There is a worrying trend I think (here in Scotland at least) that many people are seeing nature as only valuable when it directly serves some specific human need - for example mountain biking trails through woodland - and wilderness for its own sake is not taken seriously. Then as you say, there are all kinds of questions about the purpose of advertising nature
Thanks for commenting! I see a similar trend in most US wilderness history. We set aside a wilderness "for its own sake" and then people want to go there and see it.... and be comfortable... and get a safe adrenaline rush... and earn a living... and...
A lot to think about here. I think there is a lot of unexplored research that could help conservation groups make a much better case for wilderness for its own sake, and for ours. Potential.
Thanks. We all need to hear from people, whose ideas about economics are not conventional. The indoctrination we recevied in in ECON 101-103 has led us to point where we can't see what's right in front of our eyes.
Re advertising: Iconoclastic economist John Kenneth Galbraith questioned its role 50 years ago, wondering how supply and demand, as popularly conceived and taught, could be useful if the producers were able to stimulate substantial demand via advertising. Didn't that make rational actor economics invalid, or at least suspect? I don't interpet Galbraith to mean that there should be no advertising, but to be directing our attention to the bigger questions (as you do here).
The recent SCOTUS decision validating bribery makes it clear that we are facing powerful people who believe that everything (and everyone) has a price. To them, that is the "natural story." After all they y have a price. Why wouldn't you or I?
There is a worrying trend I think (here in Scotland at least) that many people are seeing nature as only valuable when it directly serves some specific human need - for example mountain biking trails through woodland - and wilderness for its own sake is not taken seriously. Then as you say, there are all kinds of questions about the purpose of advertising nature
Thanks for commenting! I see a similar trend in most US wilderness history. We set aside a wilderness "for its own sake" and then people want to go there and see it.... and be comfortable... and get a safe adrenaline rush... and earn a living... and...
A lot to think about here. I think there is a lot of unexplored research that could help conservation groups make a much better case for wilderness for its own sake, and for ours. Potential.
Thanks. We all need to hear from people, whose ideas about economics are not conventional. The indoctrination we recevied in in ECON 101-103 has led us to point where we can't see what's right in front of our eyes.
Re advertising: Iconoclastic economist John Kenneth Galbraith questioned its role 50 years ago, wondering how supply and demand, as popularly conceived and taught, could be useful if the producers were able to stimulate substantial demand via advertising. Didn't that make rational actor economics invalid, or at least suspect? I don't interpet Galbraith to mean that there should be no advertising, but to be directing our attention to the bigger questions (as you do here).
The recent SCOTUS decision validating bribery makes it clear that we are facing powerful people who believe that everything (and everyone) has a price. To them, that is the "natural story." After all they y have a price. Why wouldn't you or I?
How will wilderness fare if they come to power?