In the face of increasing political pressure calling for the reduction of protections of our natural monuments, how do we argue for the objective importance of natural spaces? Is beauty alone enough to justify the opportunity cost of forgoing projects that, while hurting the environment, would potentially allow us to exploit our own resources and be less dependent on other nations?
Many conservationists would argue yes- the natural beauty of these spaces is reason alone for their protection. When people see the beauty of nature, they are inspired spiritually, artistically, and scientifically. Natural beauty and diversity is what motivates some of the greatest movements of scholarship in human history, from the American Transcendentalist movement to Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. For many, however, aesthetics alone is not a justifiable reason to preserve certain landscapes. Recently, Ryan Zinke, current Secretary of the Interior, has recommended either downsizing or opening to commercial activity certain national monuments in the West. If Trump follows these recommendations, it could be the largest change to existing monuments by any US president.
These landscapes are valuable, and they are currently at risk. It is not their beauty alone that gives several of these sites value. Bear Ears National Monument, created only recently and facing downsizing, is home to several Native American sacred sites and former occupations. In the Pacific Remote Islands, having a space free from commercial fishing allows certain fish greater ability to reproduce, which actually benefits and helps to replenish the fisheries in the surrounding area. While it is important to ensure that America has a stable food and timber supply, it is equally as important to ensure the protection of historic monuments, sacred spaces, and the conservation of our resources, so that they might be available for generations to come.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/national-monuments-shrink-trump/
Many conservationists would argue yes- the natural beauty of these spaces is reason alone for their protection. When people see the beauty of nature, they are inspired spiritually, artistically, and scientifically. Natural beauty and diversity is what motivates some of the greatest movements of scholarship in human history, from the American Transcendentalist movement to Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. For many, however, aesthetics alone is not a justifiable reason to preserve certain landscapes. Recently, Ryan Zinke, current Secretary of the Interior, has recommended either downsizing or opening to commercial activity certain national monuments in the West. If Trump follows these recommendations, it could be the largest change to existing monuments by any US president.
These landscapes are valuable, and they are currently at risk. It is not their beauty alone that gives several of these sites value. Bear Ears National Monument, created only recently and facing downsizing, is home to several Native American sacred sites and former occupations. In the Pacific Remote Islands, having a space free from commercial fishing allows certain fish greater ability to reproduce, which actually benefits and helps to replenish the fisheries in the surrounding area. While it is important to ensure that America has a stable food and timber supply, it is equally as important to ensure the protection of historic monuments, sacred spaces, and the conservation of our resources, so that they might be available for generations to come.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/national-monuments-shrink-trump/
