OP here
>>1168722Most people would argue the wilderness shouldn't be preserved because there is no strong utilitarian argument. That's the issue. Not sure if thats neo-marxist but im not schooled on that subject at all.
>>1168732>you seem to be saying that preserving nature is more important than preserving humanity. Is this right?Classic dichotomous variables. If people cant be allowed to rape 100% of the natural world than it is somehow 'putting naturee above humanity'. Almost all the founders of conversational thought and natural-world appreciation believed civilization to be important. It is the mark of a naturalist noob or primitivist nut to believe civilization is evil in all ways. But the urban need not sprawl into the rare and beautiful or the at risk of annihilation when there is plenty of world to cultivate and mine and develop. It is unrestrained development that is the issue, and quite obviously unsustainable. Humans will either have to stop developing the natural world because nothing is left or they will stop developing the natural world before there is nothing left. Which future is truly more preferable?
