William Cronon The Trouble With Wilderness
The Sacrifice for the Wilderness
The whole spectrum of environmentalism and sustainability has been demonstrated through William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness”, Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature”, and David Owen’s “Green Manhattan”. These pieces of writing build on one another while revealing weaknesses the others may maintain. Despite the opposition some of these authors face all three of them share a common goal, the desire to better the wilderness. However, the question still remains, whose solution is best? In a world where opinions and ideas are thrown at people daily it is hard for one to know what the right choice is. This being said, a solution that would contribute to the reader making the best decision, is …show more content…
a solution that involves a clear action to take. By doing this one could truly see how their decision will affect the environmental issues these authors portray.
In William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” he expresses his philosophical views on how he believes we need to change the way we think about the wilderness.
Cronon focuses around the idea of coexistence with the natural and the human world and the sublimity the wilderness presents. He states, “Wilderness is…a place of freedom in which we can recover the true selves we have lost to the corrupting influences of our artificial lives” (484). This idea of the sublime gives an introduction to Cronon’s central paradox that humans and nature need to coexist to survive. Cronon argues that splitting the human world and the wilderness will result in trouble when he claims, “wilderness represents the false hope of an escape from responsibility, the illusion that we can somehow wipe clean the slate of our past and return to the tabula rasa that supposedly existed…” (484). To eliminate this illusion Cronon suggest creating a “middle ground” a place that combines both the human world and the wilderness in one (Cronon 490). Cronon’s solution for obtaining this so called “middle ground” is to refer to nature as the “other”. He demonstrates this with an example of a tree. Cronon writes, “The tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, than the tree in an ancient forest” (494). This develops into Cronon’s solution to look at all nature as the same or the “other” and for coexistence to occur. But is Cronon’s vague solution easier said than done? The problem Cronon faces is that his solution, to be one with nature, it too vague and not easily
obtainable.
Now on the completely opposite spectrum of environmentalism is Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature”. In contrast with Cronon, Waller has a more scientific view and believes the only way to save the wilderness is to save large areas of nature (551). Waller argues that we need to focus on the biotic value, “our biological criteria for evaluating lands” (550). By doing this one can decipher which area of wilderness is more important to save. Although Waller’s ideas are less vague than Cronon’s, they are not any less difficult to obtain. Waller argues a more scientific view on Cronon’s tree in the garden vs. the tree in the ancient forest and states, “Despite the similarities, however, the tree in the garden differs in important fundamental ways from the tree in an ancient forest…It also has a different complement of nematodes, fungi, and bacteria that thrive around it roots” (544). Waller is trying to get the point across that although the tree in the garden and the tree in the ancient forest are both trees, they are distinctively different, having completely different makeups and the surroundings. Waller continues to argue that, “If all areas are considered as natural and wild, or denatured and tamed, as any other, why should we concern ourselves with conserving nature at all”(545). Waller’s underlying message that he is trying to demonstrate is that humans and wilderness should be separate, which completely contradicts Cronon’s central paradox that humans and nature need to coexist to survive. But is this detachment from the wilderness and human world problematic? What Waller does that Cronon fails to do is give legitimate reasoning that supports his beliefs. An example of this is when Waller states, “Only 11 percent of the world’s lands remain wild and that only 4.3 percent are legally protected as parks of nature reserves” (546). By doing this Waller shows how his dualistic view may not be the issue that is effecting the wilderness like Cronon described. That being said, Waller fails to realize that the biotic value points to saving only large areas of nature, which although is a more clear approach to saving the wilderness it is not easily achievable.
David Owen’s approach to saving the wilderness falls oddly off the spectrum where Cronon and Waller reside. This is because Owen doesn’t focus on dualism like the other authors do. Owen, on the other hand, targets his idea around the rethinking of Manhattan. That being said, Owen’s ideas still incorporate both the philosophical views of Cronon and the scientific aspect of Waller. David Owen argues that people see Manhattan completely wrong and they need to change their perspective on the city. Owen, similarly to Cronon, tell the reader to “rethink” a certain concept. Cronon begins with telling his readers that they need to rethink their perception of wilderness. Furthermore, Owen elaborates how we need to rethink our perception of Manhattan when he writes, “New York is the greenest community in the United states, and one of the greenest cities in the world” (1). Although this may sounds alarming, Owen, just like Waller, uses scientific reasoning to back up his claims. Owen states, “The most devastating damage humans have done to the environment has arisen from the heedless burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric”(1). These scientific claims demonstrate the success of Manhattan. Owen believes that the environmental successfulness of Manhattan was based off a series of fortunate accidents. The first being the geographical formation of New York giving them sufficient seaports, the second being the layout of the streets which resulted in the architecture being close together and tall, and the third being that the city wasn’t built to accommodate automobiles (3-4). These serendipities accidents led to the creation of one of the greenest cities and also led to Owen’s solution to better the wilderness. Owen’s solution, “Is to shift people out of cars and into public transit”, by doing this the fossil fuel consumption would be reduced. The idea, to drive less, is simple and yet so easily achievable. So what does that have to say for the solutions offered by Cronon and Waller? Owen’s focal point of cities, more importantly Manhattan, is completely opposite to Cronon and Waller’s focus of the wilderness. When Cronon elaborates on his vision of the sublimity of the wilderness I am guessing the concrete jungle of Manhattan is not what he had in mind. In addition, when Waller argues that saving large areas of nature is the best solution, I’m sure the geographic layout of Manhattan wasn’t his first choice. That being said Cronon and Waller both build up a strong argument on their thoughts of the wilderness, yet leaves the reader hanging with nothing to take from his insightful words. Owen, on the other hand, fiercely disputes the reputation of Manhattan by giving scientific details and leaving the reader with a tangible action to take.
