For our first reading by Nash, a very interesting quote “Wilderness is a noun that acts like an adjective” means there is no specific wilderness exists, it changes based on different person with their unique concept. It is like an abstract concept. Like the book says, “because it is “so heavily freighted with meaning of a personal, symbolic, and changing kind as to resist easy definition.” Wilderness can be everywhere, it can be a house, a piece of wood or the bunch of building in the city which can be named the iron forest. And one man’s wilderness can be defined differently in another’s concept.
For our second reading by Snyder, the biggest concern is how Snyder differiciated between nature and wilderness.“Nature” is defined as the physical universe and all its properties by Gary Snyder. It has two meanings. One is “the outdoors” which means a physical world including all living things. And another one is “the material world or its collective objects and phenomena” which including the products of human action and intention.
And Wilderness is a place of abundant. It represents the very real condition of energy and richness that is so often found in wild system. It can symbolize the huge amount of lives in the nature. On the other hand, it also can be implied chaos, eros, the unknown, realms of taboo, the habitat of both the ecstatic and the demonic. It means a place of archetypal power, teaching and challenging.
For our third reading from Nash this week,“Paradoxically, their sanctuary and their enemies were one and the same.” by Nash was trying to express a specific opinion. Puritans moved into the wilderness for escaping the persecution of the corrupt civilization. They took the wilderness as the place has a fresh start and they could have the fittest way to run their activity freely. Based on the Old Testament, wilderness also could be a pathway for pursuing God, and a place to overcome the incoming challenges on the wild. Therefore, Puritans took the wilderness as their sanctuary.
On
the other hand, the wilderness is an enemy. It was seen as a place represent
the difficult; danger; seduction; and moral crisis. They wanted to tame it and
change it. It was like to build a garden in wild or ignite a light in the
darkness. Therefore, the city on the hill was the first step to redeeming and
change the world of wilderness.
About my personal reflection, I would like to focus on the perspective of wilderness because we have discussed the difference between nature and wilderness in the discussion part which was very interesting to me. I was born in a city in China and the greening was really bad for the city. My city and circumstance were kind of bad, the air was wet and the weather was extremely hot in the summer. The wastewater flowing on the downside of the walkway on the street and it stinks. If you were there you might see mouses running on the street just like the period England had the plague. It is kind of exaggerate but I used to found a few rats in my closet when I was about 6. I would like to define the mess as wilderness. Although it is a city where a lot of human being living together, without appropriate city management and greening. Wow. It is many ways better now but the street is still dirty and lacking greening in the city. For me, the iron city has been build up based on destroying the original ecological environment is wilderness because it is lack of breath of fresh lives from mother nature.
I feel so lucky that I haven’t met any serious natural disasters could damage me or my properties, otherwise, I might not have a chance writing the blog related to the wilderness right now. : ) I would like to share a link with natural disasters that already happened. It is like: hey, love and takes care of your mother planet carefully otherwise you will feel the insane female anger. 🤔
Rolson
stands in wilderness preservation. Rolson stated that wilderness should growing
naturally by itself in its original way. He thinks any human behavior would
have chance to interrupt the natural evolution of the wilderness against the
original sense of wilderness. Human changes wilderness to the status they need
which is kind of selfish to it. The wilderness shouldn’t manage by the view of
mankind. Callicott believes that wilderness should be managed by human in
sustainable developed way. He thinks there is no place in natural status
because everywhere has been touched by artificial interruption on some point.
Like global warming, air and water pollution and so on. The land and
environment will not grow naturally anymore after the burst of human population
and advanced technology came out. The intrinsic value of the wilderness
fostered the species, habitats, and ecosystems.
Cronon says the
trouble with the wilderness is human actions damaging the environment. After
the Civil War, the main concept of wilderness has changed for Americans. They
began to find the natural wilderness and considering the environmental problems.
However, once human behavior engaged in the wilderness, it’s hard to say to
keep the wilderness in original status, especially after the damage and
pollution to the natural environment. The human can’t reverse the damage, but
they can try to fix it. I agree with his perspective because some damages to
the environment can’t be reversed or repaired. Like some extinct species and
the loss of glacier.
