As our last reading assignment before turning to our presentations and papers in earnest, my hope is that
Rambunctious Garden will help you think about your research project. (As we discussed in class, everyone will read the first two chapters, and chapters 9 and 10, choosing two of the remaining chapters that seem interesting or useful for your project). Feel free to use your question and short response to the reading as a place to work out ideas for your paper. Emma Marris, the author of the book, will Skype in to answer questions for 30 minutes or so during class, so you could also use the blog post as a way to think about what you'd like to ask her.
As a reminder: Blake, Nick, Ellen, Ariel, Florence, Jesse, and Chelsea have volunteered to present their work on November 20, with everyone else presenting on the 27th. I will go over strategies for writing a good presentation in class on Wednesday.
Until Wednesday!
Kevin
PS Don't forget to bring two copies of the first few pages of your first draft of your essay! Outlines are OK, but the more you have, the more feedback you'll get.
If we lived by a wilderness philosophy more similar to Thoreau’s rather than Muir’s, how might our society be different?
ReplyDeleteI, admittedly, don’t know a lot about John Muir. However, from Marris’ book, it appears that Muir defined wilderness in the way that we have come to view as typical; untrampeled, able to provoke solitude etc. Thoreau, on the other hand, said that he saw the divinity of nature in every rock and leaf, which seems to be the view Marris takes on from the very beginning of the book. He did of course separate the wilderness from the cities, but seemed to have generally a more broad view of what might qualify as wildlerness. Muir’s view, however, is the one that got perpetuated, and as we discovered on that first day of class when we tried to define wilderness, is still with us today. Why is this? Why didn’t the philosophy of Thoreau last? Perhaps it’s because his philosophy was too idealistic even for the conservationists. A little shrub is not spectacular enough to be classified as wilderness. It certainly isn’t a charismatic megafauna. Maybe the conservation movement would’ve begun earlier and with less adversaries if we had stuck with a more Thoreau-esque philosophy. Maybe people would’ve been more invested if the so-called wilderness was right outside their doors. After all, it seems like people are very concerned with the way their lawns and their neighbors lawns look. How would that concern differ if the grass outside their door was considered wilderness? Maybe then they would be more likely to get involved with a conservation organization to protect their suburban wilderness. This might be a silly question, but I think this question of how people treat nature when it’s defined as wilderness and when it’s defined as something other is fascinating. However, if we did throw out the pristine wilderness philosophy, this might not work.
What would our cities look like if people were never exposed to an idealistic view of wilderness?
ReplyDeleteI think that it would be interesting to see if most people, or even people in one specific city were not exposed to the idealistic view of wilderness. If people in an American city or society did not have the view of wilderness being untouched and uninhabited by humans and as a place that was far away and needed to be cared about would they treat where they live differently. I think that because designated wilderness areas are placed on a pedestal. I think because of this people think it's okay to treat nature that is not inclosed in those areas to a lower standard. I remember going to Rocky Mountain National Park last summer and seeing a man throw trash out of his window right outside the exit to the park. There is no city right outside the park it looks essentially the same as it does on the inside but because that man did not consider it wilderness or important to take care of any longer. If people were somehow able to change their view of what they can appreciate as wilderness to include things on a smaller scale I think that this would cause people to care more about what's in their own backyard. I think that this would result in cleaner and more pleasant cities to live in.
„And they are careful to emphasize that their goal isn’t to banish humans from the region, but to achieve happy coexistence.“ (p. 137)
ReplyDeleteHow do we get there?
When I read this quote, an example from back home popped into my mind: Wolves are rare in Switzerland, their population is considered extinct. But in the past decades, they have been coming back, immigrating from Italy and France. By now, around 10-15 wolves live in Switzerland. The office of environment has adopted a concept that on the long term, that aims to create a „co-existence between humans and the wolf“ – using the exactly same words Emma Marris uses.
But wolves cause problems and controversy. Many sheep and calves get killed whenever they approach inhabited areas. – (Mountain) farmers that have to protect their herds with more cost don’t like the idea of wolves being back – it is only another burden to their life that can often be hard and is dictated by many federal rules.
