Are most of us just p***ing about ...?

[droj]

No... really.. there isn't. Not on this planet any way. Care to give us an example of wilderness?

It depends what level of purity you're demanding, here in the Anthropocene - but I reckon you'd find the bottoms of the deep ocean trenches pretty wild places ... or the tops of the highest mountains ...

 

[droj]

An issue with much current photography of land is that it romanticises both the land itself, and by implication (reflected glory) the photographer (which I guess is the aim). Yes, all that golden hour and blue hour stuff, and all those pictures of piers. It appears to appropriate the materiality of the land for a sort of showing off. But no wonder, since we live in an overly materialistic culture. A symptom of the times ...

 

[Pookeyhead]

It depends what level of purity you're demanding, here in the Anthropocene - but I reckon you'd find the bottoms of the deep ocean trenches pretty wild places ... or the tops of the highest mountains ...

Slight problem with photography down there though .. however.. there'll be shipwrecks, leaked fuel oil... crashed planes. You name it.. plastic debris and all manner of crap even down there.

Go to the top of even the highest mountains and you'll find marks from climbers pitons all the way up.

It's all gone... bye bye.

 

[droj]

Embrace the new wilderness, which includes humankind.

 

[Ed Sutton]

My back garden's a wilderness.

 

[droj]

I have a strimmer ....

 

[Pookeyhead]

My back garden's a wilderness.

Haha... mine was last year.. I remember everyone commenting on it when I posted a pic

 

[big soft moose]

No Pete... read my quote again. You also don't realise what teaching is about. Teaching involves more studying than it does teaching. How else do you retain any currency in it do you think? You just hate it when anyone blows their own trumpet Pete.
.

Okay so I've read your quote again and it still comes over as both incredibly arrogant and unbelievable... You've studied almost everything there is to study , and can debate any photographic topic (except sport or weddings) with anyone at any level ... I still stand by my original comment there is no way on earth that you (or anyone) has studied almost everything there is to study about photography ... the reason people specialise is th\at there is simply too much for any one person to know it all

Also I do understand what it takes to teach/lecture ( I may have mentioned before that both my parents are teachers and my sister is a university lecturer) - it requires an indepth knowledge of the curiculum - it does not make you a total master of the whole subject at all levels.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Okay so I've read your quote again and it still comes over as both incredibly arrogant and unbelievable...

I'm sorry you think so, as it wasn't intended to be. I read a great deal Pete. I have access to the libraries at Blackpool, UCLan and Lancaster universities, and use them.. often. It's my job to know. Research is part of what I do, and I've been doing it for years.

You've studied almost everything there is to study ,

About photography, probably. I read everything that is newly published - Books, articles, periodicals etc. I get new released books sent to me for free from loads of publishers, and as I said above, I have access to a great deal of stuff. I make hay while the sun shines (my time in education is limited I think... I'm not getting on with the whole 'education is a business' vibe - it's stinks of Tory a bit too much for my liking). I also have access to the Lancashire Archives, Manchester Metropolitan University library and a free account with many online academic research databases, so get alerts when any new academic papers are published in my area of interest. It's all I do. I don't own a television... I read. I'm talking acadmiec books here Pete though.. not every photographer's book ever produced. Monographs are nice, but they don't TEACH you anything. I do have a VERY large collection of monographs though. It's one of my vices... Photobooks... as well as single malt

and can debate any photographic topic (except sport or weddings) with anyone at any level ...

Absolutely... and do so regularly. I enjoy it.

I still stand by my original comment there is no way on earth that you (or anyone) has studied almost everything there is to study about photography

Even after reading everything I can get my hands on for over 20 years? There's not THAT much to know about photography Pete. It's not quantum physics. There will be areas of advanced optical science I'm a bit rusty on, but that's not photography any more... it's optical science. The technicalities do not interest me all that much. I am pretty much expert in that area too, but that's through needing to know from doing it as a job. Can I recall everything I've ever read? Nope... but I fail to see what more a single human being can do other than what I'm doing, and have done for so long. It's what I enjoy Pete. It's not a job, or a task... it's something I enjoy doing. It's not over yet either.. . fingers crossed there's another 40 years of studying ahead of me too.

... the reason people specialise is th\at there is simply too much for any one person to know it all

Photography IS specialising... if you broke it down any more then there's not THAT much to read. I'm not saying I know everything there is to know about art, or even lens based media, but there really isn't THAT much to know about photography. I know art history and cultural studies PhDs who's knowledge is simply astounding compared to mine because their area of study is so wide. Trust me... being "expert" on photography is not deemed to be such a great task academically. I have colleagues in other unis who would look down on me as a lowly, narrow subject, unadventurous researcher simply because I limit myself to such a narrow field of study. In fact, I've been making enquiries into doing a PhD, and I'm having trouble finding anyone willing to fund it because they deem the subject area to be too narrow and limited in terms of research. I still may do it one day, just so I can say "That's DOCTOR Pookeyhead to you Pete"... and watch your head explode You'd still probably doubt me if I had a PhD any way

I think you over-estimate exactly how much there is to research in Photography Pete. You'd have to branch out into the associated fields of philosophy even be considered for a doctorate. Or do you consider expert knowledge being able to name every single photographer alphabetically or something? because no, I can't do that, sorry.

Also I do understand what it takes to teach/lecture ( I may have mentioned before that both my parents are teachers and my sister is a university lecturer) - it requires an indepth knowledge of the curiculum - it does not make you a total master of the whole subject at all levels.

Merely being a "teacher" doesn't no.

LOL. However... If you think you just need to know the curriculum, then you'll have some HUGE knowledge gaps Pete. What you gonna do when you're level 6 or 7 students start to overtake you and ask you things you don't know (which they will because you've been getting them to research for 4 years) and all you know is the curriculum? Besides... I WROTE the curriculum, and had to get it past Lancaster Universities validation panel, and part of that process is demonstrating a research profile at least 2 levels above the highest level you teach. If all you know is the curriculum, you better prey you never get a switched on student who challenges you in a lecture theatre in front of 40 other students when they clearly know more than the curriculum (again... something every student is encouraged to do)... because they will, and they'll enjoy it There's always at least one cocky student who tries to challenge you in every year, and the annoying thing is, they often know their s**t. Students like that can sense your fear, and will be merciless and take great pleasure in destroying you in front of an audience. [Edit].. Oh... and in H.E and Post Grad, there isn't really a curriculum any way. There's no prescribed lessons. There are set lectures, sure, but it's mainly self-led research and seminars. There is no such thing as a lesson plan for a seminar Pete... it's like lighting the blue touch paper and standing back to watch the show. Nothing you can rehearse for... you just have to know your stuff and be able to discuss anything that's thrown at you, and challenge everything everyone puts to you... and vice versa.

I don't know why, but whenever I say anything that suggests I may kind of know what I'm on about, it just rubs you up the wrong way. You're so BRITISH about this, like so many are.... why should people be modest when they have a skill or a talent, or a great deal of expertise? I can pretend to be stupid if it makes you feel any better Pete It's not as if I walk around shouting about how great I am, but if asked, then yeah, I'll say so.

Everything I say to you seems to be a red rag to a bull though, and I've no idea why. Clearly it's just a clash of personalities, and there's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.

 

[PMN]

Okay so I've read your quote again and it still comes over as both incredibly arrogant and unbelievable... You've studied almost everything there is to study , and can debate any photographic topic (except sport or weddings) with anyone at any level ... I still stand by my original comment there is no way on earth that you (or anyone) has studied almost everything there is to study about photography ... the reason people specialise is th\at there is simply too much for any one person to know it all

Funny you should say that, as ironically you seem to put yourself forward as being a master of pretty much every subject imaginable in these forums.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I'm feeling a bit haunted by some images I discovered only recently.

Are most of us just p***ing about?

I have spent 20+ years photographing suspicious, sudden deaths and crime scenes including genocide, (mass graves) in Kosovo and post mortem examinations. Photographing evidence is just one genre of photography nothing more or nothing less. I'm still haunted by many of the scenes I have witnessed, photographed and given evidence. However, I try not to dwell to much on these. I was always mentally prepared for the worst possible sight and smells. This has probably effected you because you were unprepared for what you witnessed. It's not healthy to become preoccupied with these thoughts.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't know about p***ing about, but I think a lot of us concentrate on the wrong things (myself included). We obsess about equipment, sharpness, etc, with content of the image taking a second place.

One of my musician friends has recently produced a CD of songs inspired by old photographs. These have been collected by one of his friends from street markets in Berlin.

When he performs these songs live, he has the images projected, I saw them a few days ago and instantly became aware that they all had a quality of composition and also a meaning, perhaps even telling a story to the person who took them. It mattered not in the slightest if they were taken with a Leica or a Kodak box camera. Unsharpness due to focus, camera movement or optical quality was of secondary importance too.

As I said, I am guilty of this too, but seeing this show has made me try to rethink photography a bit.

http://www.paularmfield.com/video/found-a-forthcoming-project-by-paul-armfield/


Steve.

 

[Byker28i]

Oh... and in H.E and Post Grad, there isn't really a curriculum any way. There's no prescribed lessons. There are set lectures, sure, but it's mainly self-led research and seminars. There is no such thing as a lesson plan for a seminar Pete... it's like lighting the blue touch paper and standing back to watch the show. Nothing you can rehearse for... you just have to know your stuff and be able to discuss anything that's thrown at you, and challenge everything everyone puts to you... and vice versa.

And thats been my experience of higher education. There's directions you're led in, given the odd hint, research to look at, which leads to others, which leads to others. The secret seems to be knowing when to stop and actually write something down and move on. It's the encouragement to discover for yourself, to find your own voice, rather than regurgitate the same stuff others have been taught. I didn't go to University, all my HE education was technical, avionics, electronics, electrical engineering, which is all taught - things you need to know. With my BA studies, its the complete opposite and a little of a culture shock at the start. However the knowledge and results are really interesting things to do

 

[odd jim]

Anyone who's traveled significantly will appreciate how much wilderness is out there.