Naess believes the human should take huge responsibilities for the preservation of original wilderness like keep the rich species of non-human lives. He thinks for considering the deep ecology, industrial countries should take the preservation of wild animals and plants seriously and leave space to them keep it developing in a sustainable way. The non-human life is also important on earth so human should always pay attention on it before and after they use and damaged the natural resources and environment. Guha states deep ecology is uniquely American, and social and political goals of radical environmentalism in other cultural contexts are quite different. I do not agree with this idea. A lot of developing countries are kind of processing the same routine the U.S. has been through. Like they need to take huge advantages by using land and exploiting the resources and it causes damages to the natural environment and species. When the countries reach to a appropriate level they are satisfied about their living condition or the environmental problem is serious enough to the residents who can’t ignore it anymore, they begin to consider and take it seriously. All the people on the earth is like a union because if all the creatures are divided in human and non-human life, all human should consider the themselves as a group and build and develop the great wilderness together in a sustainable and beautiful way. Then Guha says the social consequences of putting deep ecology into practice on a worldwide basis are very grave indeed. I do not agree with this statement neither. I would like to say today different countries are already working together to resolve the environmental problem. For example, today, global warming is serious problem for all the countries but not just for one and it changed the global ecosystem in a serious way. Some counties may not be strong enough to take responsibility for taking deep ecology but some already are
My personal reflection is about the definition of resources. When human exploit and use natural resources to feed themselves and establish a better homeland, the human themselves are also playing the role as resources as parts to build the big blueprint. If we take the society as an individual then all human doing different jobs is playing a role to feed it and make it better just like human eats animals and plants and use a physical substance like furniture and their buildings. Things and creatures have a service life, human either. Till the end, any individual will run out their life by serving others consciously or unconsciously. Is that the wilderness serving human or human is doing everything to keep themselves survive and serving the wilderness? I think it is a symbiotic relationship. Human moves forward so carefully on making a better future and also trying to avoid destroying themselves by the dangerous weapons they made by themselves. We were lucky to be born and lucky to survive that the rules exist can feed the species so good to have the chance to enjoy their life in the process of surviving. Thank you, the greatest wilderness and mother earth to make us stronger!
In the battle between Muri and Pinchot over Hetch-Hetchy, they both represented different philosophies on protecting beautiful American aeras. Muri was a preservationist and Pinchot was a conservationist. Muri thinks wilderness should be a place without human intervention and the natural growth is the best. His preservation was to leave the land with natural status. Like Hetch-Hetchy. Pinchot thinks wilderness can be the resources for the country if people can manage it well. He spread his concept to people can taught them to exploit wilderness. And comparing with leaving a full of resources wild land, use resources to help people get what they want was the priority at that moment. Like O’Shaughnessy Dam.
In
Nash’s lecture, counterculture is like the new formatted value which disagrees
the old values of the meaning of life and succeeds. The new and young
generation in the middle of 60s was not so obsessed in creating achievement and
ensuring safety comparing to the old generation, and they also didn’t celebrate
technology, power, profit, and growth- the gods in which wilderness had
traditionally been sacrificed in US history. Many Americans started to think
wilderness and Indians as victims in 60s, and the old concepts threatened the
counterculture like peace, freedom, and community. Counterculture concepts
matched the wilderness preservation movements, and they were mutually
reinforcing.
I
believe advent and popularity of electronic technology is beneficial for
nature. In the beginning of the study and development of technology, it was
true that natural environment had been damaged and polluted massively. The air
pollution, water pollution, and so on by the waste eject of industry and
mechanism all over the world. And the consequence of nuclear bomb made people
took the usage of advanced technology cautiously. And people begin to enjoy the
original wilderness like national parks after they balanced the benefits of
exploit such beautiful areas. Some sacrifice of the natural environment were
necessary for the improvement technology and it has reached a right level to
maintain and enhancing the natural environment to a new level. If we ignore the
irreversible usage of natural resources, natural environment is still can be
refreshed back to original or even better situation by the care of technology.
