Endangered Species → Discussion•
Is there any wilderness left on Earth?


Sponsor
burkinaboyJun 29, 2007 4:32am
A study published in Science evaluates how mankind has significantly altered the environment, resulting in increased vulnerability to natural disasters, extinctions, and diseases. The study also notes that 'wild nature' may no longer exist anywhere on Earth because even protected areas like National Parks are polluted and eroded.

What do you think? Are there any wild places left on Earth? Read an in-depth Q&A with the lead author of the study @ nature.org/tncscience/science/art21687.html [nature.org/tncscience/science/art21687.html]

thomasdeflerAug 7, 2007 1:13pm
First you have to define what you mean by wilderness. But in general, yes, I believe there is still wilderness in the world, where humans seldom or never go, for example in the Amazon basin there are wide stretches of land that are essentially untouched by humans. Whether global air pollution affects these regions is essentially unknown. Of course global wilderness is becomming diminished greatly and one day there will be no wilderness. This is why conservation and a different world view are so important in the world.

AndreaJoRushOct 12, 2007 6:50pm
I think there is, again depending on how strict the definition is. Last year I went to a slide show by a botanist who had gone to Vietnam to collect plants to try to grow for Botannical Gardens here. The places he and his colleagues went certainly still seemed to be largely wild.

Sponsor
alice44Oct 12, 2007 7:03pm
I think there is wilderness left even in the US. It is not human free but we are not absolutely in contrast to nature. I do think our roads and other features designed to be permanent are in contrast to real wilderness. But large animals did fairly well for centuries in densely populated Asian countries. I think the problem is that so many areas are small and isolated by the "new permanent" transportation features so that as micro-environments change animals can't easily move to a better environment. And environments do change (which of course is a bigger problem now due to global climate change). In the US there has been a great deal of effort spent on keeping wilderness areas exactly as they were at a given point in time, which is NOT natural. I do not know what the solution is when there is so little wild land.

I know in Oregon some effort is being made to connect wild areas throughout the state with narrow bands of relatively wild undeveloped land. I think it might help. It will require doing something to allow animals to cross over freeways and highways.

be-greenDec 3, 2007 3:07am
many wilderness designations in the U.S. were passed with grandfathered in industrial uses, such as livestock grazing. Many wilderness proposals have been quid pro quo - that is, other public lands end up being privatized in exchange for the political go-ahead from industries to designate wilderness. the Owyhee Initiative in Idaho is an example of how a wilderness designation may actual have fewer protections than does the public land itself - i.e. public land is regulated via executive agencies according to federal environmental law whereas if the land is designated wilderness in the particular way promoted, there is question as to whether federal regulation will apply --- extractive uses will persist and be regulated by a local board.

so sometimes wilderness isn't wild at all ~ and sometimes industry uses our positive association of the term to get control of the land.

there is much wilderness left in the U.S. but it is mostly really rugged country that is seen as not "useful"

millerfamilyMar 2, 12:21pm
wildnesswithin.com/2001/01-12/inwildness.html [wildnesswithin.com/2001/01-12/inwildness.html]

The West of which I speak is but another name for the Wild, and what I have been preparing to say is, that in Wildness is the preservation of the World. Every tree sends its fibers forth in search of the Wild. The cities import it at any price. Men plow and sail for it. From the forest and wilderness come the tonics and barks which brace mankind. . . . thoreau


indeed it is the wildness which is vanishing. i participated in wilderness hearings for glacier national park, in the seventies. they proposed little islands within the wilderness boundaries on which helicopters could land to 'save' someone in distress. i was floored that they didn't see the disconnect in that proposal. i thank my first husband for bringing me to montana forty years ago, when my 20-something body was capable of running up and down mountains where i encountered mountain goats and grizzlies, sego lilies and calypso orchids, in the wild.

Sponsor
PlanetThoughtsMay 10, 7:14am
millerfamily - what was the disconnect in landing in the wilderness to save a lost soul. I just want to clarify. perhaps your point is that raw nature means it is up to us whether to survive if we put ourselves in that environment? I have no fixed view on this except that I suppose if they were truly limited landing spots, I don't think I would object.

millerfamilyMay 13, 8:12pm
well, having experienced the wilderness there on its own terms, my thoughts are that if you want a semi-wilderness experience, go to a place designated as a semi-wilderness. my first job was at disneyland....lots of fake experiences there. just three years later i was hiking in wilderness, in the winter, without any backup. two extremes. if i didn't feel ready to experience even death by freezing, drowning, or falling, or in the rest of the year in the jaws of a grizzly, then i shouldn't go to these places. there are plenty of safe and beautiful places, developed parks, etc. even near glacier park, the lodges. where is the authentic experience if you know you can get on your cell and be airlifted out, no matter who pays for it. i just think we need these places, and the world will be a lesser place when they disappear. i never wanted to climb everest or other mountains out of the us. why should we have to leave this continent to find wildness. imo as always.

Sponsor
PlanetThoughtsJun 4, 2:42am
OK, thanks for the reply. The big question is how to limit human population and human consumption, otherwise we will continue to destroy the wild and even the un-wild. Will our higher nature come to the rescue before we trash it all?

millerfamilyJun 4, 5:57am
well, we have to get rid of this neanderthal administration which restricts the distriution of birth control here and overseas in health aid, and hiv/aids programs; educate women; end rampant infant mortality which creates the perceived need for more births. for a start. more later....


Is there any wilderness left on Earth?

You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum