> It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource.
Of course, let's not forget that John Muir was the primary opponent of the O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy), which is a public resource (water supply for San Francisco).
Obviously, there are examples of protecting nature against private encroachment as well...but even if you set those aside, the core tension exists: we always have to prioritize between competing goals. Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong.
>Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake.
Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource. Preserving "nature for natures sake" is a much more modern argument.
>Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong.
Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong.
> Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource.
Sure, fine. I'm not trying to re-characterize Muir's beliefs for the sake of an argument. I'm agreeing that he had a reason to think nature itself was a public good. But then, so is the water supply. There's an inherent tension. Attempts to ignore this tension are over-simplifying the problem.
> Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong.
Maybe. It doesn't change the question of whether or not Hetch Hetchy should exist, or if cattle should graze on public lands, or any of a thousand other issues of the same shape that have existed forever.
Also, frankly, there are plenty of folks who think the benefits of mitigating global warming are not worth the costs: if you believe that there's any limit on what we might do to stop the phenomenon, then you're one of them. It's a continuum, and absolutist positions on either side of the issue are more heat than light.
As per usual, we will end up in some middle ground as a society that satisfies nobody completely.
Nature for natures sake is largely a straw man though. Factories prefer to dump waste into the air that people want to breathe. They want to dump waste into rivers people want to drink or fish from etc.
Protecting nature is both protecting ourselves and our interests. Sometimes extreme environmental harm comes with minimal benefit to anyone. Other times it’s the reverse where minimal harm results in vast benefits such as with the GPS network, generally it’s more balanced.
If anything the environmental argument is nature is extremely valuable, be sure the trade off is a net win for society.
Of course, let's not forget that John Muir was the primary opponent of the O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy), which is a public resource (water supply for San Francisco).
Obviously, there are examples of protecting nature against private encroachment as well...but even if you set those aside, the core tension exists: we always have to prioritize between competing goals. Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong.