While I
found all of Cronan's “The Trouble with Wilderness;
or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” interesting, the last few
pages especially interested me. The last few pages examine the
dualism between our inherent existence in nature and our definition
of nature, which entails the absence of people. I believe that
Cronan does a masterful job of denying the conception that only
far-flung, magnificent places should be considered wilderness, and
instead advocating people should consider everything around them as
nature. To this end, I agree, nature is much more than towering
mountains, waterfalls and rivers.
![]() |
| A 'tree in the garden' is still natural according to Cronan. |
However,
I think Cronan sometimes treats nature as static, rather than an ever
changing, omnipotent force. He talks quite excessively about “The
tree in the garden” compared to “the tree in an ancient forest”.
To me, nature is as much the wind and the waves as the air and water
itself. The truly breathtaking aspect of nature to me is not merely
that it exists, but that it is alive in a sense. For the many ways
in which humanity has enslaved nature to itself by using it to
provide electricity, building materials and exploiting resources,
nature itself has pushed back. Most notably by the threat that global warming has on civilization, but also through natural
disasters that humans are powerless to protect themselves from, let
alone control. (link to 2 degrees celsius)
![]() |
| A hurricane viewed from space. |
Although
the wilderness may no longer be as untamed and dangerous as centuries
ago, nature is still as destruction a force as any on the planet. Additionally, though we often joke about it,
the unpredictability of nature is remarkable; we can hardly predict the temperature correctly, let alone natural disasters like
hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes. The bottom of the ocean is
more of a mystery to us than the cosmos because of the limitations
that nature puts upon us. I find it incredible that 6 miles down to
the bottom of the ocean is much more difficult to achieve than the
millions to mars or other planets. The absolutely immensity of the
oceans prevented us from sending a manned sub to the bottom of the
floor for over fifty years until James Cameron returned this year.
The pictures and video clips from his trip are eerie; Cameron himself
said he felt like he “had gone to another planet”.
Fundamentally,
I agree with Cronan that nature is more than just the national parks
of old, like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite. But while
Cronan seems to ask us to appreciate nature both large and small, I
cannot help be awed and amazed by the absolute immensity and power it
possesses. The very idea that we get to live and interact daily with
the presence such a mighty, inconceivably strong, yet breathtakingly
beautiful force awes me.


First of all, I was not aware of that James Cameron dive. That was really cool. Second, I don't think Cronon's point is to downplay the power or awesomeness of nature. I think his point is basically to convince people that these remote, beautiful wilderness areas such as mountain ranges and canyons are no more important to protect than grasslands, plains, cities or suburbs. I think he is trying to make people realize that environmentalism should take all those places into account, which at the time it did not.
ReplyDeleteChristopher, I think you do a great job at addressing the impact of nature. I think that you're both correct and incorrect in your interpretation of Cronan's argument. You're right in that Cronan does argue that we should appreciate the nature around us. In this post, you take the position that we should appreciate the "beautiful force" of nature, not just nature itself. You imply that your argument is different than Cronan's. This is where I believe you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the arguments presented by you and Cronan are very much the same. In Cronan's article, he says, "What I celebrate about such places is not just their wildness, though that certainly is among their most important qualities; what I celebrate even more is that they remind us of the wildness in our own backyards, of the nature that is all around us if only we have eyes to see it." In saying this, I believe that Cronan is not only pointing out the fact that we must appreciate the nature around us, but all that nature has to offer. He tells us to appreciate the "wildness" in nature, which I think is simply a synonym (in the case of this argument) for this idea that nature possesses astounding powers. In the end of this quote, he tells us to open our eyes. My interpretation of this is that we should not only open our eyes to the nature around us, but we should open our eyes to the amazingness of it. Cronan's position translates to your argument, as I understand it. You definitely explore the idea of "wildness" much further than Cronan, but I believe that Cronan, similar to you, argues that we should appreciate the power of nature without forgetting that nature surrounds us.
Chris, I like your tendency to focus on the awe-inspiring and destructive side of nature. While Cronon's points about the "small" side of nature are important to look at, it is more interesting to look at the other side. This is mostly due to our fascination with the unknown part of nature. This fascination is driven by Hollywood as well as individuals like Al Gore. It is natural for human imagination to ask "what if?". Our minds desire to think about the terrifying part of nature.
ReplyDeleteOn a slightly different note, I want to talk about Cronon's argument about how human actions and building are just as much a part of nature as are the remote jungles and vast wildernesses. This concept is very thought-provoking and can open up a very intriguing question. In todays society, the idea of going green has been catching like wildfire. It started as a way to prevent human actions from destroying our planet and accelerating global warming. However, if human actions are part of the natural order of things (as Cronon imlies), then how can we be destroying nature? The answer to this implies that either Cronon is wrong, or the backers of environmental-awareness are wrong. I tend to side with Cronon. This is because I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that global warming exists and is threatening our world. To leave with one final question, if humans are not part of nature, then what are doing on this planet anyway?