I couldn't help but appreciate Pollan's refreshing take on our relationship to nature and wilderness. I agree that once we reduce the guilt we have towards our past interactions with the environment, we can take a critical look at the world around us and our relationship in the present. However, the "wilderness ethic" and the guilt that comes with it helps kick us in to action, even though it may be a fear-based and black-and-white approach.
Pollan describes nature as an uninhibited force, the effects of which are never preconceived. "Change and contingency are everywhere in nature; she has no fixed goals, no unalterable pathways into the future, no inflexible rules that she herself can't bend or break at will...For if there is nothing fixed or inevitable about nature's course, what's to stop us from concluding that everything goes?" 397 This makes me think that human nature should be like this too- why do we spend time worrying about encroaching on the "wilderness" and taking up too much space, if it serves as a mark of the natural progression of human kind?
I think the only way I can view wilderness from now on is a space that is constantly in flux- it's original state is impossible to determine, but it is constantly decaying and rebirthing in a new way. I'm not entirely happy with this definition though so if someone wants to critique it, please do!
Question: What is your definition of wilderness??? What do you make of the wilderness ethic's merits and shortcomings?
Alright, tonight’s reading has been my favorite hands down. Anyways…. I really found The Idea of a Garden interesting because of its perspective on what nature is. Many points in this reading helped me understand different peoples viewpoints on nature and the factors that affect it. I was unaware of how many variables like squirrels, fires, rain, wind and etc. play into the development and growth of land. It dawned upon me while reading that humans like certainty and knowing an outcome of an event. The reality is, there are often too many variables to predict the outcome of nature.
Also, I believe the term “nature” is an evolving term. This reading helped me understand my thoughts on this because often times “just because the wilderness ethic is based on a picture of nature that is probably more mythical than real doesn’t necessarily mean we have to discard it”(397). I find that the term nature is evolving as we do as a human race. There is no one definition of nature because it is constantly changing due to natural disasters (these disasters are in the eyes of humans) and other factors like development and civilization of land.
I will spare you guys because I wanted to go off on an economics rant but I refrained myself.
Immediately after reading "The Idea of a Garden", I was kind of confused about the arguments and points that the author was trying to make, but when I thought back to our recent class discussions and their connection to the reading, everything became clear to me. I realized that we have been discussing wilderness compared to developed society, but we have not looked at the middle ground that the author covered. As he described, many people have either the "let wilderness be" (wilderness ethic) standpoint or "develop land" stand point when focusing on specific sections of land, in this case "Cathedral Pines". The author stands in the middle ground in this scenario - take (human) action to preserve the forest so it can prosper. This kind of relates to the idea of National Parks, but in a less industrial sense. I personally think complete wilderness cannot be changed, even with good intentions in mind, to continue to be wilderness, but I want to know what others think. I'm going to switch over to answering Naya's question with that said...
As I said above, I believe that wilderness cannot exist if it is at all affected by humans, even with the goal to preserve nature in mind. Wilderness simply, is the natural world that humans do not interact with. I completely understand the "wilderness ethic" and why people support it - yes, it is unfortunate that a forest may die naturally over time, or that a river will become dammed by beavers, but to respect the idea of wilderness around us, it is a human's duty to let nature be, no matter how it may change.
I'd like to make my question relating to my first paragraph - even with preserving nature in mind, does the wilderness aspect disappear immediately when humans affect an endangered area of land? I'd like to hear what others think about this.
To answer Naya’s question, I think that wilderness is the nature that is separate from humans. This isn’t so much a dictionary definition as a sort of guideline I would use to determine what is, and what isn’t nature. Obviously there is always going to be debate over this topic and there will most likely never be a definition in which everyone agrees with. What we do know however is that there is a clear and definitive difference between Shanghai (largest city in the world) and Siberia (largest land mass untouched by humans). This is of course, only my humble opinion (though judging how good my title for last night’s reading was, my humble opinion must be fact), and people will believe nature and wilderness to be what their gut tells them it is.
I was intrigued to see the introduction of a new word in this reading that now that I see it used in an environmental context, I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t come up in class yet. The word is “biology” and it was used in a quote on the first page of the reading (393) on the right hand column, “‘[the tornado] may be a calamity to us,’ a state environmental official told a reporter from the Hartford Courant, but ‘to biology it is not a travesty. It is just a normal occurrence.’” The biology of the earth is interesting to think about, and that makes me think that if things like trees and tornados grow or happen naturally without the assistance of any sort of animal, than anything that is not a part of the earth’s biology is not natural. skyscrapers certainly do not grow from the earth like trees do… what are other people’s thoughts on this?
