When people fought to save the Hetch Hetchy Valley or the Grand Canyon, they couldn't necessarily give an effective answer to the question: "Why?"

• one set of arguments motivates the activists--often radical arguments
  
• what arguments (probably different ones) are politically effective?
• example of an argument that is not good politics: Garrett Hardin said he would support the existence of one redwood tree over one baby (p. 240)
  

How do you answer the people who oppose wilderness preservation? 
First look at why they oppose wilderness preservation:
Eric Hoffer
-Because wilderness benefits only a small elite group
-Because human needs should come first ahead of plants and animals

-Because conquering nature is what human beings are all about
-Because wilderness will inevitably give way to civilization
-In an ideal world technology would allow human beings to: "wipe out the jungles, turn deserts and swamps to arable land, terrace barren mountains, regulate rivers, eradicate all pests, control the weather, and make the whole land mass a fit habitation for man."  Eric Hoffer (Nash, p. 241)
 -Convert random nature into a carefully managed garden (and zoo)--nature does not always know best
 -Most people prefer landscapes that have been modified by human intervention--at least roads and trails, maybe even cable cars to allow more people to enjoy the mountain (promoting scenery and natural beauty, but not wilderness)

-if we cause problems we can use technology to fix them
eg. we don't have to worry about running out of oil because scientists and engineers will come up with a solution
environmentalists will argue that isn't always possible--we will have to change our lifestyle

What assumptions are we making in this course?

• the main solution to environmental problems is government action
• the way to get the government to act is by changing public opinion (because public opinion makes a difference)
  
• people care about nature, want to preserve the natural environment
  
• technology should continue to progress and will give us more control over our environment, and it is possible to use that for good, but we cannot count on technology to solve all our problems

What are the assumptions of the people who oppose wilderness preservation:

• it is the nature of civilization (of human beings) to conquer wilderness and control nature
• human needs are more important than ecosystems or animals
• we human beings can figure out how to do things better than the natural way (we can improve on nature)
• (people who want to preserve wilderness value unimproved nature)
  

opposite view: new constitution in Ecuador says ecosystems have an unalienable right to exist and flourish

Do we really want to be purists about preserving wilderness?
or will we do best if we find a middle ground?

Should we save the California Condor?

• it had developed to eat the megafauna
• it was on its way to extinction before Europeans arrived
• if we save it we are interfering with natural processes
• or would our world be diminished if we let this bird go extinct?
• or would that be too much like a zoo--an artificial natural world (a human-controlled natural world)
• essential contradiction--as soon as we intervene to help nature we are acting to control the natural world
• 
  
• we probably want to intervene in nature to undo damage we did, but how far to go before it isn't natural any more
  
• if we manage the wilderness have we saved it or destroyed it?
  

If you do favor wilderness preservation, should you argue that preserving wilderness is in the best interests of human beings (utilitarian/consequentialist and anthropocentric arguments)?

• because wilderness experience is something human beings need
• the scarcer wilderness becomes the more valuable it is (scarcity theory of value)
• civilization has brought problems as well as benefits
• natural ecosystems provide services to human beings--store carbon, clean up pollution...
  
• if our technology gets out of hand we could wipe out life on earth
• wilderness has things of value to human beings (the "medicines from the rain forest" argument)

Or should we think beyond human utility (non-anthropocentric and deontological/rule-based, such as (deep ecology) ?

• wilderness has the right to exist for its own sake
  
• wilderness should have rights
• the earth does not belong to human beings--stewardship
• humility--don't be so arrogant as to think we can make nature better
  
• restraint is a good thing (do you believe that "everything we can do we should do " ?)
• if we control nature there won't be any place where evolution takes place in natural conditions
• Aldo Leopold: The first rule of successful tinkering is to save all the parts (as species go extinct we are losing parts)
  
• wilderness helps keep alive the idea of human freedom
• how do you give wilderness standing in court?  who has the right to sue?
  

---

---