive”. This scenario has humans choosing to revert back to their pre-Mesopotamian existence and surviving solely as part of the environment and not at the top of the food chain. This one presented a challenge, yet I managed to stretch it far enough so it could work: “Planet of the Apes” – sans apes.

            Nash then introduces his proposal for “island civilizations” across the globe. He defines these civilizations as 500 habitats for three million humans a piece located across Earth. Each of these civilizations would be entirely sustainable on its own, growing its own food and producing its own water, tools, and supplies. Also, because of technology’s advancements, humans would be able to occupy the most barren of all wastelands, leaving prosperous temperate zones for nature. However, some humans may choose to remain outside of these societies and remain “primitive”.

            While this is certainly a valid outlook to take upon the imminent future, it is very presumptuous that humans will accept the parameters required to make this work. Examples of these parameters would be the deprivation of rights and require each human to live inside a contained area and only leave for travel at certain times (“Hunger Games”, anyone?). Also, anyone with proficient math skills can see 500 groupings of three million people would require the human population to become ¼ of its current standings. With such specific requirements, this can only be imagined to succeed synthetically. A synthetic society living in isolated groupings with limited contact and humans outcast from their civilization sounds nearly identical to the dystopia introduced in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. The dehumanization of Huxley’s version of an “island civilization” is juxtaposed against the free “wilder” humans that live outside of the structured and controlled civilizations. If Nash’s islands were created, there would need to be a factor that would separate his idea from the dystopic novel.

            Although the idea of an island civilization is sustainable, one must weigh the pros and the cons; while it is important to maintain natural resources, basic human rights and choices should be maintained, as well. Nash was correct in stating how the industrialization of Earth has become “cancer-like” and will inevitably cause it to “self destruct”(373), however, survival requires each individual to make choices and also have the population as a whole benefit. Nash couldn’t have phrased it better when he said “humans stopped adapting and started creating”, but like all things in the natural world he is trying to preserve, there needs to be a balance.