CSW History class discussions Forum Index CSW History class discussions
Discussion and debate of topics for our classes
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 




Cathedral Pines
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CSW History class discussions Forum Index -> US Environmental History
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
oliviabecker



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:51 pm    Post subject: Cathedral Pines Reply with quote

Helloo,

I did this reading on Sunday because I thought it was due today so it heavily influenced my thoughts in class today/reading last night/definition of nature/natural in class. I think it's interesting that its more than half the way through the course when we've encountered this reading. Pollan brings up some pretty central points to what this course is about--what is natural, are humans are part of it and how much influence do humans have in the "wilderness".

Pollan describes exactly how I've subconsciously felt about nature--that its this "all-knowing" thing that we can trust to follow its own cycle and repair its self: "For many of us, nature is a last bastion of certainty; wilderness , as something beyond the reach of history and accident, is one of the last in our fast-dwindling supply of metaphysical absolutes...to take away predictable, divinely ordered nature is to pull up one of our last remaining anchors." (pg 397).

Instead, Pollan argues that nature is more like: "Chance and contigency, it turns out, are everywhere in nature; she has no fixed goals, no unalterable pathways into the future, no inflexible rules that she herself cant bend or break at will. She is more like us (or we are more like her) than we ever imagined." (page 397)

Why do we take such a deep comfort in the "rightness"/ romantic vision of nature? Is it humankind's essential need to find something bigger and stronger than us to control events? What happens when this myth is taken away from us and we realize that not doing anything to a place like Cathedral Pines is still doing something to nature?

Pollan then goes onto destroy this pristine myth, bringing up the point of a "virgin" landscape and what happens if humans lay a single hand on the earth. Can it still be a wilderness or it might as well be condos? Is there an inbetween?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
oliviabunty



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

obecks and I not only have the same name, but did the same thing with the reading.
so, yeah, pollan is dope.
Can it still be a wilderness or it might as well be condos? Is there an inbetween?
I think there is absolutely an in between, but possible that the inbetween leads us closer to a place called nature than wilderness.
That kind of seems to be at the head of what Pollan is saying.
Quote:
"But all things aren't equal and she is evidently happy to let the free play of numerous big and little contingencies settle the matter. To exclude from these human desire would be, at least in this place at this time, arbitrary, perverse and, yes, unnatural."


human interaction with wilderness is natural, just as we accomodate for nature when she erupts in ways disruptive to our human-ness.


two questions to kick around:

1. What could it mean for nature to be considered, as pollan briefly mentioned, ahistorical?

2. Can nature be defined in a less "anthropocentric" manner? Or in creating the concept of nature do we doom its definition to revolve around human beings?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Knaideface



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I did the same thing as you both did too. oops.
In relation to Olivia Becker said about the subconscious idea that nature is all knowing and will fix itself, reminds me of a really strange horror-ish film I saw where the Earth began to eliminate people like they were a Virus. Horrible film, but Interesting Idea nonetheless.
Now in response to The other Olivia’s questions,
For land to be viewed in an ahistorical sense I think would make sense for completely cyclical environments, which in a way are timeless and without permanent change. I can’t imagine how Dinosaurs and the formations of the continents as they are now would be explained without history in the mix, because nature definitely had a linear pattern there.
And I really like your second question. I immediately think about what Rachel (teacher) said in class that we (humans) are the only species, that we know of, who has created a definition of nature. Therefore, the human definition is all there is for us to work with. I think, however, the definition does not need to revolve around us, though it may be difficult to get out of that mindset. I think problems in nature, such as pollution and global warming, show that nature does NOT revolve around people, because we can indeed mess up cycles.
And this is my question:
Do you think emotional attachment plays a big role to environment? As in, does feeling connected to the land where one lives drastically change how the land will continue to grow and change?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rlevinson2011



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have knaides question. DIBS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E. Carson



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knaide’s question, “Do you think emotional attachment plays a big role to environment? As in, does feeling connected to the land where one lives drastically change how the land will continue to grow and change?”

