free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

pmillergamble · Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Posts: 24

When I was younger, my definition of wilderness related to the hostility of the land. To me places that were less hospitable to humans were wilder. Pollan is arguing that wilderness isn’t anything real. It’s just an aesthetic that we use to guide our interactions with the environment. His argument is important because it’s suggesting a brand new way to talk about the environment. At this point in time humanity is too widely spread to be taken out of the equation when discussing the environment. He describes the state of the debate as teaching us “about virginity and rape, and almost nothing about marriage.”

What fascinated me most about this reading was how Pollen deconstructs the idea that nature works in cycles. I was sold on the idea of nature running in cyclical time and humanity in linear time. Pollan seems to say that everything is a product of circumstance, not a predictable cycle, and thus we have to understand humanity and nature acting in the same form of time, they are one force. It was a really compelling argument but I would have liked to see more examples other than the Cathedral pines one.

Pollen argued strongly for the inclusion of humans and human desire to be included in the understanding of nature, to think of ourselves as natural. The only thing he held to be unnatural was the exclusion of these things in the definition of nature (the end of the first paragraph on page 185). This confused me a bit. Isn’t a humanless definition of nature in a sense a human desire and thus a force of nature? How do you make sense of this?

Free Forum

jdesai · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 14

Personally I think that the wilderness is an open place. A place where there is no industrialized society and where animals are free to roam. It seemed like Pollan was arguing that there is no such thing as a natural wilderness. I think Pollan gave a great explanation of natural/unnatural when he said that, "Human choice is unnatural only if nature is deterministic;human change is unnatural only if she is changeless in our absence," (pg.184). Pollan goes on to say that the parks that we do have right now aren't what we think they are, natural. He talks about how influential human choices are on nature, and I like the way he puts it. How can we be so sure that nature would be better off if we left it alone? And how can we trust ourselves to leave it alone at that?

pgui · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 36

What to include and exclude as a part of nature is a question that we have been struggling with since the beginning of class and many of our readings have addressed. I think Michael Pollan had an interesting take on the subject. His statement about the hurricane destroying the forest made me think allot about the way that i had previously viewed the subject. Is it possible for nature to do something that harms nature or is that another natural part of the cycle. With the exclusion of human manipulated objects we tend to think of everything as natural. The part that i think Paul was fascinated by touched upon this. "But what if nature decides on Japanese honeysuckle-three hundred years of wall to wall brush? We would then have a forest not only that we don't like but that isn't even a wilderness, since it was man who brought Japanese honeysuckle to Cornwall" This was an interesting concept to me. Honey suckle is "Natural" but it would only be there because of people.
He then states that as humans have already manipulated the earth so much not doing anything would leave it even more unnatural than before.
What do you think about this should we manipulate nature to keep it more natural or let nature play itself out or neither and not worry about it either way?

Travis Law · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 18

The idea that we have to modify nature in order to keep it "natural" because humans have modified it is egotistical. There is nothing that separates humans from nature than our attempts to define it.

There is nothing we can do which will harm nature. We can cause species to go extinct, we can drastically change the face of the Earth, but we cannot destroy nature.

Nature is not a perfect cycle, just like history is not perfectly linear. It is instead a cycle that becomes linear in the details. It is influenced by what humans do, but it is always balancing itself out. As such a system, nothing humans can do will destroy it. The details can be changed, but the system will continue on. We may die, and the future will be completely different from how it is right now, but the system will continue on.

We can do whatever we want, but there are consequences. This is what we need to keep in mind as we continue to look at nature.

Why do we need to separate where we live from the wilderness?

emills · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 19

After reading this i have sort of decided that the most "natural" thing for humans to do in situations like this is what they want to, what they think they should do. If they want to clean it up, fine. And, if they want to leave it be, fine. Considering the "what ifs" it is hard to decide which route is better because it is hard to determine what the outcome will be or even what the best outcome would be, because i am sure everyone has a different opinion on that. I guess what i'm trying to say that there is no "natural course" the best thing to do is what we think the best thing to do is at the time. Which might not always have the most desirable outcome, but thats just the way it is.

stefanks · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 15

Everyone's posts are getting me to think that nature isn't composed of rocks, trees, and animals, like what most children would consider it, but it is (imo) everything that the randomness of the universe has created.
That's kind of what the word "nature" means right? Like human nature is the path that humans took in random evolution, nature on earth is the the path defined by the randomness of the universe.

Nature- the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations

As for wilderness, my definition is a place with unknown and unexplored nature.
I think that when humans attempt to make what they have changed more natural again, it technically makes it even less natural. However, it is possible to correct nature that humans interfered with so it resembles what it was before humans affected it. People don't care about the definition of true nature, so I think that that is what they were going for.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

I think the author's writing style is kind of weird. It's very descriptive though, which is a nice change.

I thought this piece was a little sad. It's just really depressing that those trees and that ecosystem would be untouched for hundreds of years, being kept for the sole purpose of being able to look at it and think "this is the way the pilgrims saw the world when they came to America." And now all of the trees have fallen down. Well, the reading didn't really make it clear... Is it all of the trees that fell? Or just a lot of them?

There was one quote I found in the reading that said, "Long before science coined the term ecosystem to describe it, we've had the sense that nature undisturbed displays a miraculous order and balance, something the human world can only dream about. When man leave it alone, nature will tend toward a healthy and abiding state of equilibrium." This reminded me about how during the seminar on Friday, when we were discussing the definition of "natural". When looking back on history, this quote appears to be true. So in relating to this quote, it seems to me that the definition of "natural" would be anything and everything untouched or otherwise affected by humans.

To answer Peter's question (What do you think about this should we manipulate nature to keep it more natural or let nature play itself out or neither and not worry about it either way?)- Personally, I think it depends on the circumstance. For the most part, I think we should just leave nature alone that doesn't need to be manipulated. However, occasionally, I think it would be okay to intrude on it a little. In the reading, for example, leaving the fallen trees not only would have been wasted lumber, and a "terrible mess," but it posed a safety threat by means of a fire hazard. It wouldn't be worth risking those people's lives just to let a little part of nature preserve itself.

Also, what exactly is logging? Cutting trees into logs?

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

So after reading this reading, it made todays seminar discussion in class so much easier to understand! Well, not that much easier... the seminar and the reading both gave me one of those "what's the universe?" head aches. When it comes to the question what is natural? I feel that everything is natural. If human nature hadn't made up the word natural we wouldn't know the difference between natural and unnatural.

ellawm · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 12

i totally agree with emily.

this reading about wilderness made me go back to what is the definition of natural...i feel that everyone essentially has their own view on it and at the end of the day everything is natural. in the seminar i forget who but somebody brought up that humans are a part of the natures cycle, meaning that even if humans touch it, its natural...or thats how i look at it.
like how could humans make nature unnatural if they are a part of nature?

i think it would be cool to see like now after us going through all these different readings...if our definitions or opinions have really changed about natural..maybe compare them to when we were asked in the first week.

scormanpenzel · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

I thought/think that the razing of the Pines was terrible, but at the same time I realized that the tornado was already on a sunfortunate course, bound for the area and the trees. That being said, I believe, like a few posts, that nature disasters and other occurances in nature, like tornados for example, are not predestined to follow a pinpoint course. So, a tornado wouldn't develop JUST to go mow down some pine trees.
Responding to what Morgan said about "Natural" and stuff, I was just wondering the destruction of Nature to reach equilibrium is natural, and in what forms of destruction? Does the destruction of nature have to be natural or unnatural destruction?

pkelley · Joined: 31 Mar 2010 Posts: 12

I disagree with Sam. CLEARLY didn't read the material and he doesn't pay attention in class. All he does is pick his nose and play with rubberbands.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

HAHAHAHAHA wow. I am so happy I happened to look back on this and see that post. Nice, Pat.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

Wait, whoa.. You posted that like an hour before me on the same day. Surprised

What are the chances of that

Free Forum