- Bill McKibben in his text The End of Nature emphasizes the de-wilderness of nature, how human contact has robbed it of its 'natural' elements and replaced it with a 'greenhouse, a human creation, where once there bloomed a sweet and wild garden.'
- I can see a tree through the window from where I'm writing right now. I know nothing of it, except that its leaves are green and its bark is brown and I think it's pretty.
Perhaps McKibben writes from a perspective that ties to the reality of the situation, what actually is, the status quo of our existence. But, to a child, or a young writer, there is still potential for natural inspiration from nature, the inspiration to create art or to help natural resources. The way McKibben examines nature seems pessimistic and set in stone.
However, the homegirl Emma Marris comes in and knocks him on his ass, highlighting the feeling that McKibben's definition of nature as extinct is too strict. Has it changed with the influence of humanity? Of course. But that doesn't mean it in itself is gone. It's a different picture, perhaps, but it's' familiar, and that familiarity can be enough when growing up alongside it in hopes for preservation.
I am of the opinion that Marris is correct in her concept of nature as an evolving definition. It's something that has to consider a few different elements. She personally defines nature as a place where life is present, can exist, and does exist. Which made me think about my own definition. I'm not quite sure if I'd agree with her.
What would your definition of nature be? And, with your definition, does that include every part of the planet? Are there places on this planet completely devoid of nature? Do you think McKibben is correct in his concept of humanity completely stripping/changing nature from its original meaning?
Happy answering, hope I didn't mess this up.
-an eight-legged sea creature lacking a male parent
META POST:
ReplyDeleteWhen having to define nature, I would agree with Emma Marris. I believe these two things: we have been irresponsible with handing the natural environment and that the previous statement does not take away from the man-made nature that we have created. I do not believe that any locations on this planet are devoid of nature. I can see how McKibben views redefining nature as problematic, however I can also see how his view can be elitist. Referring back to Marris, what about the children who grow up in the city? What about the children and individuals who do not have access to wild or National parks? I am a firm believer that if there is life, then there is nature. However, this ideology should not pardon the destruction and havoc that we are causing to the natural environment.