The wilderness idea: American environmental philosophy and practice

Wilderness Idea

Two diametrically opposed notions of conservation, that of Gifford Pinchot and John Muir are presented in the documentary film "The Wilderness Idea." Although the two men started off as friends and both eventually developed close personal and professional ties to President Theodore Roosevelt, and although both men were instrumental forces in the creation of the United States national parks, forests, and wilderness preserves, Pinchot's and Muir's notions of the role of nature differed drastically. For Pinchot, nature was to be used judiciously and in harmony with the needs of humanity. Gifford Pinchot, who became the first chief of the United States Forest Service, believed that development and industry could coexist with preservation and conservation. Muir, on the other hand, held a radical and reverential view of the wilderness, believing that human interests conflicted with nature. For Muir, any industrial development equaled desecration of God's creation. In spite of their differing philosophies, both men were integral in creating awareness about conservation and environmentalism. Both men held valid and significant points-of-view that remain keystones of modern environmentalism.

A sort of "wilderness craze" arose around the turn of the twentieth century, a backlash against encroaching industrialism and the widespread environmental degradation that had already taken place in the United States. In fact, by the 1890s, 90% of American forests had been totally destroyed. Both Muir and Pinchot responded to the widespread deforestation that had already taken place by contributing to public awareness and public policies related to conservation.

Pinchot believed that the land "belongs to all people," and that "the public good must come first." Therefore, he supported limited and manageable development. Pinchot's policies became the foundation of mainstream American environmental policies, policies that balanced the needs of an urbanized civilization with the needs of preserving natural beauty, pristine wilderness areas, and clean air and water. Although Pinchot's policies can potentially lead to loopholes permitting overuse and over-development of land, with sound and strict regulations, I believe that a balanced vision of conservation is entirely possible.

John Muir, who was raised a strict Calvinist, believed that God made the land perfect, and that humans should not intervene or destroy nature. Muir felt that human beings had become "slaves to the vice of over-industry," as he had experienced first hand seventeen-hour days and had also been severely injured on the job. His injury caused him to seek solace in nature to begin with, to contemplate the meaning of his own life as well as the course that humanity was taking collectively.

Muir's respect for the wilderness was so great that he built a cabin in the hills of Yosemite, becoming almost a legendary archetype of the mountain man and survivalist. At age 42, Muir finally settled down with a family but unsatisfied with conventional life, returned to the woods. As a result of his deep love and respect for Yosemite, he was the "primary force in the creation of Yosemite National Park." With the help of President Theodore Roosevelt, himself an avid outdoorsman, Muir established a legacy of national parks and preserves, spots on which any industrial development is prohibited by law. Therefore, I feel that Muir's vision and lifestyle was a necessary balance for Pinchot's pragmatism. Without deeming at least some portions of land as "sacred," it would be too easy to encroach upon the wilderness and further destroy America's landscapes.

The first conflict between Pinchot and Muir, who started off as friends, arose when Pinchot supported sheep grazing on public lands. A "multiple-use man," Pinchot believed that an economic usage of natural resources was possible. Muir did not agree. It is easy to understand Muir's fears, for the adage, "You give an inch, they take a mile" can easily apply to the supposed economic usage of land.

Still, Americans have to take a balanced approach to environmentalism. Few people wish to live as Muir did, in the woods as a mountain man. Even people who enjoy rural lifestyles usually rely on some forms of industrial and technological development: cars, computers, and home appliances. These technological developments depend on an equitable use of natural resources. We need to harness electricity, channel water, built factories and housing, and perform farming and agriculture. Muir's strength was in his deep respect for wilderness, but his weakness was his lack of understanding for the equally important needs of life outside of the wilderness. Not all human beings are enthralled with the notion of living in the wild.

Ironically, the people who were most seduced by John Muir's beliefs were the very rich. Men like Teddy Roosevelt loved the idea of the wilderness and formed clubs and organizations like the "Boone and Crockett Club." With these clubs, wealthy white males from the Eastern seaboard would pretend they were Tarzan, Daniel Boone, or Davey Crockett. The poor, the people whose backgrounds were most like Muir and to whom Muir had hoped to speak directly to, could not afford to leave their jobs in the city and move to the wilderness. The situation is the same today. For the most part, only a few people can afford to take eco-vacations and frolic in the woods. People from lower socio-economic class backgrounds work too hard and can barely make ends meet, let alone afford a wilderness break. Therefore, the rift between Muir and Pinchot underscores the rift between rich and poor in the United States and the impact of that rift on the environmental movement. Because so many blue collar workers' jobs depend on factories, and factories are the bane of conservationists, rich and poor often clash on matters related to environmental development.

However, without some wilderness preserve, no one would be able to ensure that their children or grandchildren would be able to enjoy a camping trip. Americans need outspoken, radical environmentalists like Muir to remind us that we must place limits on industrialization. Muir was also essential in challenging the ideology that permitted 90% of American forests to have been cut down by the 1890s, the Biblical ideology of man's dominion over nature. Human beings are a "part of the grand scheme," and not the architects or sole inheritors of the Earth's beauty.