The Wilderness Idea

[corndog-44]

This is a follow-up on wildWoman's post, "Why do you go out into the woods?"

I've read many articles about the wilderness and these words are as good as I've ever read. Psychologically it explains better than anything to this backwoodsman (me) what the wilderness does to people.

"In September of 1938, American Forests magazine published its first feature article in twelve years that explored the concept of wilderness preservation. Its earlier article, a response to Aldo Leopold's classic "The Last Stand of the Wilderness," had been decidedly negative.1 But not this time. The 1938 article began with these words:

In some men, the need of unbroken country, primitive conditions and intimate contact with the earth is a deeply rooted cancer gnawing forever at the illusion of contentment with things as they are. For months or years this hidden longing may go unnoticed and then, without warning, flare forth in an all consuming passion that will not bear denial. Perhaps it is the passing of a flock of wild geese in the spring, perhaps the sound of running water, or the smell of thawing earth that brings the transformation. Whatever it is, the need is more than can be borne with fortitude, and for the good of their families and friends, and their own particular restless souls, they head toward the last frontiers and escape.

The article, called "Why Wilderness?" was written by a thirty-nine-year-old junior college dean and canoe trip outfitter named Sigurd Olson ."

[trax]

You sure that wasn't written by beowulf or remy? (Not Rick, too many big words)

[wildWoman]

I have my pet theory about people's relation with wilderness (too much time alone pondering the mysteries of life...). If we look at the history of human kind, way back into and even past the stone age, all these tens of thousands of years that our species spent "out in the wilderness", depending on understanding the ways of animals and the properties of plants for their very survival each and every day......and then consider how incredibly short in comparison the time is that humans have lived first in ancient, and then contemporary civilizations (or what passes for it these days) where a fairly large proportion of people are centered in cities.....isn't it only natural that it still makes us really happy at a deep level to be hiking or paddling out in the bush, sitting around a campfire? That's really what we're designed for, how humans lived for the vast majority of our time on the planet. No wonder in my mind that people can't handle the stress of the rat race and feel discontent despite owning SUVs, ipods and plasma TVs. Probably a sign of health more than anything else! Maybe it's also why youth at risk respond so well to wilderness programs. I don't think everybody craves to live out in the woods but I think many people might be a lot happier with a simpler lifestyle. Buy less and you don't have to work as much. Money is just a product like everything else on the store shelves, you purchase it with your time.

[RBB]

Some of our (mine and Wings) best times have been living out in wild places. We were just talking about our honeymoon, the other day. We paddled in, a weeks worth of small lakes, rivers, and portages, and spent two weeks on one of the most beautiful lakes I've ever seen. Strange for a Canadian Shield lake, it had many sand islands. Walleye reefs kept us well fed, and we tried many new recipes of grouse, rabbit, and even red squirrel.

We rigged a down rigger, mast and sail on the canoe and sailed from one end to the other of this long winding lake. It was the perfect way to start a marriage, and might be part of the reason we've been together for 35 years.

Our family remembers Sig Olson. My mother thought he was wonderful, and has signed copies of all his books. My great aunt thought he was a pest and a nuisance, always asking questions.

[NorthWindTrails]

wildWoman ... I agree with your thought that humanity in general has a deepset need to be alone with the Natural Order periodically. While most likely wouldn't truly make it in a purely wilderness setting, I couldn't agree more that EVERYBODY would benefit from living a simpler lifestyle. We put soooo much extra stress on ourselves! Enjoy the Wild! NorthWind

[Rick]

(Not Rick, too many big words)

See Jane. See Jane backpack.

Truthfully, I can take it or leave it. I don't have any romantic notions about the wilderness, either. It's another place I go. I love to practice my skills and "keep the saw sharp" but that's as much about retaining ancient skills as anything. I could do it in the backyard but that's not the same (you know that). The bush can be a nasty place when things go sour.

I went out yesterday into the only wilderness area we have in Indiana. Built a debris shelter, fixed dinner, cleaned everything up, hiked out after dark and went home.

[trax]

And why do you think we started "bandind" together, in turn giving birth to cities ?

Maybe it was just a horrible accident?

[trax]

See Jane. See Jane backpack.

Finally, someone writing on a level I understand, thanks bro!

[wildWoman]

And why do you think we started "bandind" together, in turn giving birth to cities ?

I guess because in a lot of ways it's an easier life. As far as I know, cities usually rise once a culture gets heavy-duty into acrigulture. The advantage of a city-lifestye (for some) is that you don't have to be a Jack or Jane of all trades, as you need to be if your a hunter-gatherer or hunter-gatherer-homesteader. It allows the upper crust to accumulate indecent amounts of money while generally the great majority of the population resigns themselves to the treadmill leading to nowhere that requires them to work for somebody else so they can purchase the necessities of life. If you live in the city, you tend to be able to specialize in one job, and for anything else you either buy it or hire somebody to do it for you. As long as you have a job that pays enough to enable you to do that, and if you like your job, like the cultural aspect, why would you want to live in the country or wilderness?
When people live more remotely, they're forced to do most things either themselves or do without it. Now, in modern times, it certainly is a physically much more demanding lifestyle than in the city. But I feel that for people without any major talent like myself, who are interested in learning a great variety off skills, out in the country or the woods is the place to be. You get to fell trees, build cabins, figure out your own water system, learn to garden, utilize wild plants, make some of yur own clothing and footwear, learn to preserve food, deal with human and animal health problems etc etc. Makes you feel good about yourself I guess and not worry too much about when TSHTF because you learn that us humans really are capable of not only surviving, but living under very basic circumstances. I am so happy we went to live in the woods; it is a hand-to-mouth existence and I suppose by "normal" measure we live in abject poverty, but I could not imagine a better life for us.

[trax]

I'm sticking with the horrible accident theory. It ain't any worse than the big bang theory on the universe...

[trax]

Accidents ?


What's that ?

well it's just a theory......

[Rick]

And why do you think we started "bandind" together, in turn giving birth to cities ?

Protection and convenience. We have someone to share the workload.

[Rick]

My cut at is if you are a loner then you get to do it all. Your own protection, food gathering, everything. If you are sick or injured, then your life may be cut short. Having others in your clan (pack, herd, etc.) makes it easier to protect the whole and if one is injured in the process the others can help nurture them back to health (hopefully).

[tracks]

An old friend told me once anyone can be independent,If they have someone they can
count on.

[wildWoman]

"...but I could imagine a better life for us."


Did you mean that lapsus ?

aaarghh...no, I'll have to correct that, but does it mean I subconciously crave a condo in Toronto???

[Rick]

She asked as she thumbed through the brochures.

[corndog-44]

Agreeing with Olson I believe that nature does bring happiness. It is pure and beautiful. I also agree that business and structures doesn't bring happiness, because at the end of the day you always need a little moon shine. One point that Olson stress that I liked was when he asked the question, "Is it enough to just live life on an existence level?" If so why even dare to live life.

[Rick]

Hoowe. There are probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) around the world that live life every day on an existence level. Little or no clean water, food, safety, etc. I doubt they would want to quite life any more than one of us.

[corndog-44]

Keeping in mind the psychologically aspect of Sigurd Olson's article the question, "Is it enough to just live life on the existence level?" means to me that we must come into existence first, and then create our own essence out of interaction with our surroundings and ourselves. With this comes serious implications of self-responsibility over who we become and who we are.

[Rick]

Actually, existing and being are one and the same. One can exist without others present. A person can live their entire life without other human contact and still exist. In this case, I think we are talking about a mode or manner of existing rather than the existence itself. A noun rather than a verb.