Kiara Girkins Snyder Response 1

On page 95, in reference to the Japanese way of conserving sacred places, Gary Snyder says, “But such compartmentalization is not healthy: in this patriarchal model some land is saved, like the virgin priestess, some is overworked endlessly, like a wife, and some is brutally publicly reshaped, like an exuberant girl declared promiscuous and punished. Good, wild, and sacred couldn’t be farther apart.” I like how Snyder connects this “compartmentalization” to a patriarchal ideals, it offers a clear, and often very true, idea of how humans view land. This idea of some land being saved and preserved because it is viewed as being pure and sacred can be seen all around the world. It is also no secret that much of the earth’s surface has been cultivated beyond saving, and some was not much appreciated from the beginning. However, my discontent with this statement lies in the question of how else do you do section off land? I understand that it is the notion of sectioning of land in general that he is dissuading against, but how can you not? There must be land that is used for agriculture, though certainly this can be done without destroying it, but you cannot avoid the need we have for land for living and farming. And as earth’s population continues to rise, the only way to ensure that some land is totally preserved is to section it off. I do not see a way around that however undesirable that may be. It is easy to question why we cannot live like people once did, so directly connected with nature, but this just simply is not possible because the world has far more people on it than it used to taking up far more space than it used to.

There are, however, ways in which we can preserve land from being permantly destroyed. Snyder says, “Doing horticulture, agriculture, or forestry with the grain rather than against it would be in the human interest and not just for the long run.” Gary Snyder is most certainly accurate with this statement. I mean, why try to fit a square peg into a round hole? Forcing nature to produce what is unnatural for itself can in no way help us in the long or short run. Just because a certain crop may be more profitable than another, you cannot try to force its production where it does not belong; You cannot grow oranges in open land in Michigan. Likewise, you cannot force a piece of land to produce more than it can support. Man kind would be far more productive if we stuck to producing what we’re best at producing. This economic theory of comparative advantage would not only benefit humanity in this next generation, but in generations to come. It’s like Snyder says, “What does mother nature do best when left to her own long strategies?” Though I cannot say myself, it might just be worth while enough to find out.