Introduction
Anthropocentrism with regards to wilderness is a politically incorrect stance. No one would say, without reprimand, “take what we can from the environment and give nothing back.” Roberts (n.d.) would say that anthropocentrism is a “short-term” way of thinking. In reality, anthropocentrism is a form of evolution, and should be associated with survival.
One of the things the debate circles around is what truly is wilderness? So that everyone is on the same page, the wilderness has been defined with no stone left unturned by the Wilderness Act of 1964:
“an area… untrammeled by man… without permanent improvements or human habitation… which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature… (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land… and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value” (USA Government, 1964).
The only places that are no longer considered wilderness are those places uninhabitable by man, or many species at all for that matter. Anthropocentrism is inevitable and it is best if we embrace its role in the many facets of the wilderness. I will examine the social, economic, ecologic, and ethical factors of wilderness that were outlined by Bergstrom, Bowker and Cordell (2005) to prove my point.
According to Gorte (USA Government, 2002), 123.8 million acres of the United States are designated as wilderness. The U.S. has a total land mass of 2.27 billion acres, which means wilderness accounts for less than 6% of all land. If you don’t include Alaska, less than 4% of land in the U.S. is considered wilderness. (USA Government, 2002).
Social Factors
Social factors are things that we use the wilderness for that are “not measured in dollar terms” (Bergstrom et al., 2005). They give humans a place to think, play, interact, and experience nature. We may use the wilderness to camp, to contemplate life, to bond with others, or even to bond with ourselves. The social aspect of wilderness is an anthropocentric view, and it is good thing that it is that way.
The argument that humans should have no interaction in the wilderness is complete idiocracy. Humans have lived on the Earth throughout much of history, and have lived in the wilderness for the majority of their existence. Up until the last few hundred years, we have coexisted with the environment living in and off of it.
There is no reason that we should not be able to use the wilderness for social reasons. I think most people would agree that the wilderness keeps many people sane. We connect with ourselves, our friends, and the environment. In order to better understand that we need to reduce our impact on the Earth, the social aspect of anthropocentrism is vital. We must be in the environment in order to understand it.
We are not hurting the environment by being in it and indulging in an intrinsic way. We gain insight and a respect for the wilderness by utilizing its teaching properties. Recently, many people have adopted the Leave No Trace (LNT) way of cohabitating in the wilderness. It means that we as humans leave the wilderness exactly the way we found it. As absurd as I think it is, (clearly it should be common sense not to pollute or ravage the land that you pass through and use recreationally) people who lack this sense can grasp the LNT principle and learn a respectful way to be in the wilderness.
Cronon (1995) concludes and summarizes my point:
“To [remove humans from the wilderness] is merely to take to a logical extreme the paradox that was built into wilderness from the beginning: if nature dies because we enter it, then the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves. The absurdity of this proposition flows from the underlying dualism it expresses.”
Leopold (1949) states, “recreation is valuable in proportion to the intensity of its experiences, and to the degree to which it differs from and contrasts with workday life.” The wilderness continues to be starkly different from most people’s regular eight to five routine. Thus, another pro-anthropocentrism value emerges. We value the difference between our routine and our leisure or vacation time. If we continue on in destroying what is left, we will have less and less places to go for escape. Sure, people love going to New York City for a vacation, but what if settings like that were your only option?
What I hope the wilderness will give us, as Americans, is a classical history. In 100 years, I hope students around the world are reading American novels and watching American movies and plays, and recognize them for their philosophy. The wilderness can help us, anthropocentrically, develop a classic history.
Taking humans directly out of the environment can be just as detrimental as continuing on the path that we are now. No, we should not completely excavate ourselves from the wilderness. But there is virtually no harm in using it socially, so long as we learn to do so respectfully.
Economic Factors
Economic factors are those things the wilderness gives us that can be “measured in dollar terms” (Bergstrom et al., 2005). Cutting wood and selling it as paper, boxes, tables, etc., is all for an economic profit. Bottling water or using and selling water as electricity is an economic advantage. Growing and selling crops, buying and selling land, there are so many examples of how the wilderness contributes to the economy. By nature, this whole category is anthropocentrism at its finest. Viewing the environment as property to be sold and bought for personal profit is the reason anthropocentrism has a negative connotation.
Another apparent problem with economic factors is that they have “extrinsic motivations” (Roberts, n.d.). Extrinsic motivations like money, resources, and power are, I think, the most common examples. The acquisition of resources is the most important thing that people should grasp. Go after things that serve you and increase your ability to survive and thrive, not with an intention of squashing the competition. The acquisition of power is where anthropocentrism goes wrong. We should not seek to have more land or resources than someone else, solely to have control over them. We should go after things that help our needs.
We sell and exploit our resources in order to gain power. However, if we cultivate what we need responsibly with the idea of sustainability in our minds, I feel as if we can’t really go wrong. Yes, it has anthropocentric ideals, but why is that bad? Anthropocentrism is what makes the world turn, greed is what makes it stop.
Yes, our population is growing and things need to change, instead of increasing our consumption we need to drastically decrease it. Humans are by nature selfish and egocentric, and that is not necessarily bad as we are surviving because we are the most fit to do so. However,
We should turn to hydroelectricity, wind energy, and solar energy; combine them to get what we can, and use non-sustainable resources like coal to fulfill the rest of our needs. If we begin to cut back on our energy usage, we should have more than enough. If we as a society decide to reduce our use, but still use what we need, it will benefit us in the long run.
In the end, using resources to benefit our society is not bad. We should use what we have to maintain a healthy, responsible lifestyle. We don’t need to use our resources to profit, but we do need to use them to survive.
Ecologic Factors
Ecologic factors of the wilderness focus on the health and biodiversity of the environment They include “biophysical concepts and measures of Wilderness ecosystem health and biodiversity” (Bergstrom et al., 2005). These things, according to Roberts (n.d.), “enhance[s] the use of wilderness as a natural outdoor laboratory and classroom.” They expand our ability to learn and therefore better ourselves, clearly a positive anthropocentric view. Keeping the ecology of the world is in our favor. It helps us keep medicines available, keep a variety of foods, and survive.
We should seek to maintain a simple lifestyle. In this way we can minimize our impact on the ecology of the wilderness. This doesn’t seem like an anthropocentric view, however, we should seek to protect the ecology because it is in our best interest, as it will protect us in the long run. Why doesn’t it matter why we’re protecting the ecology of the environment, so long as we are doing so?
“Conservation is a state of harmony between man and land” (Land Perspective). We do need to conserve, we need to conserve because it will benefit humanity and cause us less problems in the future. Keeping a simple life will help keep the balance between using and abusing the wilderness.
According to (Land Perspective), “[the] answer is more conservation education… because it defines no right or wrong, assigns no obligation, calls for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values.” And that really what it’s about right, man not wanting to sacrifice all that he has for the sake of the environment. If you increase the knowledge and awareness of the average man, he will realize the detrimental side effects his actions will inevitably have. And if that doesn’t work, help him realize that his actions will affect him, or his family, in the future. Keeping in his anthropocentric values will be more cause for change.
There is the argument that “the frontier [is] passing away” (Cronon, 1995). To this I somewhat disagree. I think that we are taking away all of our physical space and tenants of that space, however, we have the frontier of progression. We have science and room for innovation and improvement of the “wild” that we have left. Maybe there is no wild in the U.S. anymore, but it’s all we have, and we can no dedicate ourselves to cherishing and salvaging it.
Ethical Factors
Ethical factors are those “philosophical concepts of values and impacts” (Roberts, n.d.). They include “philosophical concepts of values and impacts related to fairness, justness, and goodness” (Bergstrom et al., 2005). They reflect the intrinsic values of the wilderness to man. What can we gain from the wilderness internally, mentally, can only be a benefit to its inevitable fate, and to our anthropocentric values.
We should learn to respect the environment and all that it has to offer. It is living and constantly changing, but the fact is that we use it to survive. We need it, and it does not need us, and for that fact, we should respect it.
“Ethics are possibly a kind of community instinct in-the-making” (Land Ethic). What we need is community-instinct, community-common sense. We need to care about everything for reasons other than their economic value. The reality is that everything, even if it has no real economic value, can affect something else that does have economic value. Everything should be cherished, even it if is only for anthropocentric reasons.
Grosvenor (1974) begins his ethical argument with the “colonists, pioneers, loggers, miners, [and] railroaders.” He thinks that they began the destruction. I disagree with his idea, mostly because I am for progression. I don’t think that they, as settlers, were the problem, and if they were, why does it matter now (or even when his article was published)? When we settled, we used what we needed to survive and progress. They are the reason we have everything that we do, so if they hadn’t done so, Grosvenor may not have been writing the piece that he did. We cannot look backward, we should only look forward.
DeLancey (2012) created an argument based on the fact that wilderness cannot be considered in environmental ethic for multiple reasons. One of those arguments is that the wilderness is a western idea which serves very few other cultures. I agree with this point because many people or cultures in the world take no consideration to what they’re taking from the environment. However, the fact that we are a more developed and industrious place than those areas should be taken into account. We should take as if others do, but we need to be responsible so we don’t pillage the land.
Mosden (2011) argues, “our activities in the wilderness are not necessarily bad or harmful…Humans evolved alongside animals… it is only our social construction that deems to take us out of it.” So the ethics, created by humans, are removing us from the wilderness, also argued to be a concept created by humans. We are trying so hard to backtrack due to recently found ideas about conservation, preservation, and complete cessation of our involvement in the environment. Not all of these ideas are bad, however, some are radical. I agree that we must conserve and preserve, but I also think we should use the resources around us; the question remains where to draw the line.
