I’m unsure of what TTW means by “wild,” too. But I haven’t finished the book. Maybe illumination upon her intentions will arise in the remaining pages.

The horse disappeared overnight, then came back the next day and made his choice official. He chose to stay with the ranchers. Something about this ability to make a choice somehow felt like it was over arching the idea of wildness. It was as if wildness, or domestication, is only one part of animals’ lives. I couldn’t help but wonder if intelligence was more important- or more lasting- or something- than wildness or lack of wildness. I just started thinking about this, and I thought I would drop some ideas here.

I’m very interested in the agency of animals. Clearly they manifest it, in spite of many humans’ assertions to the contrary. My belief in animals’ ability to choose is one of the reasons I use the term “human agency” rather than “free agency” when talking about how important a role the ability to exercise choice plays in developing human intelligence, implying in the phrase that other kinds of agency exist outside the human-centric perspective. I believe that animals’ abiliy to choose plays a vital role in the development of individual animals’ intelligence as well as in the overall success of species, just as it does with human beings.

Humans’ ability to ignite and engage agency in other creature is one of the great frontiers existing between us and other species. I’m talking about relation that goes well beyond simply provoking flight or fight in other beings. Right now, in my opinion, we’re wading the shallow end of that pond.

To my thinking, the real frontier, the really wild wilds? The frontier that opens in vital engagement of relation, be it between people or between people and members of other species.

A very, very interesting statement:

Simply to say we are empowered with the superb and unique ability to refrain from doing.

Action that is non-action. Hmm, hm. What does that remind me of?

There are innumerable tasks now within the grasp of human power that need nothing so much as circumspection, restraint, and all due intelligent consideration. Too much that leads to net detriment gets done merely because someone could do it, and took no further thought about future consequence.

Ok, now I understand what you’re saying. Thank you for explaining further.

We human beings do many things because we can without thinking about how our “doing” affects others downstream, in the genetic currents, the social currents, the rhetorical currents, the chrono-currents, etc. The inability to foresee effects in the rhetorical downstream that many contemporary writers of environmental and natural history literature display in their writing is one of the complaints I make against their heavy tread in the rhetorical environment.

Yes, I think the cognitive skill of learning how to imagine the effects of one’s actions upon other people, creatures, times, and places is one of the markers of progressive higher intelligence.

And possibly one of the markers of love.

I followed up on this thread with a quick survey, and get the impression that prairie dogs (Cynomys genus) are the subject of quite a bit of scrutiny from the biological sciences. So I am unsure of what TTW intended. The genus attracts interest especially because of their social structure. I note that they get a lot of study in Utah. There is a large exhibit at Salt Lake’s Hogle Zoo dedicated to the Utah species.

I intended nothing so mysterious. Simply to say we are empowered with the superb and unique ability to refrain from doing. There are innumerable tasks now within the grasp of human power that need nothing so much as circumspection, restraint, and all due intelligent consideration. Too much that leads to net detriment gets done merely because someone could do it, and took no further thought about future consequence.

If you’re a bundle of wonder, like me.

Jim,

I have the impression that the term “wild” has been taken to be “unmanaged”. The degree to which something lives without human intervention.

I like how you apply that phrase, “been taken to be.” There’s an implication there of something having been shanghaied.

So I guess that, given your impression, humans cannot be considered “wild” in any sense of the word. Except maybe in some of the old root senses: “bewildered,” “astray,” “giddy,” “confused” (Oxford English Dictionary).

In that respect, there is no wholly “wild” thing any longer.

And yet, TTW called the prairie dogs who had not been studied “wild.” What do you think she meant?

The question remains as to how we should categorize human intervention. Are we ourselves “natural”?

I really like this question. Do you have an opinion on the matter?

Your second comment is rather mysterious. Do you have something particular in mind when you say, “rather than ask if we can, mankind needs to learn how to ask if we should”?

In learning of nature, we have surpassed the mark in so many categories. Now, rather than ask if we can, mankind needs to learn how to ask if we should.

I have the impression that the term “wild” has been taken to be “unmanaged”. The degree to which something lives without human intervention. In that respect, there is no wholly “wild” thing any longer. The breadth and scope of human interference with “natural” process cannot be minimized. We reign ubiquitous, if not benevolent.

The question remains as to how we should categorize human intervention. Are we ourselves “natural”? Obviously some think not — perhaps because man possess the power to change the course of nature at will, as no other force of creation.