The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak.
However, the writings of the restorationists themselves — particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner — offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.
The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restoration program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to ― for example, Turner’s description of humans as “the lords of creation,” or Jordan’s statement that “the fate and well-being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it” — do not cohere well with the community participation model.
Another holistic model — namely, that of nature as an organism — might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the “organic” model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists’ view.
However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world.
Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.
1.The author primary purpose in the passage is to （ ）.
2.The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists （ ）.
3.Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?
4.In asserting that the organic model might be “more serviceable to the restorationists” (line1-2, para. 4), the author implies that （ ）.
5.Which of the following best expresses the author’s primary criticism of the restorationists?
