Abbey’s argument has two bases that I do agree on and the other that I can’t entirely agree with. He is right on the need to conserve the wilderness since we may have to seek refuge in the future, and secondly, I object because it’s not ideal to escape from the problems we created, but we should solve them. Comparing the current situation in politics and the time the book was written, a lot has changed. The political atmosphere has turned from good to worse as time goes, and excessive industrialization is taking over as well. Abbey fought to preserve the wildness from destruction. The argument shows that Abbey was right since man needs to find a less toxic place. Abbey’s ideology is about the safeguarding of the wilderness whereby man can retreat from the congested cities and injustices from the government.
The current world pandemic on the coronavirus is an example that man may seek refuge in the wilderness. People are dying globally, and it is for this reason that I think the world has turned from bad to worse as time goes on. Therefore, I do agree that it is high time that man seeks the wilderness since the other part of the world is in crisis.
On the other hand, I can’t entirely agree with Abbey’s argument in the sense that we cannot escape from our problems. The government needs to devise better methods of industrialization that are unharmful to the people. The authority of the government should ensure protection towards its citizen from injustices and other problems facing them. Abbey’s argument is about opposing modern capitalism that is destroying lands and harming the people.