Cronon and the Shire

In William Cronon's "The Trouble with Wilderness," he claims the space we think of as wilderness is not truly wilderness as it once was, but instead an idea. He also states that human society must focus on preserving wilderness with people as a part of it, instead of as a separate entity.

This year's Thanksgiving Break has reminded me of this essay for two reasons. Most importantly, being back home in New Hampshire (or 'The Shire' as I like to say) reminds me of the wilderness idea that Cronon focuses upon. I can't even count the number of times I've felt a mixture of tranquility and fear while standing alone in a landscape untouched by human hands. Burke was incorrect when he said that beauty and sublimity are opposed to each other. When nature is lost, humanity experiences a loss. I remember in 2003 when the Old Man of the Mountain fell from its perch in Franconia Notch in NH. It was as if I had lost a part of myself.

The Old Man of the Mountain;
a rock formation and symbol of
independence and pride in NH

I can't help but disagree with Cronon when he says that preserving wilderness is the wrong thing to do. I can see the utility of Cronon's ideas, however I believe that we still lose something when humans enter into wilderness, even if its a beneficial addition. Seeing humans and nature thrive together just doesn't give me the same feeling of awe. I think that wilderness, even if its only an idea, plays of very important role in our society. For many native New Hampshirites, the 'Old Man' was more than a cliff; it was a icon that represented the state's beauty and freedom. In the same way, when I find myself surrounded by nature, it reminds me of my place in the world, of the reality of life and death, and of the pure joy that is living. This joy includes both Muir's and Thoreau's points of view, the peace and the fear, for both are necessary in order for life to be as it should.

Cronon's ideas are far too modern for me to accept. Yes, the earth would benefit from a symbiotic relationship between humans and nature, but the wilderness allows people to see a perspective on the world that is unattainable in a landscape that is spoiled by humans. I think that people, especially as the generations go on, will be less and less inspired to protect nature, even in Cronon's view of the word, if they cannot experience the pure, if incorrect, form of wilderness.

a picture I took of New Hampshire's Presidential Range
taken from the summit of Cannon Mountain

Now, for a different perspective on this issue and on the Shire, I'd like to look at the new movie coming out in December of this year, The Hobbit. 

The wilderness of this 'The Hobbit' trailer can be seen at about 1:50 into the video.

Being in New Hampshire is not the only thing that caused me to disagree with Cronon. I am very excited to see the new prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I realized while watching the previews that much of the movie filming takes place in what we might call a perfect example of the wilderness idea. Most of these movies were filmed in remote parts of New Zealand's North Island. What if people started spreading out of urban areas, where nature cannot coexist with humans, and began moving into this pristine land? The mountains and valleys seen in the movies would not work if there were apartment buildings here and there, dotting the fields and forests, not matter how environmentally friendly they are.

If only for the continuance of great movies like those in the Lord of the Rings series, the preservation of wilderness (in what we view as its pure and true form) should be just as important as helping nature coexist with humans in a single environment.

Maybe I'm being selfish, but can we say that people like Julia Butterfly Hill are selfish as well? Someone explain to me why saving redwoods is the wrong way to go about saving the world.