Comment on postings
Things to think about:
Ø We explored the multiplicity of meanings associated with key terms (wilderness, nature), and noted that there is a vast and powerful literature on these concepts. Both terms have importance in matters of policy - for instance, what do we protect when we protect nature/wilderness? Only vast open spaces? If there is ambiguity about the terms does this restrict our ability to act – if we acknowledge that many features in wilderness areas were the product of Native American use, does this mean that we should continue to use them for moderate resource extraction? Additionally, if you accept that there are concerns about the status of the wilderness idea (prisons for grizzly bears!), and yet you know the value of wildness from personal experience (e.g. Antoinette's wonderful account of the transformative value of a tiny wilderness refuge in suburbia), how do you strike a balance? Is it okay to be in two minds about concepts even as you apply them?
Ø Recall that quote from Aldo Leopold where he recognizes that not all people need a direct experience of the wild. There may be several in the class who feel this way. My favorite example of such urbanophiles are Talking Heads: "I fell in love/With a beautiful highway/This used to be real estate/Now it's only fields and trees". Here they express disappointment that "...as things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention". For them the encroaching of wilderness is troubling. The point of this class is not to convince you that rambling in wild place is a privileged aesthetic. Nor am I trying to convince you that walking is a noble pursuit! What I am trying to do is (re)introduce to powerful ideas which are the substrate upon which all thinking about place is based. So if you are happier on the city streets than on the forest floor - let's here about it. (I pause to note that Ramina has posted interesting comments to this effect before).
Keep blogging!
Liam
