Jack Turner and J. Baird Callicott both see major problems in the quality and amount of wildness in the wilderness of our land, and both have ideas on how to fix it. Turner has very little hope that we will be able to do anything to help preserve wildness, while Callicott believes humans play a part in everything, and should do what they can to make solutions. I go on to explain the reasons why I agree more with the ideas of Callicott than the ideas of Turner. I also talk about why I think wildness separates humans from nature, and how humans need more opportunities to experience real wildness.
Jack Turner believes we are failing to preserve the earth. He points out that many people have never truly seen, and experienced wild nature. The people
…show more content…
He believes this is good because this ensures that we truly do play a part of nature. According to Callicott, this means that we have a rightful place and role in nature just like any other organism. Callicott does not believe that God created the world exclusively for humans. Instead, he agrees with Darwin’s theory that human beings are accidents of natural selection. Callicott likes this theory because this means that we have a role in nature, just like all of the other creatures. But this does not mean Callicott thinks we should not do anything. Callicott hopes for a future that replaces hydroelectric and fossil fuels with solar alternatives, and sustainable ways to harvest timber reserves. Another reason why Callicott does not approve of the current protected wilderness area zones is that many designated wilderness is “rock and ice”, and are in places that are rather inconvenient to get to. Like Turner, Callicott believes that there are not enough wilderness zones protected. Callicott believes humans are not entirely to blame. He gives the example that if there were five billion elephants roaming around, there would also be an environmental