Final answer:
Without land and resource ownership in Alaska, indigenous communities would lack control over their environment, facing increased vulnerability to resource exploitation and cultural losses. It would shift the balance of power, potentially causing unfettered development and diminishing environmental and cultural safeguards established by historical agreements.
Step-by-step explanation:
Life in Alaska would be fundamentally altered if Alaskans did not own and control land and the subsurface minerals/resources. Without ownership, the Alaska Native communities, like the Gwich'in and Inupiat Eskimo, would lack the legal authority and economic leverage to protect their ancestral lands and the environment that supports their subsistence lifestyles. Such a scenario might lead to unbridled resource exploitation, undermining the environmental safeguards like those implemented during the construction of the Alaska Pipeline, and the ability for indigenous people to influence decisions affecting their homelands and way of life. The remarkable balance achieved by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which allowed Alaska Natives to receive land and monetary compensation, would not exist, leaving these communities vulnerable to outside interests and potentially exacerbating issues of loss of land and forced assimilation.
Moreover, the absence of land ownership could mean decreased local control over environmental interventions, possibly leading to increased oil drilling and the construction of new pipelines without consideration for the cultural and ecological impacts. The government, in an effort to encourage drilling for natural gas and for new pipelines, might pursue various policies, such as subsidies, tax incentives, and streamlined permitting processes, with fewer constraints provided by local landownership and stewardship.