 

[viv1969]

I think a good few people need to look at the definition of wilderness.

 

[odd jim]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness

I spend my free time whenever I can looking for and travelling to places as described above .

They're not hard to find if you're determined to go.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think a good few people need to look at the definition of wilderness.

I can look up the definition of "God" too, but it doesn't mean it exists.

I spend my free time whenever I can looking for and travelling to places as described above .

The fact that you can easily travel to them means it's not a wilderness.

The very fact that we're making a concerted effort to control, and protect such places means it's not a wilderness any more, as it's clearly within out power to to destroy it, and it NEEDS protection from us. Besides, look closer and you'll see the effects of man everywhere in these places. You'll see the effects of Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, VOCs, etc. Therefore, due to the above there'll be damage by acid rain. Soil erosion from surrounding areas of deforestation will be slowly encroaching too. Because people like you travel to these places as well, there's be more obvious signs of habitation. There'll be buildings nearby, tyre tracks, footpaths etc.

You're just one of many many thousands who will also be travelling there. It's not a wilderness. There's no such thing any more. It has been written about extensively if you care to do some research.

I'll lead you in gently with a couple of essays...

https://aeon.co/essays/giving-up-on-wilderness-means-a-barren-future-for-the-earth


http://www.nature.org/science-in-action/our-scientists/the-end-of-the-wild.xml


If you want something a little more hardcore, you may want to read,


The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature
William Cronon
Environmental History
Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 7-28 Oxford University Press.

Also..

The very fact that the US Dept. of Agriculture publish a tome called "Wilderness Management"
By John C. Hendee, George H. Stankey, Robert C. Lucas, speaks volumes.

We "manage" wilderness now.. it doesn't manage us.

Another good book is...

The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology
By Max Oelschlaeger - Yale university Press.

I think you can get most of that last one on Google Books.

I can recommend a whole lot more too if anyone's interested. Most of the research not only suggests that there is no wilderness, but more importantly, that's it's harmful to have the notion that it still exists in the first instance. It promotes the idea that all you have to do is fence it off, and voilá... it's protected. That's dead wrong if you read more on this subject.

So instead of just relying upon what you THINK wilderness is, based on your own ideals and wants... do the research instead and arrive at an informed opinion. That's the problem with people today: They cobble together bits of information and mis-information from the internet and some crap they saw on Discovery, and BAM!.. everyone's an expert without actually doing any research whatsoever.

The information age my arse!

 

[odd jim]

I can look up the definition of "God" too, but it doesn't mean it exists.




The fact that you can easily travel to them means it's not a wilderness.

The very fact that we're making a concerted effort to control, and protect such places means it's not a wilderness any more, as it's clearly within out power to to destroy it, and it NEEDS protection from us. Besides, look closer and you'll see the effects of man everywhere in these places. You'll see the effects of Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, VOCs, etc. Therefore, due to the above there'll be damage by acid rain. Soil erosion from surrounding areas of deforestation will be slowly encroaching too. Because people like you travel to these places as well, there's be more obvious signs of habitation. There'll be buildings nearby, tyre tracks, footpaths etc.

You're just one of many many thousands who will also be travelling there. It's not a wilderness. There's no such thing any more. It has been written about extensively if you care to do some research.

I'll lead you in gently with a couple of essays...

https://aeon.co/essays/giving-up-on-wilderness-means-a-barren-future-for-the-earth


http://www.nature.org/science-in-action/our-scientists/the-end-of-the-wild.xml


If you want something a little more hardcore, you may want to read,


The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature
William Cronon
Environmental History
Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 7-28 Oxford University Press.

Also..

The very fact that the US Dept. of Agriculture publish a tome called "Wilderness Management"
By John C. Hendee, George H. Stankey, Robert C. Lucas, speaks volumes.

We "manage" wilderness now.. it doesn't manage us.

Another good book is...

The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology
By Max Oelschlaeger - Yale university Press.

I think you can get most of that last one on Google Books.

So instead of just relying upon what you THINK wilderness is, based on your own ideals and wants... do the research instead and arrive at an informed opinion. That's the problem with people today: They cobble together bits of information and mis-information from the internet and some crap they saw on Discovery, and BAM!.. everyone's an expert without actually doing any research whatsoever.

The information age my arse!

No, this isn't "wilderness". And if you can't define wilderness (even though it is legally under some statutes for environmental protection purposes) we can only go by what you define as wilderness? This is pretentious BS to be honest. If this is really what wilderness is, you will never experience it unless you're the first explorer to step off the space ship on an uninhabited planet.

I'm guessing the barren wastelands of Mars isn't wilderness, as the explorer has laid down tracks in the dirt already?

This was in the wilderness;

141 by -Odd Jim-

So was this...
73 by -Odd Jim-

...and this;
210 by -Odd Jim-

Lots of lovely wilderness out there to explore, get off your backsides and have a look.