I think that feeling a connection by itself does not effect the land, but the results of a feeling for the land, like hoping that it never changes and then making it not change, definitely effects it.

I as others am surprised that this only came up now in this coarse. It seems to me that it is a big subject and I can see why we didn’t have a discussion today, but waited for tomorrow. The idea of humans being nature (nature effecting man, man effecting nature) will change the discussion drastically in an interesting direction.

I kind of think that wilderness does effect man and vis versa, but from this it seems to me it is then to easy to say that we can do anything to land because what we do is just part of nature. So I ask is this a valid excuse for man? Why? Why not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rlevinson2011



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This reading was fantastic, one of the best in a long time. Pollan exhibits not only a great knowledge for both sides of this debate on nature, but a profound sympathy.

Something that really threw me was Pollan's continuous use of the term "natural history," because everything he said seemed to indicate this is unattainable. There is natural science, human history, and this weird, all-encompassing off-shoot we call "environmental history" but natural history can't exist purely by dint of the fact human affect is inseparable, most evident in the ENVIRONMENTAL history of cathedral pines, and the active demonstration of choice-making on part of the humans. I just started thinking of natural history museums and the fallacy of this term appeared/appears so blaring in this piece.

Pollan's insistence on humans' active choice making or else, the equally active choice of NOT making a decision shapes nature in a way that renders us incapable of creating a virgin landscape. Knaide asks if, "...Emotional attachment plays a big role to environment? Does feeling connected to the land where one lives drastically change how the land will continue to grow and change?

The reading indicates Pollan's answer would be a resounding YES. The choice to "maintain" Cathedral Pines, whether coming from a point of "emotional attachment" felt by the inhabitants of the surrounding town, or else other viable options such as (the illusion of) conservation, a historical reverence, etc has certainly affected the fate of Cathedral Pines inasmuch as other things that might have happened because of some other prevailing human choice or else inescapable natural modifiers (i.e, the tornado).

I think Pollan's whole point is, whether humans make an active choice to do something with a portion of nature or else choose to let nature "take its course" (upon the premise we have created for nature in that given region in the first place) the outcome itself is negligible. Of course, any outcome will have victors and losers, be it entire species or just select residents (plants, animals, people) but the idea stands. It would appear nature is indifferent to persuasion or bias, which to me DOES indicate a bizarre fairness, if not the authority Pollan so fervently underscores does not actually exist.

At the same time, I have an issue still letting go of a greater force at work. As Pollan so fascinatingly illustrated in his list of only a few potential, "natural" outcomes were the fallen trees of Cathedral Pines left untouched, his stance that nature is random, unbiased, and frankly, unpredictable, seems pretty well supported. At the same time, he makes no mention of the possibility that there could be a master-plan that we have no understanding of and furthermore, no means to. So my question is:

In the same way Pollan discourages this all-or-nothing wilderness ethic that designates temple destroyer and worshipper, and that we must attempt to find "marriage" with nature..is there a way for an embrace of unexpected and "random" acts of nature to coexist with more traditional ideas of some type of naturally prevailing authority?

maybe im the only one really struggling with this.


Last edited by rlevinson2011 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dylanh



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

got rachel's
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wfreedberg



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

got rachels too but forgot to post dibs.... sorry. lets share?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oliviabecker



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing I wanted to bring up is how Pollan anthropomorphises (horrible spelling, sorry) nature, even while he's talking about the dangers of doing so. He consistently refers to nature as "she", giving the reader a pretty clear idea of this "pristine myth" he's similataneously trying to disprove. Why do you think Pollan falls into the trap of refering to nature as a female and giving it human like qualities?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gaubin



Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

got Olivia's question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dylanh



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

freedberg you can take rachel's, im confused on what she's asking after reading it over a few times, so ill take ellies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wfreedberg



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quick one first :

Rachel, you are definitely not the only one struggling with that- in fact, I nearly posted something right after you that had those same points, but I think you expressed them far better that I was going to.

