DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 231--------------------------------------------------
#12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 28, 2019, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pages: 393-399, Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden," from
Second Nature: A Gardener's Education What is your definition of
wilderness? Is it largely ecological? cultural? aesthetic? This
excerpt is just a sliver of a great debate over wilderness that
has raged for over a century. How do you explain Pollan's
motivation to weigh in? What does he think is at stake in how we
think of wilderness? Do you agree? Feel free to answer these
questions and also answer each other's (so you'll need to post
some so that there will be questions to answer...).
Michael Pollan is a freelance journalist, a professor of
journalism at the Universtiy of California at Berkeley, and the
author of the bestsellers (and sometimes "Parent books") The
Botany of Desire and The Omnivore's Dilemma.
#Post#: 232--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: alaina.h Date: January 28, 2019, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“When man leaves it alone, nature will tend toward a healthy and
abiding state of equilibrium. Wilderness, the purest expression
of this natural law, stands out beyond history.” p.395
I think this quote fits really well with my definition of
wilderness as well is something interesting to think about. I
think of the wilderness as the most natural form of nature, if
that makes sense. The most untouched pieces of nature that there
are. If humans leave these places alone and keep them untouched
and less controlled then it is more of the wilderness. So I
think of wilderness as part of an ecological definition rather
than cultural aspects. I also focused on this idea of the
“wilderness ethic” and find that to be true. People make
assumptions that humans have a rightful connection with nature.
We really have never had a true and natural connection with
nature or any connection that humans and nature stay equally
balanced with one another. To me, it has always seemed as though
humans have the upper hand and attempt to take control of this
“wilderness” that we should be “preserving”. I want to connect
the “wilderness ethic” to my post from last time when I was
talking about what we now see as preservation and have not as
good intentions.
What is your definition of preservation? Do you think we’ve
changed how we “take care” of nature and the wilderness around
us over time?
#Post#: 233--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: Casey A Date: January 28, 2019, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, a few things on this reading cross my mind. As it helped
me define many of my thoughts on environmental history, I would
like to share some of them. Nature: An idea originating from a
view of an area devoid of technology with the objective of
improving ethics. I am more confident in this definition that I
was with my other definition at the start of the class.
Wilderness I define as an exotic perception of nature as an
predictable contingency in our life. I think a main idea
presented in the article is that most people think nature and
humans are different, which I do not agree with, humans are a
part of nature, but pretend they are not to gain a sense of
control over it. As my friend Ben Altman once said, “Humans are
a part of nature, therefore, how can humans be stronger than
nature if they are it themselves… nature is more powerful.”
Having disagreed with this when I first heard it, I now see it
as true after reading this article which has an idea of not
everything is black or white or exactly defined, which now I can
agree with. It’s ironic that I have been arguing the idea of
humans wanting exactness and exact definitions and perceiving it
as a flaw, and not realizing that I am one of those humans.
In responce to Alaina’s question, I think that preservation is
the act of maintaining something that is loosing quality in our
minds and to not save it would be viewed as unethical.
Here’s a question for whomever wants to answer it: Why are
humans so against nature and so keen on separating themselves
from it?
#Post#: 234--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: ccogswell Date: January 28, 2019, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What is your definition of preservation? Do you think we’ve
changed how we “take care” of nature and the wilderness around
us over time?
My definition hasn't really changed since last week, but I think
it has expanded. Previously, I had defined preservation as
taking something in its best form and then locking it away
somewhere safe where it would remain untouched and unaltered for
all of time. It's challenging to apply this to nature, but I
think the general idea is that you close an area off from
interference and just don't touch it (in contrast with
conservation, which is rehabilitating a natural area so that it
does not require preservation in the long term). After tonight's
reading, I think preservation of nature has historically
involved more upkeep of what's being preserved. The argument is
whether or not true preservation means leaving something
entirely without human interference, or having human involvement
as actors in nature to upkeep the space in a specific state of
being. I think as time goes on, nature has required more and
more of both types of preservation, but our general idea that we
must protect the "wilderness" - this patch of pristine nature
designated for the non impactful use of humans on their
vacations and days off from civilization.
So, my question... Is the "wilderness" something we preserve for
the sake of nature, or for human enjoyment of a space they deem
untouched and original?
#Post#: 235--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: kellyf Date: January 28, 2019, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=13.msg234#msg234
date=1548713058]
What is your definition of preservation? Do you think we’ve
changed how we “take care” of nature and the wilderness around
us over time?
My definition hasn't really changed since last week, but I think
it has expanded. Previously, I had defined preservation as
taking something in its best form and then locking it away
somewhere safe where it would remain untouched and unaltered for
all of time. It's challenging to apply this to nature, but I
think the general idea is that you close an area off from
interference and just don't touch it (in contrast with
conservation, which is rehabilitating a natural area so that it
does not require preservation in the long term). After tonight's
reading, I think preservation of nature has historically
involved more upkeep of what's being preserved. The argument is
whether or not true preservation means leaving something
entirely without human interference, or having human involvement
as actors in nature to upkeep the space in a specific state of
being. I think as time goes on, nature has required more and
more of both types of preservation, but our general idea that we
must protect the "wilderness" - this patch of pristine nature
designated for the non impactful use of humans on their
vacations and days off from civilization.
