Abstract

Wilderness preservation is an important issue within the field of environmental ethics. In recent years wilderness has come under attack from people in a variety of different fields. These attacks would lead us to believe that wilderness as a concept is fatally flawed and that the practice of wilderness preservation is misguided. I examine some of the more important criticisms of wilderness coming from environmental philosophy, ecology, and environmental history. The legal-political practice of wilderness preservation reveals paradoxes about how wilderness is preserved. Recent work in ecology leads us to question whether wilderness can be preserved. Philosophical and historical critiques cast doubt on whether there is any such thing as wilderness to be preserved. We are forced to re-examine the metaphysical and scientific underpinnings and moral values of wilderness, but the arguments advanced against it are all found to be wanting. Three questions steer the discussion: What is wilderness? Why does wilderness have value? How should wilderness be protected? The concept of wilderness denotes an important distinction between the more-than-human world and ourselves. Wilderness can have value because it is a significant location of the value-adding properties of naturalness and wildness. Respecting naturalness and wildness can help steer scientific goals and wilderness policies