Humans often center their convictions of the world based on their own set of experiences

and interactions. In his essay False Idyll, J.B. MacKinnon argues that this mentality is what
causes people to see nature as irreproachable and idolize their distorted image of it. However,
although people often overestimate their knowledge and familiarity with the whole of nature, not
everyone who worships nature disregards its hazards as MacKinnon suggests. They often have
more complex reasons for doing so that go beyond finding it comforting and although their
image of nature may not be all-encompassing, it should not be called fake just because it was
influenced by humans.
MacKinnon discusses in his essay that humans tend to believe that nature always is
always generous. He suggests the cause of this to be because the works that have brought us
closest to nature

have depended on a more welcoming wilderness (MacKinnon, 3). It is true that

many see nature as harmonious partly due to how it is crafted together for us. Nature is too vast
to fit into a single poem or National Geographic segment, so instead we get a highlight reel filled
with herds of zebras collectively running across a savanna and vivid flowers blooming during
springtime. By combing through nature, separating the milder parts from the deadly ones, people
have been able to manipulate how nature is presented to us.
Just as MacKinnon says humans have been wrong to confine all of nature into one
narrow minded vision, it appears he is doing the same to people who idolize nature. His view is
mostly oriented towards those who have grown up in the more developed parts of the world
where people have altered their environment at a faster rate. However, not all groups of people
have lived such areas and some despite the human involvement in nature still face threats from
their surroundings from things such as natural disasters and invasive species. But when they do

become aware of the dangers, it does not stop them from finding a spiritual connection with
nature or idolizing certain aspects of it. For example, in parts of India and western Africa,
serpents are worshipped as divine (Wake, 374). Is this because, as MacKinnon suggests, they are
not aware of the threat they pose to humans and they see serpents are gentle and comforting? No,
they know. In fact, these regions inhabit numerous poisonous serpents and people have died from
their bites. And its not just serpents; things like thunder and volcanoes have been viewed as
sacred and have been incorporated into the mythology of various belief systems. These beliefs
often come from a complex symbolism they find beneath the threat it poses to them that allows
them to understand their natural world on a deeper level.
Another issue with the writers point of view is how he tries to distinguish what is an
authentic experience of nature and what is not. He essentially says that real nature is the part of
earth that has not been influenced by humans to be made hospitable to fit our needs.While it is
true people should recognize that the nature outside of the large territory that humans have paved
can be extremely hostile, however, how does one judge what is nature and what is not? Are
humans so different from other living things that the land they impact has to become categorized
separately from the other lands? It is difficult to think of a place that has been completely
untouched by anything to make it more habitable. For example, beavers have changed their
environment by building dams in order to protect themselves from predators. Yet, I doubt anyone
would say that beavers have not experienced real nature because they survive with the help of the
dam. This is why I find fault in MacKinnons argument that the problem with the accusation that
nature as [an] idol is a false one" (MacKinnon, 1). Human interaction with nature does not have

to be so incredibly threatening as he suggests in the essay with his own anecdote and Susan
Muellers in order to be valid.
Humans will continue to change the environment at a rapid pace, but it is difficult to
judge when people can stop calling the land we live on part of nature. One thing that is important
to note is that the human interactions with nature are varied and not all places on earth touched
by humans have been tamed and stripped of all their natural chaotic features. Spiritual
connections to nature do not have to be experienced a certain way to be validated as
life-changing. I believe that it is perfectly fine to find beauty in the tamer parts of nature as long
as we recognize that there is more to it than our own experiences. There lies a darker, barely
touched world that though more dangerous, should not be forgotten in conservation efforts.

Works Cited
MacKinnon, James Bernard. "Orion Magazine | False Idyll." Orion Magazine. N.p., 25 Apr.
2012. Web.
Wake, C. Staniland. "The Origin of Serpent-Worship." The Journal of the Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 2.No. (1873): 373-90. JSTOR. Web.