Why Wilderness? The Case for an Earth-Centred World

Introduction: The Primal Question

The question “Why Wilderness?” is perhaps the central ethical challenge of the Anthropocene, an epoch defined by humanity’s profound and often devastating impact on the planet. To answer it requires moving beyond the narrow confines of human utility, beyond the balance sheets that tally board feet, mineral rights, and tourism revenue. Our escalating ecological crisis—from a destabilized climate to the sixth mass extinction—stems from a fundamental failure of perception: a worldview that sees nature as a warehouse of resources rather than a community of beings.

This essay makes the case for conserving, preserving, and extending wild areas based on a radical, yet ancient, premise: that wilderness, in all its forms—from the deepest ocean trench to the highest mountain peak, from the most complex forest to the simplest insect—has a right to exist because it is, not because it is for us.

To build this case, this analysis will first establish the philosophical foundation for nature’s intrinsic value, drawing on diverse yet convergent streams of thought. It will then confront the destructive consequences of its absence, examining the stark reality of ecocide across terrestrial, marine, and atmospheric domains. This requires a critical refinement of the very concept of “wilderness,” decolonizing it from a history that erased Indigenous presence. Finally, it will chart practical pathways forward, exploring how pragmatic imperatives, cutting-edge philosophies, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence can serve a new vision, all underpinned by a blueprint for transformative policy. The answer to “Why Wilderness?” is not found in a cost-benefit analysis but in a profound act of ethical recognition—a shift toward an Earth-centred world.

Part I: The Philosophical Foundation

Beyond Utility: The Intrinsic Right to Be

The modern, industrial worldview has been built upon the concept of instrumental value—the worth of something as a means to an end.¹ Nature’s instrumental value is measured in timber, clean water, pollination services, and other material goods that satisfy human needs.² This perspective reduces the living world to a collection of resources to be managed, controlled, and exploited.³

A more profound ethical framework rests on the concept of intrinsic value, which posits that nature has value in its own right, independent of human uses.⁴ From this standpoint, a forest, a river, or a species holds worth simply by existing, much as a work of art is valued for what it is, not what it does.⁵ This perspective necessitates a non-anthropocentric, or human-centred, worldview, acknowledging that the natural world has substance and essence independent of human needs and desires.⁶

This ethical distinction is not merely academic; it is the fulcrum upon which our planetary future turns. A worldview based solely on instrumental value will always justify sacrificing one part of nature for another, more immediately useful part. It is the logic that drains a marsh for a subdivision or clears a forest for a mine. Recognizing intrinsic value, by contrast, implies a moral and ethical obligation to protect and respect nature.⁷ It reframes our role from consumer to steward, from master to member of a larger community.

This broader ethical concern can be understood through two lenses. A biocentric view extends intrinsic value to all individual living organisms, from the smallest microbe to the largest whale.⁸ An ecocentric view, which provides the most holistic foundation for wilderness preservation, expands this moral consideration to entire ecosystems and ecological processes, valuing the health, integrity, and biodiversity of the whole system.⁹

An Ecology of Selves: Frameworks for a Wild World

To build an ecocentric ethic, we can draw upon several powerful philosophical traditions that, despite different origins, converge on a shared critique of the Western model of separation and hierarchy.

Deep Ecology

Pioneered by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, deep ecology challenges the illusion of humanity’s separation from nature.¹⁰ It contrasts itself with “shallow ecology,” which fights pollution and resource depletion primarily for the health and affluence of people in developed countries.¹¹ Deep ecology, instead, asks deeper questions about the root causes of environmental destruction, advocating for a radical shift in consciousness and policy based on the principle of biospherical egalitarianism—the right of all life to exist and thrive.¹²

At its heart is the concept of the “ecological self,” an identity that understands itself not as a solitary, independent ego but as deeply connected with and part of nature.¹³ The realization of this self, Naess argued, would naturally lead to an environmental ethic that ends the abuses of nature perpetuated by the traditional, anthropocentric self.¹⁴ This philosophy is crystallized in the eight-point platform developed by Naess and George Sessions in 1984.

