lamarespect’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cities are net positive entities?

  Caniscandida, thank you for your comments. But I have a couple of questions:

  Cities ideally have positive environmental effects, and I am sure you realize that.

  Actually, no, I hadn't realized that. Can you please point me towards some source material on this, how even 'ideally' cities as they exist today (or tomorrow) could be positive w/r/t the environment (w/o proposing fantastical scenarios that have little relation to the way things are or require EVERYONE to change their ways all at once)? Esp. w/r/t suburban sprawl--which is a direct result of urban development (or lack thereof). I understand that suburban living is (usually? often?) even worse than city-dwelling in terms of resource use, but that does not makes cities the salvation of healthy ecosystems/'the wild' (as Price states) simply b/c they are 'less bad' other options. Two examples to consider: Las Vegas and New Orleans. Can anyone claim their continued development and growth (no matter how 'sustainable') will ever be of net ecological benefit to their bioregions?

  If Jenny Price is telling us anything, it is that there is no place anywhere on this planet, however aesthetically challenged, that does not deserve study, observation and appreciation.  And thus appreciated, there is no place that will not inspire artists, including writers.

  Agreed--but does that make it 'nature writing'? What then is the definition of 'nature', then? That's my question. If it's everything, anywhere, at any time, then it's also nothing. Like the new-agey 'all is one' talk -- what does that really mean? Are we really suggesting that the garden is 'the same' as the compost heap? I sure hope not. I'll eat from the (organic) garden, thank you very much. And if we're not really suggesting that, why is it a meaningful thing to say? I am as big a believer as anyone in the essential unity of all things, of one energy that permeates all existence. But that doesn't mean everything humans do is therefore 'natural', and all habitats are 'equal' w/r/t their 'wildness'. That, to me, is dangerous postmodern wordplay, and has more in common with alienated (and alienating) Western philosophical and scientific traditions than indigenous wisdom, or--to put it most simply--than stopping our frenzy of 'progressive, sustainable' activity, quieting our breath, and listening to the land. Let's use our guts and our hearts as much as our heads.

  Forgive me if I've engaged in the kind of straw man argumentation of which I've accused Price, but I think we need to by wary of hiding behind philosophical rationalizations for 'the way things are', when they are clearly seriously messed-up on just about every level. Sure, there's nature in cities. But that doesn't mean they are sustainable.On An urban denizen beseeches nature writers to focus on cities for a change posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mostly Agree, Except...

  I think your response is right-on, but I would question the proposition that 'the richest...nature is where we are'. That may be the 'nature' we should become most intimately acquainted with, because that is our 'place', but to say that it is necessarily the 'richest nature' (compared to what?) doesn't seem to have any validity. Someone could very well live on toxic land, and drink from a toxic water supply (and many have, and millions more around the world continue to do so today). Their nature is neither rich nor accessible in any kind of positive sense--in fact, those people want to get away from that 'nature' if it can not be healed on any human timescale (i.e., Superfund sites, etc.) I'm sure you meant that comment rather innocuously, and it was aimed at Americans living in relatively healthy ecosystems (though I honestly don't think there's many left!), so I don't mean to take you to task. I totally agree with everything else you have to say. We don't need to get on a plane to get 'into nature'. But we shouldn't ignore the perils of urbanization, either.On An urban denizen beseeches nature writers to focus on cities for a change posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Let's elevate the discourse above straw men, eh?

  Look, I don't want to be a jerk. Really. But this article -- and Grist's promotion of it--are completely devoid of any evidence to further their arguments. In fact, all the comments here are evidence of that lack, since they all point to work that has been done in exactly the kinds of areas that Ms. Price feels are non-existent. In fact, she does know better, so I'm confused as to why she would make such one-sided and outrageous claims. Her comments are not only an insult to the memory of Aldo Leopold and John Muir (not to mention Thoreau, who I agree was not an entirely positive force on the genre of nature writing), but also the efforts of Mike Davis, Michael Pollan, Theodore Roszak, and countless others that have investigated the human relationship with nature in all kinds of habitats.

  (The article in The Believer is almost entirely different--and much better, based on a quick reading--Ms. Price sticks to what she knows, instead of making the implicit claim that 'nature writing' has ignored the relationship between people and cities and nature until she came around. And she makes some good points, to boot. So everyone should read that article instead, if I'm allowed one 'should'.)

  The Grist blurb (which I imagine Ms. Price did not write) about the article is classic straw man argumentation:
  Henry David Thoreau went to the woods in order to live deliberately, and as a result spawned generations of googly-eyed, moss-worshipping nature writers. But is paying dreamy tribute to wilderness where it's at in the 21st century?

  Can anyone here please refer me to some of these 'googly-eyed, moss-worshipping nature writers' (mainstream ones, not freaks)? Who exactly is 'paying dreamy tribute to wilderness' these days? I certainly haven't encountered any such authors in my reading to date. I've certainly encountered scores that grapple very deeply with the very issues Ms. Price raises in this article. And if Ms. Price--or Grist--is arguing that we need to get away from the transcendental in our experience of nature (whether in the city or country)--or for that matter--of ourselves, I would argue precisely the opposite. We need it all--analytical soil and water science along with awe and wonder at the mystery this planet continues to offer us.

  If you care to read more of my thoughts on this -- and I warn you, my comments may inadvertently stay into 'jerk' territory--please click below:

  http://tinyurl.com/y2keql
  My blog is here:

  Let me add that I love Grist and I think overall the editorial staff does a fantastic job. But let's deepen the dialogue on these tough issues at every turn. Though I may be argumentative in my blog, I'm really trying to engage on the issues, and freely admit when I have no idea what I'm talking about. If we, as activists and advocates for 'nature', 'the wild', etc., can't stop ourselves from denigrating the efforts of those who have so passionately written about their experiences in the wild, we stand little chance of fighting back against those who really aren't on our side.On An urban denizen beseeches nature writers to focus on cities for a change posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses