Wilderness and the American Mind

Nash begins this chapter by citing a passage written by Robert Wernick, a staunch critic of the preservation movement. Using derisive language, Wernick and those like him tended to revert the wilderness question back to its original binary form in which its relationship with civilization was adversarial: Wilderness was the enemy both in the physical world and within the human psyche. In response to criticisms like these, preservationists struggled to offer a coherent philosophy that deconstructed this binary. For critics of preservation, the issue often came down to a simple premise, as Eric Hoffer articulated: “The globe […] should be man’s and not nature’s” (241). In addition, Nash discusses the views of Rene Dubos, a French microbiologist, who saw the cultivation of wilderness as a natural act of human progress. Unlike Wernick and others, Dubos was not derisive toward preservationists. He understood their belief structures but felt that the natural course of human history should unfold unencumbered by artificial constraints. Eric Julber shared this thinking. Unlike Wernick, he valued natural beauty but argued that wilderness preservation was the concern of a small minority. He believed that making the beauty of nature more accessible for the largest number of people was a more beneficial strategy than keeping wilderness areas accessible for only those who had the physical and financial means.