Summation
Leopold (1949) states, “wilderness is a resource which can shrink but not grow.” We need to take care of what we have in order to enjoy it for, essentially, forever. People need to genuinely care about what we’re doing for the future of the wilderness and the future of ourselves. Anthropocentrism is just one way to do that. If we can relate one thing, wilderness, to every person we can change its fate. The disappearance of the wilderness will cause problems for everyone; they just need to see how.
It seems, then, that “the core problem of wilderness is that it distances us too much from the very things it teaches us to value” (Cronon, 1995). This is the problem. Anthropocentrism can close that gap. If we get everyone to understand how they are and will be affected by the decreasing expanse and variety of wilderness, there will be huge increases of support and salvation for the wilderness.
References
Bergstrom, J. C., Bowker, J. M. & Cordell, H. K. (2005) An Organizing Framework for
Wilderness Values. In M. Barbin, V. Fowler & R. Yocum (Eds.), The Multiple Values
of Wilderness (pp. 48-55). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.
This source is more of a textbook and explanation of the many viewpoints of wilderness. It skims the vaues, functions, and services offered by the wilderness. It shows, as the title indicates, a framework for the different viewpoints of the wilderness.
I have adapted the structure that the source provides for my paper. I will use the four categorizing accounts as section headings as follows: social, economic, ecologic, and ethical. This also provides good, non-biased information.
DeLancey, C. (2012). An Ecological Concept of Wilderness. Ethics & the
Environment,17(1). Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=73
377c6-6733-49bb-96da-4e9520c9fc26%40sessionmgr12&hid=105
Grosvenor, G. (1974, Feb 1). America’s Wilderness: How Much Can We Save? National
Geographic145(2), 151-157. Retrieved from
http://natgeo.galegroup.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/natgeo/archive/FeatureArticlesDetailsPage/FeatureArticlesDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=OQE+America%27s+Wildern
ess&prodId=NGMA&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&display
roupName=NatGeoFeatures&dviSelectedPage=1&limiter=&currPage=1&disableHighlig
hting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&cat
Id=&activityType=BasicSearch&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CHBEJXG183371335
#pageNo=14
Leopold, A. (1948). The Land Ethic. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Inc.
This source is a very emotional account of one man’s view of the wilderness. It will give me good information to back up my ideas, however, it will also provide counter points which I will be able to talk about and explain. It has a lot of information on the ethical value of wilderness which will be a value to that section of my paper. It also talks about the ecological perspective.
The problem with this source is that it is dated. It will take explanation in order for it to apply to modern day wilderness values. Leopold represents a viewpoint from a time in history where wilderness preservation wasn’t highly valued, so he had to go to extreme examples to back himself up.
Leopold, A. (1949). Wilderness. A Sand County Almanac: and Sketches here and there. New
York, Ney York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
This source explores many angles of the uses of wilderness and states Leopold’s support or distaste for each. He starts off by talking about the little expanse of true wilderness that we have left. From there he goes into the use of wilderness for recreation, science, and wildlife.
From this I will use the ideas about conservation and the anthropocentric use of nature. It has good, vivid examples as well as solid arguments. An issue with this source is that, like the other Leopold excerpt, it is very emotional, and emotions aren’t always the best way to validate an argument.
Mosden, K. (2011). Can Ecopsychology Save the Wilderness Debate? Journal of the
International Community for Ecopsychology. Retrieved from
http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/ezine/wilderness_debate.html
This source explores the different viewpoints of wilderness and tries to apply each argument to ecopsychology. It talks about whether humans should interact in the wilderness at all and provides the argument that things are fine in moderation.
This is the source closest to my stance on the wilderness being anthropocentric. I agree with a lot of what Mosden points out. I will use her last sentence about progression as the backbone of what I believe.
Roberts, L. (n.d.) The Wilderness Debate: A conflict Between Values. The University of Utah.
Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/initiatives/paa/pdf/lynda_roberts.pdf
This source explores the intrinsic and extrinsic values of the wilderness. It holds the side of the wilderness and is biased towards it; however, it does provide non-biased facts and information. It also provides a good amount of information and opinions from other sources.
I have adapted some of the intrinsic and extrinsic values that were discussed in this source. It is also a good example of how to organize and talk about the information. It gives my stance good counter points.
USA Government. 88th Congress, Second Session. (1964). The Wilderness Act. Retrieved from
http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/wildernessAct.pdf
USA Government. Congressional Research Service. (2002). Wilderness: Overview and
Statistics. Retrieved from
http://congressional.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/congressional/result/pqpresultpage.g
ispdfhitspanel.pdflink/http%3A$2f$2fprod.cosmos.dc4.bowker-dmz.com$2fapp-bin$2fg
is-congresearch$2fe$2fb$2f0$2ff$2fcrs-2002-rsi-0245_from_1_to_20.pdf/entitlement
keys=1234
Wilderness Writing 