Is «ascertainable ecocide» (deforestation, oil spills, fossil fuel extraction, pollution - dumping) a problem for «the inhabitants of [a] territory», if it is not the case that «peaceful
enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory have been severely diminished»?
Yet these things surely are nothing but «the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem (s) of a given territory» which «severely diminishes» the «peaceful
enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory».
Higgins suggests the following definition for ecocide: The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem (s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful
enjoyment by the inhabitants of the that territory has been severely diminished.
Not exact matches
But there's absolutely nothing here so strange that it impedes the viewer's
enjoyment; Shyamalan does a superb job of establishing this world and its
inhabitants, as well as the rules that clearly govern their actions (eg nobody is terribly surprised
by Story's presence, which does make sense within the context of the film).