4 ms·
> the idea that the wild is worth preserving is frankly a relatively recent one not entirely inaccurate, but an important distinction. People who had pre-indu
by mistrial9 3y ago
> the idea that the wild is worth preserving is frankly a relatively recent one
not entirely inaccurate, but an important distinction. People who had pre-industrial cultures (and probably some relationship to wild places) were systematically conquered and their lands taken, by militarized industrial civilizations.. this happened at various times in various places in the last 500 years. There are no places of note left that have not been treated this way.
So a preservation relationship to wild places among the civilizations established by military conquer, is relatively new.. agree
- vikramkr 3y agoGood point. The core of what i'm trying to get at with that statement is - in many of the regions where ecological restoration is a topic of conversation, stakeholders with power over restoration would only recently have begun to interact with the idea of ecological restoration being valuable in a way they have to take seriously (people have been fighting for the environment forever, but people with power to influence that caring about it is going to be novel), and are often coming from a perspective where the opposite, the exploitation of the environment as a desirable goal for mankind, has been mainstream for a long time.