?1. Roderick Nash’s views on wilderness to some extent carry on the views that Aldo Leopold started. Nash seems to allow for more of mankind’s management of wilderness if it is to survive the future. Leopold wanted for mankind to be a member of the wilderness. I think this is an idealistic view that cannot be attained at this stage of civilization. Nash’s view is more realistic considering the course civilization has taken. The majority of mankind will not go back to join in the wilderness and take its place there. Leopold was an inspiration for Nash, who as a young student gathered documents that later became the Aldo Leopold Papers at the University of Wisconsin. Leopold set the groundwork for the necessity of mankind to take an active interest in preserving wilderness. Nash, by his own admission, came along when the world was ready to be changed in its views of wilderness. Nash believes civilization must manage the wilderness for the future benefit of mankind. The practice of trying to just let the wilderness be is not working because humans will never leave wilderness alone. Humans are accustomed to being dominant over nature. Humans must find a way to co-exist with the wilderness by allowing civilization to occupy certain areas of the earth and wilderness areas designated in other areas. Leopold believed in an ecological conscience which promotes respect for all forms of life and for mankind to realize that all plants and animals on earth are interdependent. Man cannot survive if it eradicates wilderness. I believe aspects of both Nash and Leopold’s theories should be employed in the preservation of wilderness areas of the earth. There is no one answer but mankind must become headed in the right direction because there is always more success in maintaining any natural resource than in attempting to reclaim it. 2. Many countries have followed in the United States’ footsteps with wilderness management practices. This is