Table 1: The Eight Principles of the Deep Ecology Platform¹⁵

Ecofeminism and the ‘Logic of Domination’

Ecofeminism offers a critical lens, arguing that the environmental crisis is not an isolated problem but is inextricably linked to patriarchal structures of oppression.¹⁶ Its central claim is that the domination of nature and the domination of women (and other subordinated groups) stem from the same root: what philosopher Karen J. Warren calls the “logic of domination.”¹⁷

This logic is an oppressive conceptual framework that justifies subordination through a three-step process. First, it establishes value-hierarchical thinking, where “up” is valued more than “down.” Second, it creates value dualisms—oppositional pairs like culture/nature, reason/emotion, mind/body, and male/female—and assigns superiority to one side. Third, it asserts that this superiority justifies domination.¹⁸

Within this framework, women, Indigenous peoples, and people of color have historically been associated with nature, the body, and emotion, thus justifying their subordination by those associated with culture, reason, and the mind.¹⁹ Nature itself is feminized in language—”Mother Nature,” “virgin forests,” the “rape of the land”—to authorize its conquest and exploitation.²⁰ Wilderness becomes the ultimate “Other,” a realm to be tamed and controlled by the “master identity” at the core of Western patriarchal culture.²¹ Therefore, from an ecofeminist perspective, dismantling the systems that degrade the environment requires dismantling the very logic of domination that underpins sexism, racism, and colonialism.²²

Ubuntu: “I Am Because We Are”

The Southern African philosophy of Ubuntu offers a powerful, relational alternative to Western individualism. Its core tenet, often translated as “I am because we are,” posits that a person’s identity and humanity are formed through their relationships and interconnectedness with the community.²³

Applied to environmental ethics, this philosophy provides a profound framework for coexistence. The “we” in “I am because we are” must be understood to encompass not just the human community but the entire “community of beings.”²⁴ This African ontology is holistic and communitarian, stressing the “bondedness, the interconnectedness, of all living beings.”²⁵ Human well-being is seen as indispensable from our dependence on and interdependence with the immediate environment.²⁶

This creates a model of afro-eco-communitarianism, where the health of the individual, the community, and the ecosystem are inextricably linked.²⁷ It fosters a sense of collective responsibility and reciprocal care.²⁸ From this perspective, harming nature is not merely an external act but a diminishment of our own humanity, because our identity is co-constituted by our relationship with the entire web of life.²⁹

Indigenous Worldviews and Kinship

For millennia, Indigenous Peoples have practiced sophisticated systems of environmental stewardship grounded in worldviews that stand in stark contrast to the Western model of domination. Despite representing less than 5% of the world’s population, Indigenous Peoples steward lands that hold 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity, a testament to the efficacy of their approach.³⁰ ³¹

This success is rooted in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), a cumulative body of observations, practices, and beliefs developed over generations through direct, intimate interaction with the environment.³² TEK is not just a collection of data; it is a lifeway, inseparable from a culture’s spiritual and social fabric.³³ It encompasses a worldview in which humans are not masters of nature, but part of it.³⁴

A central concept in many Indigenous worldviews is kinship. For the Maori of New Zealand, humans are deeply connected with nature; the two are equal, interdependent, and even kin.³⁵ This relationship is embodied in the concept of kaitiakitanga, which means guarding and protecting the environment to respect the ancestors and secure the future.³⁶ Similarly, for Native Hawaiians, the relationship is not one of stewardship but of direct familial connection; the Earth is Papahānaumoku, “Papa who gives birth to Islands.”³⁷ This perspective fosters a deep sense of relational obligation and reciprocal care, a stark contrast to the Western view of nature as property or resource.³⁸

These diverse philosophies—deep ecology, ecofeminism, Ubuntu, and Indigenous worldviews—all converge on a crucial point. They identify the root of the ecological crisis in a flawed ontology of separation, hierarchy, and dualism. By rejecting the isolated, superior “self” in favor of a relational, interdependent identity, they collectively point toward a more ethical and sustainable way of being in the world.

