3 ms·

I don't think that's it. A lot of people find nature-—including barren landscapes--beautiful, and find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating. Prote

I don't think that's it. A lot of people find nature-—including barren landscapes--beautiful, and find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating. Protection of ecosystems and other living things is, of course, important. But that's not the only reason to protect at least parts of the natural world from human development. I don't claim that that these considerations should always (or even often) be decisive. But there is more going on than just resistance to change. Development of a pristine natural space destroys something of value, even when that space is barren. But, of course, it may create something of greater value. Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years. Once humans start digging and building there, we can't truly restore it to its former state. Maybe this is closer to mere resistance to change. But I think it's worth taking more seriously whether there is more to it than that. It's a much harder argument, though, when it's an environment that no living thing will ever really experience otherwise. Edit: I (and, I think, many others) believe that we would enjoy the experience of gazing out onto a martian or lunar landscape, generalizing from our experiences with environments on earth. But I suppose it's interesting to contemplate the possibility that we're wrong. I guess I can't rule out the possibility that some aspect of the experience on the moon or Mars could prevent it from scratching the same itch as, for example, a desert on earth. Edit 2: I recognize that these musings have basically nothing to do with TFA, which discusses scientists' concern over the potential destruction of sites with significant scientific value. They're certainly not just talking about the pretty views.

jessriedel 3y ago
> find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating As a justification for the rules people like, I don’t think that’s at all compatible with the frequency with which people actually partake in this, or their lack of concern with focusing on preserving the most valuable landscapes. > Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years I think this is not meaningfully different than what I said originally: resistance to change, period. It could be different if people had any sort of quantitative model for what sort of preservation our descendants would value, and how to trade that off against our current needs. But in practice no one does this, so it just becomes “don’t change anything”.

jessriedel 3y ago

> find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating As a justification for the rules people like, I don’t think that’s at all compatible with the frequency with which people actually partake in this, or their lack of concern with focusing on preserving the most valuable landscapes. > Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years I think this is not meaningfully different than what I said originally: resistance to change, period. It could be different if people had any sort of quantitative model for what sort of preservation our descendants would value, and how to trade that off against our current needs. But in practice no one does this, so it just becomes “don’t change anything”.