humanity is not the solution to our problem with the environment
Many people associate the wilderness with the last remaining place where civilization has not fully infected. For most Americans, `Wilderness` is an island free from urban pollution, where one can turn for escape from urban life. It presents itself as an antidote to human civilization, something that we need to embrace to save the planet. However, based on human history, the wilderness is not what we define it today. `Wilderness` is a human creation, that is, part of human culture in human history. `Wilderness` is not an island of nature that has been left untouched or endangered, but it is a sanctuary without the contamination of civilization. Indeed, the wilderness is a product of human culture. This means that humanity is not the solution to our problem with the environment, but a significant part of it.
Until the 19th century, society did not give much thought to the wilderness. More than 300 years ago, only a handful of people traveled to remote corners of the earth in search of the wilderness experience compared to today. In the 18th century, the term wilderness evoked the emotion of fear or terror as it was associated with savage or desolate places (Cronon, 1996). Moreover, the bible describes the wilderness as a place where an individual goes against their will. However, by the end of the 19th century, `wilderness` began to be associated with all that is orderly and good. As the landscape began to change amidst industrialization and urbanization, people began to appreciate the beauty of the wild. Hence, the emergence of various wildlife parks all over the world. At the start of the 20th century, numerous movements emerged to preserve wilderness, which was now becoming a part of our society, modeled in our image, culture, and values. Therefore, `Wilderness` is an illusion constructed by American society to express and reproduce the values it seeks to reject.
The wilderness teaches us to take care of our surroundings as well as accept our current human nature. `Wilderness` is a place we can recover the true selves we lost to the corrupting effects of our artificial lives. We usually see nature as the opposite of civilization, and we must protect nature from humans (Cronon, 1996). However, `wilderness` is part of the nonhuman world, which we have little or no control over. Moreover, millions of native people have been displaced throughout America and put in reserves or alternative housing, to create untouched nature. As we try to preserve the environment through conservations, we end up doing more damage to the human and nonhuman world to fit our idea of the wilderness. Nonetheless, the contemporary wilderness has become a symbol of wealth, male interest, and bourgeois (Cronon, 1996). Humans have changed from producers in the ecosystem to consumers, as nature has become a selling point. Today, the wilderness is the landscape of the elite to escape the horrors of civilization and go hunting, fishing, and camping.
Furthermore, the current definition of wilderness stipulates that it only exists in nature, and humans must escape humanity to find it (Cronon, 1996). It entails leaving behind our daily activities to rediscover our true identities. Nonetheless, it is impractical to save the trees when there more being chopped down in another location for use. The humankind is guilty of romanticizing the idea of wilderness and saving the planet instead of accepting our failings since it only tackles the symptoms of the real problem in society.
The actual problem is our lifestyle. We live in a planet filled with industries and urban populations, which severely affects the entire ecosystem, causing the problems we are trying to address. Hence, humans need to live with nature, sustainably, and ethically (Cronon, 1996). It entails integrating nature, which includes wild animals and plants, into our cities and lives. This is a daily effort, not just something to do once. Similarly, we are part of nature and must create change from the inside out, and stop trying to preserve the wilderness and start to live it.
Cronon suggests that wilderness criticizes of the shortcomings of humanity. Consequently, we need to conserve the environment because, as organisms in the universe, we are part of the ecosystem. Wilderness is a nonhuman space and where individuals can escape avoiding human arrogance.
Question 2: Embodied Realism and Invasive Species
Introducing a non-indigenous species intentionally or unintentionally in a particular ecosystem will have a significant impact on the native species already inhabiting the region. Such organisms are referred to as invasive species and are the main topic of discussion in Brendan Larson’s article dubbed, Embodied Realism and Invasive Species. According to Larson, the existence of invasive species is a common phenomenon for ecologists and other experts in the field (Larson, 2011). When it comes to invasive species, the bulk of scientific research focuses on coming up with solutions to stop its rapid spread in the environment. The basis of invasion biology has therefore focused on curtailing the threat posed by such a species. For example, when the emerald ash borer EAB was discovered in Ontario, it was evident that its presence in the region was detrimental to the ecosystem. This is because the insects destroyed the trees in the area calling for effective countermeasures to be implemented hence the creation of the firewall. The emphasis on the practical solutions to manage the situation was a rationale one. However, Larson asserts that such an approach overlooks the conceptual underpinnings of the invasive species among the stakeholders (Larson, 2011).
Furthermore, it fails to address the influence of the constructed views on biological invasion people have when addressing such situations. The text introduces the idea of constitutive metaphors to demonstrate how conceptual dualities are reinforced in the discourses on invasion biology. Larson’s sentiments primarily revolve around the effect of metaphor “invasion” on embodied realism. The existence of the constitutive metaphors and their impact on the real and constructed views has led to disagreements among scientists. Despite the occurrence of science wars, Larson argues that both views have some underlying truth that cannot be overlooked. However, the important thing in such a scenario is to understand that the narratives in invasion biology are subject to the notions of human agency (Larson, 2011). This is the argument Larson conveys to the audience that the social and political affect the construction of perceptions and world-views.
Drawing on the two definitions of an invasive species provided by Larson, it is evident that the concept of invasion in the field has a metaphorical base. When it comes to constitutive metaphors, they come in three forms spread across the scale, namely cognitive, discourse, and root metaphors. According to Larson, the three metaphors influence how individuals have conceptualized the idea of an invasive species in the ecosystem (Larson, 2011). Although some scientists have criticized metaphors, some assert that constitutive metaphors foster innovation and prompt people to take action. In so doing, the metaphoric constitution of the concept of invasion in science compels people to take action in response to the invasive species (Larson, 2011). Therefore, the incorporation of metaphors in scientific phenomena develops performative force that causes people to invoke boundaries that incite them to act upon matters affecting them and the surrounding environment.
As mentioned earlier, the universal truth about invasive species in our society today is that they are a threat to the ecosystem and thus must be eradicated. This has led to the implementation of policies aimed at invoking boundaries between the native population and the non-indigenous species. The conceptual underpinnings of invasion in this context call drastic changes to deal with the invasive species. Since the “invasion” metaphor is linked to a performative force, it leads to a situation where people are compelled to take action. The response made by the individual may have ethical implications because it is premised on fear. According to the text, it is the fear-based resonance that forces individuals to be protective of their environment by defending it against any invasive species (Larson, 2011). This fear-based resonance causes human beings to act as protectors of their ecosystem without addressing the alternatives.
On the other hand, the resultant biotic resistance and the propagule pressure also compel human beings to defend the already existing systems. The metaphoric resonance opposes the spread of the species making the presence of such organisms an issue in the community. One of the ways of dealing with the ethical implication is to change the approach for catering to the invasive species and the practices of scientists. This can be achieved by shifting the focus from the issue of invasion to the idea and conception of the term “invasion” among scientists and non-experts.