Revision

Siebert suggests that human “concern...[is] ultimately.. rooted in that most human of impulses- the preservation of our own self-image” (537). Humans become so involved in maintaining an illustration they become oblivious to the reality of the situation humans are in. Abram believed that the experience of ridding yourself of human influence comes from understanding the connection “between the human community and the larger community” (5). The “larger community” pus the “the human community” into perspective. Humans need to visualize themselves affecting others. Although these two communities are separate they play a vital role in defining each other. The reality about the wilderness and the human nature may be too raw for some people to handle. Indeed it is the opposite end of the spectrum, Krakauer presents a case where the reality about the rawness of the wilderness was not this person’s cup of tea. McCandless, who escaped from human civilization to learn about human capabilities admits that he was “ prepared to forgive their [human] imperfections; maybe he was even prepared to forgive some of his own. MaCandless was ready to go home” (353). The reflection that McCandless saw of himself and humans made him realize that humans are harsh but he wilderness is no less. They are similar in that they have their own “imperfections” but still have the ability to define each other.