A bit more wilderness...
136 by -Odd Jim-

 

[Pookeyhead]

This was in the wilderness;

141 by -Odd Jim-

So was this...
73 by -Odd Jim-

...and this;
210 by -Odd Jim-

Lots of lovely wilderness out there to explore, get off your backsides and have a look.

None of that is wilderness. That ice will now be polluted and riddled with the detritus of 250 years of industrialisation. Those hills and valleys are well travelled (hence the wealth of imagery you are able to access [or even take yourself] with ease) and there will be signs of deforestation, pollution and damage. We'll have introduced non-native species and controlled it in some way for decades.


It LOOKS like wilderness... or more importantly, what we expect it to look like... but that doesn't mean it is.

This is pretentious BS to be honest.

Dismissing scientific and academic research as pretentious BS... welcome to TP.

 

[odd jim]

None of that is wilderness. That ice will now be polluted and riddled with the detritus of 250 years of industrialisation. Those hills and valleys are well travelled (hence the wealth of imagery you are able to access [or even take yourself] with ease) and there will be signs of deforestation, pollution and damage. We'll have introduced non-native species and controlled it in some way for decades.


It LOOKS like wilderness... or more importantly, what we expect it to look like... but that doesn't mean it is.





Dismissing scientific and academic research as pretentious BS... welcome to TP.

Science isn't re-defining the meaning of words. I'm agreeing with the science.

Hense my Mars example, by your reasoning this is no longer wilderness. Same for the moon

You're saying there's no wilderness left in the planet Earth. Sorry but that is BS.

I used the above images as I took those not only in an area of wilderness, but also one defined in NZ law as protected wilderness . Yet it's still well visited.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Science isn't re-defining the meaning of words. I'm agreeing with the science.

...but not it's findings. Interesting. Have you actually READ the science?

He as my Mars example, by your reasoning this is no longer wilderness.

Not by my resoning it's not. There are plenty of places on Mars that are true wilderness, as there's no sign of us influencing or damaging it. Sure, there's a tiny, tiny area covered in tracks now.. but Mars is by and large a wilderness, yes. Footprints are not evidence of damage or influence. There are wild animal tracks everywhere. There's weather on Mars... those tracks will soon disappear. There's no pollution... no extinction of life, no chemical trail, no agriculture... nothing. We've put a metal box on there that has trundled around in circles for a bit.. well, whoopee doo.

The moon however... yes, we've permanently scarred part of it's surface as it will all sit there for millions of years exactly as we left it in the hard vacuum of space. Vacuum ablation will reduce it a bit but it will all still be there when it's swallowed up by the expanding sun in 4 billion years or so.

You're saying there's no wilderness left in the planet Earth. Sorry but that is BS.

It's not just me saying it Jim. Unlike most people on here, I'm happy to link to the research to back up my arguments. All I see from everyone else is opinion. Where's your counter-research Jim? Prove me wrong if you want. I'd welcome it, as that's the very nature of scientific and academic debate. Your OPINION is worthless, as is mine alone. That's why science and academia rely on peer reviewed, consensus based on available evidence. It's no guarantee it's correct of course, but it's the best we have. Fell free to counter my arguments any time you like... with evidence. I'm happy to be proved wrong because I'll have learned something new, which is the very reason anyone engages in research.

I used the above images as I took those not only in an area of wilderness, but also one defined in NZ law as protected wilderness

So NZ law decides to protect it by calling it a wilderness, so therefore it is? Why would TRUE wilderness need protecting Jim?

 

[odd jim]

...but not it's findings. Interesting. Have you actually READ the science?



Not by my resoning it's not. There are plenty of places on Mars that are true wilderness, as there's no sign of us influencing or damaging it. Sure, there's a tiny, tiny area covered in tracks now.. but Mars is by and large a wilderness, yes.



It's not just me saying it Jim. Unlike most people on here, I'm happy to link to the research to back up my arguments. All I see from everyone else is opinion. Where's your counter-research Jim? Prove me wrong if you want. I'd welcome it, as that's the very nature of scientific and academic debate.



So NZ law decides to protect it by calling it a wilderness, so therefore it is? Why would TRUE wilderness need protecting Jim?

I understand the science. I don't agree with some of the literary interpretations some people then deduce from it. I know there are a good few people who would agree with me there.

A few years ago I was in the North African Sahara hundreds of miles from anywhere. You could step out of the Landcruiser only for a few minutes due to the intense heat, but when you did you were met with pure silence. There *really* was nothing or no one else around. However, in front of us was a tank that had stopped at a fuel pick up point (barrels dumped in the desert) that had been attacked and blown up during WW2. This tank hadn't been touched since, this thing still had remains and munitions inside. In the 60 years since it stopped moving, such was the inaccessible nature of the area we were in no one else had passed by or even knew of its existence.

Obvious signs of human prescence and effect, yet due to the wilderness, undisturbed for over half a century. It'll probably be the same amount of time before someone else does so.

Is this not in the wilderness?

