What is the Wild and does it exist?

Some reflections on the ‘Wild’ (sadly not physically from the Bush)

[A short note: 

In between now and the moment I felt like I’d finished the article, but for some reason wasn’t ready to publish it, a lot happened. In between then and now, the world we have grown comfortable in - or more like, in which we have rooted habits and beliefs - has stopped. 2020 marks an undoubtable shift in the way our civilisations are organised. Primary deficits are soaring through the roof to save not only lives, but healthcare systems and, well, society. China has never recorded such clear skies in its modern history, and airlines, much like Icarus, have been put to the ground.

Now more than ever is the time to reconnect with creativity, or connect with it for those who’ve never or rarely felt the pleasure of writing, of creative inspiration, of getting excited when producing by themselves  - poems, drawings, photography, choreographies…It’s the time to read the book taking the dust on that top shelf. 

It’s the time to let imaginations wonder and wander, explore, expand, question, appreciate. We’re going to have a lot of time with ourselves right now. Realising that there’s no need to escape to the other end of the planet to reconnect with the self. Realising that breaks and holidays are not the only times to appreciate what “life” is. That Beauty is everywhere, despite the dualistic relation it holds with darker, more obscure dynamics. 

Ironically, these ideas of “enough” and “reconnection” are the underlying conclusions I drew as I wrote this article. Particularly for those who are confined at home, longing for nature, for fresh air, for walks, for the ocean, but cannot have it - these moments will come back. But the journey to reach them will be a wonderful opportunity to realise that problems do not disappear when we seek escaping. Seeking happiness and comfort in the self will probably be the most rewarding outcome of the challenges posed by the next few weeks (NB: really not trying to sound patronising here - would be really happy to discuss the philosophical underpinnings that support my reflexion, I’m only an email/ DM/ chat away!). 

I hope this stimulates your brain. ]

Nature vs culture 

A few weeks ago, I asked you the question “what does the wild mean to you?” via instagram. The responses were great and plentiful, and went in the direction I hoped they would follow. Just meant I had more material to write a plump little article. 

The idea for this came from a Philosophy essay I’d asked one of my pupils to work on. The question was “Does culture denature humanity?”. Skipping the brainstorming part (you’re welcome to try and send me your answers aha), this question’s underlying problem is - does culture (in the civilisational sense of the word) inhibit human nature? With that, you then start asking yourself, what is human nature, does it exist, why does culture seem to be presented as something negative ? (“de-nature” = removing something, this comes from the privative ∂ (delta) in its Greek root = usually used pejoratively). To an extent, “culture”, in the sense of that which is ‘non natural’ - essentially society and civilisation-  is getting a lot of backlash because of the very intensive changes and pressures to landscapes and ecosystems brought upon by humans. And for good reason. Questions like these are deliberately problematic to ensure there be plenty of room for debate and discussion, to challenge concepts and ways of thinking. In this case, our assumptions about Nature, Culture, and the Wild. 

This piece is meant to be a little provocative, a little uncomfortable, and incite you to reflect on your own perception of what it means to be both a being of culture and nature. It is equally meant as a reminder to celebrate our culture (as human societies, not communities). Yes, the pressures faced by ecosystems are many, yet we have a capacity to do something about it, and to be aware of it. When elephants rampage woodlands and destroy crops, there’s nothing much they can do - habitat fragmentation and human-wildlife conflict as well as their biological behaviour implies it will keep on happening until we change the way we develop and grow as societies, and allow for their freedom of movement to coexist with crops. 

Some of the answers I got - (feel free to comment more below, before and after reading this piece!)

“Spoons at 2am. It’s f*cking wild”. [Note: Wetherspoons “Spoons" is a nationwide pub chain across the UK]. 

“We cannot really control the wild apart from keeping animals safe from poachers/hunters, and ‘protect the cycle’ in other words”. 

“The Wild is the earth’s soul; it’s a place where life abounds in many forms. It is a place of balance, where one feels most connected to the planet we live on, and we are lucky to do so. But it’s also a world in danger of being lost, if we lose the wild we lose our connection to the Earth’s soul”. 

“Somewhere ‘non-human’ where life thrives. Especially those places were an ecosystem is as close to fully functioning as we can understand”

“A place existing outside of human interference. The idea of a world existing as it did 1000s of years ago. That idea of the wild is what captives me most”.

“Where violence for survival encounters beauty”. 

The main underpinnings behind some of the answers listed above revolve around the idea that the “wild” is an untouched, raw place, primitive even, as far away from links to human society as possible. Only one answer actually tied the wild to humanity - not only to urban life, but equally to what’s ‘within’ us. The wild is seen as something uncontrollable, yet in some imaginaries, as something raw, in nature only (“where violence for survival encounters beauty”; “somewhere non-human”), and in others, considered to be at one with nature, with an added spiritual dimension - “a place where life abounds” “ a place of balance”, “Earth’s Soul”. 

