"It’s tempting to see this as a good thing [...] That sense was soon tempered by the awareness that such change was only possible because of human death."
I disagree with this assertion. Perhaps it's only occurring right now because of a pandemic, but in general humans do not need to die in order for ambient noise to be lower or the air to be cleaner. Furthermore, creating an environment where birds can hear themselves is not tantamount to a "wilderness."
Cronon's take on "wilderness" makes sense in the context of his essay, but I think it may be tangential to what's at stake in this discussion. Rather than cultivating a "pure wilderness" in place of the city--ie, eradicating all traces of humanity, including humans themselves--those who praise the sound of birds are striving to cultivate a more inclusive garden. A world with fewer cars, fewer roads, more vegetarians, and, in fact, fewer people, would likely improve the lives of those who are here, both human and non-human. I think that's entirely worth striving for and should not be confused with letting packs of wolves roam the city or be described as "fetishization."
It seems like you may be acknowledging this idea with your question toward the end: "[W]hen life returns to “normal,” should the noise come back with it? Or can we imagine an alternate future that involves a more humane and balanced relationship between the noises of urban life and the noises of the nonhuman world?" I can certainly imagine it.
"It’s tempting to see this as a good thing [...] That sense was soon tempered by the awareness that such change was only possible because of human death."
I disagree with this assertion. Perhaps it's only occurring right now because of a pandemic, but in general humans do not need to die in order for ambient noise to be lower or the air to be cleaner. Furthermore, creating an environment where birds can hear themselves is not tantamount to a "wilderness."
Cronon's take on "wilderness" makes sense in the context of his essay, but I think it may be tangential to what's at stake in this discussion. Rather than cultivating a "pure wilderness" in place of the city--ie, eradicating all traces of humanity, including humans themselves--those who praise the sound of birds are striving to cultivate a more inclusive garden. A world with fewer cars, fewer roads, more vegetarians, and, in fact, fewer people, would likely improve the lives of those who are here, both human and non-human. I think that's entirely worth striving for and should not be confused with letting packs of wolves roam the city or be described as "fetishization."
It seems like you may be acknowledging this idea with your question toward the end: "[W]hen life returns to “normal,” should the noise come back with it? Or can we imagine an alternate future that involves a more humane and balanced relationship between the noises of urban life and the noises of the nonhuman world?" I can certainly imagine it.