 

[RichardTaylor]

One reason a "true widerness" (if it ever existed) neeeds protection is the mining companies - this is from personal experience.

https://ramumine.wordpress.com/tag/jaba-river/

The real problem is that we humans enjoy using the products the mines generate - the mine was a major copper producer, and to a lesser extent a gold producer.
For some of us, and/or our families it has been our livelyhood.
(I do not agree with all the statements re the cause of the war).

 

[Pookeyhead]

I understand the science. I don't agree with some of the literary interpretations some people then deduce from it.

So you understand the science... you just disagree with it. Again... interesting. Disagree because? Based upon what? Have you read the science? Care to reference what you've read?

I know there are a good few people who would agree with me there.

Care to name them? Cite them? Reference them?

A few years ago I was in the North African Sahara hundreds of miles from anywhere. You could step out of the Landcruiser only for a few minutes due to the intense heat, but when you did you were met with pure silence. There *really* was nothing or no one else around. However, in front of us was a tank that had stopped at a fuel pick up point (barrels dumped in the desert) that had been attacked and blown up during WW2. This tank hadn't been touched since, this thing still had remains and munitions inside. In the 60 years since it stopped moving, such was the inaccessible nature of the area we were in no one else had passed by.

You're using an example of why it's not a wilderness to try and prove that it is? Brilliant. LOL

Obvious signs of human prescence and effect, yet due to the wilderness, undisturbed for over half a century. It'll probably be the same amount of time before someone else does so.

Nonsense... look hard enough and you'll find a photo of it online. Or are you saying you're some kind of intrepid explorer who's been somewhere no one else has?


yeah.... you can step out of your landcruiser.... right into wilderness

Is this not in the wilderness?

No. It's not about how remote, or quiet, or well travelled somewhere is. The very fact that it's littered with debris is my point. That tank is not the only one there. The Sahara is littered with the debris of war, industry and mankind in general.. just like everywhere else now.

 

[odd jim]

So you understand the science... you just disagree with it. Again... interesting. Disagree because? Based upon what? Have you read the science? Care to reference what you've read?



Care to name them? Cite them? Reference them?



You're using an example of why it's not a wilderness to try and prove that it is? Brilliant. LOL




Nonsense... look hard enough and you'll find a photo of it online. Or are you saying you're some kind of intrepid explorer who's been somewhere no one else has?


yeah.... you can step out of your landcruiser.... right into wilderness



No.

Lol no, I'm not saying that. However, I'm lucky enough to have been to places very few have.

And I've not disagreed with the science. I'm disagreeing with the interpretation that it now means there is no wilderness left on planet earth. Wilderness which means to most "a natural environment on Earth that has not been significantly modified by civilized human activity. It may also be defined as: "The most intact, undisturbed wild natural areas left on our planet—those last truly wild places that humans do not control and have not developed with roads, pipelines or other industrial infrastructure."

They do still exist!

The Landcruiser argument, that's interesting. Are you saying that to get into 'wilderness' (not that it exists of course) you have to magically transport yourself there. Then not move for fear of creating foot steps otherwise it would stop being 'wilderness'?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Lol no, I'm not saying that. However, I'm lucky enough to have been to places very few have.

And I've not disagreed with the science. I'm disagreeing with the interpretation that it now means there is no wilderness left on planet earth. Wilderness which means to most "a natural environment on Earth that has not been significantly modified by civilized human activity. It may also be defined as: "The most intact, undisturbed wild natural areas left on our planet—those last truly wild places that humans do not control and have not developed with roads, pipelines or other industrial infrastructure."

They do still exist!

The Landcruiser argument, that's interesting. Are you saying that to get into 'wilderness' (not that it exists of course) you have to magically transport yourself there. Then not move for fear of creating foot steps otherwise it would stop being 'wilderness'?

You're just quoting a definition from Wikipedia Jim. You've not read any of the research I've posted, nor are you interested in doing so. You have your opinion, and you'll stick to it because that's what you want to believe.

So it needs a pipeline to be classed as not wilderness? Never mind the crashed planes, abandoned munitions, mines etc. then... nah... no pipeline or roads... so it's a wilderness.

I can't go any further, because you're ignorant and unwilling to actually read the evidence suggesting that there's no more wilderness. You don't want to either. You'd rather remain ignorant because you want there to be a wilderness: It makes you feel better. You're just countering my argument with your personal opinion whereas I'm wanting a genuine debate to try and learn something new. You've no interest in doing that as you feel you know enough already and you're absolutely certain you are correct. I'm not... what I'm doing is presenting an argument based on our collective evidence.. which is the best we have at any given moment in time. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. Like you... I'd also like to think there's a wilderness left. However, the evidence suggests there's no such thing any more. So please... prove me wrong. Not with anecdotes and stories from your holidays (ironically)... but with evidence.

I've posited a viewpoint based on evidence (feel free to read the two books I've referenced... your local library will be able to order them for you). There's more where that came from too.

Once you've done that.. and you've refuted that evidence somehow with your own research, then I look forward to moving the debate forward. Until then, you're just giving me your opinion.. based on nothing. You may feel you're experience wilderness... most of us have. I've spent time in the Canadian Rockies and truly felt isolated and at risk from the elements and fauna... but every once in a while, there'd be a fag packet in the undergrowth... or a felled tree... or evidence of pollution or acid rain damage. Any time we like, we can level it all and build a car park if we wanted to.

 

[odd jim]

You're just quoting a definition from Wikipedia Jim. You've not read any of the research I've posted, nor are you interested in doing so. You have your opinion, and you'll stick to it because that's what you want to believe.

So it needs a pipeline to be classed as not wilderness? Never mind the crashed planes, abandoned munitions, mines etc. then... nah... no pipeline or roads... so it's a wilderness.

I can't go any further, because you're ignorant and unwilling to actually read the evidence suggesting that there's no more wilderness. You don't want to either. You'd rather remain ignorant because you want there to be a wilderness: It makes you feel better. You're just countering my argument with your personal opinion whereas I'm wanting a genuine debate to try and learn something new. You've no interest in doing that as you feel you know enough already and you're absolutely certain you are correct. I'm not... what I'm doing is presenting an argument based on our collective evidence.. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. Like you... I'd also like to think there's a wilderness left. However, the evidence suggests there's no such thing any more. So please... prove me wrong. Not with anecdotes and stories from your holidays... but with evidence.

Yes it's Wiki - that's referencing the most common and accepted definition of the subject. It doesn't really need to be taken much further than that does it? I'm not going to quote some obscure academic tome only a few have read.

To say I'm ignorant and haven't read any research is a little presumptive isn't it? You referenced holidays? A little patronising there don't you think? Unfortunately they weren't all holidays, North Africa certainly wasn't but yes, my NZ photos were. But I guess that's just an attempt to belittle someone you consider not as academically worthy or knowledgeable of the subject.

You've also assumed I've not read the research you've posted as I haven't suddenly changed perspective on this.

You want a debate, but you want the debaters to bow to your side of the debate. That's not a debate.

The academics that wholly subscribe to the notion that there is no wilderness left are in a very smug and comfortable academic position where they will "always be right" under their definition of wilderness. There is no undiscovered and untouched part of Earth left, there really isn't, right? Then when someone does find an undiscovered, untouched piece of land, cave system, etc immediately what was "wilderness" ceases to be, as they've now discovered it and "contaminated" it with their humaness [emoji52]

And how do we know, and how can we evidence something that's not been discovered thus likely untouched?

Again, for an academic argument it's very comfortable and convenient. It's doesn't mean it's 100% correct and accurate.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes it's Wiki - that's referencing the most common and accepted definition of the subject. It doesn't really need to be taken much further than that does it?

LOL. Yes.

I'm not going to quote some obscure academic tome only a few have read.

It's not obscure. You not reading it does not make it obscure.

To say I'm ignorant and haven't read any research is a little presumptive isn't it?

You've just told me that you don't need to go any further than quoting a definition from Wiki in order to understand this big, deep, complex subject. No.. it's not presumptuous. It would appear to be true.

You've also assumed I've not read the research you've posted as I haven't suddenly changed perspective on this.

You've just described the two books I referenced as obscure academic tomes. It's fairly safe to assume you've not read them, or indeed any other "obscure" tomes either then, surely.

You want a debate, but you want the debaters to bow to your side of the debate. That's not a debate.

No... that's exactly what I do not want. I want you to refute what I say based on evidence, not opinion. You're just saying "Of course there's wilderness... I've seen it" and using that as the sole basis for your argument, and expect me to accept a definition pulled from Wikipedia. As I said earlier... I can quote the Wiki definition of God, but it's not proof of his existence. It's just the popular, perceived opinion at the moment.

To show you the very limit of your internet skimming, if you'd bothered to scroll down the Wiki page you got the definition from (which you've clearly not done) you'll also see citations and reference to the detractors of that definition. It's listed under "critique" and there's a shed load of debate, research and argument to be had. It even mentions the very arguments I'm referring to.

"
Another source of criticism is that the criteria for wilderness designation is vague and open to interpretation. For example, the Wilderness Act states that wilderness must be roadless. The definition given for roadless is "the absences of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use."[35] However, there have been added sub-definitions that have, in essence, made this standard unclear and open to interpretation.

Coming from a different direction, some criticism from the Deep Ecology movement argues against conflating "wilderness" with "wilderness reservations", viewing the latter term as an oxymoron that, by allowing the law as a human construct to define nature, unavoidably voids the very freedom and independence of human control that defines wilderness.[36] True wilderness requires the ability of life to undergo speciation with as little interference from humanity as possible."


Just easier to copy and paste the first few lines though, huh? That's all you need to be informed these days it seems... as

It doesn't really need to be taken much further than that does it?

Yes Jim.... It really does.

 

[odd jim]

LOL. Yes.





It's not obscure. You not reading it does not make it obscure.



