8 ms·

Why We Wish for Wilderness

48 points by prostoalex 7y ago

throwanem 7y ago
I'd argue that the entire concept of "pristine wilderness" derives, maybe not so much exactly from the loosely seen specter of colonialism, as from the constructed distinction between "man" and "nature". As the article touches on but fails to explore, the idea of a place where human feet have never trod only seems special from a perspective wherein human habitation is necessarily in some way unnatural. It fails to recognize the possibility of a way of human living that seeks to cohabit with what we think of as "nature", rather than to extirpate and replace it with sterile, static dioramas pretending to represent what was there before. Which, of course, brings us back around to colonialism, because that's also what colonization does. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg; the false man/nature distinction could be as much or more a rationalization as a premise, and I don't know the relevant historiography as well as I'd like.
- the8472 7y ago
  Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. So yes, the mere (permanent) existence of humans in some area will inevitably alter nature and thus not be what we consider pristine nature anymore.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Sure. My point is that "pristine" is a meaningless concept here - any life that exists in a given environment will alter that environment to some degree; that's one of the things life does - and that I think the habit of valuing this specter of "pristineness" points to a failure to distinguish between the habit of any form of life to modify its environment, and the human habit of altering ours in ways we know are noxious and still do anyway. My other point is that "nature" is a meaningless concept, too, and actively harmful in that it gives us an excuse to conceive of ourselves as essentially apart from our environment, and much more able to control the extent of its effects on us than we demonstrably are. Sure, we can keep the rain and cold at bay. But if climate change isn't enough evidence that our power over our environment has hard limits, the current pandemic sure as hell should be - to say nothing of the next one, or the one after that. "Nature" is something that's supposed to be out there, away from us, on the other side of a wall or a window, except when we choose for it not to be. "Nature" is an enemy. The trouble is that, looked at that way, we inevitably find Horace was right, all those centuries ago: drive her out with a pitchfork all you like, she'll always come running back.
    - the8472 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There clearly exist areas that are more and those that are less impacted by human presence. When people talk about nature they often mean just the latter parts while perhaps considering engineered ecosystems part of "the environment" not necessarily part of "[pristine] nature". Having different words for these different things is useful. You can quibble about which words best fit them, but the distinction doesn't go away.
      - throwanem 7y ago
        "Nature" isn't a word that's useful for expressing position along the continuum you describe, though. Instead it describes a sharp discontinuity that doesn't actually exist. The resulting mental model can't help but be inaccurate - and accidentally so, which means the simplification can't be controlled to avoid impairing the utility of the model. I'd categorize the resulting conceptual error alongside the one that leads people to believe in creationism because camera eyes like ours seem too complicated to have arisen by chance. They aren't, but that's a thought you need the right conceptual tools to build. Without them, you might never get there. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that "nature" is likewise the wrong tool with which to build thoughts about how humans interact with our environment.
        the8472 7y ago
        Where is the discontinuity implied? It seems like there is a continuum between entirely engineered environments and largely untouched ones. The latter is considered natural, hence "nature" as an expression of one part of the continuum. Of course there are other uses of the word, such as "nature finds a way" meaning that biological life will adapt to engineered environments too. But this the usual inadequacy of human language, the same word can have multiple, even conflicting meanings. Anyway, if you wish to convey some important concept better you should name it so it can be discussed instead of just pointing at other concepts and declaring them inadequate. This is what confuses me about this discussion, the lack of proposed improvements.
