Recently, I came across an article in the New York Times titled "Nature, Nusiance, or Worse?" In this article, a young woman from Berkely, California saw a turkey on her roof and "was initially charmed. Turkeys! In Berkeley! How quaint! How colonial!" However, she later realized that the Turkeys would become a nusiance if they arrived in large quantities. During mating season, male turkeys become very vicious, and will attack anything that moves with the sharp spikes on their legs. The author then went on to reference other animals that have been a nusiance in urban areas, such as "a deer who ate $300 worth of landscaping and a racoon who took a marshmallow from her neighbor." Her husband jokingly suggested that if a the turkeys became a nuisance, she should shoot them. And the woman actually took his suggestion seriously!
If Emerson were to meet this woman, he would probably tell her that the turkeys are actually doing a favor by letting her experience nature, something that doesn't often happen to people living in urban areas. "In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in the streets or villages," Emerson wrote in "Nature." These turkeys could help the woman discover something more "dear or connate" than her daily life in Berkeley.
In my opinion, the turkeys, deer, and racoons who "destroyed" components of urban life can help remind people what is really important. Is it really necessary to have a $300 landscaped yard? Does one marshmallow really matter? According to Walden, these trivial items do not fall under the essentials of life, which are "Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Fuel." By wanting to shoot the turkeys, Emerson and Thoreau would say that this woman is placing more importance on urban luxuries than nature and wildlife. Nature is something that is greater than us, part of the "bigger picture," while marshmallows and expensive landscaping are extremely insignificant.