You've just told me that you don't need to go any further than quoting a definition from Wiki in order to understand this big, deep, complex subject. No.. it's not presumptuous. It would appear to be true.





You've just described the two books I referenced as obscure academic tomes. It's fairly safe to assume you've not read them, or indeed any other "obscure" tomes either then, surely.




No... that's exactly what I do not want. I want you to refute what I say based on evidence, not opinion. You're just saying "Of course there's wilderness... I've seen it" and using that as the sole basis for your argument, and expect me to accept a definition pulled from Wikipedia. As I said earlier... I can quote the Wiki definition of God, but it's not proof of his existence. It's just the popular, perceived opinion at the moment.

To show you the very limit of your internet skimming, if you'd bothered to scroll down the Wiki page you got the definition from (which you've clearly not done) you'll also see citations and reference to the detractors of that definition. It's listed under "critique" and there's a shed load of debate, research and argument to be had. It even mentions the very arguments I'm referring to.

"
Another source of criticism is that the criteria for wilderness designation is vague and open to interpretation. For example, the Wilderness Act states that wilderness must be roadless. The definition given for roadless is "the absences of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use."[35] However, there have been added sub-definitions that have, in essence, made this standard unclear and open to interpretation.

Coming from a different direction, some criticism from the Deep Ecology movement argues against conflating "wilderness" with "wilderness reservations", viewing the latter term as an oxymoron that, by allowing the law as a human construct to define nature, unavoidably voids the very freedom and independence of human control that defines wilderness.[36] True wilderness requires the ability of life to undergo speciation with as little interference from humanity as possible."


Just easier to copy and paste the first few lines though, huh? That's all you need to be informed these days it seems... as


Yes Jim.... It really does.

I've added another bit at the end you'd probably want to argue with, just to keep you on the roll

 

[odd jim]

You've just described the two books I referenced as obscure academic tomes.

No I didn't? It was generic.

 

[viv1969]

I can look up the definition of "God" too, but it doesn't mean it exists.

So your definition of wilderness is the one we should all be looking to?

Err, no thanks.
I think I'll add that to the ever growing list of pretentious cobblers to be avoided.

 

[odd jim]

Slight problem with photography down there though .. however.. there'll be shipwrecks, leaked fuel oil... crashed planes. You name it.. plastic debris and all manner of crap even down there.

Go to the top of even the highest mountains and you'll find marks from climbers pitons all the way up.

It's all gone... bye bye.

You've been to the top of every mountain?

How did I miss that one?

Now who's the intrepid explorer?

Unless this "solid science" has now become theoretical? [emoji15]

 

[Pookeyhead]

So your definition of wilderness is the one we should all be looking to?

Err, no thanks.
I think I'll add that to the ever growing list of pretentious cobblers to be avoided.

It's not MY definition Viv.. why are you calling it MY definition? I'm merely putting it forward as an argument, but I'm not the one who's done the research, published the books and papers and done the hard work. All you would have to do is read it... but you can't be arsed as it's all pretentious cobblers isn't it. It's amazing how you can dismiss it as such without reading it Viv. That's quite a prescience you have there. Quite astounding.

Well.. sure.. dismiss science and academia while you continue to reap the benefits of others' hard work in every aspect of your life Viv.. you hypocrite

As usual, anything that becomes the realm of reading, research etc... it's all pretentious cobblers in here isn't it, and yet again the the debate descends into ad hominem rhetoric.

Fine.. stay ignorant. No skin off my nose.

The academics that wholly subscribe to the notion that there is no wilderness left are in a very smug and comfortable academic position where they will "always be right" under their definition of wilderness. There is no undiscovered and untouched part of Earth left, there really isn't, right? Then when someone does find an undiscovered, untouched piece of land, cave system, etc immediately what was "wilderness" ceases to be, as they've now discovered it and "contaminated" it with their humaness [emoji52]

And how do we know, and how can we evidence something that's not been discovered thus likely untouched?

Take the most remote, uncharted areas of the polar regions Jim... it doesn't get any more wilderness than that (by your definition): It's inhospitable, and human life being there is a true anachronism. Despite this, drill down and take ice core samples, and you can chart the last 200 years of industrialisation quite clearly due to the levels of airborne pollution trapped in the ice. Our wholesale consumption of fossil fuels is warming the earth, and MASSIVE areas of ice sheet is melting as you read this. You don't even have to BE in the environment being affected any more. We are changing the entire planet.. everywhere. Whether you need a four wheel drive vehicle to get there or not is quite simply an irrelevance Jim.

There's no place on earth left unaltered by your/my/our presence.


Your assumption that I mean merely being there makes it no longer a wilderness is just a demonstration of how little you understand the argument I'm putting forward Jim.

 

[odd jim]

It's not MY definition Viv.. why are you calling it MY definition? I'm merely putting it forward as an argument, but I'm not the one who's done the research, published the books and papers and done the hard work. All you would have to do is read it... but you can't be arsed as it's all pretentious cobblers isn't it. It's amazing how you can dismiss it as such without reading it Viv. That's quite a prescience you have there. Quite astounding.

