(Based on Paul Sutter, Driven Wild:
How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness
Movement,
and Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the
Countryside)
Are nature and technology opposites?
we fall into seeing them
that way, but they aren't
what I want to argue today
is that our current ideas about nature are a result of the automobile
in colonial times most
people saw wilderness as dark, dangerous, and horrible. Generally
resources were seen as inexhaustible, though there was occasional
concern about preserving resources (particularly forest) near towns
in Europe the environmental
movement has always concentrated on preserving farmland and managed
forests--nature carefully managed by human beings--there isn't any
untouched wilderness
Cars lined up to enter
Yellowstone in 1916
The
automobile made it possible for people to explore American scenery
Yosemite was preserved for public
use by a federal law in 1864 but initially turned over to the state of
California to administer, Yellowstone
was established in 1872 as the first national park, the National Park
Service was created until 1916
National Forests were
established in 1891, the Forest
Service in 1905, but with the goal of protecting timber for future
use
the idea of national parks
arose partly as a protest against an increasingly
capitalist culture--eg. don't cut down all the redwoods for timber or
divert all the water from Niagra Falls to make
electricity
Yellowstone and a few other
early parks were served by railroads,
but it was the automobile that
popularized traveling to see natural wonders
during and after WWI there
was an advertising campaign promoting the idea "see America
first"--it became a part of being
proud of being an American to see some list of famous sites
automobile tourism grew
rapidly in the 1910s and 1920s (along with the necessary infrastructure
such as motels and campgrounds)
as consumer culture became
stronger Americans attached a higher
value to doing something special with their leisure time and outdoor
recreation boomed in popularity along with nature tourism
people quickly began to
complain that when they went off in their automobile to get away from
it all they found themselves surrounded by automobiles and tourist
businesses
what are National Parks for--are
they for people to visit or are they to preserve nature?
Aldo Leopold,
who worked for the Forest Service, was one of the first people to begin
to talk about preserving wilderness, in a 1921 article on "The
Wilderness and its Place in Forest Recreation Policy"
pointed out the tension
between preservation and use
he defined wilderness as
land with no "roads, artificial trails, cottages, or other works of man"
should we preserve
wilderness for its own sake free from human use?
Similar issues arose when people
moved out of the city wanting a more rural environment and quickly
found themselves surrounded by roads and houses
concerns about this in the
late 1950s focused on preserving open space--conservation areas within
towns and
suburbs
US cities and suburbs were
growing by a million acres a year--starting in the 1960s the problem was often
called urban
sprawl
marshes were filled and
hills bulldozed, some builders argued explicitly that when houses had
yards there was no need for parks
conservationists fought to
preserve open space and wetlands