DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 405--------------------------------------------------
#12: The Idea of a Garden
By: amacdonald Date: March 4, 2019, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From MyCSW:
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...).
#Post#: 406--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Idea of a Garden
By: amacdonald Date: March 4, 2019, 2:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From this passage, Pollan seems to define "wilderness" as a
place that is untouched by human factors. For example, he argues
that the "Cathedral Pines [are] not in any sense a wilderness"
(394) because the pines were a "product of early logging
practices" (394). Something that I found interesting in this
passage was how Pollan dealt with the idea of completely natural
growth. On pages 182 and 183, he begins to list different
scenarios that could possibly lead to significant,
environment-changing outcomes. To me, it sounded as if he was
arguing that there is no "one true path" for nature and that
intervention by humans can sometimes help sustain the identity
of a place.
My question:
Does nature ever have one true path? Can intervention by man to
a certain extent remain within the parameters of a natural
cycle/re-growth?
#Post#: 407--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Idea of a Garden
By: zwalker2020 Date: March 4, 2019, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Does nature ever have one true path?"
I think this first part of the question by itself can be
answered in a lot of ways, ranging from philosophical to
scientific. I think there's two perspectives for this topic, the
first being that humans have disrupted the environment to a
point where it's impossible for it to continue in a way it
"naturally" would, and the other perspective being that humanity
is a part of this "true path" that nature takes. I'm not really
sure which of these extremes I really agree with more.
"Can intervention by man to a certain extent remain within the
parameters of a natural cycle/re-growth?"
To a certain extent, this is definitely possible. But it's for
the best if humanity lets nature continue on its own, because
otherwise there could be unwelcome repercussions. An example I
can think of that was really interesting to me when I read it
was how people combat forest fires- and how forest fires if left
alone "clean up" its environments underbrush, weeds and dead
plants that would build up otherwise. People preventing this
part of the ecosystem from happening actually makes it so that
forest fires that do happen become huge and turn into an actual
danger for the environment and whoever is living in the area.
People combated forest fires thinking they were helping the
environment, when in reality they were hurting it as a whole,
and this is just one example of how messing with nature (even
with good intentions) can end up badly.
I agree with what Pollan defines as wilderness: something that
is completely dominated by the earth's natural course and hasn't
interacted with people at all, though I think that if nobody
really goes to a place such as the Cathedral Pines, it could be
considered a wilderness after a time.
My question: Can something unnatural in nature created by people
become wilderness again after a time? If so, how long would it
take for it to be truly considered a "wilderness"?
#Post#: 408--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Idea of a Garden
By: asantello Date: March 4, 2019, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does nature ever have one true path? Can intervention by man to
a certain extent remain within the parameters of a natural
cycle/re-growth?
I think that nature doesn’t have one true path, and I think that
pollan would agree. Talking about Cathedral Pines he says, “
nature herself doesn’t know what’s going to happen here” (396)
and “Nature will condone and almost infinite possible futures
for cathedral pines” (397). I realize that he is talking about
one specific place, but I can’t possibly think of a place that
would be hidden from any elements that keeps it from changing. I
think there are sometimes that change is so expected that it
seems like one path. For example, a wave in the ocean is going
to wash up on shore, but it’s exact path cannot be predicted.
As for the second question, I think it depends what is being
asked. I think that there are times humans can exist in nature
and it doesn’t affect it, but I don’t think person can live
within and interact with nature without changing its path. If a
person is walking through the woods, I would not say it is
guaranteed that they will change the growth cycle, but if
person is living off the land then yeah.
A question I have is, who deserves to have a say in how people
change the land. While I’m interested in thoughts on that I’m
also equally interested in what people think about Alex’s
question, so feel free to skip over mine.
#Post#: 409--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: afreitag Date: March 4, 2019, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
**I started writing after Alex's post
Personally this reading was such a relief to me because defining
nature as distanced from humans has been a new idea to me since
this class started. Pollan looked at what was happening in his
town and realized that their great debate over how to address
the land was silly (for lack of a better word) because “If the
future of Cathedral Pines is up for grabs, if its history will
always be the product of myriad chance events, then why
shouldn’t we also claim our place among all these deciding
factors?”(page 184). I am so excited to read this and
specifically how he articulates it because my idea of nature has
always been inclusive of humans, and humans as a creation and
part of nature that affects the environment as all other natural
things do (of course there are extremes).
Page 184 has some of the most understandable quotes I’ve
encountered in any reading: “Human choice is unnatural only if
nature is deterministic”, “Aren’t we also one of nature’s
contingencies?”, “[Nature] is more like us (or we are more like
[nature]) than we ever imagined”.
What does he think is at stake in how we think of wilderness? Do
you agree?
