[l/m 6/29/94] What is "natural?" Distilled Wisdom (24/28) XYZ
Eugene N. Miya
A common thread which underlies the fundamental values in
all backcountry discussions is the issues of what is "natural"
and what is its relation to the "human" state? For most people,
the "woods" offer a place to see the natural world. That world
IS "reality." That is where the recreative effect takes places.
Backcountry recreation is a decidedly sub/urban phenomena.
'What is natural?' implies something made by natural as opposed to
artificial processes. There is something here. Polyethelene is
not a substance that is mined from the earth. It is clearly artificial,
man-made. It does have advantages, and clear environmental problems.
But yes, it is made from "natural" atoms. Man is a part of nature.
The issue is the scale (economies) of some of these substances.
See "biodegradability" in the dictionary.
If people annoy you with this weak semantic argument,
use the term "non-artificial." Then see what they do.
It is recognized that people's tastes form a spectrum of
desired experience. Setting the local extremes, we have the urban
city dweller who likes the bright lights and big city to the logical
extreme (in discussion and occasional practice) of going into the woods nude
without modern fabrics, gear, etc. Few do the latter, the majority
prefering a comfortable middle ground. In all probability none of the former
reads this group. They have no need.
However, underlying these ideas are two fundamental opinions. The first
derived a specific reading of Judeo-Christian values that Man has
complete domination of the Earth, sometimes called an "anthropocentric"
view to a view where man is just a visitor in the woods and has equal
footing to the animals and plants which live there. This results in
the "take only pictures, leave only footprints" view of visitation.
The advantage of the latter is that it allows even future generations
of humans to visit under the same conditions.
Also avoid "anthropomophising" non-artificial objects. Bambi may be cute,
but giving Bambi a momentary edge can play havoc later in life.
A common argument tactic is for the former to accuse the latter of
placing wild things ABOVE humans. This is not true. The latter themselves
acknowledge EQUAL footing for wild things. The latter become
accused of the "one true path" philosophy. The former try to
justify their opinions with a rational, balanced approach, frequently
called utilitarian. A better example is to consider the conceptual
shift from the ideas of Copernicus: as humans we considered that the
heavens cirled around the earth, and we "discovered" that in the earth
revolves around the Sun. To think the biological world revolves around
humans is similarly as silly as the old Aristoltian idea.
Consider the process of extinction. It is actually not one process, but two,
the first or DIRECT extinction is also termed EXTERMINATION. This is when
a species or group are specifically targeted: Dodos, passenger pigeons,
badgers, wolves, wolverines, people of Jewish descent. The second form
of extinction is INDIRECT extinction. This involves destroying habitat
necessary for the long-term survival of a species and this can include
trees which last hundreds of years longer than human individuals. Several
species associated with the dodo are now dying because the dodo is gone.
AN interesting rebuke to species preservation comes in areas like
silvaculture and forestry. It comes under the heading of multi-use,
sustained yield, and other utilitarian banners. What's wrong with this?
It all sounds logical. That's part of the problem: logic with inadequate
information. A forest isn't all one species. If we destroy the diversity,
we have essentialy for all intents and purposes destroyed the forest.
It is only living an extended artificially cultured life.
So where does this all go?....
R. Nash (used with permission)
The Rights of Nature
Natural Rights
^ ^
\ Universe /
\------------------------------------------------------/
\ Planet /
\--------------------------------------------------/
\ Ecosystems /
\----------------------------------------------/
\ Rocks /
\------------------------------------------/
Future \ Life /
\--------------------------------------/
\ Plants /
\----------------------------------/
- - - - - - -\ Animals /
\------------------------------/
\ Humans /
Present \--------------------------/
\ Race /
\----------------------/
\ Nation /
- - - - - - - - - - \------------------/
\ Region /
Ethical \--------------/
Past \ Tribe /
\----------/
\ Family /
- - - - - - - - - - - - - \------/
Pre-Ethical \Self/
Past \ /
\/
Figure 1. The Evolution of Ethics
?
\------------------------------------------------------------------/
\ Nature, Endangered Species Act, 1973 /
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
\ Blacks /
\ Civil Rights Act, 1957 /
\---------------------------------------------------------/
\ Laborers /
\ Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 /
\---------------------------------------------------/
\ Native Americans /
\ Indian Citizenship Act, 1924 /
\---------------------------------------------/
\ Women /
\ Nineteenth Amendment, 1920 /
\---------------------------------------/
\ Slaves /
\ Emancipation /
\ Proclamation, 1863 /
\-------------------------------/
\ American Colonialists /
\ Declaration of /
\ Independence, 1776 /
\-----------------------/
\ English /
\ Barons /
\Magna Carte, 1215/
\---------------/
\ Natural /
\ Rights /
\ /
\-------/
Figure 2. The Expanding Concept of Rights
On a similar vein on the other side, especially if you are a computer
science major:
%A Herbert Simon
%T The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd. ed.
%I MIT Press
%C Cambridge, MA
%D 1968?
TABLE OF CONTENTS of this chain:
24/ What is natural? <* THIS PANEL *>
25/ A romantic notion of high-tech employment
26/ Other news groups of related interest, networking
27/ Films/cinema references
28/ References (written)
1/ DISCLAIMER
2/ Ethics
3/ Learning I
4/ learning II (lists, "Ten Essentials," Chouinard comments)
5/ Summary of past topics
6/ Non-wisdom: fire-arms topic circular discussion
7/ Phone / address lists
8/ Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation / advice and Rachel Carson
9/ Water Filter wisdom
10/ Volunteer Work
11/ Snake bite
12/ Netiquette
13/ Questions on conditions and travel
14/ Dedication to Aldo Leopold
15/ Leopold's lot.
