Weaknesses of Hettinger and Throop's Refocusing of Ecocentrism

It seems troublesome that Hettinger and Throop never actually define wilderness. They define wildness as an intrinsically valuable feature of natural systems, as “not humanized” (191). They say that wilderness is “an important manifestation of wildness,” but never is the concept of wilderness clearly stated (193). Nelson proved more specific in labeling wilderness as a social construct.

I am compelled to agree that wilderness is in fact socially constructed, and this leads to considering another notion Nelson considered associated with wilderness, ethnocentrism. He acknowledged that some languages of other cultures have no word for “wilderness” (201). Hettinger and Throop admit that valuing wildness is constructed through cultural traditions, but they do not realize the slippery slope leading towards ethnocentrism on which they teeter. Instead, they compare their views of valuing wildness with valuing human equality. Doing such, they further assert that, as the Western world was responsible for having raised the latter notions, the former notions will likewise endure widespread approval and “universal validity” (194).

Just as they construct values of wilderness through ethnocentricity, Hettinger and Throop seem to construct the “intrinsic” value we are allowed to give to wildness. They speak of early periods of history, during which wildness “was ubiquitous and threatening” (193). Overlooking their lack of supporting facts, they continue to state that “wildness has little or no value in itself there was simply too much of it relative to humanized environments” (193). Whereas today wildness is seen as valuable since it is rare, too much wildness seems to make it worthless. I question whether or not there is a balance with which Hettinger and Throop would be satisfied.
Besides failing to discuss how much wildness we should strive for relative to humanized environments, I found several other items I thought were left ambiguous by Hettinger and Throop. For the sake of my Microsoft word count, I will limit this discussion to a small list of items: the hierarchy of importance of ecosystem values, priority principles indicating when wildness trumps other goods, and whether wildness value is objective or a function of the value-er.

I believe Nelson was correct in questioning the threat of human/nature dualism in this wildness-based ecocentrism. Hettinger and Throop encouraged the view of nature as the “other” in a spiritual sense. They thought the secular world needed something bigger than themselves. In respect to this argument, could it be implied that religious people can and do value wildness less than atheists? Furthermore, as Nelson realized, considering nature as the “other” is dangerous in that it fosters a competitive, “us versus them” mentality. In addressing this concern, Hettinger and Throop interpret the criticism as wanting humans to be seen as identical to nature. They talk of the absurdity of a “biotic citizen,” but the fact that they would concentrate on such a notion seems more absurd. In my opinion it goes without saying that there are fundamental differences between humans and nature, and these can be accounted for without reaching so extreme into the realm of dualism.

Lastly, I have qualms with the examples Hettinger and Throop presented as illustrating people’s valuing the wild. They say that people prefer certain things over others, such as natural beauty opposed to beauty resulting from surgery. Though perhaps I am nitpicking, these conjectured preferences do not equate to values. I could prefer to cheat on an exam, but value honesty so that I do not cheat. The later examples of people valuing wildness without truly realizing it (ie. bird-watching) do not successfully support the intrinsic value of wildness. They speculate that these activities are done for humans “to be in touch with nonhuman nature,” but this seems presumptuous (194). Perhaps someone plays golf to network with business associates, or someone eats dinner because they find the weather comfortable. They do not prove that appreciation for these activities stem from an intrinsic value of wildness.