I agree with the sentiment of not elevating selfish human desires over the health of an existing ecosystem. (But practically, there are many great ways to camp

I agree with the sentiment of not elevating selfish human desires over the health of an existing ecosystem. (But practically, there are many great ways to camp to minimize the habitat impact.) But defining "the health" of an ecosystem is tricky. An invading invasive species is better adapted after all, and it is part of nature. We need clearer understanding of what we mean by nature and what we are protecting. * Are we just trying to hold on to some moment of time in a dynamic ecosystem? Maybe. Protecting the status quo might be practical in terms of human survival, but this doesn't feel like a moral invariant that some people hold it up to be. * Are we protecting nature in proportion to its ability to feel pain? ... or sentience? ... over what perceptual time frame? * Practically, so far, when enough people like or find value in certain aspects of nature, we may see some collective action. As for me, I feel a deep connection with nature, and I recognize this most likely comes from us evolving alongside it. But I recognize my own bias; I care less about mosquitos than birds. And as to "home territory", mosquitos don't seem to constrain themselves to their homes, whatever that might be. They multiply in little spots of water and go forth seeking blood. To oversimplify, I value human life more than mosquito life. Malaria is a terrible disease. Is this human-centric? Yeah. Do I want humans to continue to grow and destroy nature (whatever that means) as we have done so far? Not really, but I don't know how to practically slow population growth nor development in a way that people will go for. It is a collective will and action problem on a global scale.