DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 241--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: kellyf
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ccogswell link ---
>
> [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?
>
--- End 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?
[/quote]
Oh boy. What a lot to tackle. The difference between nature's
interests and human's interest brings up both Casey and Kasey's
questions. What is the separation between humans and nature? But
that gets too philosophical for me right now, so I am going to
instead focus on 'interests.' I don't think that nature has any
'interests', or at least none that aren't placed on nature by
humans. That is what makes it one and the same, since 'nature's
interests' are actually human made, and thus human interests. So
that sort of shuts down your original question. But if we take
the preservation of 'wilderness' due to 'nature's interests'
placed by humans (not cutting down forests, protecting animals,
etc.) or human interests (beautiful place to hike, good views,
etc.) isn't the product the same? Does it really matter what the
reasoning behind it was? (Or if it was conservation vs
preservation?)
And to your second question, I don't think it matters. It is
like asking what would the world be like without humans? (I
don't know, and I don't care because I wouldn't be there to
appreciate it.) We do preserve nature because we enjoy it,
because there is something mystical about the expansive forest,
because it is something we can't fully understand. Would people
preserve nature if they didn't like it? Maybe. But I think a
question that could be more beneficial is why do we preserve
some parts nature and not others?
#Post#: 242--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: mayafb
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The idea of "wilderness" has always confused me. What comes to
mind is that picturesque untamed western landscape of jagged
peaks and meadows of flowers and grasses. However, some of the
national parks are the most maintained and regulated pieces of
nature in the country. Then I think about urban environments and
how the wilderness intersects with how humans operate in
condensed spaces. How does the idea of wilderness change? Is the
abandoned lot a certain type of wilderness? And in response to
that, I would say yes. It is. Wilderness to me is a sense of
life. In a sense, I think that wilderness itself does not have
to be "nature." At first glance, the wilderness does seem like
an untamed landscape just looking at the word "wild" being the
prefix. However, we do have an urban wilderness. And this could
come in the form of plant life, but also in the form of how
people move through the cities and spaces. What I have been
thinking about is the intersection of the "wildernesses" like
Cathedral Pines and our own spaces as people. Is it the
separation of this idea of "wilderness" and built spaces
partially creating the downfall of the environmental ethic?
Maybe. It is more than likely that by further removing ourselves
from this idea of wild, we are understanding the desire to
control. But if the wilderness is controlled, then it is not
really wild then. And the wilderness that we like to think of
uncontrolled is always controlled. It may not be by humans but
as Pollen suggests it is simply "chance and contingency" that
controls nature. And although this may not seem like actual
control, it is the factors of chance that allows control. It all
boils down to what happens when and where. That is a kind of
intangible control.
So my question:
Do urban wildernesses exist? How did humans create or interact
with them?
(if you want more come to my capstone 15 mins into lunch in bio3
on April 10th where I will be talking about what humans include
in their definition of communities more about plants and
adaptations and all that cool stuff!)
#Post#: 243--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Reed link ---
>
> “Why are humans so against nature and so keen on separating
themselves from it?”
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that it is probably hard, if not impossible, to come
across someone who is altogether against nature. But I think
that the degree to which humans appreciate nature or wish to
separate themselves from it depends greatly on factors such as
socioeconomic status, belief system, and where and when in
history they have wound up existing. An impoverished person
living in a food desert in a major city might not hate nature or
desire to remain separate from it, but if they are in fact
separated from nature, and have things like feeding their family
to worry about, there is a good chance that they will spend less
time thinking about connecting to nature than someone who
attends CSW and can take a stroll through the forest whenever
they please.
I also think that the development of a society in which an
individual lives has a great impact on their perception of
nature. The idea that humans are against nature or keen on
separating themselves from it is, I think born out of
circumstances wherein people were at the mercy of nature. Of
course, we still are at the mercy of nature, but it is less
apparent when we can sit inside and eat refrigerated food while
there's a storm outside. And now that we can spend all of our
time indoors, and experience the negative effects of such a
lifestyle, we can focus on the positive elements of being
"together" with nature. The phrase "the grass is always greener"
comes to mind. Humans' perceived relationship with nature seems
to shift depending on how we would interact with it when we
don't go out of our way. That is to say, when people have less
easy access to nature they desire to connect to it, and when
people are unavoidably "within" nature (which becomes less and
less common), they have a stronger desire to leave it.
Of course, I seem to have contradicted myself, since I have also
said that being within nature can make you more conscious of it
and strengthen your desire to stay there, while being away from
nature can cause you to ignore its importance. I suppose that
the ease of your life is an important factor, and that
consciously contemplating your relationship with nature is, to
at least an extent, a privilege.
