Living in big cities away from wild nature, people put barriers between themselves and the rest of the world. Humanity has an inherent tendency to form large social gatherings and run away from nature. Attributing to this fact, Condor summarised the mentioned phenomenon by stating that “wilderness embodies a dualistic vision in which the human is entirely outside the natural” (Cronon, 1995, p. 80). The presented view has been around for many years in history, causing human irresponsibility, absolutely guiltless comfort, and consequent deterioration of the ecological situation (Lang, 2018). The possible implications of the stated perspective on the world can be detachment and indifference (Lever and Powell, 2017). These concepts result in the growing number of endangered species, neglect of essential trends in climate change and natural science, and mistakes that can be fatal for humanity.
The unconcern mentioned above can be explained by the following factors. First, the alienation from nature makes society divide the world into the familiar and the outlandish (Stanley et al., 2016). Humanity has long been living with a border between itself and the rest of the Earth’s ecosystem, breeding livestock and developing agriculture. This tendency resulted in an alienation of people from nature and an understanding of the wild world as an environment without humans and their impact (Lang, 2018). For instance, people tend to perceive trees in the streets or their backyards differently from those in forests or mountains. Similarly, people care about their pets but can hunt for amusement, thus acting controversially. This tendency comes from a sense of familiarity, which destroys other living beings. Second, many people view nature as sublime rather than a concept interconnected with their actions and lives. This perception brings problems of unwise consumption, as citizens do not understand or visualize the direct consequences of their deeds (Milfont, Davies, and Wilson, 2019). As a result, detachment is especially dangerous if not eliminated from people’s minds on time.
Detachment from wild nature gives people a sense of relief from the burden of responsibility for all extinct and endangered species. They do not feel guilty and blameworthy for the environmental catastrophes because of the perception that they were caused by natural factors. At the center of the nature-society dualism lies the conviction that nature is outside the human realm (Lang, 2018). The outside world is something that can be discovered only in scientific investigations and is not based on human experiences. However, in reality, it is impossible to denote the boundaries between the social environment and wilderness biodiversity. Thus, the actions in both fields are interdependent, which means that humanity is closely connected to the rest of the world (Purc-Stephenson et al., 2019). Although human beings are the dominating species on the Earth, which inherently separates them from all other forms of life, events in nature impact their lives considerably (Stanley et al., 2016). The contrary is also true, which makes human indifference problematic for the present and the future.
The supporters of the dualistic vision of the world also argue that people exaggerate in believing that present ecological problems are caused solely by them. Their point is that evolutionary and climate processes were present long before the significant development and evolution of humans (Saarinen, 2015). Hence, they once again take the indifferent position and detach themselves from the rest of the world. As before, the very meaning of wilderness expresses the false hope to avoid responsibility. In other words, people create and enjoy the illusion of the possibility that someone else can be held accountable for the consequences and rectify the effects of past deeds (Purc-Stephenson et al., 2019). If the term wilderness is considered explicitly, then it becomes evident that according to it, there is no space for humans in the wild. The latter is completely illogical as it denies human origins and history as a whole.
The concept of wilderness also can affect the unequal perception of biological species when environmentalists and society in general value particularly endangered species more than others. This mindset is detrimental to biological diversity in ecosystems because of a disturbance of balance (Abas et al., 2019). For example, species of leopards have a higher biotic value for environmentalists than grey hares, which are widespread and have no problems breeding. As leopard extinction has more dramatic consequences, it seems to be a fair point for consideration. Despite its logic, this can be a too hasty decision, as there are far more factors for professionals to consider. People work for the conservation of endangered species forgetting about those outside the scope of view (Dietz, 2020). Hence, wilderness is not something that can be regarded partially but should be accepted as a whole.
Furthermore, the dualistic vision of wilderness concepts brings neglect to the Earth’s habitat when global critical decisions are made. This behavior can be explicitly viewed in the context of COVID-19 transmission and global pandemics. Even though global trends of conscious consumption before the infection spread, people forget their positive habits fast (Newton, 2020). Even though in the short-term perspective the environment got cleaner because of reduced waste production, it can be viewed as a delay-action bomb. The usage of plastic and non-recyclable materials has increased dramatically, contributing to the deterioration of ecological problems. However, the media comforts a broad audience with “good news,” making people think less about the consistent importance of wise consumption (Newton, 2020, para. 5). The trend described above is the consequence of detachment, which is present in people’s minds all around the world. People who were leading an eco-friendly lifestyle in the past are now neglecting the necessity to keep a sustainable mode of life because they are more concerned about personal safety. It should be essential as well, but society should not be blinded only by short-term actions and projections.
To conclude, the dualistic vision presented by Connor has multiple implications which affect both the environment and society. The reason for this doubleness is historical distancing from the environment and the resulting perception of environmental ecosystems as something strange. Although it was necessary for human survival in the past, it is redundant these days. This detachment also fosters the development of irresponsibility regarding decisions that could give rise to more negative consequences than expected. The position that is comfortable for a significant part of consumers makes the arguments defending neglect more acceptable. As a result, the statements that lessen the level of human impact on the world become popular. These trends only further deteriorate the ecological situation and are the main implications of the dualistic approach.
Reference List
Abas, A. et al. (2019) ‘Understanding ecosystem services: a shift in modern environmentalism’, International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(12), pp. 18-26.
Cronon, W. (1995) ‘The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature’, in Cronon, W. (ed.) Uncommon ground: rethinking the human place in nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., pp. 69-90.
Dietz, T. (2020) ‘Earth day: 50 years of continuity and change in environmentalism’, One Earth, 2, pp. 306-308.
Lang, T. C. (2018) Wilderness solitude in the 21st century. Master thesis. University of Montana.
Lever, J. and Powell, R. (2017) ‘Problems of involvement and detachment’: Norbert Elias and the investigation of contemporary social processes’, Human Figurations, 6(2), pp.1-16.
Milfont, T. L., Davies, C. L. and Wilson, M. S. (2019) ‘The moral foundations of environmentalism: care- and fairness-based morality interact with political liberalism to predict pro-environmental actions’, Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), pp. 1-25.
Newton, D. (2020) ‘The dark side of environmentalism: ecofascism and COVID-19’. USF blogs.
Purc-Stephenson, R. J. et al. (2019) ‘We are wilderness explorers: a review of outdoor education in Canada’, Journal of Experiential Education, 42(4), pp. 364-381.
Saarinen, J. (2015) ‘Wilderness use, conservation and tourism: what do we protect and for and from whom?’, Tourism Geographies, 18(1), pp. 1-8.
Stanley, S. K. et al. (2016) ‘Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism’, Personality and Individual Differences, 107, pp. 228-236.