674 karma · joined June 24, 2021
personally, I love visual proofs because they can communicate an idea efficiently, sure they have their pitfalls, but its less about the actual mechanism of the proof and more about the core idea that lets me appreciate how its working- and visual proofs add a pseudo-physical intuition that helps me appreciate it.
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.
These narratives still impact our policies today. When we frame conservation as keeping nature "untrammeled by man," we erase indigenous histories and practices that have long sustained ecosystems. IMO, conservation efforts that aim to separate humans from nature often harm both, as seen in the forced removal of indigenous peoples from national parks. A more nuanced approach would recognize that human interaction with nature isn’t inherently destructive and that indigenous stewardship offers valuable lessons in sustainable land management. Embracing this perspective could lead to more effective conservation policies and a healthier relationship with nature, where human presence is viewed as potentially harmonious rather than inherently damaging.