#Post#: 244--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: JTodd
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For me, wilderness is the feeling I get when I’m detached the
hustle and bustle produced by a multitude of humans shuffling
about in an inhabited area. That feeling of detachment is pretty
fun and easy to come by in the West. Pollan talks about this
dissociation in his text by saying, “...wilderness is also a
profoundly alienating idea, for it drives a large wedge between
man and nature.” I think this alienation is a healthy process
which everyone should undergo from time to time in order to gain
perspective. This entertains what Pollan would likely label the
facet of transcendentalist philosophy dealing with “higher
laws,” however, I do no see it as such. Nature is chaotic and is
in a constant, lengthy, and eternal struggle towards
equilibrium. If nature was perfect, it would have found
equilibrium long ago and maintained it. There wouldn’t be any
more change in the form of struggle and evolution. The
perspective to be gained isn’t about the insignificance of human
laws, but rather, the perspective that humans are as much a part
of nature as any other creature. We simply interact with it in
ways that are not sustainable.
--- Quote from: Kasey link ---
>
> Question: What truly defines the separation between nature and
humans, and why can’t humans be a part of nature and the
wilderness?
>
--- End Quote ---
Heck yeah! It’s all an illusion! Just go outside and like
breathe the air! It’s the same air every other creature uses,
just a little different because humans got to it and used it a
little differently.
Q: Is letting nature take its almost randomized course the only
true way to maintain natural things? Aren’t places like
Cathedral Pines just a place frozen in time?
#Post#: 245--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: ccogswell
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: kellyf link ---
>
> [quote author=ccogswell link=topic=13.msg238#msg238
date=1548724138]
> [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?
>
--- End 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?
[/quote]
Oh boy. What a lot to tackle. The difference between nature's
interests and human's interest brings up both Casey and Kasey's
questions. What is the separation between humans and nature? But
that gets too philosophical for me right now, so I am going to
instead focus on 'interests.' I don't think that nature has any
'interests', or at least none that aren't placed on nature by
humans. That is what makes it one and the same, since 'nature's
interests' are actually human made, and thus human interests. So
that sort of shuts down your original question. But if we take
the preservation of 'wilderness' due to 'nature's interests'
placed by humans (not cutting down forests, protecting animals,
etc.) or human interests (beautiful place to hike, good views,
etc.) isn't the product the same? Does it really matter what the
reasoning behind it was? (Or if it was conservation vs
preservation?)
And to your second question, I don't think it matters. It is
like asking what would the world be like without humans? (I
don't know, and I don't care because I wouldn't be there to
appreciate it.) We do preserve nature because we enjoy it,
because there is something mystical about the expansive forest,
because it is something we can't fully understand. Would people
preserve nature if they didn't like it? Maybe. But I think a
question that could be more beneficial is why do we preserve
some parts nature and not others?
[/quote]
Okay. Well. Does the reasoning behind preservation matter? I
think it does, and I think it's the answer to your second
question. We preserve nature for human use (be that recreational
or for survival), and thus our preservation involves
interference. If we were preserving nature for its own sake, we
wouldn't be meddling with it and inserting ourselves into every
situation on every continent. Even Antarctica is a tourist
destination now, which is extremely damaging to its ecology. Our
environmental destruction reaches places we ourselves don't
live, too. So, nowhere is left alone, because nowhere is
preserved without human interests in mind. Therefore, the nature
we preserve ends up being the nature we like the best - what is
closest to home, closest to what we're familiar with, the most
beautiful and relaxing to visit, the places we would immediately
notice if they were to disappear. Additionally, the places that
many people want to pay to protect. People don't mind getting
behind the protection of national parks, because these are
places you can travel to and enjoy yourself the better
maintained they are. But to protect the ocean would be to change
the systems that are directly responsible for the food you're
eating on the table in front of you. It's not something many
people want to pay for, because it requires a sacrifice. So, I
guess people want to preserve what's easiest.
#Post#: 246--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12:Michael Pollan, "The Idea of a Garden"
DIR By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
Date: January 28, 2019, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TeacherRachel link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Up to this point, I have made the distinction between what is
and is not wilderness based largely on what has been classified
as wilderness by others, especially in media. While I do not
have a clearly worded definition of nature at hand, I guess this
means that my definition of wilderness is largely cultural. When
I think of wilderness of think of forests, ones that are densely
vegetated and hospitable only to humans that are especially
in-touch with nature (Tarzan?). The first definition of
"wilderness" that a google search gave me was as follows - "a
tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings."
This definition would include flat plains, frozen tundras, and
perhaps even the ocean. When I think about it I suppose that
these spaces fit into my idea of what a wilderness is, but if I
hear the word wilderness I doubt that the first image that comes
to my mind will be a desert or a never-ending sheet of ice.
A question - Upon gaining knowledge that contradicts or alters
an individual's understanding of wilderness, or nature, or
related concepts, should that individual make a conscious effort
to shift their view of the world around them, or is it enough to
retain a flawed perspective / incomplete opinion while
acknowledging its shortcomings?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page