Faking Nature

Exam 3

Krieger, What’s Wrong with Plastic Tree

—

What rationale is there for preservation?

Consider Niagara Falls:

We can

Memorialize the falls

Event the falls (predict when rocks will fall)

Treat the falls as a show (controlling the flow, size of pool, fall of debris)

What does Krieger agree with?

She defends 3, but permits that depending on public interest

-She says that it’s already treated as a show

What counts as a “natural environment”

• It is culturally relative

  What does it mean for us?

  Rarity only makes sense within a certain perspective: something must be considered special Krieger disagrees with rarity because rarity does not mean something is valuable. Ex. Hair on your head, Cancer, or your jacket only worn by you

What does Krieger say what we could do for rare environments?

We can produce substitutes for rare environments, providing customers an opportunity to pay for the experience

If you truly desire “truly” national parks, you can pay the premium

Demeaned for rare environments is learned (the sense of loss or inferiety that the "original" nature is inherently better than a "perfect replica" is culturally learned)

Krieger says we may preserve based on what?

We may preserve based on:

Accessibility, their contribution to human survival and security. (but what is mere survival?)

Krieger’s conclusion

There is not much wrong with duplicating environments that simulate real environments we want to preserve

Elliot, Faking Nature

—

What example does Elliot say?

Suppose a company intends to clear beach life and destroy the dunes in order to mine rutile

What do they argue to do about the beach?

• They agree to restore the dune to its original condition

• However, the impression of a wild, uncultivated island will forever be destroyed

Restoration Thesis

Destruction of what has value can compensated by the later recreation of something of equal value
- The value before and after are the same

Even if the projects were successful…

Even if restoration projects were wildly successful, there is a coherent ethical system that supports decisive objections to restoration theses

Some properties cannot survive the restoration process

What does Elliot say about value?

Value may consist in wilderness because it is not modified by humanity

Just like in aesthetics: environmental engineers are producing forgeries

what does Elliot say about restoration producing similarity?

But if restoration produced exact similarity, are they equally valuable?

Objection: Is naturalness valuable only insofar as it is experienced? (what do we do really quickly and secretly?)

Robert Elliot- argues that while restoration might produce a high degree of physical similarity, it can never restore the unique value of the original environment.

Elliot’s conclusion

Against this: There is not much wrong with duplicating environment that simulate real environments we want to preserve
- Robert Elliot

strongly opposes this view, arguing that a replica—no matter how perfect—is a "fake" that lacks the intrinsic value of the original

Elliots main argument

Elliot argues that just as a perfect forgery of a painting lacks the historical value of the original, a perfectly restored forest lacks the "naturalness" and history of the original. The restoration process creates a "fake" because it cannot restore the historical, unbroken continuity of natural development.

Compare and contrast: Origin vs. Experience

Elliot believes a restored environment is a "fake" because its origin is human, not natural. Krieger argues that if an artificial environment (like plastic trees) provides the same psychological experience as a natural one, there is "very little wrong with it".

Compare and Contrast: The Nature of Rarity

Elliot views naturalness as an irreplaceable quality. Krieger suggests that "rarity" is a social construct; we can create new rare environments through design and policy rather than just preserving existing ones

Compare and Contrast: Value

Elliot: History/Origin (Relational)

Krieger: Experience/Satisfaction (Functional)