I would at least hope that there’s some way to “make random acts of nature coexist with more traditional ideas of some type of natural prevailing authority”. I think those “random acts” only pose a problem to ecosystems (or even act as significant agents of change) when combined with anthropogenic stresses. We wouldn’t mourn the loss of Cathedral Pines (for nature’s sake, at least) if there were more stands of old-growth White Pine in the first place. But if natural “disasters” combine with condo development and we end up with no old-growth forest (even for a few years) we would lose a heap of species that are valuable to us and to other threads of the nature-web.
I think Pollan polarizes the issues at hand a bit- there is a middleground (albeit a messy one) of “wilderness management”. It basically entails fixing up wildernesses and compensating for the combined stresses of development, global warming, etc and “nature-generated” agents of change. Even if we say that an anthropogenic mass-extinction is as “natural” as one that comes about without our help, that kind of even would suck for humanity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dylanh



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We can do anything to land because what we do is just part of nature. So I ask is this a valid excuse for man? Why? Why not?


Ellie's question was pretty interesting for me because I disagree about her first statement, and think i MIGHT have found some evidence. While doing the reading, I got a vibe that everything is natural. By the end, I was thinking that everything in UNnatural. With the whole debate over recreating Cathedral Pines after the storm, I thought it seemed like a game of redo to undo. In order to undo the effects of a storm, we have to redo the environment's job. This brings up a bunch of stuff. First I want to say that nature isn't the same as the environment. Not sure what nature is, but my crack at environment is that it is the factors and influences around something. Pretty broad and vague, but hopefully it will get more specific as the mod goes along.
Next is the storm being unnatural. It is unnatural because everything is in perspective to another time period. The storm wasn't in the environment five minutes before it hit, so compared to that, it doesn't belong, and wouldn't make sense being there because it does not do "good" for the forest. Sure, it happens often, but compared to what? The problem is circular versus linear time. Time is always moving forward, but when we look at "natural" events, we look backward.
K, so I'm going on a rant trying to define a bunch of stuff that is really circumstantial, which is a problem. So to summarize: anything I say that may be unclear, I can probably attempt to prove it with a circumstance from the text or in life if anyone asks.
To get back to Ellie's question, no, I don't think it is a valid excuse because everything is unnatural, and the only reason anyone does anything is for survival, and since we've got survival down pretty well, we've moved on to comfort. Comfort serving as an excuse for ruining nature, whatever that may be, seems pretty rough.

My question is related to development. When we think, "Don't do it," as Pollan puts it, should we do it? Also, Why is everything about us, from our (human) perspective, and relating to what we do. Is there any way to go about history from a non human influenced direction? Or have we just been so important and left such an impression that would be impossible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zach.aronson



Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i got dylans question/post
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IsaacRynowecer



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something important that Pollan brought up was the separation between humans and “nature”. In my definitions today in class, I definitely “started from the premise that man and nature were irreconcilably opposed” (395) and now I see that it isn’t so clear cut. Humans are not unique in their interference with nature. Beavers dam rivers and cut down trees, and there are flowers that would never be able to reproduce if it were not for bees spreading their pollen. While humans may interfere with nature on a much grander scale, they are not the lone animals that act in this way.

I’m going to answer Ellie’s question

“I kind of think that wilderness does effect man and vis versa, but from this it seems to me it is then to easy to say that we can do anything to land because what we do is just part of nature. So I ask is this a valid excuse for man? Why? Why not?”

I think saying humans are a part of nature is valid reasoning for actions to an extent. I think cutting down trees to build houses is as natural an action as beavers cutting down trees to build lodges. The actions are down for the same purposes just different species. I was going to say dropping a bomb in a forest is unnatural, but the same level of destruction can be had from a volcano eruption or hurricane, so now I am not entirely sure if anything humans do can be considered unnatural.

“Nature is dead, if by nature we mean something that stands apart from man and messy history” Since humans are a part of nature are all of their actions natural? Is anything humans create unnatural?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CSW History class discussions Forum Index -> US Environmental History All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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


Forum hosted by ForumsLand.com - 100% free forum. Powered by phpBB 2.