What stood out to me was Cronon’s return to his main argument, “there is nothing natural about the concept of wilderness. It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny.” (16) Cronon challenges the widely believed perception of wilderness as a natural, undisturbed state. He begins by claiming that the concept of wilderness is not natural or innate, but rather a product of human society. He challenges the notion that wilderness exists irrespective of human impact. He contends that wildness is a product of the society that values it, highlighting the importance of cultural values and views in creating our understanding of nature. Furthermore, Cronon emphasizes the contradictory character of wildness, claiming that it is “a product of the very history it seeks to deny.” He contends that the romantic idealization of wilderness as a clean and unspoiled landscape ignores the rich human history associated with these locations. By recognizing the historical context in which wilderness ideals developed, Cronon encourages readers to critically evaluate the cultural structures that impact our impressions of nature.
However, I am in partial agreement with his argument. I value Cronon’s critique, but I also believe that preserving select wilderness regions is beneficial to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health. I agree that the distinction between wilderness and civilization is arbitrary, and that humans have influenced ecosystems throughout history. However, I appreciate the value of designated wilderness regions for conservation. Also recognizing both the cultural creation of wilderness and the significance of preserving specific landscapes for their biological value. But I believe it is critical to prioritize the preservation of wilderness regions as a means of conserving biodiversity and ecological health. I believe that wilderness is valuable in and of itself, regardless of human impact, and that rigorous protection measures should be implemented to keep these areas clean. I would argue that Cronon’s critique hinders efforts to protect wilderness and natural places from further degradation. What concerns me is that stressing human influence on wilderness may lead to complacency or a reduction in conservation efforts.
Hi Tavanh,
I really like your analysis of the text and while I see your point I do think that Cronon also touches on an important consideration. If the preservation of the environment means keeping it “safe” from human involvement then where does that leave people that live off of this environment. Like the native people of the rainforests? Do we not run the risk of running more people off the land on which they leave? Is there not a different way in which we can re-imagine environmentalist efforts?
Hi Tavnah,
I liked your counter argument and views against Cronon’s argument; now here are mine against yours. I feel as though humans, especially in this day and age, will not care about nature without having some sort of emotional connection or apparent transaction that benefits them. I think the argument Cronon makes about nature being what humans believe it to be can lead to a deeper connection with nature overall. This type of thinking is what would lead to humans conserving and protecting our environment. It is unfortunate that we need those two things to help us understand natures importance but I feel it’s the most effective way to go about the problem.
Hey Thavanh,
I really like how clearly organized this is and how you did a great job dissecting the main argument. To further reinforce that you were right on the money is that we went over that quote in class and this a great breakdown summary. Something I disagreed with in his argument is that the wilderness isn’t natural as many of civilizations and people have lived and used those forests for civilization and development. However, I would still deem this natural and preserved because ancient civilizations co-habited the land. My point here is that they found a way to live in equal parts with nature opposed to modern times in which we fully uproot a forest and place a bunch of housing/cities and fully dominate and destroy the environment. The idea that nature is a manmade construct or a byproduct of our being doesn’t sit with me too well, instead I would consider nature to be a place of cohabitation and cooperation with individuals and nature, but definitely not the full and utter destruction of it.