Described+by+Katrin+MacPhee

Katrin MacPhee English 2773 April 8th 2010 __Encounters with the Archdruid II: An Island__ This week, I read the second part of McPhee’s three-part profile of David Brower, Friends of the Earth leader, and ex head of the Sierra Club, arguably the most famous conservationist in the world. Like the first part of the profile, this article was structured as a lengthy encounter between Brower and a would-be rival of his, Charles Fraser, developer superstar. In this case, the two, along with McPhee, travel around Cumberland Island, one of the few Georgian Atlantic coast islands that had yet to be developed at the time, led by one of the island’s eleven residents. The island is quite large, a third larger than Manhattan, and contained some of the last undeveloped beaches on the Atlantic coast, along with many miles of precious marsh lands and ancient Native burial grounds. Several things struck me about this article. The first was, I don’t think that David Brower came off quite as strongly as he did in the first part of the profile. The beginning to the piece is riveting-McPhee quotes a lengthy section of Brower’s conservation “sermon” that he typically gives when asked to speak to a group. The speech is powerful, as is Brower’s language when he speaks of all the senseless development happening all over America. However, once on the island, Brower seems to agree with Fraser’s plans for development. When drinking (which McPhee describes the two of them doing quite frequently), Brower says he would allow 20 000 people to live on the island. It shocked me that Brower could be so pro-development, especially on such a precious piece of wilderness that has not been fundamentally altered from its form “when the Indians saw it.” Indeed, throughout the piece Brower seems quite open to development on the island, so long as it is done by a developer who pays as much attention to beauty as Fraser. McPhee seems to scramble to defend Brower in this respect-saying that he likes to spend some time in a place before forming a strong opinion about it, and to what extent humans should be allowed to influence it. Why does there need to be a compromise at all? Why shouldn’t this area by fought for, as much as the regions that Brower has defended vehemently in the past? Doesn’t he care about the valuable wildlife that will be destroyed for the areas to be developed as much as he cares about other regions, for instance, the Cascades mountains? Is it just because he has a more emotional connection to the region? If this is the case, are his conservationist views more emotional than anything? Not that this is a bad thing, because I don’t accept that cool logic is a better “way of knowing” than emotions are. Still, this would be ironic, especially since environmentalists are often accused of being emotional/irrational. This might actually be the case with Brower, as he openly admits that many of the “facts” he lectures with are vague calculations. I was not as convinced by Fraser’s arguments as Brower apparently was. I don’t believe that all land should be put to the “best possible use,” especially if this anthropocentric theory means draining wetlands to put in a playground. Best possible land for what? For humans. Wildlife conservation is not really a factor in the equation. If it is, it is only being considered in terms of its beauty, and hence, its utility to humans. Apparently, nature does not have the right to exist for its own sake. If anyone is sympathizable in this piece, it is Candler, the local guide. He, more than either of the others, seems to have a more profound respect for the land. I also admire his restraint-he holds back his obviously strong views about conservation, perhaps to avoid direct confrontation. Lastly, I thought it was sadly ironic that, in the end, it didn’t actually matter which side won control of the island. If Fraser had been allowed to develop it, it may have been largely destroyed. However, it was actually not much better off as a national park. According to McPhee, it would become a new “Yosemite,” largely visited and damaged by tourists.