The problem with William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” and Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature” was that their words felt meaningless. Without an action to take from their insightful solutions for environmentalism it was almost as it seemed these authors left out a piece of their writing. In addition, the solutions that both Cronon and Waller offered were farfetched, intangible solutions that made a starting point seem impossible. David Owen’s solution was concise, to the point, and illustrated the action he wanted his to readers to take very clearly. Some may argue that driving less takes away freedom along with other rights. However, is limiting ones driving that big of a sacrifice? Driving less, is such a simple concept and so easily attainable that it makes Owen’s essay worthwhile. The effortless notion to drive less is so easy to pass on, making Owen’s “Green Manhattan” a realistic solution to the sustainability of the environment. David Owen has given us a small task in the great fight to save the wilderness; now it is your choice if you are going to take the sacrifice and drive less.
Work Cited
Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.”
The Great New Wilderness Debate, Eds. J. Baivd Callicot, and Michael P. Nelson. Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1998. 471-499.
Owen, David. "Green Manhattan." The New Yorker [New York City] 13 Oct. 2004: 1-10. Print.
Donald M. Waller, “Getting Back to the Right Nature” J. Bair Calicut and Michael P. Nelson, editors, The Great New Wilderness Debate (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1998).
The whole spectrum of environmentalism and sustainability has been demonstrated through William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness”, Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature”, and David Owen’s “Green Manhattan”. These pieces of writing build on one another while revealing weaknesses the others may maintain. Despite the opposition some of these authors face all three of them share a common goal, the desire to better the wilderness. However, the question still remains, whose solution is best? In a world where opinions and ideas are thrown at people daily it is hard for one to know what the right choice is. This being said, a solution that would contribute to the reader making the best decision, is …show more content…
a solution that involves a clear action to take. By doing this one could truly see how their decision will affect the environmental issues these authors portray.
In William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” he expresses his philosophical views on how he believes we need to change the way we think about the wilderness.
Cronon focuses around the idea of coexistence with the natural and the human world and the sublimity the wilderness presents. He states, “Wilderness is…a place of freedom in which we can recover the true selves we have lost to the corrupting influences of our artificial lives” (484). This idea of the sublime gives an introduction to Cronon’s central paradox that humans and nature need to coexist to survive. Cronon argues that splitting the human world and the wilderness will result in trouble when he claims, “wilderness represents the false hope of an escape from responsibility, the illusion that we can somehow wipe clean the slate of our past and return to the tabula rasa that supposedly existed…” (484). To eliminate this illusion Cronon suggest creating a “middle ground” a place that combines both the human world and the wilderness in one (Cronon 490). Cronon’s solution for obtaining this so called “middle ground” is to refer to nature as the “other”. He demonstrates this with an example of a tree. Cronon writes, “The tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, than the tree in an ancient forest” (494). This develops into Cronon’s solution to look at all nature as the same or the “other” and for coexistence to occur. But is Cronon’s vague solution easier said than done? The problem Cronon faces is that his solution, to be one with nature, it too vague and not easily
obtainable.
Now on the completely opposite spectrum of environmentalism is Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature”. In contrast with Cronon, Waller has a more scientific view and believes the only way to save the wilderness is to save large areas of nature (551). Waller argues that we need to focus on the biotic value, “our biological criteria for evaluating lands” (550). By doing this one can decipher which area of wilderness is more important to save. Although Waller’s ideas are less vague than Cronon’s, they are not any less difficult to obtain. Waller argues a more scientific view on Cronon’s tree in the garden vs. the tree in the ancient forest and states, “Despite the similarities, however, the tree in the garden differs in important fundamental ways from the tree in an ancient forest…It also has a different complement of nematodes, fungi, and bacteria that thrive around it roots” (544). Waller is trying to get the point across that although the tree in the garden and the tree in the ancient forest are both trees, they are distinctively different, having completely different makeups and the surroundings. Waller continues to argue that, “If all areas are considered as natural and wild, or denatured and tamed, as any other, why should we concern ourselves with conserving nature at all”(545). Waller’s underlying message that he is trying to demonstrate is that humans and wilderness should be separate, which completely contradicts Cronon’s central paradox that humans and nature need to coexist to survive. But is this detachment from the wilderness and human world problematic? What Waller does that Cronon fails to do is give legitimate reasoning that supports his beliefs. An example of this is when Waller states, “Only 11 percent of the world’s lands remain wild and that only 4.3 percent are legally protected as parks of nature reserves” (546). By doing this Waller shows how his dualistic view may not be the issue that is effecting the wilderness like Cronon described. That being said, Waller fails to realize that the biotic value points to saving only large areas of nature, which although is a more clear approach to saving the wilderness it is not easily achievable.
David Owen’s approach to saving the wilderness falls oddly off the spectrum where Cronon and Waller reside. This is because Owen doesn’t focus on dualism like the other authors do. Owen, on the other hand, targets his idea around the rethinking of Manhattan. That being said, Owen’s ideas still incorporate both the philosophical views of Cronon and the scientific aspect of Waller. David Owen argues that people see Manhattan completely wrong and they need to change their perspective on the city. Owen, similarly to Cronon, tell the reader to “rethink” a certain concept. Cronon begins with telling his readers that they need to rethink their perception of wilderness. Furthermore, Owen elaborates how we need to rethink our perception of Manhattan when he writes, “New York is the greenest community in the United states, and one of the greenest cities in the world” (1). Although this may sounds alarming, Owen, just like Waller, uses scientific reasoning to back up his claims. Owen states, “The most devastating damage humans have done to the environment has arisen from the heedless burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric”(1). These scientific claims demonstrate the success of Manhattan. Owen believes that the environmental successfulness of Manhattan was based off a series of fortunate accidents. The first being the geographical formation of New York giving them sufficient seaports, the second being the layout of the streets which resulted in the architecture being close together and tall, and the third being that the city wasn’t built to accommodate automobiles (3-4). These serendipities accidents led to the creation of one of the greenest cities and also led to Owen’s solution to better the wilderness. Owen’s solution, “Is to shift people out of cars and into public transit”, by doing this the fossil fuel consumption would be reduced. The idea, to drive less, is simple and yet so easily achievable. So what does that have to say for the solutions offered by Cronon and Waller? Owen’s focal point of cities, more importantly Manhattan, is completely opposite to Cronon and Waller’s focus of the wilderness. When Cronon elaborates on his vision of the sublimity of the wilderness I am guessing the concrete jungle of Manhattan is not what he had in mind. In addition, when Waller argues that saving large areas of nature is the best solution, I’m sure the geographic layout of Manhattan wasn’t his first choice. That being said Cronon and Waller both build up a strong argument on their thoughts of the wilderness, yet leaves the reader hanging with nothing to take from his insightful words. Owen, on the other hand, fiercely disputes the reputation of Manhattan by giving scientific details and leaving the reader with a tangible action to take.
The problem with William Cronon’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” and Donald Waller’s “Getting Back to Right Nature” was that their words felt meaningless. Without an action to take from their insightful solutions for environmentalism it was almost as it seemed these authors left out a piece of their writing. In addition, the solutions that both Cronon and Waller offered were farfetched, intangible solutions that made a starting point seem impossible. David Owen’s solution was concise, to the point, and illustrated the action he wanted his to readers to take very clearly. Some may argue that driving less takes away freedom along with other rights. However, is limiting ones driving that big of a sacrifice? Driving less, is such a simple concept and so easily attainable that it makes Owen’s essay worthwhile. The effortless notion to drive less is so easy to pass on, making Owen’s “Green Manhattan” a realistic solution to the sustainability of the environment. David Owen has given us a small task in the great fight to save the wilderness; now it is your choice if you are going to take the sacrifice and drive less.
Work Cited
Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.”
The Great New Wilderness Debate, Eds. J. Baivd Callicot, and Michael P. Nelson. Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1998. 471-499.
Owen, David. "Green Manhattan." The New Yorker [New York City] 13 Oct. 2004: 1-10. Print.
Donald M. Waller, “Getting Back to the Right Nature” J. Bair Calicut and Michael P. Nelson, editors, The Great New Wilderness Debate (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1998).