So, my question... Is the "wilderness" something we preserve for
the sake of nature, or for human enjoyment of a space they deem
untouched and original?
[/quote]
I am gonna run with your post and question. - I don't even know
my definitions of preservation and conservation, honestly I
don't know if the difference is big enough to have two words.
Let me pose two definitions: Preservation is the 'locking away'
of something, or making sure what already exists will continue
to exist in the future. Conservation is the sustainable use of
something, which in turn will make sure that what exists
currently will continue to exist in the future. So they are
different methods working towards the same goal? Who knows. And
to explore your question, it seems to me that wilderness does
not exist. Or at least the version of wilderness that is "a
pristine place untouched by white men." (395) (Though I am
extending the idea of 'untouched' beyond white men since we know
native people depleted many resources before European invasion.)
For example, there is a place called the Pemigewasset Wilderness
in New Hampshire. From 1890-1940, loggers removed almost all the
trees from the area. But since then, the Forest Service has let
it regrow and call it 'the wilderness.' But the wilderness is
maintained! There are many regulations to keep the 'look' of
untouched nature. Now why do people do this? Why it is for both
reasons, Christine. And I might even argue they are one and the
same.
#Post#: 236--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: juliab Date: January 28, 2019, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the "wilderness" something we preserve for the sake of
nature, or for human enjoyment of a space they deem untouched
and original?
I think that it is very interesting what Pollan wrote on the
first page that “The Nature conservancy, in keeping with it’s
mandate to maintain its lands in a “state of nature” indicated
that it would leave Cathedral Pines alone, allowing the forest
to take its “natural course” whatever that might be. To town
officials and neighbors of the forest this was completely
unacceptable” (Pollan, 393). This reminded me of all that we’ve
been talking about the past few days of the kind of level of
natural that national parks really are. In this I felt it was
saying that people don’t want nature unless it is beautiful and
conforming to our exact needs of it, and that many are willing
to alter what appears naturally to fit their idea of “beauty”
and our necessity. I don’t think that the “wilderness” is
something we preserve for the sake of nature, because I don’t
feel like it’s truly preserved. The dynamic in the readings
we’ve been doing show that what humans deem “untouched and
original” is really very far from so.
At what point do we deem something worthy of preservation? And
where do you think the line is between what should be upkept in
nature and what should truly be left wild?
#Post#: 237--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: Kasey Date: January 28, 2019, 6:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wilderness and Preservation:
I think the idea of preservation is to keep change from humans
occur. The problem that people start to face is any sort of
natural change that occurs which may keep the preservation from
being preserved. I just wonder if someone could ever truly
preserve the wilderness. The debate whether people help keep the
wilderness in tact or if people should even be a part of the
wilderness in the first place is very interesting. If there’s an
idea that change is occurring in nature even if humans are not
necessary to cause the change, then can the wilderness be humans
preserving nature? I do not think that they can. I struggle to
see how humans preserving nature would keep a piece of land
considered as the “wilderness.” I think if humans try to keep
change from happening but nature already causes change on its
own, then I don’t think people could preserve a wilderness. A
wilderness can experience change, but it’s not change or
preservation from humans. It is natural and wild and does not
have an impact from humans.
Question: What truly defines the separation between nature and
humans, and why can’t humans be a part of nature and the
wilderness?
#Post#: 238--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: ccogswell Date: January 28, 2019, 7:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=13.msg235#msg235
date=1548718945]
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=13.msg234#msg234
date=1548713058]
What is your definition of preservation? Do you think we’ve
changed how we “take care” of nature and the wilderness around
us over time?
My definition hasn't really changed since last week, but I think
it has expanded. Previously, I had defined preservation as
taking something in its best form and then locking it away
somewhere safe where it would remain untouched and unaltered for
all of time. It's challenging to apply this to nature, but I
think the general idea is that you close an area off from
interference and just don't touch it (in contrast with
conservation, which is rehabilitating a natural area so that it
does not require preservation in the long term). After tonight's
reading, I think preservation of nature has historically
involved more upkeep of what's being preserved. The argument is
whether or not true preservation means leaving something
entirely without human interference, or having human involvement
as actors in nature to upkeep the space in a specific state of
being. I think as time goes on, nature has required more and
more of both types of preservation, but our general idea that we
must protect the "wilderness" - this patch of pristine nature
designated for the non impactful use of humans on their
vacations and days off from civilization.
So, my question... Is the "wilderness" something we preserve for
the sake of nature, or for human enjoyment of a space they deem
untouched and original?
[/quote]
I am gonna run with your post and question. - I don't even know
my definitions of preservation and conservation, honestly I
don't know if the difference is big enough to have two words.