Part II: Wilderness in the Modern World

The Trouble with ‘Wilderness’: Decolonizing a Flawed Concept

The very word “wilderness” is fraught with historical baggage. The traditional Western concept, as codified in the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964, defines it as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”³⁹ This idea of a pristine, empty landscape untouched by humans is not an objective reality but a cultural and historical myth.⁴⁰

This myth was a powerful tool of colonialism. European settlers, viewing North America through a lens that saw nature as either a fearsome chaos to be conquered or a sublime cathedral for spiritual renewal, failed to see the landscapes as they truly were: inhabited, managed, and shaped by Indigenous peoples for millennia.⁴¹ As the historian William Cronon argued, the wilderness myth ignores the long history of Indigenous land management, such as the use of prescribed burning to maintain prairies and open woodlands.⁴²

The creation of iconic national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite was predicated on this myth of an empty wilderness. In reality, it involved the violent and unjust removal of the Native peoples who called those lands home.⁴³ This act of dispossession was a form of intellectual and physical genocide: first, steal the land and kill or displace its inhabitants, then claim they and their works never existed.⁴⁴

This colonial legacy persists today in the model of “fortress conservation,” which seeks to protect nature by creating militarized protected areas that exclude local and Indigenous communities.⁴⁵ This approach not only leads to widespread human rights abuses but is often less effective than Indigenous-led conservation, which achieves better results at a fraction of the cost.⁴⁶ The flawed concept of “wilderness” is a direct manifestation of the “logic of domination.” It creates a false dualism between a pure, “pristine” nature and a corrupting humanity, which was then used to justify the oppression of Indigenous peoples who were conceptually linked to the “wild” and therefore seen as “savage.”⁴⁷

To move forward, the concept must be decolonized. This involves shifting from the binary of “pristine” vs. “developed” to a more nuanced understanding of “wildness” as a spectrum of self-willed nature.⁴⁸ Wildness can exist in a city park as well as a remote mountain range. This refined concept recognizes that humans can be a part of nature and that Indigenous stewardship, far from “trammeling” the land, is often essential to its health and biodiversity.⁴⁹

The Great Unraveling: Acknowledging the Ecocide

When a society operates without a core ethic of respect for nature’s intrinsic value, the logical endpoint is ecocide: the mass damage or destruction of ecosystems to such an extent that the peaceful enjoyment of life is severely diminished.⁵⁰ Ecocide is not a series of isolated accidents; it is the systemic outcome of an industrial-capitalist model that treats the Earth as a limitless resource and a disposable waste dump.⁵¹

• Terrestrial Ecocide: The Amazon’s Deforestation: The Amazon rainforest, the planet’s “green lung,” is being systematically destroyed, primarily for cattle ranching and agriculture.⁵² Since 1970, an area the size of France has been lost.⁵³ This is a multi-faceted ecocide. It destroys the habitat of millions of species, pushing countless to the brink of extinction.⁵⁴ It displaces and threatens the survival of hundreds of Indigenous communities.⁵⁵ And it severely compromises the planet’s climate stability by eliminating a massive carbon sink and releasing billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere.⁵⁶
• Marine Ecocide: The Deepwater Horizon Spill: In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico released nearly 800 million liters of crude oil, creating an oil slick that covered 149,000 square kilometers.⁵⁷ The long-term impacts constitute an injury to the entire ecosystem.⁵⁸ The spill killed as many as 167,000 sea turtles and over a million birds.⁵⁹ It caused widespread reproductive failure in dolphin populations, which may take a century to recover.⁶⁰ It damaged deep-sea coral communities that may not recover for hundreds of years and accelerated the erosion of coastal marshes, Louisiana’s first line of defense against storms.⁶¹
• Atmospheric & Systemic Ecocide: The Chernobyl Disaster: The 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine released a cloud of highly radioactive material that spread across Europe.⁶² It contaminated tens of thousands of square kilometers of land, forced the evacuation and permanent relocation of over 300,000 people, and caused a dramatic increase in thyroid cancers among children.⁶³ The disaster rendered vast tracts of forest and agricultural land unusable for centuries, demonstrating the far-reaching, transboundary, and long-lasting nature of ecocidal acts.⁶⁴

These events, while distinct, are not aberrations. They are the predictable consequences of a system that externalizes environmental costs and operates under the logic of domination, prioritizing short-term profit and technological ambition over the inherent right of ecosystems to exist and flourish.

Part III: Pathways to a Wilder Future

Pragmatic Imperatives: Climate, Cures, and Conservation

While the core argument for wilderness rests on its intrinsic value, powerful pragmatic reasons also demand its protection. These utilitarian arguments, though secondary, are crucial for building broad consensus.

