There are many activist groups across our nation that support living things that do not have a voice of their own. Whether it is for an animal, a tree, or even hurting the ozone layer, all these things are important to many activists and we should take into consideration what they have to say. However, where do you draw the line? Where is the distinction between an activists whose just trying to better their world or someone who might be border-lined crazy and think that the trees they are protecting are actually talking back to them.
At the university of California at Berkley, there have been many issues of “tree huggers” taking extreme measures to protect the great oaks that have been there before the town itself. These people are usually hippies who have a reputation for taking dramatic measures in order to get their point across. I do think that these trees should be preserved, because they are of much sentimental value to the town, yet not in a way to voice their opinions by having you and your peers, drop your clothes and have a “connection” with the tree in order to prove a point. That is the line that is drawn. When your voice becomes more offensive than affected to the passerby. These naked tree dwellers are certainly not being appropriate for children or for the community in general. They will live in those trees for months at a time without showers or proper disposal of waste.
These hippie activists are protecting the trees because the university wants to build a new fitness center, but that would require several of the sacred trees to be removed. This Tree Hugging action has become so popular, that when people come to visit Berkley they expect to see the tree huggers and many see these people as a another cite of the city.
I am a strong supporter in preserving the planet and using only enough resources to which will satisfy your needs. However, this is very extreme and I do feel that it gives us, the “economy- friendly, save the world” activists the right reputation. These kind of activists are the reason why we are labeled as crazy or worry too much about things that do not matter. Although I appreciate what they are standing for, I do believe that there is a more modest way to get the point across rather than personally living in a tree till they get their point proven. That is just unsanitary and not modest.
We must also take into account that if the tree dwellers are living in the trees for long periods of time on platform and other contrappments, then that would also be harmful to the tree. That would ruin the tops of the trees, and many policemen would leave the people up there for long periods of time to just prove a hypocritical point in order for them to get down. Yes the trees have been there for many decades, but when humans literally build a tree house for themselves to live, then that will definitely hurt the tree and defeat the purpose of the “tree dwelling” exercise.
The tree dwelling activist movement is very strong, but should be modified just like all other activist movements into sticking to what has worked in the past to get the point across in the most powerful way. Although many would argue with me that this is the most powerful way, I feel that there would be another more appropriate manor in which to address the issue with out exposure or ridicule from the society. In order to have the matter taken seriously, you have to have a positive impact, instead of just scarring the children who want to ride their bike through campus.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment