| Thoreau
and Ecology |
edniz |
|
Aug
31, 2004 03:57 PDT |
Hello,
Here
is an item I wanted to share with you from Preservation
Magazine (September/October 2004). It was an exchange with Don
Henley,
co-founder of The Eagles and founder of the Walden Woods
Project. He became
involved with Walden Woods when it was being threatened with two
large
commercial projects. Henley mentioned that Thoreau developed his
theory of
forest succession in Walden Woods. This would eventually became
a
"precursor to contemporary ecological science". Is
Thoreau that important
to the science of ecology?
Ed Nizalowski
Newark Valley, NY |
| RE:
Thoreau and Ecology |
Dennis.S-@sierraclub.org |
|
Aug
31, 2004 05:15 PDT |
| Re:
Thoreau and Ecology |
Joe
Zorzin |
|
Aug
31, 2004 06:09 PDT |
In
that article, I see:
What would Thoreau make of America today?
Trying to predict what he would think about anything is risky,
but I believe he'd be immeasurably pleased that our nation has
set aside large tracts of land as national parks, national
forests, and wildlife refuges. I think he'd be disappointed to
learn that we are not doing more to protect what little remains
of our wilderness areas and open spaces.
IMHO, Thoreau would think that way, and he'd also be
disappointed that our society does such a lousy management of
forest that isn't locked up. He would be particularly
disappointed that the major conservation groups are so focused
on the locked up areas, rather than giving sufficient attention
to the rest of the forest land- which is obviously the vast
majority and that those groups give too little support to the
handful of progressives and rebels within the so called
"forestry profession". He himself, of course, if he
were a "professional forester" today- would be
considered the most rebellious of all. He went to jail in order
to not support our "liberation" of parts of Mexico.
While in jail for that, Emerson approached the window of his
jail cell and asked, "what are you doing in there"-
Henry replied, "what are you doing out there?". I'll
NEVER forget that response. Going to jail for a principal is
clearly NOT "polite and professional".
Regarding his having discovered the concept of "forest
succession"- I suspect he got the idea from the farmers he
often spoke with- I should think that the farmers had a good
idea about this- in particular, that if you abandoned pasture,
it would revert to pine initially- or if you abandon plowed
land, it would revert more to cherry, poplar, white and gray
birch and others. They must have noticed this- and what happens
after you do some forest cutting. But, as we know, the Yankee
farmers didn't write down much of their vast experiences, nor
talk about them- being tight lipped as is their custom. So, I
think he got the basic idea from them and put it into words,
being a very well educated guy who loved the subject. I don't
think he lived in the woods long enough, or traveled enough, or
impacted the woods enough to draw the conclusion about
succession on his own. But of course, if he's the first guy to
write about it in a literary way, then he deserves the credit-
just like many other discoveries- which were actually discovered
by others but not put to words or into a proper framework.
*************
Joe Zorzin
http://forestmeister.com
|
| RE:
Thoreau and Ecology |
Robert
Leverett |
|
Aug
31, 2004 08:09 PDT |
Joe:
Congratulations on a valuable set of
observations about Thoreau and
from whom he may have received input. No doubt,
non-communicative
observers of nature have provided the more literary-oriented
among us
with grist for numerous treatises. I well remember my father,
who had
keen powers of observation, sharing with me many of his
observations
about the trees of the southern Appalachians as a boy growing up
in the
Cohutta Mtns of northern Georgia. For example, he, like many,
loved the
American chestnut and had an excellent recall of where he had
seen it
growing. I wish I could remember just a fraction of what he told
me.
The collective memories of the
"old-timers" is still a valuable
resource from which to draw, i.e. the knowledge of the elders.
