The Wilderness Debate

[sapling]

Hi all

By accident browsing google books I came across an interesting title, ‘The Wilderness Debate’.
Some further research led me to reflect on my thoughts on the concept of the ‘wilderness’ what it means to me and other people and how we all use it.

What I’m getting at is that for some wilderness is nature in an unspoiled, pristine state, a place to relax and enjoy the countryside as Mother Nature intended, to watch wildlife in a natural habitat, to marvel at the local fauna and flora, in a very ‘undamaging’ manner. For others it’s a place to gain an understanding of our ancestral skills and the knowledge which sustained people in the times before urbanisation. Some view the countryside as a commodity to sell for example country estates, the forestry commission and perhaps, arguably, even mountain guides. Mountain bikers, dirt bikers, 4x4 drivers and other adrenaline junkies view the wilderness as facility for gaining their next ‘hit’ often in a brightly coloured and not particularly inconspicuous manner.

But who is right? Who is wrong? What’s wrong with sitting in the middle of a pristine wilderness environment blasting out dance music for all to hear? Its less damaging than cutting down a tree or lighting a fire arguably.

Surely all the users can’t be right can they? One person wants to conserve the countryside, one wants to sell it in one form or another and one wants to play on it.

Subsequently this leads to differing opinions and I am interested to hear yours. I’m still making my own mind up and just thinking out loud.

Cheers for taking the time to read and post!

Sapling

 

[Retired Member southey]

I think it's purley down to the individuals perception, once you've got away from what is widely excepted as natural wilderness, such as tundra,northan forests, oceans and alike, it boils down to your own idea of where you would feel alone, not neccesaraly by your self or even out in the wilds, i find my slef in a similar state of mind when going about a city i don't know as i do when traveling through a valley i've not been to before, to me personal wilderness is all in the mind and as such can be found anywhare.

 

[UltimateSurvivor]

The dictionary definition of the term "wilderness" goes something like this;


1.An unsettled, uncultivated region left in its natural condition, especially:
a.A large wild tract of land covered with dense vegetation or forests.
b.An extensive area, such as a desert or ocean, that is barren or empty; a waste.
c.A piece of land set aside to grow wild.
2.Something characterized by bewildering vastness, perilousness, or unchecked profusion.


You are hard pushed to find true Wilderness in the UK these days. Lot's of places claim the status but very few deliver. That said, there are some.

I moved to East Africa at the age of seven and returned when i was 14. I came across plenty of places out there that fit all of the bullet points above. I would call some of those area's a true wilderness. I think everyone has to get that clear in their own minds first. I have quite a few acquaintances who would class the woods at the end of their housing estate a wilderness...

With regards to who should use it. Maybe who even has the right to use it?

I don't think there is an answer to that question. Everyone has different tastes and ambitions. Different likes and dislikes. Why should one person say to another he or she can't do this because it goes against that particular persons morals or believes?

I'm a firm believed in the saying "each to their own." If somebody gains enjoyment out of a hobby or pursuit then that's fine by me. Even if i completely disagree with it. I would feel extremely upset and annoyed if somebody put my hobby down without even trying it or seeing the enjoyment i gain from it. is everyone right? is everyone wrong? It's just so confusing and time consuming. You could spend an age trying to work it all out...

I don't think any of us have a right to destroy our planet. Infact i'm completely against it. But we all have a right to explore our own wilderness'. I just think folk these days need a little more consideration. The world would be a much better place!

Tal'.

 

[Kerne]

Have a look at "The Wild Places" by Robert MacFarland. He asks whether there is true wildness left in the UK and comes up with encouraging answers. A fine read in any case.

 

[pango]

The Wilderness Debate? Is there a single wilderness debate? The issues are so diverse that there is no single debate... in fact, the issue is so enormous that most of the richest, most powerful and influential countries in the world may be paying lip service to important environmental issues but have in reality chosen to ignore them and hope they go away, while countries of low economic turnover, like Guyana, plead for economic assistance from developed nations to protect their fragile ecosystems.

There have to date been no effective attempts by the 1st World to prevent the destruction of the Amazonian Forest, and never will be unless there is a total turn around in our materialistic lifestyles, accompanied by comprehensive check and control of international private enterprise.

In order to identify these various questions you must first define what wilderness is, and under a definition of a pristine region untouched by the hand of man, you'd have to put in a sustained effort to find that anywhere in Africa, Australia, North America or even Antarctica, as the human record is nowhere as ancient as that of Africa where our species originated and sophisticated civilisations flourished for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans, we know that the occupation of what is now North America predates the Clovis Culture by thousands of years, native populations of Australia inhabited what we see as the most barren, hostile and remote territories and traces of pollutants and heavy metals have been found in the Antarctic ice.

The regions described as Europe's last great wilderness, the forests of Poland and Ukraine, have supported Modern Man and Neanderthal before him and are far from pristine. Some 30% of the Białowieski Park was cut down to fuel the post WWII Industrial Revolution of The Soviet era, and the Poles, Ukrainians and Belarussians are still furious about it!

The area of Scotland which used to be called "The Whitbread Wilderness", Letterewe and Fisherfield, was only termed such because of attempts by the owners to prevent public access. It once contained a small part of a great forest. You'd have a hard job finding enough wood for a fire now... unless you know where to look in the peat-hags! A mate and I were climbing there once when we found flint flakes and a scraper tucked into a ledge. I can only imagine he was after eagle feathers. We wished him safe passage back to his family and left the artifacts where they were, in honour of like minds but also probably due to deep rooted superstition.

What we do have in Scotland are quite vast areas which could be returned to mixed forest and restocked with extinct species if the will were there. But the will isn't there, other than those very few enlightened landowners and the schemers who are attempting to use the guise of reforestation and reintroduction programmes in order to gain exemption from land access legislation.

