Daniel Biskup
INTD 105
9/21/16
My object, the greenhouse behind ISC, inspires deep thought between the relationship between man and nature. The fusing of the mechanical and the natural in one object makes me think of why such a place exists. The greenhouse shows that mankind feels a need to take care of nature. However, why do they need to take care of it? Mankind simultaneously threatens nature as it tries to nurture it. A paradox forms showing that our intervention will only cause damage that we will try to solve by further intervening.
Based on his opinions shown in “The Trouble with Wilderness”, William Cronon would most likely agree that this paradox is a problematic result of the relationship between mankind and nature. In his essay, he forms this ironic relationship between mankind and nature, arguing it is formed by the idea of wilderness. Mankind finds itself needing to venture out into wilderness, yet it defines wilderness as something completely isolated from mankind. He detests the implicit logical extremes placed in this separation between mankind and nature such as “if nature dies because we enter it, then the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves.”
Both Cronon and I come to similar conclusions that the only way for both humanity and nature to survive in this world is to tear down this separation and realize that nature and mankind are intertwined and not separate at all. Instead of trying to separate the two, such as in the wilderness mindset he deconstructs in his piece, society should try and understand how to coexist with nature. With this view the greenhouse instead shows itself as a step towards this coexistence, rather than an attempt by mankind to preserve what it decided must stay separate.
Hi Daniel, I’m especially fond of your first paragraph here, as you start thinking about your object and introduce the issues about it so that when you bring in the Cronon it’s warranted! The first sentence could go, though—watch for making statements that are TOO large at the start of a paragraph (anything “deep” should go). I love the idea that the greenhouse is a mix of the mechanical and the natural, and I think you’ve seen an important difference here in your object—it’s neither a wilderness object nor a garden object—it’s something distinct from those, and so represents a different kind of relationship between human and nature than that considered by Cronon. I’d like to see you take this farther, considering what Cronon might say about the greenhouse but then extending these ideas into your own theory about what the greenhouse means for the relationship between humans and nature. Nice work here!