        7y ago
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    You're falling into the same trap there that GP was pointing out. Yes, any number of humans (starting at 1) will alter the state of their surroundings. But that doesn't make the surroundings "unnatural" in any way. It just happens that modern human societies tend to alter their environment in a way that it loses many of the properties that we long for, yet somehow we don't seem capable of changing the way we shape our environments in a different way. Instead we declare "that over there" to be "nature" which is to de desired and "this here" to be "the civilized world" and most people literally can't imagine any correspondence of the two.
  - msla 7y ago
    > Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. And when you realize you can say the same thing about ants and termites, you will know what the person you're talking to is talking about. Making the distinction "Human vs Nature" implies Humans are special, set apart from any other species; even if you say that Humans are bad, being especially bad is still being special, and set apart.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Human habitation might well be natural, but fences aren't.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Then badger setts and beaver dams aren't, either.
    - jbay808 7y ago
      That's not what I mean. Wander in the countryside for a while - outside of one of these national parks - and your wandering is likely to be interrupted at every turn by kilometres of chain-link fence, impassable highway, or some other artificial obstacle that spans a vast distance and makes you feel enclosed, rather than free. A beaver dam is no such barrier. I think the urge to explore the landscape goes much farther back than the colonial period, which is a very recent blip in human history. The author should look back not to 200 years ago for the source of that instinct, but 20,000 years ago or more - and consider what wilderness might have looked like then.
      - throwanem 7y ago
        Ask a fish how much of an obstacle the artifice of beavers imposes. We're violently in agreement, I think, inasmuch as we both find much obnoxious in the effects of human artifice as directed to modifying our environment. Where we differ is in the use of a special category "unnatural" to describe those effects we do not like. I don't argue that only the equation of "natural" with "desirable" is without value; I argue that "natural" is meaningless, as is its converse, and if we want to talk about desirability, we're better served to do so directly instead of confusing the issue with less precise concepts.
        jbay808 7y ago
        I'm sure the fish would see them as an unnatural barrier and an annoyance, but I don't speak for the fish or think so much of their perspectives. Speaking personally as a human, there are few other vertebrate animals on Earth that can remotely pose a serious threat to my freedom, provided I exercise common sense precautions. That's probably why I'm most concerned with the human modifications to the landscape. I am forced to heed them. I'm sure fish would see it differently, although they'd still encounter a lot fewer beaver dams than human obstructions. See my other comment about how I would feel differently if beavers built dams across highways and shot people crossing them. I might be less inclined to treat beavers as a harmless part of the natural landscape then. We can make the natural vs unnatural distinction because humans have at least a partial hegemony over all other species now. Not completely; clearly microbes and insects are still out of our control. If there were intelligent alien invaders that started building walls and bridges and cages, I'm sure we'd label those as "unnatural" and "artificial" too, whereas a beaver dam is a natural curiosity. If there were other rival intelligent species sharing the Earth and reshaping it to their own vision, they probably wouldn't fit into the nature category. It marks a power dynamic, and it's an important distinction. Artificial structures are backed by the power of laws and property rights and other enforcement rules. That gives them a power beyond their material strength. Ants and beavers reshape the earth too, but the only thing stopping you from paving them over are objections by other humans. The other ants would hardly even retaliate. Edit: I guess the core of my point is that if you want to include a pair of wire cutters in with your bug spray and bear whistle and other hiking gear, so that you can freely pass through chain-link fences, then maybe you will start to view those fences no differently than rocks and fallen logs, just another curious structure erected by another fascinating mammal. I, personally, would never feel so bold.
