Why We Need Wilderness

Imagine wilderness. Consider the term in its broadest sense. Close your eyes; what do you see? What comes to mind? What is wilderness? Where is wilderness? Is there any true wilderness left? Can wilderness ever really be tamed? Do we need wilderness? Should we set aside wilderness areas? Is there room in this world for wild things and wild places? Is wilderness something to be tamed; controlled; feared; eliminated? What is the opposite of wilderness? Is that desirable? Or, is there something essential about wild places, wild things; about the very concept of wild-ness? These questions may seem strange to many people, obvious to others. Some of these questions are up to us to decide, collectively. They can be decided by action or inaction, the choice is ours.
True, physical wilderness, is today a reality for only a small fraction of the human race. Some live there, others seek it out. To most, wilderness is somewhere else, a place you don’t necessarily want to go, like the North Pole. It is a place you’ve heard about, read about, even seen in photography and video. But, that’s just decoration, entertainment. Is there a greater significance to wilderness, beyond the next National Geographic documentary?
Let’s face it, people are afraid of wild things and wild places. And yes! They can be dangerous when approached unwisely. However, is there an even more insidious danger in merely avoiding the wild, or, worse, destroying it? Have we become too tame for our own good, too “domesticated”? Domesticated is a term we generally apply to plants and animal which have been put under the control and service of mankind. Have we become too controlled, dependent, tame, obedient and servile for our own good?
 It is folly to create a separation between humanity and the rest of nature, the rest of life on this planet. In fact, wilderness, and wild-ness, are indispensable for us to reclaim our humanity, both individually and as a species. They may be indispensable for our survival as a species, period.  For just as we have created a separation between ourselves and nature, we have a divided psyche. We are alienated from nature and we are alienated from our own nature. This separation runs extremely deep. It is the division of the physical from the mental, the psychological, and the spiritual. It is the separation of one species from another, of humans from the animals. It is the illusion that humans are somehow superior to other forms of life, rather than just different. It is the failure to recognize the inter-connectedness and interdependence of all life.
 
What Is Wilderness?
It has only been a few hundred years since the majority of humanity was surrounded by wilderness, immersed in it, confronted by it every day. In fact, humans are a product of the wilderness. Homo sapiens, it has now been discovered, have existed for at least 300,000 years  [https://www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-our-species-history-1.22114 ] The vast majority of this time we have survived, and thrived in a complete wilderness. In 1804, when Louis and Clark headed up the Missouri River, there were still vast regions of uncharted territory. They were ignorant of the Great Basin, for example, the desert that makes up much of, what is today, Utah and Nevada. Yet now, for the majority of humanity, wilderness is a distant, foreign, mythological place, more of an idea than a reality.
This is an important point: Until relatively recently, the very idea of a wilderness, apart from places where humanity dominates, was unnecessary – irrelevant. It was the rule, not the exception. “Civilization” is what makes “wilderness” necessary. The very concept of wilderness is impossible without something which is not wilderness – civilization. As the amount of land dominated by humans steadily grew, the idea of wilderness grew to describe places where humans are not in control. Perhaps control is not the right word; places where humans and human activities dominate the landscape. Because it is not just humans, it is our works, our infrastructure, quite literally which dominates the landscape (the first nail in the coffin of many a potential wilderness area is a road).
            Until relatively recently wilderness was everywhere. Where was the first official wilderness? The idea of setting aside designated wilderness areas first took hold in the United States. The Wilderness Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The first designated wilderness area in the U.S. was the Gila Wilderness in western New Mexico.  Today there are 765 designated wilderness areas in the United States.


            What is the definition of wilderness? According to the Wilderness Act of 1964:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 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. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

This is a well thought out working definition of wilderness. It was made for the purpose of setting aside certain areas, but it is also useful in countering those who point out that there is no such thing as a perfect wilderness. “There is no part of the Earth which has escaped the influence of humanity.” Well, of course there isn’t. This is a red herring. The definition of wilderness used in the Wilderness Act is not absolute, nor does it need to be. The thing that is unique about the Wilderness Act is that it recognizes that some places should be set aside, not for their utility or benefit to humanity, but for their own sake. At least it points us towards the idea that not everything on the earth was put here to merely serve humanity. It is a rare expression of restraint in the face of mankind’s ravenous appetite for “natural resources”.  It opens us up to the possibility that a place can be left alone even if doing so does not provide any direct economic benefit to humans.
            There are still a few unofficial wildernesses left. Pockets of ocean which are seldom traversed, the Arctic and Antarctic, still remote sections of the Amazon and the Congo Basin, large tracts of (growing) deserts in Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America. There are a few areas which, due to their utter remote, inaccessible, inhospitable nature have, so far, avoided the worst of humanity’s influences. But, these areas are shrinking, becoming fewer in number. It has become apparent that if there is to be any wilderness left in the long run it will be our decision. This is something which Americans should be proud of. Our wilderness heritage should not be taken for granted.

What is Wilderness For?
            I must now, dutifully defend wilderness as a place we can go and find solitude - get in touch with nature, a primitive lifestyle. A place to go harvest wild game and plants; test our abilities to survive. Wilderness as a source of clean air and water. Wilderness as a source of medicine, the next cure for cancer. Wilderness as a classroom. Wilderness as a laboratory. People need someplace to escape to. Wilderness areas attract tourists who spend money in the local economy. But, is this what wilderness is for? Is this why we need to set aside wilderness areas? Must we justify wilderness in terms of our own benefit? Must we regard wilderness as a “resource”?
            Why should humanity’s needs trump the needs of other living things? Are human needs really more important than the needs of the other life on this planet? Maybe it is silly and infantile to even think about things in these terms. You see? We are assuming that separation again, that insidious and ridiculous superiority complex. Since when are our needs any different from those of other living species? We need wilderness just as much as any endangered species, whether we realize it or not, even if we never even visit a wilderness area.
            With the Wilderness Act it is as if humanity finally stepped back and said, “Here, Giant Sequoia, we’re setting this place aside for you, just for you.” That really is quite an astounding thing for humanity, to do something for another species with no hope of benefit to ourselves. The irony is that the point at which we can stop looking at wilderness in an acquisitive way, with an eye to exploitation, is the point at which we may stand to gain the most from wilderness.
            If you want to take a Christian perspective, wilderness is God’s creation. It is not the work of humankind. The works of human beings, as impressive as they can be, are once removed from God’s creation. Cheap knock-offs. The wilderness came first. We are in fact a product of it. Try as we may we cannot reproduce it. So, if we destroy it, what are we left with? Only the creations of mankind. Are our own works alone enough to sustain us? I say no. Our species cannot survive beyond this planet. Of course, you could attempt to prove me wrong by successfully establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars, but honestly, it has been over 50 years since any country has even attempted to place a human on the moon, let alone Mars.
            We need to recognize wilderness as the source of life. It is the mysterious originating place of all that is beautiful, raw, primal, clean, new and essential. It is the source of life on this planet. Slowly but surely, at least from the point of view of a human lifetime, we are destroying it, replacing it, and corrupting it. Along with the tremendous power our technology gives us comes a tremendous responsibility to protect the source. Humanity needs to step back into our role as care-takers, protectors and stewards of the environment. We can’t keep on taking without giving back. If we do, we’ll eventually run out. It is that simple.
           

---