I’m particularly interested in the recurring theme of “untouched” and “primitive”. I strongly believe that the more we continue to view human societies as a destructive plague, the less we’ll be able to communicate messages for conservation that people can engage with and support - try telling a local farmer with 10 children to feed and less than a dollar a day that the lion killing his goats has a right to live because it is a living being. I am by no means challenging said lion’s intrinsic value (right to exist for existing and not for its instrumental use - Chan et al. (2016)  provide a really great insight on moving away from the instrumental/intrinsic debate in conservation), simply that we must be able to understand where poaching and wildlife conflict stem from, and what can be done to resolve it. 

Conserving environments 

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a bit. 

“Where does nature stop / culture begin” may in fact not be that relevant of a question, despite it probably being the reason why disconnectedness with our environment has gradually crept upon us. We are beings of both nature and culture - we have the capacity to appreciate and be conscious of the world around us, but also the capability to morally examine our actions - and thus to do something about what we consider environmental degradation. In a desire to reaffirm what makes us human, the cultural part of our beings, we have transformed, adapted, dominated even, our landscapes in ways that provide us with physical and emotional comfort, though that equally reflects what separates us from other species (Cronon, 1995). Progress in development is currently measured though increasing access to acceptable living standards, however, it is up to us to decide what we consider progress, and the ways in which we choose to modify landscapes. 

Human choice is at the very centre of ensuring the “wild” still exists. How? quite simply, because we preserve, we protect, we restore, we develop habitat. As the only species to have developed systems of ethical and moral nature - it becomes clear that we’ve brought it upon ourselves to “repair” what we perceive as damages relative to the state of the natural world caused by human development.

Ecological restoration and management is a topic that often goes unnoticed in that as African Parks celebrate their 20th Anniversary and the management of a new park in Angola, and as we read the numbers of protected areas worldwide (15% of land surface is a Protected Area, with a target of 17%; 7% in terms of marine coverage, with a 10% target -  source: Aichi Target 11 (2020)) - it becomes clear that our notion of what the “wild” is is pretty warped. (NB- ecological restoration is defined as the "process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that as been degraded, damaged or destroyed” (SER Primer, 2004; IUCN, 2010)).

From a scale perspective, we’ve had to set aside areas of land - that are managed, where we, as humans, make conscious decisions regarding the future of the land and wildlife of the selected area. It seems so obvious, and to an extent, is considered “good” as we “restore” our environment. The decision element is key here because ecological restoration is viewed as a “hard, pure science”, based on sound ecological data…when in fact it also comes down to choice. In the case of wildlife conservation for instance - does reintroducing x species have a greater ecological, financial, social benefit than y species?  Though we soon become confronted with more issues - focusing on one species rather than systems thinking. Certain species have become ambassadors for ecosystems - the key is to efficiently communicate how interconnected ecosystems are, and why removing or adding one species can have a huge impact on the rest ( Pearson, 2016). Elephants, for instance, are key providers for smaller herbivores, alongside many other complex ecosystem dynamics they facilitate, but can have a heavy impact on landscapes, particularly when faced with aggravating factors like droughts and habitat fragmentation. 

The paradox in ecological restoration thus emerges when we have to make such choices - whilst still trying to minimise human input. More often than not, when it comes to rehabilitating areas or species, a considerable amount of human input is required to ensure such projects are delivered to end. 

Eric Higgs, an environmental scholar (2003, 2017) outlines 4 essential characteristics in that respect - that all come with their own sets of decision-making. 

- ecological integrity - essentially keeping the fauna and flora similar to what it was before estimated time of damages, aka not suddenly bringing in elephants to the Alps (though Hannibal would maybe disagree)

- historical fidelity - the rational behind this is to fix damage made by humans only. But if a meteorite destroyed a place, do we leave it as such, because, well, nature did it? How far back do we go in time? If 500 years ago saw a given landscape was complete forest, do we try and achieve this, potentially harming adaptations that occurred to suit the new environment?

- focal practices - specific practices that generate meaning for the humans that work with nature - which can be quite vague. How can such meaning be remotely objective? 

- wild design -  based on predictions as to how the area will change in time - again, quite a challenge. 

Ultimately, in Higgs’ words “it’s about choosing to restore the relationship with nature”- which, bringing the debate back to the Nature/ Culture dichotomy, reinforces our capacity, as humans, to understand and learn from past errors or problematic situations. 

Connectedness in a paradoxically growingly disconnected world, is key. In my favourite philosopher’s words, Albert Camus (of course…) our wellbeing will most certainly be possible by “reconnecting with our decor “- our environment. Yet, the pillars identified are more complicated than at first sight. We must make decisions concerning the preservation of supposed “wilderness” areas - and what does it say to preserving areas with strong human involvement like cities and towns? As urban expansion becomes inevitable with booming demographics, I believe it becomes urgent to consider how we can preserve the biodiversity in the places we call home. 

So does the Wild exist? 

Yes and no (soz).

The wild is defined in dictionaries as something uncontrollable - and we definitely have this within ourselves; it doesn’t just have to do with nature, or what we call wilderness areas. In fact, it exists everywhere - which is why the “wild” as most people understand it, as something so far away from human reach as possible, from domestication, is a concept that cannot really hold true. 

Many people view the “wilderness” as a form of antidote to our human selves, which is inherently problematic - it supposes the wild is a solution to our current relationship with the non-human world. William Cronon (1995) studied the romantic idea of the “wilderness” in depth - his conclusion? By assuming that the “wilderness” is at the opposite end of the place we live in, or where humanity is not, we tend to dismiss places closer to home as wild areas. A tree on the paved side of the road is as natural as a tree in a park or in a forest. In his words - “People should always be conscious that they are part of the natural world, tied to ecological systems that sustain our lives”. This view of the wilderness was for instance problematic during colonial times, as local tribes were evicted or massacred, viewed as parasitical societies in a place that should be kept “wild” (examples include the eviction of Maasai trigged from Maasailand, otherwise known as the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem today). This is perpetuated to an extent as most national parks or private reserves do not have tribesmen or local people living inside them - or it comes at a complete surprise when they do.

 As we picture the wilderness to be one of the only places where we can be free, happy, “find our true selves”, “reconnecting with the soul” - all of which probably do happen - then it is problematic in our capacity to do so when away from said wilderness area. By seeking evasion to the wild, he argues it is also a way for us to evade responsibility from the life we lead. The spiritual and romantic associations to nature as non-human reinforces the dualism between nature and culture. We, as humans, hold it within us (instinct, pulsion, emotion, power) as much as it surrounds us. If we go back to one of the answers to “what does the wild mean to you” - one of them refers to this exactly -  “Spoons at 2am…it’s f•cking wild”. For more on this, I’d suggest reading a bit of Nietzsche and Spinoza. 

Yes, we can look at the wild as a large / dense expanse of land or water with very little visible human trace, where one would struggle to survive. It’s wild to us because we’re confronted to raw power. The elements there are wild, and out of our control, and thus, the wild exists in our eyes as such. But it cannot only be seen in that way. 

The wild is indeed a fabricated concept in that it emerges directly from our desire to look for something as far away as possible from our “artificial” societies. But clearly, very few “wild”, untouched places remain today - if any.

The notion of the wild can equally be problematic for conservation issues happening closer to urban life, and cities. By separating nature from the City, by seeing the latter as artificial, by seeing trees planted in streets as less natural than the “wild” ones in countryside forests, we tend to subconsciously focus on wild spaces that are not yet “perverted” by man.  Whereas we could also start focusing on developing hybrid cities that incorporate more green areas - in a socially just manner. This is starting to happen, with the Tree-Apartment blocks in Milan, projects like the Underground herbs in London, or the beehives on the roofs of Paris…it is slow but with technical progress come solutions and innovations.

By placing ourselves as natural beings, and by observing that our interactions as humans and between humans can potentially be reproduced in the relationships between other lifeforms in ecosystems, we start thinking differently - human societies are very embedded in ecosystems due to the modifications that we bring upon them. Socio-ecological systems thinking implies taking the environment into account, in all of the decisions we make, because we become conscious of the impacts and repercussions (without judgement of value, simply observing what come out of them) and reaffirm our consciousness of the world, and as beings with superior levels of consciousness. The planet is wild and will always be so, as are we because we are a direct product of it. Wild forces are not just in remote parts of the planet, they are everywhere - and if anything, that is the message we must try and remember. By disconnecting nature and culture, by living separated from nature, which, paradoxically, the notion of the wilderness tends to re-affirm, it seems we are less likely to implement environmentally conscious behaviours. The wild cannot be a place or an excuse for escapism, but self-emancipation and re-affirmation of the self can be (see Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus). We should seek that same feeling of completion in the home of our own bodies and minds, before searching for it elsewhere. 

A Personal Note

I am by no means innocent of this essay’s thesis. Ever since reading Cronon’s text, I’ve been at a bit of a struggle with understanding where I lay in regards to the whole nature/culture debate. After all, how can I call the African bush my happy place and then advocate for finding happy places and engaging with conservation closer to home? Well - both are important, and work for me. Finding mindfulness has nothing to do with leaving a place for another, it’s often just a convenient answer to a desire to book a holiday (and there’s nothing wrong with that). Travelling to Africa, for me at least, represents a way to communicate and shed light on something that I hold close to my heart, and that, for some reason, I’ve connected to more than other places.

There is absolutely no doubt to the fact that nature brings comfort to the majority of people who seek something as they immerse themselves in what we consider a “natural” landscape. But it could just mean taking a walk in a park. Focusing on making cities greener. Growing plants at home. Changes in lifestyle begin at home - and about the small things. Supporting local farmers with our food choices, supporting local brands with our consumption choices. The progressive disconnectedness that has slowly crept upon us is also very much responsible for the dualistic vision we have of culture/nature.

References

Allison, S.K. 2007. You can’t not choose: Embracing the role of choice in ecological restoration, Restoration Ecology, 15, 4, 601-605.

Chan KMA et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113, 1462-1465  http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1462.full

Higgs ES (2003)  Nature by design: people, natural process, and ecological restoration. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Higgs ES (2017) Novel and designed ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 25:8–13

Pearson, R.G. 2016. Reasons to conserve nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31:366-371. https://www-sciencedirect-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0169534716000501#bib0160