Today, small cameras and drones are good to monitor the change of ecosystem to
make human have enough data to make analysis to make the best change and
prevent the predictable damage to the environment and wild animals. And some
labs and management to the almost extinct animals can keep them alive or change
their habitat from the slaughter of predator and natural disaster. For the
river, lakes, and lands, technology uses best way to against erosion and loss
of them and making the habitat to a better situation. Without human
interruption, some habitat might keep in good situation forever, but some are
not, so human can prevent and improve the habitat which has chance to ruined by
natural disasters or the bad sequence of natural deduction. I would like to say
advent and popularity of electronic technology is good for wilderness in the
future.
My personal reflection is technology created wilderness and it also can make wilderness better than ever. In the progress of technology study, human has entered an era for enjoying the benefit of modernization which they have never experienced before. And people also making stronger plants by cultivating them in the lab even in the space ship outside of the earth. Therefore, today, those strong plants can make the environment has a better performance after human research. Without human interruption, original plants couldn’t have so many different species and getting evolve so fast. It was the truth that in the process of human community growth, wilderness or we can call it natural environment has been damaged a lot to a level that threatening most of the organic life on earth, but it was the required sacrifice to the whole higher intelligent life group in the solar system. Today, human can even clone themselves which have entered the filed of god. Nothing can stop human to make a better world. Listen! The land is trembling! Here is a video about space plants.
I have barely known the American history so when I was asking to describe what “Manifest Destiny” is before I read the related lecture, I couldn’t answer. “Manifest Destiny” is like a concept of expansion in 1845. It was held by the United States to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism through the whole North America continent. Runte said Americans have achieved “Manifest Destiny” because the U.S. acquired some territories in 1845 and 1846 from British and Mexico for resolving the settlements of the boundaries in the Pacific Northwest. In Runte Wild and Art:” It was, supporters justified, the “manifest destiny” of the nation to possess all of the territories in between.” clearly stated the concept for the expansion. With the exploring and development of new territories, search for material well-being has been achieved by nationalism. National Park idea came out with the accompanied by the force of appeals for cultural identity through nature which would be part of the destiny. If we look at what the U.S. has today, we could say that destiny has been achieved well.
Why was Frederick Jackson Turner’s “Frontier Hypothesis” so important to the development and growth of the American conservation movement towards the end of the 19th Century? Based on the “manifest destiny” and Turner’s “Frontier Hypothesis”, citizens were encouraged to explore and foster the West land. People were told to seek the gold and opportunities in the unexplored land. The beautiful and fresh environment was also an attraction for the people who lived in the crowded and uncleaned city after the views of the wild posted in the public. Like Turner said: “The Frontier not only made the American different than the European but better.”However, the loss of the “Frontier” made people concern about the disappearance of those characteristics. In the explore process, the conservation movement came out with the events related to the preservation of the national parks which had incredibly beautiful features and difficulty to be cultivated. The big concern about the lost in public eyes can be seen as the beginning of rest of other conservation movements, so it is so important to the development and growth of the American conservation movement towards the end of the 19th century.
I was wondering what was the heart in the debate about concerning the creation in Yellowstone Park in Nash’s lecture. The heart of the debate around concerning the creation of Yellowstone National Park is whether the resources should be exploited or keep the original ecological environment. The debate in Nash’s lecture mainly discussed the railroad development and protecting the original landscape like hot springs and wildlife. In the beginning, the railroad was willing to build to support some mining companies for taking advantages from the natural resources in the Yellowstone National Park. However, some discommenders pointed out the railroad will ruin the original nature scenery especially some geysers and hot springs, they stated the greed would against national pride and beauty. The railroad establishment voters went down a lot after the measure of the disadvantages of building it by applying oneself to protect the wilderness of Yellowstone National Park. Thanks to those people didn’t been blinded by the short-term benefit on exploiting the natural resources in Yellowstone National Park, today the posterities in the whole world still have chance to enjoy the national pride and beauty.
My personal reflection will be about my personal experience in Yellowstone National Park which I could understand why forefathers were struggling on balance the benefit of keeping the beautiful landscape wilderness which turned to national parks later on or exploit the resources inside of them. Once, I was unprepared went to Yellowstone National Park alone. I landed on Salt Lake City and drove to the national park. The journey was kind of boring until I reached a small town next to the entrance. I had a break at night and drove into the national park the next day. It was not so crowded and I was lucky to see the wild animals while I was driving. Ignoring the bad smell of those geysers, I really enjoyed the fresh air and green. The environment was quiet and peace so I couldn’t imagine how the circumstance would be if the railroad was build in the national park. I didn’t book any hotel in the national park early so I expected there would be a spot left. Unfortunately, I tried a few hotels in the park and none of them had any room left. So I had to drove out the park back to the down near the entrance to sleep. Except for the fixed spots, there was also some huge free wilderness barely have people been there for hiking. I hope I could have an exciting adventure but I didn’t want to head in the jungle without anything could against the mosquito. I planed a week for visiting the park but I realized it was too long for an individual after three days. Therefore, I drove up along the road on the map and noticed the outside of the national park is an even larger wilderness that has a few people living and some of them are even prettier than the scenery inside of the national park. I had never seen the same scenery in my country because of the different geographic positions so I felt I was inspired to travel and see more places. And I realized uncultivated areas have much more floor space not just in the U.S. but in the whole world. I parked on the rest spot next to the high way and it was next to the river. I felt so helpless and lost while I was standing alone in front of a great piece of wilderness. After I looked at someone else journey in the park, I felt I missed a lot of fun things to play. Here is a video about backpacking though.
How does Lopez relate his attitude to our natural land today? In Barry Lopez’s article, he stated that land usage began from the very beginnings of European interaction in the Americas when Columbus and other explorers and conquistadors came and imposed their views on the people and the land rather than proposing their ways. They wanted communication with American and conquered everything they wanted on those land. The consequence is to lose a vast amount of knowledge about the land and the people who lived there and the wisdom they had acquired. Like some old techs, people have no idea today how ancients had achieved them. And the way Spanish has done in the past, just like what human are doing to our natural land today. People take resources from the natural land and damage it without concerns and with the imposition of will. He suggests people should take the land as a companion but not a processor. I agree with his opinion and it is a good way for sustainable development for the natural environment. In the old period, human has never concerned about taking natural resources because of the small amount of population and unadvanced tech of taking and using natural resources. However, with the industrial period came, the rapidly grew population and high tech taking and using a huge amount of natural resources with the passion of having a better living condition. Based on the studies and researches, people began to realize the resources are limited and the usage of land resources should be in a sustainable way. I think if a human is not taking and using land resources with concern, it is because they got the concept that unmanaged usage is not the best way to gain the most benefit in a long period. It is not like people will take the land as their companion because it is not alive, and it can’t have emotionally communication with human beings. The human can take animals as companions but not the land. Like we said plant and even grass also have lived but we still take them as nothing because they are too whispered and too small to be valued. And the land is like a public property except for our tiny place for living. Therefore, I agree with the opinion but I don’t believe people can really have that concept when they using the land because the reason we think this problem is based on the group is not living in the property and the unlimited usage may cause future generation to have a bad living situation. Imaging the people living in staving in Africa or some small countries have barren lands which can’t support most of the citizens have a nice place to live and having appropriate foods. They would try to take anything they can from their land to feed their personal need instead of thinking about taking the land as a companion. I believe the conquer of the land is not just because of greed but also the normal needs because people haven’t reached the standard of their personal needs. That’s why we need the United Nations, a stage that developed countries can help undeveloped or developing countries growing faster with high tech and advanced concepts they already have to make global land using sustainably.
What two things does Williams say we need save wilderness in the days ahead? Williams think we need both intellectual humility and political courage. We need intellectual humility because we may not know enough to make the best development on using wilderness to fit our desire by using a huge amount of land resources like timber and houses. For political courage, we need to honor and protect all the wilderness we have left on the land to balance all the wilderness we have destroyed. And we need the land to keep our species living in a better environment. We have made some mistakes that we destroyed wilderness without enough considerable thoughts, but we understood the problem and will make a better method on rational utilization on wilderness. And we will gain wisdom from those mistakes we have made and building a better living condition for future generation.