- bufbupa 7y ago
  Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy; I'm not sure many people still hold it in their world view. It was just one step along the path of defining "self" vs "other". That differentiation is significant because it helps individuals identify threats vs allies. Colonizers may have defined indigenous people as "other" because they didn't have any shared cultural substrate that they could reliably cooperate through. Of course, that differentiation was likely varried per individual, and I'm sure there were many colonial individuals who detestested taking advantage of indigenous people. The exploration described in the article might be better described as drawing more of the "other" into "self". Finding that which was previously uknown to your "self" (perhaps your cultural upbringing, national identity, or collective societal knowledge) and understanding it. In this circumstance the understanding is of nature and environment, but people find this same fire in more modern differentiations as well. For instance, globalization is rapidly developing universally agreeable culture, and there are many people passionate about sharing and adding parts of their culture to that global identity. Your wish for cohabitation seems to me to be a similar desire of drawing "other" into "self", and will ultimately demand a similar degree of understanding to pull off.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    I think many more people incorporate it into their worldview than recognize that they're doing so.
  - jerf 7y ago
    "Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy; I'm not sure many people still hold it in their world view." It remains alive and well in the view that anything Man does is unNatural and simply by virtue of being unNatural automatically inferior to Nature.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    > Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy I can't think of any lone man vs. the wilderness stories from before Ibn Tufail's Autodidactus (12c.), but I'm happy to be corrected.
    - throwanem 7y ago
MiguelVieira 7y ago
Wilderness areas, at least in the United States, are best thought of as vast gardens where natural processes of predator-prey relationships, flooding, fire, etc are left to play out without much human intervention. If anything, we're re-creating a landscape from before Paleo-Indian settlement.
- vwcx 7y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. Most of the US public lands are actively managed, and even the lesser-touched 'Wilderness Areas' are still highly influenced by the surrounding human communities. The continuing 100+ year old debate around the Forest Service's wildfire policy is one example of how these relationships aren't as natural as we believe on first look.
lkrych 7y ago
For anyone who wishes to explore some of the ideas presented in this article about wilderness, I would recommend Michael Pollan's essay "The Idea of a Garden". I read Pollan's essay as part of a discussion about wilderness ethics and it has stuck with me for years. It can be found in his book, Second Nature. If you are still reading this comment, I would also recommend Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey. It takes a more irascible approach to some of the ideas of wilderness ethics, but is is a damn-good, swashbuckling time.
intrepidhero 7y ago
This attitude of going into the wilderness to test yourself against nature, conquer it, and stand where no human has ever stood, I can understand it, but I think it tragically misses out on the greater gift of wilderness. The truth is, there is hardly a place on the earth that hasn't been seen my humans at one or another time. Nature itself is an unconquerable force of which we are a part, not apart. We are connected to the earth, the plants and animals, the mountains and seas. It is humbling to go outside the walls of civilization, and face the world without all the defenses of technology. Like standing before the ocean or looking up at the stars, it is a reminder of the smallness of my place in it all. A reminder of the limits of power. The wilderness is a place of violent "otherness". It is also a place of familiar "oneness". The stars, the ocean, mountains, deserts, forests, and plains are places of wonder. I like to stand in a place I have never been, see no works of man anywhere in my view and wonder, who has seen this vista before? Who will see it again after I am gone? Am I standing in a place where ancient men worshiped their gods and loved their children? We are made of the same stuff and we are actors in the same story. I was counting tree rings on a log the other day. It was 140 years old when it was cut. Not too far away was a living tree of similar diameter. It sprouted before my great-grandfather was born. All around me were saplings that may well outlive my grandchildren. I was standing on a mountain that has stood for millennia and will continue for millennia more. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. Humility and wonder: these are the gifts of the wilderness. We'd do well to carry those gifts back into civilization.