First, wild areas are indispensable for climate stability. Healthy forests are the world’s most effective carbon sinks, absorbing billions of metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year.⁶⁵ Globally, between 2001 and 2019, forests absorbed twice as much carbon as they emitted.⁶⁶ Destroying them not only eliminates this vital service but releases vast stores of carbon, turning a crucial climate solution into a potent climate accelerant. Since 1850, deforestation has accounted for roughly 30% of all CO2 emissions.⁶⁷

Second, the immense biodiversity of wilderness represents a living library of solutions to human problems, particularly in medicine. The practice of bioprospecting—the exploration of natural sources for commercially valuable molecules and genetic information—has yielded numerous life-saving drugs, from the anticancer agent vinblastine (derived from the rosy periwinkle) to the antibiotic streptomycin (from a soil bacterium).⁶⁸ With less than 10% of the world’s biodiversity having been tested for biological activity, the potential for discovering new cures is vast.⁶⁹ Destroying these ecosystems is akin to burning a library before we have read the books.

However, this utilitarian approach contains a paradox. The instrumental benefits of a stable climate and new medicines are best secured by an ethical framework that values nature for its intrinsic worth. A purely utilitarian logic will always risk sacrificing a “less useful” ecosystem for short-term gain, ultimately undermining the stability of the entire system. Furthermore, bioprospecting carries the risk of “biopiracy,” where corporations profit from the genetic resources and traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities without fair compensation, becoming a new form of colonial extraction.⁷⁰ Any pragmatic argument for conservation must therefore be embedded within an ethical framework that respects both the rights of nature and the rights of its traditional guardians.

New Horizons: Posthumanism and the Algorithmic Ally

As we seek new ways to frame our relationship with nature, cutting-edge philosophical perspectives and technologies offer both promise and peril. Posthumanism challenges the very foundations of humanism, seeking to de-center the human and dismantle the rigid boundary between humans and non-humans.⁷¹ It views the world as a complex web of interconnected agencies—including animals, plants, and even technologies—and encourages a more holistic and ecological understanding of the self.⁷² This perspective complicates the idea of a “pristine” nature, forcing us to acknowledge the deep entanglement of all systems and to manage ecosystems in ways less centered on purely human values.⁷³

Simultaneously, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a powerful tool for conservation. Its ability to process vast datasets at superhuman speeds is revolutionizing how we monitor and protect the wild.

• Monitoring and Tracking: AI algorithms can analyze millions of images from camera traps to identify and track species, monitor population sizes, and understand animal behavior with remarkable accuracy. Platforms like Wildlife Insights, powered by models like SpeciesNet, can process this data far faster than humans, accelerating research and conservation efforts.⁷⁴ In the marine realm, AI analyzes acoustic data from hydrophones to track whale migrations and satellite imagery to monitor the health of coral reefs.⁷⁵
• Anti-Poaching: AI is a game-changer in the fight against illegal wildlife crime. Predictive systems like PAWS (Protection Assistant for Wildlife Security) analyze data on past poaching incidents, terrain, and animal movements to predict poaching hotspots, allowing rangers to optimize their patrols.⁷⁶ Real-time systems like TrailGuard AI use hidden cameras that can distinguish humans from animals, sending immediate alerts to rangers when a potential poacher is detected.⁷⁷
• Ecosystem Management: By analyzing satellite and drone imagery, AI can detect deforestation in near real-time, monitor the health of habitats, and predict the impacts of climate change.⁷⁸ It can also recommend the most effective strategies for ecosystem restoration, such as identifying the optimal mix of native species for reforestation projects.⁷⁹

Yet, AI is a double-edged sword. The data centers that power these complex algorithms have a significant environmental footprint, consuming vast amounts of energy and water.⁸⁰ There is also a risk that biases in the data used to train AI models could lead to flawed conservation decisions.⁸¹ Most profoundly, AI presents a philosophical choice. It can become the ultimate tool of the anthropocentric master, enabling total surveillance and management of nature as a complex resource. Or, it can be used to reveal the intricate complexity, agency, and interconnectedness of the non-human world in a way that supports an ecocentric, posthumanist worldview. The choice will depend on the ethical framework we bring to its development and deployment.

From Principle to Policy: A Blueprint for Coexistence

Translating an ecocentric philosophy into reality requires a comprehensive and multi-layered policy response that bridges the local, national, and international scales.

At the local level, policy must empower the most effective stewards of biodiversity: Indigenous and local communities. This means legally recognizing and providing sustained funding for Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through their own laws and knowledge systems.⁸² Community-based conservation models, which integrate local livelihoods with conservation goals, must be supported and scaled up.⁸³

At the national level, governments must move beyond simply designating parks on a map. This requires:

• Strengthening the legal protection and enforcement for existing protected areas to prevent “paper parks” and halt the alarming trend of protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD).⁸⁴
• Embedding the “Rights of Nature” into constitutional or legal frameworks, granting ecosystems legal personhood and the right to exist and flourish. This fundamentally shifts the legal landscape, making damage to nature a violation of rights, not just an environmental infraction.
• Adhering to rigorous global standards for effective and equitable governance, such as those outlined in the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas, which requires demonstrating successful conservation outcomes, fair governance, and respect for local communities.⁸⁵

At the international level, a new era of global cooperation is needed. Key actions include:

• Amending the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to recognize Ecocide as a fifth international crime, alongside genocide and war crimes. This would create a powerful deterrent against the most egregious forms of environmental destruction and hold corporate and state leaders accountable.⁸⁶
• Reforming and strengthening Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). These agreements must prioritize the intrinsic value of nature and the rights of Indigenous peoples over purely economic interests, with robust mechanisms for enforcement and accountability.⁸⁷
• Committing to ambitious, binding targets for protecting and restoring wild areas, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s goal to protect 30% of Earth’s lands and seas by 2030. Crucially, this “30 by 30” target must be implemented equitably, with the full participation of Indigenous peoples, to avoid perpetuating the failed “fortress conservation” model.⁸⁸

Effective, lasting policy cannot be built on a purely instrumental foundation, as it will always be vulnerable to short-term economic arguments for exploitation. The most durable solutions are those that institutionalize an ecocentric shift in values, legally recognizing the rights and inherent worth of the natural world.

Conclusion: I Am Because We Are

The question “Why Wilderness?” ultimately asks us who we are and what our place is in the universe. The answer offered by centuries of Western thought—that we are masters, set apart from and superior to a world of resources—has led us to the precipice of planetary collapse.

A more truthful and hopeful answer emerges from the convergent wisdom of deep ecology, ecofeminism, Ubuntu, and Indigenous worldviews. It is an answer grounded in relationship and reciprocity. It recognizes that our own well-being is not separate from but is deeply interwoven with the well-being of the entire community of life. The ecological self, the rejection of domination, the kinship with nature, and the profound truth of “I am because we are” all point to the same conclusion.

Wilderness is not an “other” to be managed, a resource to be exploited, or a luxury to be preserved. It is the larger self to which we belong, the source of our existence, and the condition of our flourishing. The choice before us is stark: to continue down the path of separation and ecocide, or to embrace a future of respectful coexistence. This requires a radical shift in consciousness, a re-grounding of our policies in an ecocentric ethic, and a humble acceptance of our role as plain members and citizens of the Earth community. The flourishing of humanity is utterly dependent on the flourishing of the wild.

Notes

1. Sustainability Directory, “Intrinsic Value of Nature,” Climate & Sustainability Directory, accessed May 20, 2024, https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/term/intrinsic-value-of-nature/. ¹
2. Ewa Ziętara, “The Intrinsic Value of Nature in the Light of Eco-philosophy,” Problemy Ekorozwoju 10, no. 1 (2015): 81–88. ²
3. Ziętara, “The Intrinsic Value of Nature,” 83. ²
4. Helen Kopnina, “The Value of Nature: Economic, Intrinsic, or Both?,” PMC, January 25, 2018, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5790155/. ³
5. Colette Sciberras, “The Intrinsic Value of Nature,” Lancaster University, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/colette%20essay.rtf. ⁵
6. Sustainability Directory, “Intrinsic Value of Nature.” ¹
7. Ziętara, “The Intrinsic Value of Nature,” 84. ²
8. Sustainability Directory, “Intrinsic Value of Nature.” ¹
9. Kopnina, “The Value of Nature.” ³
10. Arne Naess, “Deep Ecology,” Wikipedia, last modified May 15, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology. ⁶
11. Andrea Bassett, “What Is Deep Ecology? Philosophy, Principles, and Criticism,” Treehugger, September 1, 2021, https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-deep-ecology-philosophy-principles-and-criticism-5191550. ⁷
12. India Willsher, “Deep Ecology — Principles, Definition and Main Criticisms,” Utopia.org, May 12, 2023, https://utopia.org/guide/deep-ecology-principles-definition-and-main-criticisms/. ⁸
13. John M. Cunningham, “Deep Ecology,” Britannica, last modified April 19, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/deep-ecology. ⁹
14. Cunningham, “Deep Ecology.” ⁹
15. Arne Naess and George Sessions, “The Eight Principles of the Deep Ecology Platform,” Work That Reconnects Network, January 25, 1984, https://workthatreconnects.org/resources/the-eight-principles-of-the-deep-ecology-platform/. ¹⁰
16. Greta Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Wilderness,” Environmental Ethics 19, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 5–24, https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics199719136. ¹¹
17. Karen J. Warren, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism,” Environmental Ethics 12, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 125-146. ¹²
18. Victoria Davion, “Ecofeminism and the ‘Logic of Domination’,” Environmental Ethics 22, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 169-181. ¹³
19. Greta Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Wilderness,” University of Minnesota Duluth, accessed May 20, 2024, https://lgruen.faculty.wesleyan.edu/files/2011/05/Gaard.pdf. ¹⁴
20. Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Wilderness,” UMD. ¹⁴
21. Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Wilderness,” Environmental Ethics. ¹⁵
22. Jasmine Mattey, “Ecofeminism,” UMass Dartmouth, accessed May 20, 2024, https://jasminemattey.sites.umassd.edu/. ¹⁶
23. “Ubuntu philosophy,” Wikipedia, last modified May 16, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy. ¹⁷
24. Edwin Etieyibo, “Ubuntu and the Environment,” in African Philosophy and Environmental Conservation, ed. Jonathan O. Chimakonam (London: Routledge, 2018), 633-652. ¹⁸
25. Etieyibo, “Ubuntu and the Environment,” 636. ¹⁸
26. Aïda C. Terblanché-Greeff, “Ubuntu and Environmental Ethics: The West Can Learn from Africa When Faced with Climate Change,” Global Environment 13, no. 1 (2020): 1-32. ¹⁹
27. Samuel Adu-Gyamfi et al., “Ubuntu philosophy for ecological education and environmental policy formulation,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 58, no. 4 (2024): 540-556, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae034. ²⁰
28. Tawanda Mthimkhulu, “Integrating Environmental Ethics in Teaching and Learning Through the Use of Ubuntu Principles: Review of Literature,” Journal of Culture and Values in Education 7, no. 1 (2024): 1-14. ²¹
29. Danford Chibvongodze, “Ubuntu: Africa’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Framework?,” Africa Social Work & Development Network, March 5, 2023, https://africasocialwork.net/ubuntu-africas-esg-framework/. ²²
30. Conservation International, “3 ways Indigenous knowledge protects nature,” Conservation International Blog, August 9, 2023, https://www.conservation.org/blog/3-ways-indigenous-knowledge-protects-nature. ²³
31. Chelsea G. Gabel et al., “Climate, health, and Indigenous Peoples: a narrative review of the literature,” PMC, October 16, 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10575522/. ²⁴
32. National Park Service, “Indigenous Knowledge,” NPS.gov, last updated October 26, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/description.htm. ²⁵
33. Oregon State University, “What is TEK?,” Traditional Ecological Knowledge, accessed May 20, 2024, https://tek.forestry.oregonstate.edu/what-tek. ²⁶
