Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
I present a philosophical account of wilderness called ‘Wilderness for Wildness’ (WfW). WfW makes two claims: wilderness is an area of relatively high wildness, and wilderness is valuable for its relatively high wildness. I motivate WfW by offering a crisp definition of wildness and arguing that the historical wilderness preservation movement celebrated this quality. I then demonstrate WfW’s resilience to common wilderness criticisms. In upshot, adapting preservation for today is needed to evaluate humanity’s appropriate ecological role in a planet of accelerating change. I close by sketching what the politics of ‘New Preservation’ might look like over the coming decades.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arthur R. Obst (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: