Book Review: “Living Through the End of Nature: The Future of American Enviornmentalism”

Paul Wapner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. 219 pp. $21.95 cloth (ISBN-13: 978-0262014151)

What do you define as nature? The answer may not be as straightforward as one might think. The definition has evolved over time as society has changed its interactions with the natural world. The individual citizen looks through a different lens than his or her neighbor and even housemates may see the world out their window differently from one another. In “Living Through the End of Nature” Paul Wapner explores the root of the word nature and human interactions with it through acts of preservation and environmentalism. Written in 2010, the ideas expressed may have once been viewed as revolutionary, but Wapner’s arguments just may have aligned with the evolutionary trajectory of environmentalism.

            Wapner spends a considerable amount of the book outlining historical interactions with nature as humans attempted to tame and colonize wildlands across the globe. This historical sketch of the American environmental movement shows how overtime a clear distinction was made between humans and the natural world around them. The contrived boundaries were originally set as a sort of warning against the dangers of nature, but Wapner interestingly points out how that initial action was critical in developing the mindset found in preservationist, conservationist and sustainability ethics. This boundary between man and nature is responsible for what Wapner terms the “dream of naturalism”. The great love for nature that is exhibited in this dream shows a deep appreciation for what is “true, good, right, and beautiful of the world”. While this is not a sentiment help by all, he introduces the roots of political dynamics that are ever present in modern environmental efforts

Next, he transitions to warn of the counterpart to the dream of naturalism: the dream of mastery. Wapner shows how the twin dreams cannot sustain themselves among modern events and ideologies. He argues that the hope to revert to preindustrial ways of interacting with nature as well as hoping for a technological “savior” are built upon a weak foundation that will surely collapse. At this point he argues that conventional environmentalist sentiments towards wilderness no longer make sense as ecologically rich areas are being portioned off as would-be islands. Instead, he advocates for an alternative solution, one that is not unlike ideas of reconciliation ecology, or a co-habitation of sorts between man and nature. Wilderness as we know it today requires efforts of management, not to be confused with efforts towards mastery. This new environmentalism movement is rooted in political action that achieves a more sustainable, healthy relationship with the natural world. He states that this “middle path” is not the answer to all of our problems, but instead a way to create and awareness and mindset to better equip us for the troubles that lie ahead.

            While many of the ideas represented in the book offer up a more realistic approach to changing our interactions with nature than other idealistic projections, there were times when the ideas seemed to be too far outside the grasp of widespread societal change. I do, however strongly agree with the concept that if the definition of nature is changing than so must our interaction with it. If we just wait to find out what the trajectory of this interaction evolves to become then we are putting at risk our relationship with an essential part of life on our planet, human and otherwise. The managed wilderness of the past needs to be re-evaluated to ensure the continued success of protecting what is important. Ideas of belonging and value play strongly into this relationship and if people don’t harbor a passionate relationship with the natural world then they will not show that same passion in advocating for the world around them. To further complicate the interactions that occur on a daily basis, climate change is altering the world potentially faster than we can adapt. This makes the argument for a unified front even more critical.

Overall, I found this to be an interesting read that had me reflecting on my own values surrounding the idea of nature and the natural world. While I consider myself to be a fairly involved citizen, there is so much more that I can do to contribute to shaping ideas of a new environmentalism so as to develop a necessary co-existence of man and nature that can find balance. There has to be some give and take. Nature has been giving and man has been taking. This interaction desperately needs to change and it is refreshing to see new ideas that could change these interactions in the future.