Eli you forgot to ask a question! I’ll just respond to Naya’s then (it’s a hard one by the way, Naya!) I don't really have a definition for wilderness, but I totally agree with what Naya said about the constantly changing wilderness. Even though I’m not sure about the definition of wilderness, I think I have a sense of the definition of the boundaries of wilderness (what Emily raised in class). I think everyone has their own definition of the boundaries of wilderness, and the definitions vary because of different personal experiences.
About the ethic, I think it in some ways protected nature, but also made everything humans do seem guilty. Also the ethic is more about “worshiping the nature, instead of living with her”. I felt the same way after doing the first half of the reading because the ethic emphasized the importance of nature as being isolated from humans and any sort of interactions with humans and how we should just leave the nature alone because “nature has her own way” and everything we do is just unnatural. So for the people who strongly believe in this ethics, does it mean that even when we are trying to protect the woods from lighting on fire is destroying the perfect balance in some ways? Also if I saw an eagle attacking my bunny, should I not protect him because if I step in it will be unnatural? Going further, if a woman found a wolf trying to eat her baby, should she just stay and watch because this is just how the nature is? Therefore I believe the ethics has the right parts in it but it’s not completely right, because separating humans from nature is pointless since we live on this planet.
I also how Pollan defined nature is very interesting, and the definition has a lot of overlapping part with the definition of wilderness. Nature is affected by a lot of factors, therefore it’s constantly changing instead of stable and ahistorical. So Nature, maybe is just Nature. Wilderness is also constantly changing, this is why it’s really hard for me to separately define either because usually I just find myself end up talking about both together.
My question: do you think humans protecting nature is unnatural since the nature already has its own way of balancing and fixing everything?
Great question Mingwei, I think it hits on a lot of the readings we've done lately and especially tonight's. Nature has it's own way of balancing and destroying the various ecosystems on the planet, but that doesn't mean our intervening is 'unnatural', because we occupy this space just as much as the animals/plants, and we are just as much a part of nature's equation.
Isaiah brought up biology as a term, which is distinct from wilderness/nature. The dictionary definition tells me that it's "the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover morphology, anatomy, physiology, behavior, origin and distribution." This seems to include humans in the 'morphology' of nature...but skyscrapers don't seem to have the same biological relationship to nature as trees do. I guess the question of scale comes into play, and perhaps the distinction between more natural/less natural determines wilderness vs. nature.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject:
I am going to answer Mingwei’s question first, I do not think human protecting nature is unnatural. In the reading, I really agree what Pollan is saying about nature. He says that “human choice is unnatural only if nature is deterministic” (p.397), but he believes that “chance and contigency…are everywhere in nature; she has no fixed goals, no unalterable pathways into the future, no inlexible rules that she herself can’t bend or break at will” (p.397). What I get out of these two quotes is that nature is changing all the time by “an invisible hand” (p.399). There is no defenite answer for what nature is, so if human try to protect the nature, the interaction between human and nature is still natural. What I find more interesting is that, I feel like there is no wilderness in the world according to Pollan.
In his defenition of “wilderness ethic”, he believes it is “based on the assumption that the relationship of man and nature resembles a zero- sum game” (p.384). In my understanding, what Pollan says is that wilderness only exists when there is no human influence in the “nature.” But, the moment when human say that part of a land is wilderness, there is some sort of human interation with that land already. Think of it this way. How do human know if a place is wilderness? They must have been in to the land or having some kind of technolody that can tell what is within the land. Isn’t that a human interaction?
I am wondering what do you think about the existence of wilderness? In your opinion, do you think there is wilderness or not?
This reading was quite provoking, perturbing and challenging. I doubtingly agree with Pollan’s definition of wilderness; “…something beyond the reach of history and accident…” (397). The combination of this statement and his other opinion, “human have left their stamp on virtually every corner of the Earth,” concludes that there is no wilderness left on the earth. Maybe this can be an answer for Amy.
He questioned “For aren’t we also one of nature’s contingencies?” (397) Nature is closely related to human history, and maybe we are part of nature.
Oaks sprout and grow fast, and shade on pine sprouts so that pines cannot survive.
Some human actions are beneficial for us, but damaging for other creatures on earth.