34. United South and Eastern Tribes, “Honoring Traditional Ecological Knowledge is Critical,” USETINC.org, November 29, 2021, https://www.usetinc.org/general/honoring-traditional-ecological-knowledge-is-critical/. ²⁷
35. UN Environment Programme, “Indigenous people and nature: a tradition of conservation,” UNEP.org, August 9, 2017, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/indigenous-people-and-nature-tradition-conservation. ²⁸
36. UNEP, “Indigenous people and nature.” ²⁸
37. Kuʻulei Higashi Kanahele, “Highlighting Indigenous Kinship with Nature,” National Wildlife Federation Blog, July 20, 2016, https://blog.nwf.org/2016/07/highlighting-indigenous-kinship-with-nature/. ²⁹
38. Natural Resources Canada, “Biodiversity, conservation, and Indigenous Peoples’ well-being,” Government of Canada, last modified November 2, 2023, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/natural-resources-indigenous-peoples/biodiversity-conservation-indigenous-peoples-well-being. ³⁰
39. Lancaster University, “Module 503, Wk9, The value of wilderness,” Awaymave, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/403new/wk9.htm. ³¹
40. Michael Lewis, “The Traditional Wilderness Conception, Postmodern Cultural Constructionism and the Importance of Physical Environments” (master’s thesis, University of Montana, 2008), https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2114&context=etd. ³²
41. J. Baird Callicott, “Contemporary Criticisms of the Received Wilderness Idea,” Washington University, accessed May 20, 2024, https://faculty.washington.edu/timbillo/Readings%20and%20documents/Wilderness/Callicott%20Contemporary%20Criticisms.pdf. ³³
42. Lewis, “The Traditional Wilderness Conception.” ³²
43. Dina Gilio-Whitaker, “The problem with wilderness,” UU World Magazine, Fall 2019, https://www.uuworld.org/articles/problem-wilderness. ³⁴
44. KCET, “The Idea of Wilderness Erases Native People. Here’s How To Fix It.,” Tending the Wild, January 31, 2017, https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/tending-the-wild/the-idea-of-wilderness-erases-native-people-heres-how-to-fix-it. ³⁵
45. Survival International, “A guide to decolonize language in conservation,” SurvivalInternational.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.survivalinternational.org/about/decolonizelanguage. ³⁶
46. Survival International, “Decolonize Conservation,” SurvivalInternational.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.survivalinternational.org/campaigns/conservation. ³⁷
47. Callicott, “Contemporary Criticisms.” ³³
48. Arthur Obst, “A Philosopher Goes Wild,” UW College of Arts & Sciences, February 8, 2023, https://artsci.washington.edu/news/2023-02/philosopher-goes-wild. ³⁸
49. KCET, “The Idea of Wilderness Erases Native People.” ³⁵
50. Polly Higgins, “Ecocide Crime,” Ecocidelaw.com, accessed May 20, 2024, https://ecocidelaw.com/polly-higgins-ecocide-crime/. ³⁹
51. Stop Ecocide International, “What is Ecocide?,” Endecocide.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.endecocide.org/en/what-is-ecocide/. ⁴⁰
52. Kayleigh Rose, “Ecocide: Definition and Examples,” Greenly, February 2, 2023, https://greenly.earth/en-gb/blog/ecology-news/ecocide-definition-and-examples. ⁴¹
53. Iberdrola, “Ecocide, a word that defines the crimes committed against the planet,” Iberdrola.com, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/ecocide. ⁴²
54. Ballard Brief, “Deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest,” Brigham Young University, accessed May 20, 2024, https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/deforestation-in-the-amazon-rainforest. ⁴³
55. Pachamama Alliance, “Effects of Deforestation,” Pachamama.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://pachamama.org/effects-of-deforestation. ⁴⁴
56. Internet Geography, “What are the effects of deforestation in the Amazon?,” InternetGeography.net, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/what-are-the-effects-of-deforestation-in-the-amazon/. ⁴⁵
57. Rose, “Ecocide: Definition and Examples.” ⁴¹
58. National Wildlife Federation, “Deepwater Horizon’s Impact on Wildlife,” NWF.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.nwf.org/oilspill. ⁴⁶
59. National Environmental Trainers, “Environmental Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,” Natlenvtrainers.com, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.natlenvtrainers.com/blog/article/the-environmental-impact-of-the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill. ⁴⁷
60. NWF, “Deepwater Horizon’s Impact.” ⁴⁶
61. Hee-Jin Lee et al., “Long-term ecological impacts from oil spills: comparison of Exxon Valdez, Hebei Spirit and Deepwater Horizon,” PMC, July 31, 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7397809/. ⁴⁸
62. European Parliament, “Chernobyl 30 years on: Environmental and health effects,” Think Tank, April 22, 2016, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)581972. ⁴⁹
63. UNSCEAR, “Assessments of the radiation effects from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident,” UNSCEAR.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html. ⁵⁰
64. IAEA, “Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience,” IAEA.org, 2006, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf. ⁵¹
65. National Conference of State Legislatures, “The Role of Forests in Carbon Sequestration and Storage,” NCSL.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.ncsl.org/environment-and-natural-resources/the-role-of-forests-in-carbon-sequestration-and-storage. ⁵²
66. UNDP, “Forests can help us limit climate change – here is how,” Climate Promise, October 25, 2023, https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/forests-can-help-us-limit-climate-change-here-how. ⁵⁴
67. MIT Climate, “Forests and Climate Change,” MIT.edu, accessed May 20, 2024, https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/forests-and-climate-change. ⁵⁵
68. “Bioprospecting,” Wikipedia, last modified May 1, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprospecting. ⁵⁶
69. R.M. Cusack et al., “Strategies for discovering drugs from previously unexplored natural products,” Drug Discovery Today 7, no. 21 (2002): 1107-1112. ⁵⁷
70. “Bioprospecting,” Wikipedia. ⁵⁶
71. Hélène Schmutz, “Is Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethic” an Early Form of Posthumanism?,” Caliban 58 (2017): 163-178, https://doi.org/10.4000/caliban.3226. ⁵⁸
72. Fiveable, “Ecocriticism and Posthumanism,” Fiveable Library, accessed May 20, 2024, https://library.fiveable.me/introduction-to-comparative-literature-literary-and-cultural-history/unit-13/ecocriticism-posthumanism/study-guide/q9nGEGq2xnWunDRF. ⁵⁹
73. J. Johnson, “Staying with the Trouble with Wilderness: Reworking Nature and Culture in the Plantationocene,” Journal of Posthumanism 2, no. 3 (2022): 229–247, https://doi.org/10.33182/joph.v2i3.1704. ⁶⁰
74. World Wildlife Fund, “Using the power of AI to identify and track species,” WWF.org, March 3, 2025, https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/using-the-power-of-ai-to-identify-and-track-species. ⁶¹
75. Marine Biodiversity, “AI Technology Revolutionizes Marine Species Tracking (And Why It Matters),” MarineBiodiversity.ca, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/ai-technology-revolutionizes-marine-species-tracking-and-why-it-matters/. ⁶²
76. Save the Elephants, “Artificial intelligence helps rangers protect endangered wildlife,” SaveTheElephants.org, March 6, 2020, https://savetheelephants.org/news/artificial-intelligence-helps-rangers-protect-endangered-wildlife/. ⁶³
77. Jeyadev Needhi, “The Role of AI in Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study of Anti-Poaching Efforts in Africa,” Medium, July 10, 2024, https://medium.com/@jeyadev_needhi/the-role-of-ai-in-wildlife-conservation-a-case-study-of-anti-poaching-efforts-in-africa-d5b5c4e8e53f. ⁶⁴
78. Anablock, “AI for Wildlife Conservation: Monitoring and Protecting Endangered Species,” Anablock.com, accessed May 20, 2024, https://anablock.com/blog/ai-for-wildlife-conservation-monitoring-and-protecting-endangered-species. ⁶⁵
79. MORFO, “Use of AI in Forest Restoration and Conservation,” Morfo.rest, May 27, 2024, https://www.morfo.rest/article/ai-forest-restoration-conservation. ⁶⁶
80. UNEP, “AI has an environmental problem. Here’s what the world can do about that,” UNEP.org, September 21, 2024, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about. ⁶⁷
81. Green Economy Coalition, “The benefits and risks of using AI in Nature Restoration,” GreenEconomyCoalition.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/news-and-resources/the-benefits-and-risks-of-using-ai-in-nature-restoration. ⁶⁸
82. Natural Resources Canada, “Biodiversity, conservation, and Indigenous Peoples’ well-being.” ³⁰
83. Legacy Landscapes Fund, “5 Reasons Why Protected Areas Work,” LegacyLandscapes.org, May 22, 2023, https://legacylandscapes.org/2023/05/5-reasons-why-protected-areas-work/. ⁶⁹
84. Princeton University, “Protecting Existing Parks is as Crucial for Biodiversity Conservation as Creating New Protected Areas,” C-PREE, June 2, 2023, https://cpree.princeton.edu/news/2023/protecting-existing-parks-crucial-biodiversity-conservation-creating-new-protected-areas. ⁷⁰
85. IUCN, “Effective protected areas,” IUCN.org, accessed May 20, 2024, https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/effective-protected-areas. ⁷¹
86. “Ecocide,” Wikipedia, last modified May 17, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide. ⁷³
87. Lewis & Clark Law School, “International Wildlife Law: Protecting Global Biodiversity,” L&C Environmental Law, October 14, 2024, https://environmentallaw.lclark.edu/blog/international-wildlife-law-protecting-global-biodiversity/. ⁷⁴
88. Toulouse School of Economics, “The Environmental Impacts of Protected Area Policy,” TSE-fr.eu, November 7, 2023, https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2023/wp_tse_1485.pdf. ⁷⁵