preserve nature.
I agree with his argument, but I don?t think his solutions are realistic. Turner?s solution
is for man to establish residency in wild nature, and gain knowledge and understanding of the
land, the flora, and the fauna. Modern man should return to a primitive society and adopt the
Native American way of life. Furthermore, it is the art, beauty, and myth of wild nature that will
lead us back to wildness and our place in nature. His solution seems logical, but it is too
idealistic. Modern Western Civilization just simply will not succumb to these solutions under
the present control of the many facets of megatechnology. The vast majority of human minds
are controlled by corporations on a global scale that for economic purposes (or the love of
money) would prevent Turner?s solution from becoming reality. Unfortunately, it seems that
only a few enlightened individuals have the courage to commit to this way of life and understand
the wild. Logically, humans will only commit to major change once they are scared into
submission, but only after the collapse of the environment.
Turner is accurate in his claim that the solution of preserving the wild begins with
language. Language is the basis of how we express our ideas, morals, and values.
Unfortunately, this is another area in which megatechnology has great control over. In years
past, it was the courageous activity of counter-cultures, such as the Beats and the Hippies, that
strayed from corporate and government control. These groups began to create their own
language, form of communication, and perceptions of the world. Bound by similar goals and
ideas, these counter-cultures refused to conform to what was considered normality. They ignited
the Civil Rights Movement and changed society. Although some were concerned with
environmental issues, most of their battles were fought within the anthropocentric realm. Maybe
our best fight to preserve wild nature lies in the hands of our youth. The environmental crisis is
in need of a modern counter-culture. It needs a generation that could regain power through
autonomy, non-conformity, and a new language. Starting from where their predecessors ended,
this new counter-culture would adopt a geocentric view and become the future of the
environmental movement.
Another major issue that Turner discusses is the effectiveness of different methods of
solving ecological problems. I agree with Turner that conservation biology, biodiversity, and
preservation seem like short term answers to long term problems. These are science?s quick
remedies. At the root of this issue is the philosophical idea that if human technology and control
is ruining the environment then more human technology and control will not fix it. Trying to
solve ecological problems by artificial means will only add to the problem. No matter how you
justify it or disguise it, human technology and control of ecosystems disrupts the natural order in
which the system operates. The environment was fine before we altered it with our pollutants
and behavior, so it will only begin to repair itself in the absence of human influence. This is a
logical idea that MIT scientists can?t seem to comprehend because they would rather indulge in
their "playing God" with nature. Turner believes that we should let nature sort it out. If we just
stop conservation biology and the experiments in wilderness labs maybe nature can find its own
natural way of returning to homeostasis.
Whether or not I accept either solution boils down to the idea of the wild. The "let
nature sort it out" solution is decaying fast. Philosopher and deep ecologist George Sessions,
gave the environment twenty years before its collapse. The "let nature sort it out" solution is
running out of time. At the same time, Turner can?t predict the future of science and ecological
research through the writings of Thoreau and Muir. There is always the undeniable, and yet,
unpredictable possibility that science might produce an ecological cure based on chemical
compounds. However, implementing chemical compounds into ecosystems and organisms
won?t preserve the wildness of an ecosystem. The possibility of a viable techno-wilderness is
imaginable, but the wildness of the land, the flora, and the fauna will be lost forever and, I don?t
think science can cure that.