maybe i'm overthinking here but i was contemplating the purpose of "[state name] department of natural resources" in the US as kind of... ick? like by dubbing it that we're calling all the living creatures/wildlife a resource to be used, right? do you think thats a sensible reaction? and if so, that we'll ever be able to convert those agencies to ones that dont focus on hunting/fishing permits and how wildlife can benefit people? or is it more realistic to assume that people are far too (1/2)
(2/2) unlikely to care about wilderness if it isnt something they can enjoy? it reminds me of how teddy roosevelt established the national park system and set all this land aside so it couldnt be destroyed, but then he hunted on it. sorry, got kinda ranty there, but ive been thinking about this for a while. thanks for your time acti!!
I don’t think you’re over-thinking at all, this is an observation that many ecologists have made about how the state and the general public views conservation. Too often the environmental arguments amount to economic ones, i.e. we must preserve this space or this species because of the benefits they offer humans. The state absolutely does see nature as a natural resource to be exploited, and unfortunately in an effort to appeal to the state, conservationists have ended up having to argue on those terms just to be taken seriously.
There is very little work even among conservationists on the importance of preserving the natural world just because to do is a moral imperative. There is an excellent book that discusses this at some length, The Moth Snowstorm by Michael McCarthy. It’s a really accessible read and essentially offers an environmental argument based on joy, which is a really refreshing view of the topic. I’d thoroughly recommend checking it out.