You don't need to go far to see the disingenuous way ecological issues are being exploited. Just turn on your telly and watch the commercials, as everyone from insurance and mobile phone companies to car manufacturers, oil conglomerates and PR companies see the chance to cash in on the latest fad!

I see no "Wilderness Debate" going on there!

I have to agree with Southey though, basically that your wilderness is where you make it.

ps; Sorry Admin, but all debates are political!

Cheers.

 

[lisa]

The dictionary definition of the term "wilderness" goes something like this;


1.An unsettled, uncultivated region left in its natural condition, especially:
a.A large wild tract of land covered with dense vegetation or forests.
b.An extensive area, such as a desert or ocean, that is barren or empty; a waste.
c.A piece of land set aside to grow wild.
2.Something characterized by bewildering vastness, perilousness, or unchecked profusion.

Interesting thread! Mmmm, I would prabably argue most of those definitions (although I think it would be a little too wordy for Collins ;-))...are deserts and oceans 'empty'? I think of Wilderness as a concept, not a place...we aslo refer to the urban wilderness, or the wilderness of the mind. It is pecieved inside ourselves and then applied to the outside in way that matches our 'feeling' about that place. What one person/culture calls wilderness another calls home. For example...do indigenous peoples perceive wilderness? It is a very Western concept, born out of our seperation and disconection with our natural surroundings. It is also very political for indigenous people trying to claim back their lands, as it has been useful terminology for Westerners that presupposes that no-one lives there, when in fact these vast tracts of land/ forests may well be/ have been inhabbited by peoples for millenia

Lisa

 

[Peter_t]

i think of true wilderness as somewhere like Alaska or Utah. vast with very few inhabitants and much unknown.

going from this there is definitely no wilderness in england but some places give the illusion of wilderness. for example there is a lighthouse at the bottom of beachy head in sussex. of course nobody live in it any more, it is probably computer controlled. there is a large rocky beach which doesn’t get swallowed by the tide and it has many coastal plant including a yellow poppy which i haven’t seen anywhere else. i sometimes go there and because of the high cliffs and the couple of mile walk either way to the next gap in the cliff it feels very isolated even though loads of walkers wander along the top of the cliff. iv never met anybody there, i think most people are afraid of not making it there and back before the time catches up with them.


Pete

 

[UltimateSurvivor]

It is a very Western concept

Absolutely spot on. I was trying to get this point across in my own post but for some reason didn't say it directly and waffled around it:togo:

Not to worry!

Tal'.

 

[Mattrevolution]

Strange? I have travelled all over the world through deserts, rain forests, over oceans and up mountains. I find only calm clear thoughts, happiness, interest, exhileration and excitement in these places, as I am sure you will all agree. Surely true wilderness is found in places like a city where you can be surrounded by many of the same species and still feel alone?

 

[sirex]

my rule of thumb is very simple: It's not a true wilderness unless at least one thing that lives there can eat your face.

done.

 

[pango]

It is a very Western concept... Lisa

I'm not quite so sure it is, Lisa.

If you mention driving a vehicle in "the desert" to most city living North Africans you can watch the blood draining from their faces. I imagine you'll find much the same reaction from those living on the edges of the Gobi. It probably stems from a very sensible historical fear elevated to a mythology!

The term "wilderness" is synonymous in the western imagination with a wasteland... an untamed place full of dangerous unknowns which has yet to be conquered. That meaning has recently changed from a negative to a positive and more than likely dropped from the English language in the interim, at least in Britain.

It's curious that the word "wasteland" can also mean exactly the opposite.

Cheers.

 

[Tengu]

Hard to say.

I imagine most natives would define a `Wilderness` as a `Wasteland` useless land with no resources.

But experience tells us that pretty much everywhere is useful land, often with lots of resources.

 

[lisa]

Yes Pango, I see your point. Its a very complex term/ concept...I am not sure either? But I was meaning historically. I am not sure that many urban North Africans would have once understood a concept such as wilderness (prior to urbanisation)? I am thinking that it takes a segregation of man from 'natural' environment (usually associated iwth Westernisation) for a concept such as 'wilderness to exist? I realise that many indigenous peoples, who live/lived traditionally recognise bad and terrifying spirits within nature, but I am not sure that they would fully 'get' out perception of wild, 'empty' wastelands...as wild or empty at all? Not sure if that makes sense ;-).

Tengu, I like your logic too .

I have written a bit on the early history of wilderness, its far from fully fleshed out but I'm happy to share if you be bothered to read?

Lisa

 

[nevetsjc80]

i was told that the wilderness definition is anywhere 2 hours or more from rescue?

 

[pango]

my rule of thumb is very simple: It's not a true wilderness unless at least one thing that lives there can eat your face. done.

What, Ballingary?

 

[Retired Member southey]

That mark the Naffi Bop at RAF Vally as wilderness then.

 

[pango]

I have written a bit on the early history of wilderness, its far from fully fleshed out but I'm happy to share if you be bothered to read?
Lisa

Go for it, Lisa! You've posted some of your writing here before and I found it to be most interesting.

Bill.

 

[Retired Member southey]

Yup i'd like to read it too please!

 

[_mark_]

where one can be wild in earnest.

 

[Laurentius]

A wilderness is anywhere where there are no people, but then if I am out there enjoying it, it is by definition no longer a wilderness.

When I was a kid there was a patch of ground, as yet unbuilt upon on our estate which was called "the waste ground" not quite T S Eliot I know, but it afforded some enjoyment for us kid's building den's and lighting illicit fires before they built on it, it was wilderness enough at the time