How does Turner’s essay makes me feel? After read Turner’s essay, I recollect the memories and feelings I had in my childhood when I was still a boy caring about the lives of small insects; animals; and plants. Like the age I still had feelings with my toys and belongings accompanied with me. There was no way I could always have someone staying with me when I was a little boy so the toys I payed might be the thing I filled most emotion in it. I didn’t have cellphone or too much electronic games to play at that time, so I spent most of my free time played outdoors in nature and stayed at home played my toys. The reason I bring it out is feeling and empathy people had when they were goys and girls make them care about small things and they really feel bad and sad when they are damaged or broken. I still remember I read an article about a little girl asked her father to drive slow on the highway in case to kill the insects coming to their window. I would like to say that is the empathy of caring about the wilderness. It is the purest and most kind heart that children have but might gone when they are grown up because of the society and life. I understand it is not all children have that empathy, some of them might damaging and destroying things for fun. And this is the thing I want to talk about Turner’s set out about his essay. If someone didn’t have empathy for wilderness when they were kids, without experiences and sufferings, we can’t expect them have it when they are adults. I think the willing for change the wilderness and make it better have two kinds: one is to make it better emotionally because some people feel the pain of nature sympathetically; another is to make it better because it is a rational option and people can get the most benefit from it. Therefore, I think Tuner has accomplished his set out in writing this essay because it reinforces and remains the people who had empathy and giving concepts and making people thinking about the wilderness crisis who haven’t thought about it yet. And I think Turner’s perspective and orientation is productive to the contemporary conservation movement. It is like once people notice the existence of the problem; they can’t ignore it anymore. People do live in a bad environment with pollutions, social issues and oppression with numbness, but they are the consequences of the development of the society. If the whole human species still live in the property without advanced technologies, we might not have time to consider the wilderness issue because we are struggling on improving the living conditions. Today people are busy to working on their own stuff and deal with the online exploded information, there are so many things to deal with. People need to get their school jobs done, then working on their career, and their family. How many people really want to make some changes when they are bringing their kids to the zoo and really have empathy to the animals which is a part of wilderness. The people don’t have enough financial condition can’t make huge change most of the time, and people have sufficient financial condition don’t want to get involved in this kind of problems most of the time. Like factories cause some serious damage to wilderness for making more profits, the owners might be someone should fix the damaged wilderness. Like it says: with great power comes great responsibility. Turner has said there is no longer the wilderness, I agree with it and I would like to say since human species have evolved advanced intelligence can exploit and use nature resources, there is no longer wilderness because unpredictable human behaviors totally changed the original ecosystem on earth. I believe if we want to avoid father damage to wilderness and our own living habitat, we need to change the attitude and concepts about modern society, lifestyles, and the way we treat wilderness inconsiderately.
My personal reflection in this week is about it is kind of impossible to make people really caring about wilderness. I mean people are living on wilderness and survive by robbing the natural resources. It is just like we feed pigs for eating their meat, we make wilderness sustainable developed because we want to use more resources of it although we have destroyed a lot. People doing good things for wilderness is based on satisfying their own desire, like their empathy on caring the natural environment or wild animals or wanting better living condition for the current or future generation. Once we are taking advantage of it, we can’t say we are really caring about it. People are using the wilderness and earth. Like people feeding our dogs and taking them as friends sometimes, but we are hard to treat them as a real person. We barely can love someone else as much as we love ourselves. Most people won’t sacrifice themselves to achieve someone else life or success unless they can’ t find their purpose in life. However, the existence of human can build better earth after they have enough advanced technologies and appropriate ways to foster better wilderness. Imagining if human exists when dinosaur still alive and human have enough tech to against meteorolite, so now we can have another huge and smart species with us and making this planet more full of vigor. Today human has ruined enough natural environment to make this planet being exhausted, but think about the future. When we have studied the best way to make a natural environment and this planet growing better, the earth can reach to the condition she has never had. I believe the human can fix it and make it better off, just like a recombined relationship between people are tighter than it has been broken before.
Xiubin's Nature blog 