Why We Should Protect Natural Areas

Abstract

Within environmental philosophy there has been much effort to determine precisely why we should protect wilderness and other natural areas. There have been many theories and much controversy. Should natural areas be protected for the sake of recreation and other benefits these areas provide to humans, the anthropocentric approach? Many ethicists prefer the biocentric approach, according to which natural areas should be protected for the sake of benefits these areas provide not only to humans, but also to other species. In this paper, I argue that we should adopt a more pragmatic perspective. The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of preserving natural areas and native biodiversity. This has been shown in a number of opinion surveys. I argue that the proper foundation for natural area preservation in the U.S. is the deep affinity many Americans feel toward natural areas and other species. Simply put, Americans love nature. Our response to nature is primarily emotional rather than intellectual. As surveys show, citizens believe that natural areas should provide a wide variety of benefits, benefits to humans and also benefits to other species. This should be expected and encouraged in our pluralistic society. There are no incorrect reasons why we should protect natural areas. Environmental policymaking in the U.S. is especially problematic since we must accommodate, as well as possible, the various uses citizens wish to see provided by federally owned natural areas.