16/ Morbid backcountry/memorial
17/ Information about bears
18/ Poison ivy, frequently ask, under question
19/ Lyme disease, frequently ask, under question
20/ "Telling questions" backcountry Turing test (under construction)
21/ AMS
22/ Words from Foreman and Hayduke
23/ A bit of song (like camp songs)
From: m...@frame.com (Mark Drury)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Defintion of Wilderness
Roderick Nash goes into considerable detail on the subject of
this defintion in Wilderness_and_the_American_Mind. Here are but a
few excerpts:
When it becomes necessary to apply the term wilderness to a
specific area, the difficulties are compounded. There is the
problem of how wild a region must be to qualify as wilderness,
or, conversely, how much of the influence of civilization can
be admitted. To insist on absolute purity could conceivably
result in wilderness being only that land which the foot of
man has never trod. But for many persons minimal contact with
man and his works does not destroy wilderness characteristics.
The question is one of degree. Does the presence of Indians or
range cattle disqualify an area? Does an empty beer can? How
about airplanes overhead?
And:
Recently land managers and politicians have struggled without
marked success to formalize a workable definition of wilderness.
In the 1920s and 1930s the U.S. Forest Service experimented with
a variety of terms in an effort to categorize the land under its
supervision but found that "primitive," "roadless," and "natural"
were no clearer than the broader category. What, after all, is
a road?
Thoughts from two that have thunk it through:
The explorer and crusader for wilderness preservation, Robert
Marshall, demanded an area so large that it could not be tra-
versed without mechanical means in a single day. Aldo Leopold,
ecologist and philosopher, set as his standard a region's
ability to "absorb a two weeks' pack trip."
In the end it is clear that there is no concrete definition:
Given these problems, and the tendency of wilderness to be a
state of mind, it is tempting to let the term define itself:
to accept as wilderness those places people call wilderness.
The emphasis here is not so much what wilderness is but what
men think it is.
Little wonder that wilderness is so hard to legislate, but there is
less ambiguity once the term has been applied, legally, to an area of
land and that land can be regulated, enjoyed, and thought of as such.
I recommend Nash's book highly if you've even a fleeting interest in
the history of wilderness and wilderness thought.
_________________________________________________________
Mark Drury Internet: a sad,
m...@slinger.frame.com sterile nerdvana
Article 52222 of rec.backcountry:
Xref: cnn.nas.nasa.gov rec.backcountry:52222 talk.environment:14445
Path: cnn.nas.nasa.gov!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!thuban.ac.hmc.edu!elsalmon
From: elsa...@thuban.ac.hmc.edu (ED SALMON)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,talk.environment
Subject: The natural and the artificial (was Re: Multiple-use Trail Perspectives
Date: 8 Jul 94 22:17:53 PDT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <1994Jul8...@thuban.ac.hmc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thuban.ac.hmc.edu
In article <2vklpr$1...@speedy.inri.com>, j...@speedy.inri.com (Josh J Fielek) writes:
>
>In article <2vi84t$j...@ornews.intel.com>, bre...@ornews.intel.com (Bob Breivogel) writes:
>|> [We are] Defenders of the environment. We have at least as much right to
>|> be "extreme" in this area as does the NRA on its turf. I don't believe
>|> in compromise in some things.
>
>Now one question - Do you beleive in creation or in evolution?
>
>If you beleive in creation, you may have a point that man can intrude upon
>nature.
>
>If you beleive in evolution, you can't take that stance, because if man evolved
>from "apes", through the course of nature, then everything man does is natural,
>and everything you claim is a lie.
>
>Joshua J. Fielek
>Member: Reality.
Reality? Sounds more like semantic subterfuge to me. True, according to your
definition, people and everything they do are "natural" because people evolved
from nature. But this is only a matter of definition. It does not change the
underlying REALITY that there is a dramatic distinction between wilderness and
the "civilized", mechanized world that people have built. It does not change
the fact that the civilized world depends on wilderness for everything from
recreation to vital resources like food, water, air, and energy. It does not
change the fact that civilization has disturbed and destroyed the wilderness
enough to critically threaten the ability of wilderness to satisfy those needs.
If we want to have any wild land left for recreation 20 years from now, or 50,
or 100, if we want the earth's climate to remain stable, if we want it to be
safe to go out in the sun, if we want to have clean air and water, we must
understand the relationship between civilization and wilderness better. We
must recognize that people have the power to destroy the wild world and, in the
process, ourselves.
In order to do that, we need to recognize that there IS a distinction between
the civilized, mechanized, human world and the wild world. We need words for
referring to that distinction. The most convenient words we have are
"artificial" and "natural". By adopting a simplistic definition that asserts
that everything that is artificial is automatically natural, you blind people
to real environmental problems and make solutions more difficult. No matter
whether you are a conservationist or a preservationist, an advocate of "maximum
sustained yield" or deep ecology, if you enjoy wilderness and want some of it
to stay wild, you undermine your own cause by denying that there is a
distinction between nature and the artificial world.
Ed Salmon