[dkarl]

I feel extremely conflicted reading something like this. On one hand, everything you said is technically true. On the other hand, when I think of who benefits politically from debunking the myth of wildness, it's the people who want to allow unlimited private exploitation of public lands, log and mine national parks, and act like any place with rocks and trees is of equal value to any other place with rocks and trees.

In truth, the idea of wilderness is a useful heuristic that simplifies incredibly complex questions about the functioning of ecosystems and their worth to us.

Labeling it a myth is a way of destroying its value as a heuristic without offering any replacement, leaving people unable to explain and defend policies that prevent unchecked commercial exploitation of public lands.

[shreyshnaccount]

The alternative is to not only learn from, appreciate, and re-install traditional and indigenous practices in conservation efforts as much as possible, but also try and expand our idea of nature to include the conservation of species in landscapes that do not conform to the traditional sense of pristine wilderness.

It is about respecting those who live on the planet with us, and the wilderness myth allows the people you speak about exploit everything other than a very narrow idea of what is wild, and valuable.

While the heuristic is useful for, say, a rainforest eco-system, it actively de-values the plains/ grasslands/ marshes ecosystems just because they do not conform to the ideal we think about when we think about wilderness.

[Tiktaalik]

Acknowledging prior indigenous use of the land doesn't necessarily have to lead to an undesirable free for all of as you say "unlimited private exploitation of public lands." There is another way.

Recognizing Aboriginal Title of traditional lands and joint lands management can be a way to control and limit exploitative uses of lands in a way which also recognizes traditional (generally a lot lighter!) land uses.