I think this is badly oversimplified and is maybe showing your own bias a bit -- though I'm probably going to struggle to address it without showing mine in tur

I think this is badly oversimplified and is maybe showing your own bias a bit -- though I'm probably going to struggle to address it without showing mine in turn (and maybe it's just mine reading it in your comment). Your "Blue wilderness restrictions", writ large, are exactly based on a recognition that > nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. I think the policy differences arise downstream from that. Questions like, how to handle competing resource needs; how to manage current or future scarcity; and ultimately some disagreement about whether these questions even need to be asked (i.e. is scarcity of X actually a problem?)