Rolson stands in wilderness preservation. Rolson stated that wilderness should growing naturally by itself in its original way. He thinks any human behavior would have chance to interrupt the natural evolution of the wilderness against the original sense of wilderness. Human changes wilderness to the status they need which is kind of selfish to it. The wilderness shouldn’t manage by the view of mankind. Callicott believes that wilderness should be managed by human in sustainable developed way. He thinks there is no place in natural status because everywhere has been touched by artificial interruption on some point. Like global warming, air and water pollution and so on. The land and environment will not grow naturally anymore after the burst of human population and advanced technology came out. The intrinsic value of the wilderness fostered the species, habitats, and ecosystems.
Cronon says the trouble with the wilderness is human actions damaging the environment. After the Civil War, the main concept of wilderness has changed for Americans. They began to find the natural wilderness and considering the environmental problems. However, once human behavior engaged in the wilderness, it’s hard to say to keep the wilderness in original status, especially after the damage and pollution to the natural environment. The human can’t reverse the damage, but they can try to fix it. I agree with his perspective because some damages to the environment can’t be reversed or repaired. Like some extinct species and the loss of glacier.
Naess believes the human should take huge responsibilities for the preservation of original wilderness like keep the rich species of non-human lives. He thinks for considering the deep ecology, industrial countries should take the preservation of wild animals and plants seriously and leave space to them keep it developing in a sustainable way. The non-human life is also important on earth so human should always pay attention on it before and after they use and damaged the natural resources and environment. Guha states deep ecology is uniquely American, and social and political goals of radical environmentalism in other cultural contexts are quite different. I do not agree with this idea. A lot of developing countries are kind of processing the same routine the U.S. has been through. Like they need to take huge advantages by using land and exploiting the resources and it causes damages to the natural environment and species. When the countries reach to a appropriate level they are satisfied about their living condition or the environmental problem is serious enough to the residents who can’t ignore it anymore, they begin to consider and take it seriously. All the people on the earth is like a union because if all the creatures are divided in human and non-human life, all human should consider the themselves as a group and build and develop the great wilderness together in a sustainable and beautiful way. Then Guha says the social consequences of putting deep ecology into practice on a worldwide basis are very grave indeed. I do not agree with this statement neither. I would like to say today different countries are already working together to resolve the environmental problem. For example, today, global warming is serious problem for all the countries but not just for one and it changed the global ecosystem in a serious way. Some counties may not be strong enough to take responsibility for taking deep ecology but some already are
My personal reflection is about the definition of resources. When human exploit and use natural resources to feed themselves and establish a better homeland, the human themselves are also playing the role as resources as parts to build the big blueprint. If we take the society as an individual then all human doing different jobs is playing a role to feed it and make it better just like human eats animals and plants and use a physical substance like furniture and their buildings. Things and creatures have a service life, human either. Till the end, any individual will run out their life by serving others consciously or unconsciously. Is that the wilderness serving human or human is doing everything to keep themselves survive and serving the wilderness? I think it is a symbiotic relationship. Human moves forward so carefully on making a better future and also trying to avoid destroying themselves by the dangerous weapons they made by themselves. We were lucky to be born and lucky to survive that the rules exist can feed the species so good to have the chance to enjoy their life in the process of surviving. Thank you, the greatest wilderness and mother earth to make us stronger!
Here si a image from NASA.
Xiubin's Nature blog 