- GreeniFi 7y ago
  Beautifully written.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I used to be an "Adventure Traveler" when I was younger, trapsing through forests and jungles - basically doing nothing of value. I had a lot of reasons I could come up with for doing all this stuff, but at the end of the day it was just a personal desire to experience these places and be able to tell the story. I wish more people would just cop to that, wanting to "Be an Explorer" to tell stories and experience the edge. The majority of people doing this stuff now aren't doing it for what the author quotes as: "[finding] new geographical information that adds to humanity’s stock of collective knowledge" That's what botanists and archeologists and GIS experts do with LIDAR and robots and the like. At a certain point once you realize that you, the human are the limiting factor when it comes to improving knowledge about the world, you start creating tools to learn, probes and planes and radars and things. I think "nature" people just need to be real with it, that they are trying to live out a naturalistic fantasy or just enjoy the solitude and stop pretending there is something more philosophical about it.
- floren 7y ago
  It's philosophical for a lot of us... it's just rarely scientific.
  - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
    What branch of philosophy? My guess is that in actuality it's just emotional/chemical for you.
    - floren 7y ago
      Whatever branch teaches me not to be a joyless pedant, I guess. You should give it a try. Edit: to be less flip, I find it an excellent place to think about ethics, what things are worth doing, the future, etc. I feel more prone to be "philosophical" when I'm in a wild place. I do not put on a backpack and think, "Ah, today I'm really going to sink my teeth into some epistemology".
      - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
pjdorrell 7y ago
The desire to explore untouched wilderness is something that has been strongly selected for. The world has been colonized by those who had the greatest inclination to explore the unknown. Non-human animals also, eventually, colonize areas beyond their point of origin, and this is no doubt driven partly by a desire to "explore". But humans, perhaps more than any other animal, are capable of having the idea of "exploring" as something that they can be obsessed by. And humans are less constrained by the need to constantly satisfy the basic necessities of life, which makes it possible for the dedicated explorer to go on extended exploring trips, exploring the world for its own sake. Also, it is part of human nature that different people in a social group develop different interests, which benefits the tribe via division of labour. So not everyone needs to be a committed explorer - it is enough for one mad explorer to go out exploring, and then come back to the tribe to report if they found something worth reporting.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Because wilderness means untapped resources, means a tribe can escape and restart, means we can escape the cycle of overpopulation, environmental damage and strife that is civilisation for a little while longer.
agumonkey 7y ago
What I like in nature: - it's a subtle force, the scales are somehow in the human range (organic material,... leaving out tsunamis, volcanos, storms and lightning which, probably very few find pleasant) - it's probably wired in us: the green hues, the tree nest shielding above, the strip of blue. The light dynamics, it's all gentle plays on contrast but it makes leaves shine like gold. - the pace of wild life, it's a tiny melody at a tiny tempo. The flow of rivers, the wind.. - the freeness.. I go where I want if I can, I stop where I want, I take what I want. Feels like a useless mall and I have a yes-card. Also with a bit of basic engineering knowledge, you can see how to rise your level of comfort from wood, stone, fibers and fire, but that's a sidenote.

48 points by prostoalex 7y ago

I'd argue that the entire concept of "pristine wilderness" derives, maybe not so much exactly from the loosely seen specter of colonialism, as from the constructed distinction between "man" and "nature". As the article touches on but fails to explore, the idea of a place where human feet have never trod only seems special from a perspective wherein human habitation is necessarily in some way unnatural. It fails to recognize the possibility of a way of human living that seeks to cohabit with what we think of as "nature", rather than to extirpate and replace it with sterile, static dioramas pretending to represent what was there before. Which, of course, brings us back around to colonialism, because that's also what colonization does. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg; the false man/nature distinction could be as much or more a rationalization as a premise, and I don't know the relevant historiography as well as I'd like.

the8472 7y ago
Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. So yes, the mere (permanent) existence of humans in some area will inevitably alter nature and thus not be what we consider pristine nature anymore.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Sure. My point is that "pristine" is a meaningless concept here - any life that exists in a given environment will alter that environment to some degree; that's one of the things life does - and that I think the habit of valuing this specter of "pristineness" points to a failure to distinguish between the habit of any form of life to modify its environment, and the human habit of altering ours in ways we know are noxious and still do anyway. My other point is that "nature" is a meaningless concept, too, and actively harmful in that it gives us an excuse to conceive of ourselves as essentially apart from our environment, and much more able to control the extent of its effects on us than we demonstrably are. Sure, we can keep the rain and cold at bay. But if climate change isn't enough evidence that our power over our environment has hard limits, the current pandemic sure as hell should be - to say nothing of the next one, or the one after that. "Nature" is something that's supposed to be out there, away from us, on the other side of a wall or a window, except when we choose for it not to be. "Nature" is an enemy. The trouble is that, looked at that way, we inevitably find Horace was right, all those centuries ago: drive her out with a pitchfork all you like, she'll always come running back.
  - the8472 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There clearly exist areas that are more and those that are less impacted by human presence. When people talk about nature they often mean just the latter parts while perhaps considering engineered ecosystems part of "the environment" not necessarily part of "[pristine] nature". Having different words for these different things is useful. You can quibble about which words best fit them, but the distinction doesn't go away.
    - throwanem 7y ago
      "Nature" isn't a word that's useful for expressing position along the continuum you describe, though. Instead it describes a sharp discontinuity that doesn't actually exist. The resulting mental model can't help but be inaccurate - and accidentally so, which means the simplification can't be controlled to avoid impairing the utility of the model. I'd categorize the resulting conceptual error alongside the one that leads people to believe in creationism because camera eyes like ours seem too complicated to have arisen by chance. They aren't, but that's a thought you need the right conceptual tools to build. Without them, you might never get there. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that "nature" is likewise the wrong tool with which to build thoughts about how humans interact with our environment.
      - the8472 7y ago
        Where is the discontinuity implied? It seems like there is a continuum between entirely engineered environments and largely untouched ones. The latter is considered natural, hence "nature" as an expression of one part of the continuum. Of course there are other uses of the word, such as "nature finds a way" meaning that biological life will adapt to engineered environments too. But this the usual inadequacy of human language, the same word can have multiple, even conflicting meanings. Anyway, if you wish to convey some important concept better you should name it so it can be discussed instead of just pointing at other concepts and declaring them inadequate. This is what confuses me about this discussion, the lack of proposed improvements.
        7y ago
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  You're falling into the same trap there that GP was pointing out. Yes, any number of humans (starting at 1) will alter the state of their surroundings. But that doesn't make the surroundings "unnatural" in any way. It just happens that modern human societies tend to alter their environment in a way that it loses many of the properties that we long for, yet somehow we don't seem capable of changing the way we shape our environments in a different way. Instead we declare "that over there" to be "nature" which is to de desired and "this here" to be "the civilized world" and most people literally can't imagine any correspondence of the two.
- msla 7y ago
  > Considering our energy needs it's not possible for large amounts of people to cohabitate with nature without altering nature. And when you realize you can say the same thing about ants and termites, you will know what the person you're talking to is talking about. Making the distinction "Human vs Nature" implies Humans are special, set apart from any other species; even if you say that Humans are bad, being especially bad is still being special, and set apart.
jbay808 7y ago
Human habitation might well be natural, but fences aren't.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Then badger setts and beaver dams aren't, either.
  - jbay808 7y ago
    That's not what I mean. Wander in the countryside for a while - outside of one of these national parks - and your wandering is likely to be interrupted at every turn by kilometres of chain-link fence, impassable highway, or some other artificial obstacle that spans a vast distance and makes you feel enclosed, rather than free. A beaver dam is no such barrier. I think the urge to explore the landscape goes much farther back than the colonial period, which is a very recent blip in human history. The author should look back not to 200 years ago for the source of that instinct, but 20,000 years ago or more - and consider what wilderness might have looked like then.
    - throwanem 7y ago
      Ask a fish how much of an obstacle the artifice of beavers imposes. We're violently in agreement, I think, inasmuch as we both find much obnoxious in the effects of human artifice as directed to modifying our environment. Where we differ is in the use of a special category "unnatural" to describe those effects we do not like. I don't argue that only the equation of "natural" with "desirable" is without value; I argue that "natural" is meaningless, as is its converse, and if we want to talk about desirability, we're better served to do so directly instead of confusing the issue with less precise concepts.
      - jbay808 7y ago
        I'm sure the fish would see them as an unnatural barrier and an annoyance, but I don't speak for the fish or think so much of their perspectives. Speaking personally as a human, there are few other vertebrate animals on Earth that can remotely pose a serious threat to my freedom, provided I exercise common sense precautions. That's probably why I'm most concerned with the human modifications to the landscape. I am forced to heed them. I'm sure fish would see it differently, although they'd still encounter a lot fewer beaver dams than human obstructions. See my other comment about how I would feel differently if beavers built dams across highways and shot people crossing them. I might be less inclined to treat beavers as a harmless part of the natural landscape then. We can make the natural vs unnatural distinction because humans have at least a partial hegemony over all other species now. Not completely; clearly microbes and insects are still out of our control. If there were intelligent alien invaders that started building walls and bridges and cages, I'm sure we'd label those as "unnatural" and "artificial" too, whereas a beaver dam is a natural curiosity. If there were other rival intelligent species sharing the Earth and reshaping it to their own vision, they probably wouldn't fit into the nature category. It marks a power dynamic, and it's an important distinction. Artificial structures are backed by the power of laws and property rights and other enforcement rules. That gives them a power beyond their material strength. Ants and beavers reshape the earth too, but the only thing stopping you from paving them over are objections by other humans. The other ants would hardly even retaliate. Edit: I guess the core of my point is that if you want to include a pair of wire cutters in with your bug spray and bear whistle and other hiking gear, so that you can freely pass through chain-link fences, then maybe you will start to view those fences no differently than rocks and fallen logs, just another curious structure erected by another fascinating mammal. I, personally, would never feel so bold.
bufbupa 7y ago
Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy; I'm not sure many people still hold it in their world view. It was just one step along the path of defining "self" vs "other". That differentiation is significant because it helps individuals identify threats vs allies. Colonizers may have defined indigenous people as "other" because they didn't have any shared cultural substrate that they could reliably cooperate through. Of course, that differentiation was likely varried per individual, and I'm sure there were many colonial individuals who detestested taking advantage of indigenous people. The exploration described in the article might be better described as drawing more of the "other" into "self". Finding that which was previously uknown to your "self" (perhaps your cultural upbringing, national identity, or collective societal knowledge) and understanding it. In this circumstance the understanding is of nature and environment, but people find this same fire in more modern differentiations as well. For instance, globalization is rapidly developing universally agreeable culture, and there are many people passionate about sharing and adding parts of their culture to that global identity. Your wish for cohabitation seems to me to be a similar desire of drawing "other" into "self", and will ultimately demand a similar degree of understanding to pull off.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I think many more people incorporate it into their worldview than recognize that they're doing so.
- jerf 7y ago
  "Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy; I'm not sure many people still hold it in their world view." It remains alive and well in the view that anything Man does is unNatural and simply by virtue of being unNatural automatically inferior to Nature.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  > Man vs Nature is an old dichotomy I can't think of any lone man vs. the wilderness stories from before Ibn Tufail's Autodidactus (12c.), but I'm happy to be corrected.
  - throwanem 7y ago