Though, it seems to me that the whole conflict has a larger background: it is also a topic that heats up political discussions – as random as a topic it might seem to be. It stands typically for the fights that go on between „those up there, that rule our country“ – seen as a pack of urban elitists or at least not-confronted-with-reality-politicians by the locals that have to deal with the actual problem. – And these, the locals, on the other hand are seen as stubborn, non-progressive and primitive farmers that just don’t get it.
Of course, this description is slightly exaggerated, but I am sure that there are people who think that way. And I also believe that the same applies to the US, I think that we’ve heard that kind of story again and again while reading our books – I guess that this happens everywhere.
Marris talks in a similar way about reserves on page 138: „Ideally, reserves should be scientifically designed to achieve conservation goals agreed upon by interest parties while being sensitive to the needs of the people who now live or once lived on the sites in question. But getting people to agree on what to do with land is likely one of the thoughest jobs out there. Humans have a primal and powerful attachment to land.“
I really like Emma Marris varied examples of what could be (or is) done rather than just focusing on what we are currently losing. Although I don’t agree with all the projects going on. – Whenever man has a finger too much in the pie, it seems to me that mankind feels invincible which I personally think we aren’t at all.
- But anyway, with my wolf example I only wanted to show that it needs a lot of dialogue between both parties, and tactfulness – unless the goal cannot be achieved, being radical doesn’t really seem to be an option here.
And I am not sure, but I think that the wolf-drama needed a mediator at some point. Crazy.
When was the stable state?
ReplyDeleteThis question is somewhat relevant to the discussion we were having last week. There is this perception of the past being better, the present being terrible, and the future being dangerous. We are currently in pursuit to find the period of which the world was in a “stable state” In the section titled the Forest Primeval; Marris makes an interesting claim regarding European land interactions verses America and Australia’s first people’s interactions. “America and Australia’s first people might have made greater changes to the landscape than the European arrivals ever did (43).” This quote is regarding the mass extinction of megafauna 13000 to 14000 years ago.
Is this not a direct parallel to the frontiersmen mind-state? The argument in Rambunctious Garden is the first people were slaying the biggest bang for their buck. Kill the big ones and eat for a long time. I argue that it was the same fear of unknown that Marris discusses in the Yellowstone Model and the same fear the pioneer who lived to close to wilderness had (Nash). She states, “It wasn’t until societies attained a little safety, prosperity, and leisure that nature in its wildest aspect began to seem rather romantic (18).
Did these first people, who are often revered for their ecologically sound relationship with nature start out the same way western society did? The first people of these locations found worthy adversaries that they were not comfortable coexisting with and as a result they altered the landscape to fit something they were more comfortable with. I argue their respect for the places they live is rooted in the same predicament we find ourselves. It was not until western culture made a significant impact on the places it occupied, that it began to feel a sense of stewardship or even accountability for its actions.
These first people that view the landscape through a sentient lens were at one point severely unbalanced, and appear to have gone through a similar process Western culture is experiencing today. The respect for their land is influenced by their recognition of the impacts they are capable of
What is the future of ecology?
ReplyDeleteWill there be more conservation practices in the future that will ultimately preserve wilderness as we know it or will development and changes in the importance or views of wilderness lead to its destruction?
"The only constant in nature is change itself" (Marris 31). After reading Rambunctious Garden I am curious as to what the future holds and how ecological practices are continually changing. A big part of ecology is with balancing species that are endangered and trying to not forget about the obscure species that are smaller and are not valued as highly as polar bears, pandas, tigers, dolphins, and many more. I that note I found the analogy on page 161 very interesting, "Do you take three Rembrandts, or do you take one Rembrandt, one Leonardo, and one Picasso?"
As we are trying to fund money in order to save Pandas, we are forgetting the fact that there are probably 5 other species of frogs, plants, and birds that may have a greater impact on the success of an ecosystem where a Panda may not play a significant role that Marris explains upon. I believe that we will continue to keep developing and that further understanding the methods of ecology will help be able to do both. Marris points out on page 36 on the resilience of nature, "an ecosystem's ability to endure disturbances and changes without substantially changing in character." Nature has been resilient since its birth and I believe it will continue to do so no matter how far we end up affecting or altering it. She also wonders whether their will soon be a restaurant opening on the summit of the Grand Tetons in the near future because frankly that probably will happen.
What is the difference between ecology, nature, and wilderness? Are they all similar themes or ideas or do they each interact with each other to create their own separate ideal?
If the idea of the "frontier" were never created would all forms of nature be more easily appreciated?
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter The Yellowstone Model, Marris discusses Roosevelt’s vision of the “ideal” life of an American man. It needed to be strenuous, filled with hardships, and of course, there was a lot of hunting involved. Because of the near extinction of Bison, this idea of parks came to be the solution. “Parks became a place where Americans could get a look at the vanished frontier” (23). The term “vanished frontier” immediately stood out to be. Maybe because I’m from the well-known “last frontier,” or because I simply don’t agree that this term well defines any spaces that the name takes claim of.
The very term “frontier” is defined as “the extreme limit of settled land beyond which lies wilderness.” By setting any part of wilderness, nature, or whatever people want to call it apart from the term frontier, we are forcibly making it the “other.” From this point, we are able to then decide what we consider acceptable and useful and discard places and things that we don’t. This then aids in the separation of humans and the natural world. Our polices, laws, and regulations are a product of this separation. By abandoning the term “frontier,” we have the chance to reevaluate our appreciation for all forms of nature.
What is Nature? Is it any different than wilderness?
ReplyDeleteNature is everything. Its what I personally view as wilderness. I suppose that the definition is different because the "Wilderness Act" uses the word wilderness and strictly defines wilderness a posed to nature which is a little bit more broad. I appreciate nature more after this class because I seem to have lost my appreciation for wilderness after having it be defined for me. I grew up with a large love of the outdoors. Exploring the woods behind my grandfathers farm was always my favorite time. My brother and I every day pushed farther and farther into the woods behind that farm yet every day we appreciated its beauty and always believed that it was our "wilderness". According to the US government that piece of land is not wilderness it is just a piece of land. Well I believe that all land should be cherished and not just the land defined in the wilderness act. I think the baseline of wilderness should be strictly appreciation. When you start to appreciate land you don't need a set of rules and regulations to guide you because you don't want to lose something so special to you. I believe the ulterior motives that lie underneath these wilderness areas are definitely the reason these areas are so well protected and not the appreciation of the land. One day we will lose these "Wilderness Areas" but I will always have the piece of land behind my grandfathers farm.
What has/is the goal of wilderness designations done/doing, and how much does this book step out of that frame of mind?
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting aspects of the book to me was the discussion on the ideas of time and being pristine. The problem raised is the difficulty of trying to lock down a specific time in which things were how we imagine them to be best. Pre-Contact Americas are often approached as being an ideal, and Marris shows us the Oostvaardersplassen nature reserve in the Netherlands that attempts to recapture a Pleistocene Europe. Of course there are many other examples. But the point is that ecosystems and nature are approached from differing views of what/when is best, and these notions may not be the best approach, since nature and ecosystems are under constant change.
Another big question, to me, then becomes what role do humans play in it? Total passivity is impossible, but how much control and intervention we undertake is a matter of degrees. Can we step in and help certain species migrate, or is such actions potentially too short sighted to undertake? Is the viewpoint that it is shortsighted perhaps also uninformed itself?
One important shift that seems to happen in both these questions, is that it begins to approach nature not as something distant and unattached, but rather as connected and relational. It’d be interesting to bring Buber’s I and Thou into these discussions a bit.
Is saving the Wilderness Cost-Effective
ReplyDeleteAt least from the impression I got from the literature just reading through the chapters assigned it felt like the effort to re-establish a working and native ecosystem may not be affordable enough. Knowing that an entire ecosystem is now defunct because of the introduction to invasive species, mankind and other factors that decreases the likely-hood of the environment bouncing back, do we at some point have to cut the losses and let things fall off? For example if we pay three trillion dollars over a course of say fifty years taken from the taxes of all the nations in the world would the benefit and recovery of these wilderness areas overcome the costs of not only doing so, but also knowing that we have even more power to ruin that wilderness indefintly?