How Far Should We Go “Into The Wild”?

Last night, I watched “Into the Wild,” the movie (based on a book by Jon Krakauer) about a young man who graduates from college only to leave behind his family, friends, and society in general to live — and ultimately die — in the remote Alaskan wilderness. It’s a good story about our need to reconnect with nature. However, it raises some ethical issues for me.

When conservationists wrote the Wilderness Act of 1964, they defined wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” To me, the ethics of “leave no trace” are more important in wilderness than anywhere else on the planet, mostly because we have so few true wilderness areas left.

In the movie, the young man hitchhikes his way to Alaska, is dropped off at the end of a snow-covered service road, and begins trekking across the tundra with only a backpack, rifle, fishing net, machete, books on flora and fauna, and a few other necessities. Along the way, he stumbles upon an abandoned city transit bus that has been converted into a makeshift cabin, complete with stove, mattress, and other assorted knicknacks.

I don’t know if the area where the bus was located is actually designated wilderness area (it’s definitely public land, near Denali National Park). But it’s safe to say this bus doesn’t belong there. Whoever lived in it or used it before– presumably hunters, anglers, etc. — left it there as a piece of trash on public land, violating the “leave no trace” ethic. And I don’t care how simply you live, if you are making fires, consuming plants and game, burying your daily waste, and otherwise taking care of everyday needs, you are having an impact — no matter how small — on the land. Furthermore, if you are doing it without the proper licenses and permits, you are violating the law.

Even if this young man had not spent half a year living in these wilds — even if he had only spent a couple of weeks — he is clearly in the wrong, both legally and ethically.

The only reason I point this out is because the kid this story is based on is now a mythical figure in environmentalist/adventurist circles, and they don’t seem to see anything wrong with what he did. Also, this whole infatuation with visiting wilderness raises for me a fundamental question: Are there no sacred places left on Earth beyond the reach of man? With modern transportation, communications, technology, and the ability to survive otherwise deadly environments, have we become too adventurous for our own — and the planet’s — good?

I’ll be the first to admit I like visiting wilderness areas. But I’ll also admit it’s a selfish desire, not a need. Is my desire to fish or camp in wilderness areas — public land — really any less valid than some people’s desire to extract logs or oil from them. If we are going to ask some human activities to be off limits in the last intouched wilderness areas, shouldn’t we just say all activity should be off limits? There are simply too many other places that have already been trammeled by man and are managed for human contact for us to justify exploiting the remaining untouched areas for any purpose, no matter how personal or small. To me, the most ethical recreationists or nature lovers are the ones who accept the limits of man and put the resource first. We have swallowed up so much of the Earth’s resources already, should we devour them all? First it’s a bus in the wild. Then, it’s a book. Then, it’s a movie. Then, it’s throngs of people traveling to pay homage to the bus. Then, it’s a tourist destination for wannabe adventurers and hippies. Then, it’s no longer wild.

What is more important: Venturing into the wild, knowing that the minute you set foot in it, it is no longer untrammeled by man; or staying in places that are already trammeled by man, knowing that somewhere out there, places exist that man will never touch, where the true spirit of wilderness can remain for as long as our adventurous species will allow?

Many people will read the book or watch the movie about this young man and romanticize the notion of living in the wild. Some will try to emulate him. Are they really developing a deeper appreciation for nature by doing so, or are they simply adding to the problem of human intrusion into all corners of the Earth?

I know that this notion of “locking up lands” is a controversial one in my own circles, but I really think the notion deserves serious consideration, starting with ourselves.