They
observed nature's cycles carefully. I'm unsure of what the next
crop of
elders will provide us with, though - advice on bingo,
shuffleboard, or
Sunday shopping at the mall. I'm being cynical, of course., but
today,
there seems to be a general dumbing-down of our species. That
transformation is taking place concurrent with the veritable
explosion
of knowledge- unprecedented in human history. There comes a
point of
overload and we begin fiddling with gadgets and relying on
computer
printouts to tell us what is happening - under our noses. But
someone
has to produce the printouts, so we end up with super
specialists
advising an increasingly un-attuned public.
Perhaps our kind of consciousness that can be
super-focused,
combined with our incredible adaptability, the source of our
survival
and steady advancement to planetary dominance, is now on the
fast track
to producing our demise. Our greatest strengths gradually turn
to become
our Achilles heel. Maybe not.
This I do know, human consciousness
definitely produces over-actors
and extremely narrow thinkers. Whether it be religious zealots, Olympic
athletes, Wall Street investors, nuclear physicists, Hollywood
personalities, or big tree measurers, we over-channel our
thinking.
Strange, isn't it?
Oh yes, and our species has a terrible record
in selecting
intelligent, wise leaders, as the current political fiascos
amply
attest. Outside of all this, I guess we're a pretty good bunch
of Joes -
pun intended.
Bob
|
| Fwd:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Maurice
Schwartz |
|
Aug
31, 2004 10:56 PDT |
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
greentreedoctor |
|
Aug
31, 2004 13:06 PDT |
|
Did
Thoreau live in a shack in the woods for quite a while? And
spend some time with loggers in central Maine? The
best writers have exceptional skills of observation. Maybe he
derived his beliefs on his own? He seems like
quite the independent chap.
Randy
|
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Joe
Zorzin |
|
Aug
31, 2004 14:22 PDT |
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Edward
Frank |
| Aug
31, 2004 19:01 PDT |
Hello,
A number of you have been commenting on Henry David Thoreau. I
have never
been a fan of Thoreau. He clearly wrote alot about nature, but I
always
felt there was a subtext in his writing with which I disagreeable.
If you
read essays on Thoreau they are almost always written by people
who admire
him and his writing. These are more of a fan club newsletter,
than an
impartial reflection on the qualities of his works. My
impression is that
Thoreau was more of a pastoralist than someone completely at
ease with
nature in a broader sense. He grew up and lived in a puritan
mindset.
Whether or not he was an active church goer these beliefs
permeate his
work. Puritans believed that untamed wilderness was a playground
for the
devil, with demons hiding behind the bushes and trees. Only when
a forest
or field were tamed by the hand of man did it become a place suitable
for
living by god-fearing people. I am not sure how he would have
reacted to
or what he would have written about a true wilderness, outside
of his local
New England environs. My other negative impressions are hard to
articulate. Perhaps I will give him another try and see if I
feel
differently about his writing this time, or at least I will be
realize why
I disliked him in the first place.
Ed Frank |
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Joe
Zorzin |
| Sep
01, 2004 02:53 PDT |
Hello,
>>A number of you have been commenting on
Henry David Thoreau. I have never
been a fan of Thoreau.
I commend you for your honesty, though he's my guru.
>>He clearly wrote alot about
nature, but I always
felt there was a subtext in his writing with which I disagreeable.
Kind of a socialist and pagan perspective, the sort of thing
that G.W. Bush and most good, clean, white, wealthy, nice suit
wearing Republicans would detest?
>>If you read essays on Thoreau they are
almost always written by people who admire
him and his writing. These are more of a fan club newsletter,
than an
impartial reflection on the qualities of his works. My
impression is that
Thoreau was more of a pastoralist than someone completely at
ease with
nature in a broader sense.
In a broader sense, I'm not sure any of us can be at ease with
nature- it created us and it will devour us. C'est la vie.
>>He grew up and lived in a
puritan mindset.
Whether or not he was an active church goer these beliefs
permeate his
work.
Wow, I don't see that at all.
>>Puritans believed that untamed
wilderness was a playground for the
devil, with demons hiding behind the bushes and trees.
Yuh, those puritans really were an uptight bunch. <G> Some
of may have been due to a lack of greens in the winter.
<G>
>>Only when a forest
or field were tamed by the hand of man did it become a place suitable
for
living by god-fearing people. I am not sure how he would have
reacted to
or what he would have written about a true wilderness, outside
of his local
New England environs. My other negative impressions are hard to
articulate. Perhaps I will give him another try and see if I
feel
differently about his writing this time, or at least I will be
realize why
I disliked him in the first place.
For a warm up, read my collection of quotes from Walden at http://forestmeister.com/Thoreau.html
I think he was a pure genius- a mystic, totally out of context
with his puritan countrymen. He had read much of the ancient
literature of India, something not too common in New England,
but beginning to be explored by other of the Romantics of early
nineteenth century America and Europe. His writing was intensely
dense in the positive sense- that so much was contained in so
few words. His "feel" for the Earth was unlike anyone
else I'm aware of, a poetic sense, yet written in prose.
I first read Walden in high school but could barely comprehend
what he was saying. After 30 years in the woods, I read it again
and was astounded at how brilliant his vision was, and his literary
style- Walden is a masterpiece, not just of America, but of the
human race.
My comments that he may have gotten the idea of forest
succession from talking to farmers was in no way a put down.
His immense courage to go to jail to avoid supporting the
violent attack by land grabbers and slavers against Mexico is
worthy of universal acclaim. No less than Ghandi was inspired by
HDT. His main reason for opposing the war against Mexico is that
he knew it meant the spread of slavery which he vehemently opposed.
Furthermore, Martin Luther King was inspired by HDT, and the
modern concept of civil disobedience. I'd hate think of the
violence that black Americans might have justifiably used to win
their civil rights if it wasn't for MLK's non violent
leadership.
Too bad civil disobedience is not popular in this day and age-
now people trying to prove a point do so with explosives- either
dropped from the skies or worn on their belts. Everyone should
read Thoreau, and it will be a better world.
Rasputin Zorzinovich
|
| Thoreau,
Ecology, and Social Justice |
Robert
Leverett |
| Sep
01, 2004 05:43 PDT |
Your points are well made. I would agree that Thoreau was a
visionary
and well ahead of his time and one needs to keep a perspective
on the
times. Thoreau clearly demonstrated the courage of his
convictions.
Bob
|
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Sep
01, 2004 05:47 PDT |
Ed:
I think Thoreau got into some pretty wild places that he
describes in 'The
Maine Woods'. You will probably get a different
perspective on him if you
read that book.
He also visited the Midwest at a time when settlement by
Europeans was a
pretty thin veneer at the edge of the wilderness, although I
don't know
whether he published any writings on the region.
Lee
|
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Colby
Rucker |
| Sep
01, 2004 15:54 PDT |
Ed,
It's best that you have not tried to follow Thoreau. His message
is
independence of thought, and you must live your life as you see
it, and
then, perhaps, compare the logic of your approach to what he
thought.
Thoreau was an exciting individual. He was much more than a
lover of
nature. It is useful to also consider Emerson and Jefferson.
Jefferson
said he was dedicated to opposing all forms of tyranny over the
mind of man.
Indeed, in New England, the Puritan Church employed a vision of
God as a
being of personality - a vicious personality - to maintain an
iron grip over
New England society. My family lived in Salem; at least twenty
members were
caught up in the witch trials, and my 7x great grandmother was
hanged.
There could be no appreciation of nature, no art, literature or
poetry that
did not serve God. Jefferson would not have survived in New
England. The
Transcendentalists did not condemn Puritanism, but were daring
in displaying
a variety of interpretations of God - admittedly at a late date.
Emerson
deftly raised God from a vicious being of personality to a
symbol of
perfection, thereby following the teachings of Jesus (embraced
by Jefferson)
that the role of Man is to get off his knees and become more
god-like.
It was a difficult journey, sometimes fostered by happenstance.
Without
freedom of the mind, there could be no nature, no naturalists,
or any of the
inter-connected realm of art, literature and poetry inspired by
an
appreciation of nature where none had existed before.
To the extent that Thoreau was a founder of Nature, it is
important to
consider that he got out of Harvard with a classic education,
and found that
there were no professions acceptable for his inquiring mind. Not
a
clergyman (which Emerson tried and rejected), not a lawyer,
businessman or
engineer. Not much was left, so Henry and his brother went into
teaching.
After the death of his brother, Henry considered writing. It
seems that
almost no one except Hawthorne had made a go of it. Still, Henry
adopted a
frugal lifestyle, taking on surveying and various odd jobs, and
began to
write.
He wrote about the things he knew - nature, the classics,
philosophy, and
strong feelings concerning the rights of the individual. He felt
they were
all interconnected; he thought of them that way, and wrote about
all of them
at once. He demonstrated a marvelous skill as a writer in being
able to
maintain such a feat of juggling. Sometimes Thoreau confuses us,
but his
work is painstakingly constructed, and we must not expect
mundane
simplicity.
Thoreau was not an environmentalist, and I suspect he would have
despised
the self-satisfied simplicity of their message. Nature is
different.
Nature cannot be taught. We can encourage others to take a path
that will
lead to an appreciation of the complexity of a nature which is
part science,
but includes art, literature and poetry - and so on.
Nature has enjoyed a brief ascendance over those industries bent
on mind
control - education, religion, environmentalism, politics,
advertising, and
commercialism, to name a few. Sadly, nature will be destroyed,
not at the
point of a spear, like competing religions, but by education,
and the
perpetual enemy - religion. By breaking nature into its basic
elements, the
education industry may claim to be addressing nature, but a
collective
mediocrity of is not nature. Nature is not linear, like a
textbook. Nature
is a complex structure of many elements that attains its magic
by being the
flowering of a liberated mind.
So, we must appreciate why nature is different - otherwise there
will be no
liberated minds, and we will face another dark age.
For Jefferson, Emerson and Thoreau, a classic education wasn't
enough. It
is exciting to see how much they contributed to raising man from
his
down-trodden position, to where education could come from his
own inquiring
mind, not "the company line." It's also exciting to
see the contributions
of Thoreau in combating "all forms of tyranny over the mind
of man.
Colby
|
| Re:
RE: Thoreau and Ecology |
Joe
Zorzin |
| Sep
01, 2004 03:13 PDT |
His immense courage to go to jail to avoid supporting the
violent attack by land grabbers and slavers against Mexico is
worthy of universal acclaim. No less than Ghandi was inspired by
HDT. His main reason for opposing the war against Mexico is that
he knew it meant the spread of slavery which he vehemently opposed.
Furthermore, Martin Luther King was inspired by HDT, and the
modern concept of civil disobedience. I'd hate think of the
violence that black Americans might have justifiably used to win
their civil rights if it wasn't for MLK's non violent
leadership.
Too bad civil disobedience is not popular in this day and age-
now people trying to prove a point do so with explosives- either
dropped from the skies or worn on their belts. Everyone should
read Thoreau, and it will be a better world.
Z |
| RE:
Henry David Thoreau |
Maurice
Schwartz |
| Dec
23, 2004 11:03 PST |
Ed,
Your post about Thoreau reminded me about my re-reading his
essay about
a year ago, "The succession of forest trees." As you
know, that essay is
a significant scientific contribution rather than the kind of
nature
writing that he mainly did.
For the benefit of any Ent who has not had the great experience
of
reading Thoteau's essay, one of the copies of his essay on the
web is at
http://www.walden.org/institute/thoreau/writings/essays/Succession.htm
Maurice
Edward Frank wrote:
| |
ENTS
The Final Jeopardy answer tonight was:
"This 19th century author proposed at Harvard that
we work 1 day a week,
so
we can spend the other six in contemplation of
nature."
The answer of course was Thoreau, and his proposal
certainly has my
support. |
|
|