Abstract

Some environmentalist writers argue human flourishing depends on rich engagement with wild ecosystems and biodiversity, such that inadequate conservation would undermine our prospects for happiness. To succeed, arguments of this kind must specify a connection between flourishing and ecological engagement that can accommodate happiness' diverse manifestations while also being sufficiently particular to require well-protected ecosystems. I argue these conditions cannot both be met. It is true that nature enriches our lives, that much of its value comes from engagement with wilderness and biodiversity, and that conservation often is a sound investment. But humans can flourish in many ways that do not involve rich relationships with nature, and meaningful ecological engagement can occur even in degraded and urbanized environments. By acknowledging these possibilities, conservationists can advocate for nature without pigeonholing themselves as proselytes for a narrow conception of the good life.