In my essay many people may bring up the argument that we create the wilderness around us and we make it to fit our own design. They could think that because in “The Trouble with Wilderness” by William Cronon he expresses many ways in which he believes nature to be formed by humans. However I believe that we cannot shape the wilderness, but merely believe that we do. We think we have control of what is happening around us but really neither nature nor humans have control of the environment around us. At first glance, some people may say that “wilderness can’t be an idea it has to be a place.” However, this is not true because when you think of something as wild it doesn’t always have to be a place, it could just be some crazy new thing you have come across that you think is “wild.”
“Skeptics May Object” and “So What? Who Cares?”
by Alexis Baer
Writers begin to start their own literature solely based on ideas, connections, counterarguments, and personal views to support an argument. Essays and other forms of work are always being heavily reviewed by multiple audiences and critics as well. These critics may have a different perspective on the discussed topic, will analyze our work in full depth, and contribute their harsh yet helpful input. This method will often times help make our writing stronger and keep writers from straying off topic. Based on my essay about the gazebo and supporting it back to William Cronon’s arguments; critics might begin to notice grammatical errors, unclear sentences or thoughts, few examples, or inaccurate connections made between the text and the authors main point. Answering the “so what” question is mainly focusing on a group of individuals and getting them involved in the topic being discussed. By mentioning the significance of the gazebo and how it connects to the world around us, it hooks the readers on immediately and makes them genuinely concerned or interested in what is being said. The point of good writing is to accept and change the flaws throughout your work, being concise, and provide a good argument that individuals can gain knowledge from.
My essay is about how Haraway would think that my object, The Greek Tree, is the perfect example of something that is breaking the boundaries. In her essay, A Cyborg Manifesto Haraway, talks about the importance of fractured identities and how we should not be classified into one category instead we should accept all the small parts that make us who we are.
I think that skeptics might say that the writing on the tree isn’t part of its identity because it was actually the identity of the people who actually wrote it. So what? In the end I think of The Greek Tree as the Suny Geneseo Community and that means every single student contribute some part to this school and that what I think this is all about.
My essay is on how The Greek Tree on the SUNY Geneseo campus is related to William Cronon’s ideas in “The Trouble with Wilderness.” I wrote about how The Greek Tree in many ways agrees with William Cronon about how nature should be appreciated and admired by all. The Greek Tree is in the perfect location for everyone on the SUNY Geneseo campus to see and appreciate nature.
For every piece of writing or for everything in general there will always be people to give criticism and to put one’s work down. I think that skeptics would say that my writing does not have enough of my own ideas and does not give enough examples to back-up my most critical points in my essay. I can respond to the skeptics by seeing if I did have enough of my own ideas and that I did provide enough examples. Finally, I would say “so what” and “who cares” what the skeptics say.
My essays argument claims that having information about how a topic is related to both the natural world and the cultural world is more beneficial in learning about the topic as a whole and incorporating that information into daily life. Although it could be said that the controversy of farming only affects those who care about living a healthy lifestyle, it should in fact concern many as it is directly related to what you put in your body.
Putting unhealthy, genetically modified, or pesticide covered food into your body could lead to a very undesirable result such as severe or chronic illness. Having the knowledge of the scientific research related to these food products that have been grown in unhealthy conditions and also knowing how to avoid these foods in their cultural world can help one in their daily lives to make the right decision about what they are putting in their body and how it will affect them in the future.
When I looked at the parking curb separating the path and the grass behind Milne Library, I saw a clear division between the civilized and natural worlds. Cronon’s view, however, is that the division I saw is a fallacy due to the expectations society has created for what is considered natural. As Cronon himself says, “By teaching us to fetishize sublime places and wide open country, these peculiarly American ways of thinking about wilderness encourage us to adopt too high a standard for what counts as ‘nature.’”, meaning that the sublime and frontier aspects of nature has created high expectations for the wilderness that most of nature, including the grass on the other side of the curb, does not meet. I agree with Cronon’s idea about our expectation for natural and after reading “The Trouble with Wilderness”, my view of the curb as a divide has changed. I feel we’re starting to change our ways, and this curb is an example of us beginning to protect the less sublime aspects of nature.
Everyday we walk by the vines upon Sturges and the Union, some people admire them but most probably don’t even take the time to notice. It could be just that they’re in a rush but more likely they are just blinded to seeing the true nature of the vines. In “The Trouble with Wilderness” by William Cronon, he shares his opinion about this by using other examples. Cronon agrees when he writes, “The tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, than the tree in an ancient forest that has never known an ax or saw.” Pointing out that nature is all the same in the end but we fail to notice that. I would agree but at the same time many people plant a wide arrange of nature in order to be able to see the beauty and wilderness each day in their backyard. Cronon also points out that nowadays people think of wilderness as a place where humans have not spread their disease. This makes me think that people do think about their contribution to that and to make themselves feel better they also would plant things to ease their conscience.
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.
Latour’s job and interests involve science studies which “are talking not about the social contexts and the interests of power, but about their involvement with collectives and objects” (Latour 4). By stating this Latour implies that he sees himself as a “translator”, meaning he understands the ways in which objects and ideas are connected through many disciplines. Therefore, I believe Latour would see Sturges Hall as a hybrid between human and nonhuman. However, he also acknowledges that our world functions best with the existence of both translators and purifiers. Purifiers are those who create zones of human and nonhuman which are distinctly different. To these types of thinkers Sturges Hall is a purely human construct, the controlled growth of the ivy around the windows shows that the ivy is not truly natural. Latour finds it crucial to keep both of these viewpoints distinctive but equally present in our society. In my opinion, what is truly fascinating about Sturges is the reestablishment of the natural world to a man-made structure, a reminder that the human and natural worlds can coexist. This way of thinking acknowledges the human and natural as both separate and connected at once.
Aubrie Cross About 150-200 words
INTD: Science Writing
ac46@geneseo.edu
In William Cronons piece, “The Trouble with Nature,” he argues that we need to change our viewpoint on the wilderness. He believes that all nature is important and we shouldn’t just focus on monumental sites being the only “nature” around us. “In its raw state, it had little or nothing to offer civilized men and women.” Cronon argues that before we made something of the nature around us, it had no purpose in relation to humans. During the 18th century Cronon said that humans were afraid of the wilderness, that there was this separation between humans and nature. Nowadays, things are very different because there isn’t that division anymore. However, we have taken nature for granted.
On the Geneseo campus there is a tree that sits in the middle of the buildings and it is known as the Greek Tree. The reason it has been given this name is because for many years now sororities and fraternities have been in competition trying to paint the tree to its highest point possible. Before this became a tradition, the tree was just like any other tree. Since the tree wasn’t planted on a monumental site we didn’t see its beauty or significance. Therefore, when this tradition started the sororities and fraternities figured they could just impose themselves on it. No harm, no foul. If this tree was placed in a state park would people still damage it and paint themselves all over it? Cronons ideas correlate with the tree because it shows that unless the nature around us is in a popular place we don’t see a problem with imposing ourselves on it.
