Nelson provides a very strong critique of the notion of wilderness, as it is an insufficient and problematical argument for environmental ethics. Wilderness is the highest manifestation of what is considered natural. This idea, in the wilderness debate, inevitably puts forth the additional notion of a stark contrast with humans or the human agency and what is natural. However, I agree more or less with Nelson and his hesitation of wilderness as the environmental ethic that will persuade the dissenters. Nelson argues that there needs to be a better definition of what wilderness is and a better conceptualization of wilderness. Therefore, I am more inclined to promote the idea of “wilderness management” which Nelson describes as a suggestion to the ideal to which humans should strive for in regards to more dedication and commitment to preservation and restoration. But this again doesn’t fully define what types of wilderness and forms of wilderness require management and to what degree.
There seems to be a debate as to what wilderness is exactly and what it should be. On one hand, wilderness is a valuable place to “get away.” On the other hand, wilderness is a place that is completely unaffected by humans, relatively an untouched landscape. I think that this lack of definition hinders the conceptual analysis that the dissenters will invoke and also doesn’t provide a strong moral ethic to embrace for others.
Additionally, the other major point of the wilderness debate that seems to be inappropriate is the dichotomy put forth. Humans have evolved alongside other non-human beings in the "wilderness" and the idea or notion of characterizing wilderness in opposition to humans is substandard. I think that it only hampers and impedes a philosophy that will result in creating a sense of feasibility, collectiveness and urgency required in addressing the challenges we face. Nelson argues that this perpetuates false dualism which limits our understanding of and attempts at creating an environmental ethic that could persuade the dissenters from gaining a moral sentiment that leads to a feeling of ethical obligation in terms of conservation, preservation and restoration. Moreover, the issues that we face nowadays need to avoid a human/nature dichotomy, as this only conceptually separates and compartmentalizes our problems and values which stand in the way of a true environmental ethic embraced by the masses.
Nelson argues that wilderness as argued now involves inappropriate baggage. He puts forth the idea that the salvation of wilderness lies in the human mind, such that we need to re-conceptualize the notion of wilderness. However, I am not fully convinced that it is the term wilderness or the notion behind it that will fully capture and yield a social community that will develop moral sentiments creating a feeling of an ethical obligation to nature.
However, I do think that a social community with a better concept of the interactions between humans and their environments is important in regards to persuading the dissenters, as well as properly defined and terms and conditions. But in contrast to Nelson, I am not sure that it will jump on the band wagon of wilderness. More significantly, it is important to understand and comprehend that humans are intrinsically tied to the environment. We are a product of nature and we cannot, and should not, deny that relationship, as it is the only way to solve our current environmental crisis. When we see nature as happening "out there," and not near us, we can easily relinquish and abandon our responsibility to it. The important social and perhaps philosophical challenge is to provide a more specific and focused argument while integrating sustainable practices of preservation, conservation and restoration into our "unnatural" urban and suburban lives.