We touched upon the hypocritical nature of McKibben on Wednesday, which has inevitably caused me to incessantly watch out for this trend throughout the book. One interesting idea that branches off of this hypocritical notion appears when Warren comments on the "Mocha" color of creek water. He asks if the "mocha color" is "right" (McKibben 68), because the color comes from carp, which are a foreign species introduced to that area. Warren's question draws attention to another question I've been trying to formulate. The question is "How much pure wilderness are we actually trying to protect, and is that protection actually different than cutting down trees or introducing new species into these areas?"

For example, McKibben makes claims about ways to fix the area and help stop interrupting nature, yet isn't the very intervening in the wild, even if it's well intended, intervening nevertheless? The field trip we are going on in a few weeks is to learn about the Adirondack Park and become more educated and appreciative members of society who will hopefully spread awareness about the Park and join McKibben in the struggle to save the Park. Yet, during that field trip, we will encroach upon nature, use indoor plumbing that contain pipes that cut through the Adirondack soil, and maybe even have a bonfire that will release carbon emissions into the air. Our activity there isn't that much different than cutting down a tree or releasing a new species into the region. 

It's a tough question because we want to help preserve the natural state of the wild, but at the end of the day it might not be any different than negatively encroaching upon the wild.