3 ms·

in practice, the current fight against conservation of nature (on the grounds of humans having lived in the given area or having influenced it - a popular argum

by yosefk 2y ago

in practice, the current fight against conservation of nature (on the grounds of humans having lived in the given area or having influenced it - a popular argument today) will do nothing except destroying what's left of it. the fact that people once used to live "in nature" without doing major damage doesn't mean that today's people with access to today's tools are likely to live like that. regardless of the past, in the present, designating areas as off limits to people is the most likely way to preserve nature by far. (There might be a counterargument to this; I have not found it in the article)

ddulaney 2y ago
I think the person you were replying to was making a slightly different point. They were talking about Wilderness as a legal designation in the US, as distinct from wilderness as a concept. When an area is designated as a Wilderness, that requires a certain style of management that might or might not be appropriate for the area and is very hard to change. More flexible management options are often a good thing, and there are lots of options for managing federal lands (NRAs, NCAs, etc) that don’t come with the strict rules of a Wilderness but are still pretty limited in what they allow. Non-Wilderness designations do mean having to place more trust in the people on the ground and the agencies involved. You might or might not think that’s appropriate. But what OC and the article both say is that we have to make those decisions with the mindset that “no management” isn’t the default or best option, and often people hear the word “wilderness” and assume that it is.
- yosefk 2y ago
  It's a valid point, though I don't think the article says it (OC does.) The question is if changing the designation will actually do more good than harm. My skepticism here is completely uninformed and if there's a track record of beneficial changes then I am wrong

by yosefk 2y ago

ddulaney 2y ago

I think the person you were replying to was making a slightly different point. They were talking about Wilderness as a legal designation in the US, as distinct from wilderness as a concept. When an area is designated as a Wilderness, that requires a certain style of management that might or might not be appropriate for the area and is very hard to change. More flexible management options are often a good thing, and there are lots of options for managing federal lands (NRAs, NCAs, etc) that don’t come with the strict rules of a Wilderness but are still pretty limited in what they allow. Non-Wilderness designations do mean having to place more trust in the people on the ground and the agencies involved. You might or might not think that’s appropriate. But what OC and the article both say is that we have to make those decisions with the mindset that “no management” isn’t the default or best option, and often people hear the word “wilderness” and assume that it is.

yosefk 2y ago
It's a valid point, though I don't think the article says it (OC does.) The question is if changing the designation will actually do more good than harm. My skepticism here is completely uninformed and if there's a track record of beneficial changes then I am wrong