A fine appreciation of Wallace Stegner by Timothy Egan.
Everywhere else, though, Stegner has grown in stature. For starters, there are rivers undammed, desert vistas unspoiled and forests uncut in the wondrous West because of his pen.
He influenced several presidents, from Kennedy to Clinton, to see that “something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed,” as he wrote.
How many writers of fiction can make that claim?
February 18th was the 100th anniversary of Stegner’s birth.
OR
the west has been forced to suffer the economic punishment of under-development to assuage the desire to have a wilderness “out there” somewhere.
A devil’s compromise at best given that 90% of urban dwellers will never experience that “wilderness” that can provide no social services to it’s economically disadvantaged populations, whose profit from what exploitation of resources was accomplished went back east to the same folks who now want to lock it up for future generations under various “preserves.”
That same 90% of urban dwellers would never believe the basic services they take for granted are not available to most rural dwellers. Health care, education, job choice, all supported on the investments that western profit made available to the east.
Now that they have achieved a degree of social stability they want to lock down further development to preserve it for their children. They went through their resources, they went through our resources, and now it needs preserving. And the best we can offer in exchange is gaming at casinos.
Having raised a family out here I was struck by the disparity in health services available, the generally lower quality of education, the narrowing career fields available to my sons. While constantly watching every development project run into increasingly heavy burdens of proof for environmental impact.
Where was this stifling of capitalism when US Steel blackened the skys to make Pittsburgh rich?
We have a nation that is at substantially different levels of development. Visit a reservation to visit the third world. Water development will make the desert bloom, energy development gives us high paying jobs; yet the legal bars are set so high that only multi-nationals can afford the teams of lawyers needed to get through the qualification process. Which means continuing to ship our profits elsewhere.
We cannot have viable communities consisting of just retirees – our children need a future, too.
Emmett makes some valid points, but includes some ideas that I question. He asks, “Where was this stifling of capitalism when US Steel blackened the skys to make Pittsburgh rich?”
Having also spent most of my life in The West, and having raised my family here with said limited resources, I have always been more than willing to make the trade of controlled capitalism and its disadvantages in order to preserve our wilderness. I shudder to think of Yellowstone, The Grand Canyon, or Yosemite resembling Pittsburgh in any way. They can keep the wealth, I’ll take the vast open skies and breathtaking landscapes any day.
For all the good such unbridled growth did the cities in the east…. Many of them are now filthy, decaying, and crime-ridden hell-holes. The wealth is spent, and only the shell of their past glory remains.
Thankfully, that can not be said of the portions of the western states where nature has been preserved. Much of it is still as beautiful as it ever was, and will remain so, thanks to some visionaries who realized the natural treasures we owned collectively and took actions to conserve them.
There is, after all, only so much water one can pump from the ground before the land becomes a vast wasteland. The western states would never have been able to sustain that sort of unchecked growth. The money would have been gathered, then spent, and all that would be left for future generations to explore would be the question, “How could our ancestors have been such awful stewards of the land? Didn’t they realize the cost?”
Interesting comments.
But Debby, my dear sister, is the contrast simply between your “vast open skies and breathtaking landscapes” and “filthy, decaying, and crime-ridden hell-holes.” Are there no breathtaking landscapes east of the Mississippi? Is there no unsustained and unchecked growth in the west? Ever been to Shenandoah or Acadia national parks? Ever been to Chandler, Arizona?
And Emmett, is your argument not more rural-urban, rather than east-west? And which resources in the west, that would help the people in the west, are being kept from development by the creation of wilderness areas? How would chopping down more trees, drilling more wells, building more roads, make life better after the trees are gone, the wells are dry, and the roads are paved?
City vs. country is an old argument. Neither side is right. It’s a matter of choice. You choose to live where the schools are better because there’s a tax base and education is a priority, or you don’t. You choose to breath clearer air because the spaces are wide open, or you don’t. You choose to walk to the library and the coffee shop, or you don’t. You choose to drive everywhere, or you don’t.
These are choices not value judgements.
A great deal of this comes down to east-west, but only because the east was developed first and had the capital to invest.
But I never hear anyone of our bleeding hearts (if you’ll forgive) ranting about “exploitation” when we start talking about the US unless there is an indigenous resident involved.
Yet according to a national healthcare ranking system I accessed recently, of five available stars for a facility, not one in the states between Texas and California ranked better than three. Education is worse.
And as for those “hell holes” I think a quick tour will also reveal world-class museums, developed former industrial waterfronts, and a level of social services unheard of out west.
Colorado and the Dept. of Forestry has repeatedly clear-cut the area I spent a good part of my youth in, it looks exactly like it did when I grew up there, despite the ranting of those who would “preserve” it. Pines grow like grass, whatever would be the point of just letting it grow?
And I do not argue for raping and pillaging; I argue for responsible stewardship of resources.
Preserved in perpetuity is not stewardship.
And as for choice, I would argue with a minimal educational system your competitive ability is distinctly marginalized, making living in the country sometimes less choice than we would like.
Here’s another variation of our discussion: Raising Kids in the City or the Suburbs? – Motherlode Blog.
Me again…. Oh, goody, a dialogue!
My earlier comments were aimed at Emmett’s cry for more exploitation of nature. Or, to some degree, for financial gain vs. preserving our wilderness areas.
My comments about the “hell-holes” referred to what is left behind after an area has been exploited and used up. Many once beautiful areas (and cities) are now in a state of devastation and decay. When industry lasts a while, and infrastructures are built, the cities can be appealing, but once the money dries up, what is left behind? Yes, there are some gorgeous places in the east and some ugly ones in the west. I wasn’t debating that issue at all.
Meanwhile, I haven’t had time to explore the article about raising kids in the city or suburbs, but I did neither–I raised mine in somewhat remote rural areas. My kids didn’t have all the advantages of kids in wealthier cities, and they don’t have as much income potential now as a result, but after experiencing city life, both of them want to continue living (and raising their kids) in the country. They don’t seem to regret at all that they were raised in the wild places of nature–in fact they are happy that they were. Quality of life takes on different forms for different people. I have happily given up the museums for the redwoods, so to speak, and I hope the greed for more development never overtakes the wilds–they are vanishing too fast as it is. And I will happily use less energy to save the polar bears and whales!
I’ll repeat a story I’ve told before;
I’m at SolarFiesta waiting to talk to a geothermal guy. While I am waiting I am engaged by his wife, turns out both (mid-50s) are from Denmark.
She casually comments that while geothermal is a very clean (if one disregards the mess of drilling) she doesn’t understand why people are struggling to pay heating bills in New Mexico since coal is standing at every cut bank in the highway.
A couple months worth of heat in a pickup load. Not globally commercially viable, but certainly plenty for local needs. Denmark ran on coal for decades. So did most of Europe.
And yet should one file a permit to mine coal, one doesn’t deal with the local community to discuss local issues. You are going to face knee-jerk opposition from across the nation, every environmental group coast to coast is going to throw money into opposing you.
Well fine, if our future is to be the rainforest of the United States and our future is in eco-tourism (which seems to be all the rest of the nation wants to leave us) how do we subsidize that status?
Instead we get policy statements like this one from Washington which basically say we aren’t worth investing in.