Let me pose two definitions: Preservation is the 'locking away'
of something, or making sure what already exists will continue
to exist in the future. Conservation is the sustainable use of
something, which in turn will make sure that what exists
currently will continue to exist in the future. So they are
different methods working towards the same goal? Who knows. And
to explore your question, it seems to me that wilderness does
not exist. Or at least the version of wilderness that is "a
pristine place untouched by white men." (395) (Though I am
extending the idea of 'untouched' beyond white men since we know
native people depleted many resources before European invasion.)
For example, there is a place called the Pemigewasset Wilderness
in New Hampshire. From 1890-1940, loggers removed almost all the
trees from the area. But since then, the Forest Service has let
it regrow and call it 'the wilderness.' But the wilderness is
maintained! There are many regulations to keep the 'look' of
untouched nature. Now why do people do this? Why it is for both
reasons, Christine. And I might even argue they are one and the
same.
[/quote]
I agree completely, but I want to hear more. How specifically is
preservation for nature's interests the same as preservation for
human interests? Are human and nature interests the same, since
we've established that humans are a part/an actor in nature?
Would we preserve nature if we didn't enjoy being in it? As
untrue as it is that our "wilderness" is untouched, and even if
nature is and has been widely fabricated... if we didn't
preserve it, would it still exist by now?
#Post#: 239--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: Reed Date: January 28, 2019, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Why are humans so against nature and so keen on separating
themselves from it?”
There’s one hugely important topic that I don’t remember any of
these readings addressing while their authors wrote about the
value of nature, that topic being the role that wilderness-- in
particular plant life and oceans-- has in countering global
warming, or really, the proven value that nature has to humans
outside of its aesthetic and perhaps spiritual value. If
addressing climate is so irrelevant to Pollan’s arguments about
nature, then I think it follows that his definition of nature is
probably based in cultural (specifically transcendentalist)
ideas about nature.
From my limited knowledge of the subject, in the west,
transcendentalist ideas about nature kind of arose as a backlash
to the crowded, dirty urban living conditions that many people
lived in at the time, as well as the attitudes that a lot of
people had about how humans are good because/when they are
“civilized” and as cultivated and distant from nature and
emotions and hippie stuff as possible. Transcendentalists think
that the divine is something that’s visible and present in the
form of nature. To be separated from nature is to be corrupted
of its purity, and to be in it, and self-reliant/independent in
nature, is the ideal setting for all human affairs, because it
means you’ve sorta become one with your surroundings. It would
seem that a lot of american ideas about nature, therefore, come
forth from the idea that in order to honor a christian God, one
must honor his creations, specifically the natural world, and
that to cultivate a relationship with him, you must commune with
nature.
Pollan invokes religiousness again as he describes the solid
adherence of “worshippers” to wilderness ethics as a “deep,
Puritan distrust of man” and sets it in contrast to “temple-
destroyers” (399). I was particularly taken with the puritan
line, because it’s a very bostonian concept… puritan values and
ideas are still so present in Boston, and it makes sense that
they apply to a modern conservationist’s ideas about nature.
I guess the answer to this question, then, is… what? Not really.
Humans are not against nature, or keen on separating themselves
from it. Almost everyone I know appreciates the beauty and value
of the natural world and introduces it into their lives somehow
in walks or excursions, houseplants, gardening, staring out the
window, petting their kittens, eating local kale, learning about
nature, etc. Sure, in the west, we still live with the legacy of
both systems of thought-- the transcendentalist “god is in
wildness” ideas and the puritan “wildness means filth and
savagery” ideas, and that can sometimes make it feel like humans
pit themselves against whatever the current conception of nature
is. The thesis of this course is that it all depends.
CSW maintains an extremely specific type of wilderness, and one
that’s different from how the town of Lexington maintains the
wilderness in the meadows by my house, probably because those
two entities have different ideologies and needs for the
wilderness in question. My question is, what do you think is the
most powerful force behind what a given person/entity believes
nature should be maintained to? Is it their culture’s ideas
about what the surrounding land should look like? Is it their
relationship with their God? Is it their socioeconomic status?
Is it how much they interact with land in their day-to-day life?
What's the deciding factor in how someone thinks land should be
treated?
#Post#: 240--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
By: jterry2020 Date: January 28, 2019, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
At what point do we deem something worthy of preservation? And
where do you think the line is between what should be upkept in
nature and what should truly be left wild?
I don’t think there is any universal rule for whether or not
something is worth of preservation. In my experience, it has
just been decided by the community or government relating to the
area in question. I think that the decision making process
contains some amount of superficiality or at least input not
related to the “wild” qualities of the area. For example, people
might want to preserve a place that they have an emotional
connection to and has been heavily affected by humans, rather
than a place they rarely see or visit that has less human
involvement. In terms of where I think the line should be, I
think it is still impossible to make a line that applies to
everywhere. As the reading implied, nowhere is complete wild or
untouched, so there is nothing we can truly leave wild. Maybe
scientists can try to predict whether an area will be ok (but
what does ok mean?) without active human preservation and that
will inform the decision.
Do humans have an obligation to preserve the nature around them?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page