My interpretation is when nature is defined by the absence of
humans, humans can forget their inherent position on the earth -
as just another animal. This changes how humans think of the
world around them and their relationship to it, and can change
their decisions.
Who disagrees with me?
Does anyone else relate to my understanding of the definition of
nature?
#Post#: 410--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: samfarley Date: March 4, 2019, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This reading was very interesting, as I think too often we as
humans think of ourselves as special and different from other
animals, having forever impacted the pristine nature that was
here before we came along. However, we are just one with all the
other anomalies over the course of the earth’s history. Not to
take that narrative too far, because that can be used to justify
our impact on global warming, which is dangerous of course.
To Answer Rachael’s question, I think his intentions for writing
this piece are purely scientific and just to raise interesting
questions, but I also think that his arguments could be used by
people to justify humans going further and further into nature
and continuing the effects of climate change. He does raise
interesting points about how we view nature as static and we are
the only ones making change, and it is interesting to view
humans alongside other agents of change, namely animals and
natural disasters. But when we use this fact as justification
for altering the landscape too much, then I think we are taking
his point too far. I am curious if he considered this side
effect as he wrote this.
My main question has to deal with how he constantly referenced
nature as a female entity. We often paint nature as harsh and
dangerous, and the ones in our society that have done the most
‘exploring’ are white men. I’m curious how, despite this
masculine feeling we have portrayed upon nature and wilderness,
it became common to reference mother nature or to use the
pronoun she.
#Post#: 412--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: jbass Date: March 4, 2019, 7:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I noticed the question being asked "Does nature have one path?"
I thought this was a really interesting question because its
very hard to answer that seeing how much we as humans intervene
with natures path. We as humans defy the laws of nature by using
different sciences or technology. This is why this question
stuck out to me. I thought about what would the world look like
if nature had taken its course on the earth and humans didnt
build any monuments or buildings. What would the land look like
if it was totally unkept and compleatly free of humans. Is that
the path of nature? Do we as humans hinder nature by existing
and do we as humans actually cause more harm to nature over all?
#Post#: 413--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: ngood Date: March 4, 2019, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One moment of silence, please, to the fact that I'm using my
last pass tonight. RIP The Ability to Not Post on This
Forum...........I shall miss you.
#Post#: 414--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: smartins2019 Date: March 4, 2019, 7:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam! I totally love your question, but I am really not sure how
to go about answering it, so I’m just gonna put some misc
thoughts:
Basically, nature has always been referred to as a feminine
thing. Believe it or not, a lot of the times it was because
female bodies were undiscovered/ unknown, and men were afraid of
the power that they held. This may be going off on a tangent,
but it is one of my favorite things to talk about like ever!!!!
People always ask my why I love teeth so much (and why I always
use teeth in my art) and this is why:
Vagina Dentata: Vagina dentata describes a folk tale in which a
woman's vagina is said to contain teeth, with the associated
implication that sexual intercourse might result in injury,
emasculation, or castration for the man involved.
How cool is that. Totally amazing. Yes, there is a super corny
and awful movie about it, but I promise it totally does not to
it justice. Although Vagina Dentata has been in literature for
like EVER, that official term was coined by Freud.
On another note, the nature is unpredictable. By equating it to
a woman, it goes along with the whole trope that women are
temperamental and unreliable.
I know these aren’t very in depth, and I can totally talk about
these (and more) ideas in person.
#Post#: 415--------------------------------------------------
Re: #12: The Idea of a Garden
By: Ahmed_A Date: March 4, 2019, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the distinction between humans and nature is merely made
up by humans. What is artificial can also be adapted by nature.
We are part of the ecosystem. The difference, I think, lies in
the intent. Some humans tend to exploit natural resources, and
end up damaging it (cutting trees for example) and some people
attempt to save nature and also end up damaging it (forest fire
prevention, as Pollan pointed out). The outcome of people’s
actions is hardly predictable, which is also a characteristic of
nature; “chance and contingency” (397) is prevalent in nature.
Nature does not share the intent that us humans consider as part
of our actions. Any natural occurrence, whether rain, tornado,
forest fire, or a species’ extinction, happens because because
the Earth is following the natural laws, not because nature
thinks it is the right thing to do. I think humans - frankly,
the Western culture especially - get caught up in the idea of
controlling nature, and drawing a line between humans and
nature, by the idea of “wildness”. However I believe that no
matter how many lines we try to draw, nature and us are part of
each other.
I couldn't answer the question directly, but my idea here is
that even if something is touched by humans, and therefore,
artificial, it can always find its way back to nature.
Therefore, unnatural land can very well turn into wilderness, if
humans lost interest in it.
My question is: Why does humans feel the need to draw the
distinction between them and nature in the form of wilderness?
[font=georgia][/font]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page