This critique if wilderness was difficult to critique because I agree with the authors positions. In relation to my knowledge of what is flawed about the concept of wilderness, the author covered all of the main points. However there were a few things I thought could have been improved upon.
I am not sure how I feel about the last examples given about whether or not the word wilderness should continue to be used. I wish they have given other alternatives to this dilemma as these seemed very one-sided. I don’t think that either are good arguments for what to do about the word wilderness, I wish the author had offered more alternatives or grey areas. While I don’t necessarily disagree with either argument entirely, but I definitely think that the first one, that the word should continue to be used so it’s origin is not forgotten, yet reclaimed, is the weaker argument. However, I think that replacing the word wilderness with biodiversity is not specific enough to the specific characteristics of wilderness.
I also took issue with some of the language and tone she used when mentioning the benefits of having wild spaces because they mediate some of human CO2 emissions. While they do act as a beneficial C02 sink, she didn’t mention that their power to mediate the effects of climate change as a carbon sink are mostly potential and there is a necessity to increase these sinks. I am worried that she over emphasized that benefit without mentioning the work that needs to be done in order to make it a reasonable climate change mediation tool.
Many artists are engaging in the critique of wilderness. Delving into this concept more allows me to have more insight into the work of these artists.