by Mariel Ferragamo, of Colby College
Conversation on “wilderness” has predominantly connoted a place without conventional civilization, what remains are the exotic plants and animals so elusive and idealized to the everyday urbanite. Since as early as Hobbes’ “State of Nature” theory drew connections between the wild as chaotic and a place not for humans, I believe people have expectations of wilderness to be as primal and undiscovered, as I once did myself. As a self-proclaimed “environmentalist,” my perspective is often centered on the Earth, and my bias towards environmental protection at times clouds realistic approaches to the world’s issues. One example is a paper I recently came across that I wrote a few years ago on land use. I wrote that “[the best way to maintain the wilderness] is to look out for it, but not to use it for our sociocultural or socioeconomic benefit.” I previously had this ironclad view of how humans should interact with the environment, and how nature should be respected in complete absence of human use. What I would come to learn over years of education and international experience is that my place of privilege as a citizen in the global community would form my paradigm around Western preservationist ideals, a concept I now realize is perhaps more detrimental when solving environmental issues and approaching the wilderness.
I had a strong judgement that “wilderness” was land untouched by humans, pockets of the Earth reserved for flora and fauna, justified by their intrinsic value and the Earth’s natural state of being. My view was perhaps more cynical than it is now, in that humans have no harmony with nature, and cannot live on a land with plants and animals without abusing its resources—and therefore had no right to permeate the few lands that were still unscathed by human influence. This notion of leaving humans out of the picture entirely is much more dangerous than I realized. The concept of wilderness is one constructed by humans, and the practices of maintaining wilderness is one that involves humans as well.
Another formative change in my perception of “wild” was in an environmental policy class; I was tasked with reading the entirety of the original Wilderness Act, an American policy enacted in 1964. Its definition of wilderness is “a wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” I believe that even this foundational policy, a cornerstone of US environmental legislation, is yet still unrealistic. The definition with which the policy is framed is one that I do not think fits the current perceptions of wilderness and the role of humans.
Wilderness has taken this colloquial identity of being incredibly “primitive,” “pristine,” or entirely “untouched.” It is the human’s escape from the world we have created, a society that epitomizes the urban lifestyle and strays from the natural. However, we can no longer visit these places described by the Wilderness Act, or many other Western institutions, as I do not believe they exist as described. The reality is, with over seven billion humans on this planet, many with a carbon footprint to equate the usage of three to four earths, there is no place left where the human presence “does not remain,” no place left “untrammeled by man.” Common pool resources that are shared by the whole earth, such as air and water, are of course shared by the world’s flora and fauna as well. Human infiltrations such as microplastics, a changing pH in water and soil, or more carbon in the air are all ways that humans have changed and will change the wild forever.
A place deemed wild is a place where the spirit of human curiosity longs to see, yet paradoxically where people infiltrate these areas, the land is altered from whatever wild state was expected. The Okavango Delta, purported as a haven for wildlife, has many human communities living in and near it, many roads that go through wildlife habitats, campsites that have human structures in them. I further have come to reflect in my time here in Botswana, that it is hypocritical of me as a person, let alone as an environmentalist, to have ever expected wilderness to be free of human influence, and use it for an experience of this kind. In this very manner, I became the people that I ignorantly disdained, having now intruded into this supposed “human-free” world.
The reality is, there is no human-free world, and for anyone to argue the opposite is disserving the communities that live closer to the wild. Humans have integrated into nearly every corner of the earth at this point, and to expect the opposite is to take away the legitimacy of these communities to live off of land or experience nature. These communities are objectively using less resources and living more sustainably than I, and many other Westerners who may have this view of a primitive nature. Consider the land in Botswana and southern Africa; it is the iconic savannah landscapes and the captivating charisma of the animals unlike any others that draws a fascination with the wild and encourages passion for its sanctity, but simultaneously causes a dangerous dissociation cleaving the people that live in these lands and their understanding of their own interactions with the earth.
People have these effects on the earth because we are an inherent part of it. A more accurately constructed definition of wilderness recognizes the areas that are comparatively freer of human impact, still considering humans as a part of this valuable and holistic system. If we disengage ourselves as humans from wild landscapes, this causes more harm than good. Too often, when we as humans think of a place as one that we do not belong to, we develop a lack of concern for its well-being, known as the “not in my backyard (NIMBY)” philosophy in environmental problem solving. If we are not invested in the outcomes of an area, the tragedy of the commons will take effect and humans will have a more permanent presence than ever by manipulating the land far more than we realize.
Humans being so influential in the planet is also not necessarily a negative impact, as it may be hard to see. Of course, humans as a whole contribute many arguably negative changes to the earth and its landscapes, but humans can also be incredible stewards and champions to the environment’s protection. Humans create innovative strategies to help foster stable populations, maintain more homeostatic conditions, and cultivate prolonged health for all life forms. Human involvement can be both a burden and a blessing, and is inevitable in wildlife.
One of my favorite quotes about concepts of land is one I came across after being urged to read Aldo Leopold’s works by a teacher who saw my passion for understanding environmental issues. Leopold claims, “we abuse the land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. Once we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” To me, wilderness is a community, one that involves each living member of this earth. We cannot elevate people to being separate from land, this perpetuates the idea that we do not have an outcome in its being. Wilderness is the world around us, one rich with diverse types of plants, animals, resources, and human stewardship to these irreplaceable entities.