Someone in class brought up with an idea that human created the concept of nature, hence created boarder between nature and us. Similarly, maybe because we are conscious of our action and consequences, we think we are damaging, thus we are unnatural.
Oaks don’t regret(or think of) their action so they live naturally. We do, so we live unnaturally.
Question: Is this true?
My definition of wilderness is quite similar to that of Pollans. Today, I feel that what most people feel as wilderness no longer exists. The definition has evolved; and as Pollen said, "Land that is considered virgin has been written off as fallen...or irredeemable." From this, when land is altered from its prior state, it is no longer wilderness, and humans must do everything in their power to either restore it, or radically change it. Perhaps now, what we consider wilderness now is true nature.
When one arrives to points such as whether or not it was ok to restore land via restoration to the level of pre-colonization and consider it racist, you lose sight of how to address the issue. The biggest problem I have with that mindset is that one can never arrive to a solution. The more you talk about this, the longer it will take to solve the critical issues at hand.
My question is this: How do we address issues such as keeping intact the closest form of nature/wilderness without bringing in race?
First, i'm going to try to answer "I am wondering what do you think about the existence of wilderness? In your opinion, do you think there is wilderness or not?"
I like this question, mostly because it is solely opinion-based. I'm pretty opinionated. It works well. SO. I think that yes, nature and natural/ organic things do exist and continue to exist without human interaction, but I think "wilderness" is just a matter of semantics. It is another word created in hopes of clarifying and grouping something we can't really describe. Why can't we describe it? Because all we are trying to do is put borders around something that we can't see. I'm sure there is "wilderness" in that there must be this "wilderness" if we defined it, right?
I thought the reading covered and brought up almost all of the major points we talked about in class. On page 395, ".. .and instead to think of the forest as a wilderness in the commonly accepted sense of that term: a pristine place untouched by white men." This quote confused me quite a bit. "untouched by white men." does that mean if you aren't caucasian, it would still be wilderness? Or is that just subconscious white supremacy on Pollans part. Further down on the same page, he says "When man leaves it alone, nature will tend toward a healthy and abiding state of equilibrium."
I disagree. If someone doesn't interfere with "nature," that doesn't mean it is automatically perfect and will remain perfect. Everything dies. Does he think that the state of equilibrium encases all stages of life? A lot of his statements confused me; but i'm probably taking them too literally.
Question: What is your definition of wilderness??? What do you make of the wilderness ethic's merits and shortcomings?
My definition of wilderness is a space similar to that of a forest where someone/something must use tactics in order to move through that area safely and in order to survive. The wilderness is a place where someone risks their life by entering it. However, they may find themselves using skills similar to explorers who once conquered this land. The wilderness is also a place that is sought after and not stumbled upon. I think the short coming of the wilderness is that people have one linear definition of it, but once they enter it they come up with a new definition.
My question is this: How do we address issues such as keeping intact the closest form of nature/wilderness without bringing in race?
To answer Aundre’s question, I don’t believe there is a way to address the nature/ wilderness without bringing in race. For centuries, people have used differences in skin color and cultures as a way to justify the displacement of other groups of people. Until we has a country can look at each other as human instead of what racial, cultural, or ethnic background someone belongs in we can not view nature/wilderness without examining race. If we exclude race from this conversation, we lose insight/ erase a part of history that was built around this issue.
Oaks don’t regret(or think of) their action so they live naturally. We do, so we live unnaturally.
i think, everything happens when you are living is natural, because it was nature that gave you your existence. it is human thinking about natural or unnatural, and it is natural for human to think about it because we have such a complex brain to support our thinking, to human “we think, therefore we live.” living without thinking is even more unnatural for human. living with thinking and regret is a natural state of human existence.
Before the reading, i thought wilderness was somewhere that is completely without human’s intervention. but looking the word wilderness by component of it. i don't know if this is right, but the “wilder” n the word wilderness seems like there is a comparison going on, so wilderness must simply be some place that is wilder than the place we live in right now. the definition we gave for the wilderness.
i think his motivation came from the fact that there is no answer for what is nature what isn't and what is wilderness and what is not, wasting too much time struggling on some problem is none sense, "perhaps we can begin to rite about some new parts for ourselves ones that will show us how to start out from here, not from some imagined state of innocence, and let us get down to the work at hand."p399
Everything is nature, my mind was blown up, i can't think of any question now...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum