Sunday, September 8, 2013

Preserving Wilderness, Wendell Berry

“To use or not to use nature is not a choice that is available to us; we can live only at the expense of other lives. Our choice has rather to do with how and how much to use” (139).
Wendell Berry, Home Economics. (Berkeley: Counterpoint, 1987).

Wendell Berry begins his reflection on the discussion of human's relationship with nature by noting that the conversation is rather polarized. After describing the general viewpoints of the technocrat and the nature romantic, Berry claims that both polarized viewpoints are missing "the real location of the problem" (138), which he thinks is in the middle ground. After providing a list of the assumptions that define his position, Berry goes on to suggest a reevaluation of the nature/artifice distinction and then reflects upon how this reevaluation influences our thoughts about economic systems, material goods, humanity's self-centered view, and the issue of population size. 

 In an effort to avoid mere summarizing, I will provide a few questions concerning some of the major topics or themes I found most interesting in "Preserving Wilderness".

Berry's Assumptions

In assumptions 1 and 2, Berry talks of nature as having a tolerance towards our existence as a species and that it is "somewhat hospitable". Should we be concerned that Berry describes nature as having some kind of awareness of our existence? Would this encourage more anthropomorphic views of nature, such as the military viewpoints in McPhee or the idea of Mother Nature? 

Is Berry correct in thinking that it is impossible for humans to intend exclusively their own good? (Assumption 5)
What might be motivating Berry's emphasis on local practice in the same assumption?

Other topics
What were your general reactions to Berry's claims about necessity (p 148)? What kind of variables should be considered when asking the question "what is necessary for the best human life"?

If Berry is correct in his claim that humans must be made by culture (p. 141), what might a society that practices this "double recovery" have as characteristics?

Berry proposes a redefining of materialism, one in which we value quality and durability over cost of production. Is it even conceivable for this kind of economic value system to exist in an open and free market?

No comments:

Post a Comment