MiguelVieira 7y ago

Wilderness areas, at least in the United States, are best thought of as vast gardens where natural processes of predator-prey relationships, flooding, fire, etc are left to play out without much human intervention. If anything, we're re-creating a landscape from before Paleo-Indian settlement.

vwcx 7y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Most of the US public lands are actively managed, and even the lesser-touched 'Wilderness Areas' are still highly influenced by the surrounding human communities. The continuing 100+ year old debate around the Forest Service's wildfire policy is one example of how these relationships aren't as natural as we believe on first look.

lkrych 7y ago

For anyone who wishes to explore some of the ideas presented in this article about wilderness, I would recommend Michael Pollan's essay "The Idea of a Garden". I read Pollan's essay as part of a discussion about wilderness ethics and it has stuck with me for years. It can be found in his book, Second Nature. If you are still reading this comment, I would also recommend Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey. It takes a more irascible approach to some of the ideas of wilderness ethics, but is is a damn-good, swashbuckling time.

intrepidhero 7y ago

This attitude of going into the wilderness to test yourself against nature, conquer it, and stand where no human has ever stood, I can understand it, but I think it tragically misses out on the greater gift of wilderness. The truth is, there is hardly a place on the earth that hasn't been seen my humans at one or another time. Nature itself is an unconquerable force of which we are a part, not apart. We are connected to the earth, the plants and animals, the mountains and seas. It is humbling to go outside the walls of civilization, and face the world without all the defenses of technology. Like standing before the ocean or looking up at the stars, it is a reminder of the smallness of my place in it all. A reminder of the limits of power. The wilderness is a place of violent "otherness". It is also a place of familiar "oneness". The stars, the ocean, mountains, deserts, forests, and plains are places of wonder. I like to stand in a place I have never been, see no works of man anywhere in my view and wonder, who has seen this vista before? Who will see it again after I am gone? Am I standing in a place where ancient men worshiped their gods and loved their children? We are made of the same stuff and we are actors in the same story. I was counting tree rings on a log the other day. It was 140 years old when it was cut. Not too far away was a living tree of similar diameter. It sprouted before my great-grandfather was born. All around me were saplings that may well outlive my grandchildren. I was standing on a mountain that has stood for millennia and will continue for millennia more. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. Humility and wonder: these are the gifts of the wilderness. We'd do well to carry those gifts back into civilization.

GreeniFi 7y ago
Beautifully written.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I used to be an "Adventure Traveler" when I was younger, trapsing through forests and jungles - basically doing nothing of value. I had a lot of reasons I could come up with for doing all this stuff, but at the end of the day it was just a personal desire to experience these places and be able to tell the story. I wish more people would just cop to that, wanting to "Be an Explorer" to tell stories and experience the edge. The majority of people doing this stuff now aren't doing it for what the author quotes as: "[finding] new geographical information that adds to humanity’s stock of collective knowledge" That's what botanists and archeologists and GIS experts do with LIDAR and robots and the like. At a certain point once you realize that you, the human are the limiting factor when it comes to improving knowledge about the world, you start creating tools to learn, probes and planes and radars and things. I think "nature" people just need to be real with it, that they are trying to live out a naturalistic fantasy or just enjoy the solitude and stop pretending there is something more philosophical about it.

floren 7y ago
It's philosophical for a lot of us... it's just rarely scientific.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  What branch of philosophy? My guess is that in actuality it's just emotional/chemical for you.
  - floren 7y ago
    Whatever branch teaches me not to be a joyless pedant, I guess. You should give it a try. Edit: to be less flip, I find it an excellent place to think about ethics, what things are worth doing, the future, etc. I feel more prone to be "philosophical" when I'm in a wild place. I do not put on a backpack and think, "Ah, today I'm really going to sink my teeth into some epistemology".
    - AndrewKemendo 7y ago

pjdorrell 7y ago

The desire to explore untouched wilderness is something that has been strongly selected for. The world has been colonized by those who had the greatest inclination to explore the unknown. Non-human animals also, eventually, colonize areas beyond their point of origin, and this is no doubt driven partly by a desire to "explore". But humans, perhaps more than any other animal, are capable of having the idea of "exploring" as something that they can be obsessed by. And humans are less constrained by the need to constantly satisfy the basic necessities of life, which makes it possible for the dedicated explorer to go on extended exploring trips, exploring the world for its own sake. Also, it is part of human nature that different people in a social group develop different interests, which benefits the tribe via division of labour. So not everyone needs to be a committed explorer - it is enough for one mad explorer to go out exploring, and then come back to the tribe to report if they found something worth reporting.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago

Because wilderness means untapped resources, means a tribe can escape and restart, means we can escape the cycle of overpopulation, environmental damage and strife that is civilisation for a little while longer.

agumonkey 7y ago

What I like in nature: - it's a subtle force, the scales are somehow in the human range (organic material,... leaving out tsunamis, volcanos, storms and lightning which, probably very few find pleasant) - it's probably wired in us: the green hues, the tree nest shielding above, the strip of blue. The light dynamics, it's all gentle plays on contrast but it makes leaves shine like gold. - the pace of wild life, it's a tiny melody at a tiny tempo. The flow of rivers, the wind.. - the freeness.. I go where I want if I can, I stop where I want, I take what I want. Feels like a useless mall and I have a yes-card. Also with a bit of basic engineering knowledge, you can see how to rise your level of comfort from wood, stone, fibers and fire, but that's a sidenote.