The Value of Wilderness

Imagine you are holding a rare, ancient coin that has no modern use, yet you refuse to melt it down for its gold weight. You recognize that the object possesses a value beyond its material function, much like a remote forest that humans never visit. This scenario highlights a tension between seeing nature as a useful tool and seeing it as something inherently precious. We often struggle to define why wild places matter when they do not provide us with timber, water, or recreational space. Understanding this requires us to look at two distinct ways of assigning worth to the natural world.

The Distinction Between Value Types

To understand the value of wilderness, we must separate how we use things from what things are. We often view the world through instrumental value, which is the worth an object holds because it serves a specific human purpose. For example, a river has instrumental value when it provides electricity through a dam or irrigation for our crops. This perspective treats nature as a giant warehouse of resources waiting to be processed for our benefit. If a part of nature does not serve a direct function, we might mistakenly assume it has no value at all.

Key term: Intrinsic value — the inherent worth something possesses in itself, regardless of its usefulness to human beings or other species.

In contrast, many thinkers argue that wilderness holds intrinsic value, which exists independently of human needs or desires. This means that a mountain range or a deep ocean trench possesses a right to exist even if no human ever sees it. When we protect a forest simply because it is alive, we are acknowledging its intrinsic worth. This view shifts our focus from what we can extract from the land to how we respect its presence. It challenges the idea that human utility is the only measure of importance in the world.

Evaluating Our Ethical Responsibility

When we decide how to interact with wild spaces, we must weigh these two types of value against each other. Consider the following ways we might categorize the worth of a protected wilderness area:

• Ecological stability provides a foundation for life, acting as a biological safety net that maintains air and water quality for all living creatures.
• Aesthetic beauty offers a unique psychological benefit, allowing humans to experience wonder and perspective that cannot be replicated in a city environment.
• Evolutionary potential ensures that species continue to adapt and thrive, preserving the vast genetic library that has developed over millions of years.

These points illustrate that even when we look for instrumental reasons to save nature, we often find that the intrinsic worth of the system is what makes those services possible. If we only value the forest for the wood it produces, we might ignore the complex web of life that keeps the soil healthy. By recognizing intrinsic value, we create a more stable ethical framework for conservation. This approach suggests that our role is not just to be consumers of nature, but to act as responsible stewards of a larger, living system.

Comparing the two value systems helps clarify how we make decisions about land use and environmental policy in our daily lives:

This table shows that our motivation changes based on how we perceive the object in question. If we treat the wilderness only as a utility, we will likely exhaust it. If we treat it as having intrinsic worth, we are more likely to ensure its longevity. The challenge lies in balancing these perspectives to create a sustainable future where human needs do not destroy the natural systems we rely on. We must ask ourselves if we can justify the destruction of something that has its own reason for existing.

---

True environmental ethics requires recognizing that nature possesses a worth independent of the benefits it provides to human beings.

Now that we have established the value of the wild, we must examine the human-centered perspective known as anthropocentrism to see how it shapes our modern environmental policies.