Well.. sure.. dismiss science and academia while you continue to reap the benefits of others' hard work in every aspect of your life Viv.. you hypocrite

As usual, anything that becomes the realm of reading, research etc... it's all pretentious cobblers in here isn't it, and yet again the the debate descends into ad hominem rhetoric.

Fine.. stay ignorant. No skin off my nose.






Take the most remote, uncharted areas of the polar regions Jim... it doesn't get any more wilderness than that (by your definition): It's inhospitable, and human life being there is a true anachronism. Despite this, drill down and take ice core samples, and you can chart the last 200 years of industrialisation quite clearly due to the levels of airborne pollution trapped in the ice. Our wholesale consumption of fossil fuels is warming the earth, and MASSIVE areas of ice sheet is melting as you read this. You don't even have to BE in the environment being affected any more. We are changing the entire planet.. everywhere. Whether you need a four wheel drive vehicle to get there or not is quite simply an irrelevance Jim.

There's no place on earth left unaltered by your/my/our presence.


Your assumption that I mean merely being there makes it no longer a wilderness is just a demonstration of how little you understand the argument I'm putting forward Jim.

I understand it, and agree mostly with the science.

I don't agree though, with the overall catch all that there is no wilderness left on Earth. That's quite an arrogant and unprovable assumption, and as I say, convenient for the academics. It's a win win argument for them isn't it?? Though I would argue it's a theoretical argument. How do we know we've seen everything on Earth? How do we know there's nothing left to find or explore? And when we find it, it's not wilderness anymore.

What we don't know about (this mythical wilderness) therefore cannot be debated or evidenced.

Therefore there's none left.

Until we find it.

Then we've found it and it's therefore it cannot be wilderness.... Erm.....

 

[Pookeyhead]

I understand it,

Without reading it?

and agree mostly with the science.

Yet......

I don't agree though, with the overall catch all that there is no wilderness left on Earth. That's quite an arrogant and unprovable assumption, and as I say, convenient for the academics.

Then clearly you've not read, nor understood the science, have you?

Even when environments are being destroyed without us even being present? You still think it's arrogant to suggest that? Surely it's arrogant to assume the opposite without actually feeling the need to understand the research.

Not that we're not present actually... there's as much mining and resource stripping in polar regions as anywhere else.. but that aside for the moment, the effects of our civilisation are being keenly felt where we have no established development. Are you saying this is not the case Jim?

It's a win win argument for them isn't it??

You feel animosity towards those who actually do the work to establish facts because you don't like their findings? (shrug). Then do something about it.

What we don't know about cannot be debated.

What exactly is it you feel we don't know about?

 

[odd jim]

What exactly is it you feel we don't know about?

The places we haven't discovered yet. Ergo, the "wilderness" under these academic definitions.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The places we haven't discovered yet.

Such as?

 

[odd jim]

Such as?

My point exactly!

 

[Pookeyhead]

My point exactly!

LOL.. really.

Jim.. we don't have to be there to trash it any longer.. which is the main point of the argument I'm putting forward. Whether we've been there or not.. physically, is actually irrelevant really. We've been there in so many other ways. You can find the deepest ocean trench ever... never been seen before, but we've already been there due to the effects caused by our wholesale pollution of the environment.

You seem to insist on wilderness merely being somewhere no one's ever set foot. That's really not the point (although it is a nice definition) In many ways... we've done more damage already than we would if we were to set foot there. The earth is a closed system. You can't just ruin parts of it. Every ocean is connected with every other ocean... the same air propagates around the earth. When we pollute the water and the air, we pollute everywhere. We're changing and damaging every facet of our environment without even having to set foot in it.

There's no wilderness any more. The last time we saw species becoming extinct at the level they are now... was when a huge rock slammed into the earth 65 million years ago

 

[odd jim]

LOL.. really.

Jim.. we don't have to be there to trash it any longer.. which is the main point of the argument I'm putting forward. Whether we've been there or not.. physically, is actually irrelevant really. We've been there in so many other ways. You can find the deepest ocean trench ever... never been seen before, but we've already been there due to the effects caused by our wholesale pollution of the environment.

You seem to insist on wilderness merely being somewhere no one's ever set foot. That's really not the point (although it is a nice definition) In many ways... we've done more damage already than we would if we were to set foot there. The earth is a closed system. You can't just ruin parts of it. Every ocean is connected with every other ocean... the same air propagates around the earth. When we pollute the water and the air, we pollute everywhere. We're changing and damaging every facet of our environment without even having to set foot in it.

There's no wilderness any more. The last time we saw species becoming extinct at the level they are now... was when a huge rock slammed into the earth 65 million years ago

I understand the science, I get it, but it still has a theoretical element to it, until we can categorically say we been to and analysed every inch of the planet surely?

But technically the Earth is only a theoretical closed system. It's not truly a closed system - the worst environmental disaster to hit the earth was caused by a meteorite from space. This altered the Earth more than mankind has done since.

So really, on this basis, there wasn't even any wilderness before human kind?