The basic difference that is explored is the old European view that "wilderness", which when you trace the roots of the word means "place of wild beasts", is that it is a place that is separate from civilization. A place that is on the other side of the metaphorical or literal fence. The opposing view was that of the Native Americans view that we are apart of the wilderness, that we have always been coexisting with it. They did for hundreds of years, so it can be done. But instead of living with it, the current philosophy is to try and control it, to set ourselves as separate from it. Look where that has gotten us. We are running out of natural resources, species of animals are dying, and several environments are deteriorating or even vanishing.
Are we going to keep this trend up? Are we going to try and set things back to how they were? Neither seem like a logical solution. If we keep going, we are going to run out of resources eventually and wildlife will continue to dwindle, but we can't go back to how things were 500 years ago. I can't imagine that most people would like large predators roaming the streets along with our cars. We need to find a balance, a way to live with nature with what we have now. The tiny, postage stamp-sized land that we are setting aside as "wilderness" is a joke. As humans, we may be the dominant species, but that doesn't give us the right to claim everything as ours. But as a start, we should at least try and live in a sustainable manner. Use energy saving light bulbs, turn all your appliances off when you leave, recycle, just little things that make more of a difference than you would think. So let's try and be a little less selfish and help the "wilderness" that we are apart of out.
Kerasote, Ted "What We Talk About When We Talk About Wilderness" Saving Place Ed. Sidney Dobrin. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005. 397-400. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment