Ogres are Not Like Cakes

John’s presentation last week brought a whole new level of paradox to my mind. When it comes to the politics of conservation, my initial thought is that the more people who appreciate what the natural world has to offer, the better. However, as we discussed the damage done to rare alpine species by an increasing amount of hikers, that way of thinking seems to be on shakier ground. If the park’s forests have any chance of resisting the immense changes that are well under way, won’t that only be possible with a greater number of people advocating for them? On the other hand, the same species might not survive if the people trying to appreciate them are trampling them with greater intensity each year. It’s the same contradicting feeling I experienced at the 90-miler. While I was thrilled to see so many people who obviously wanted to be spending their time in the park and whom I would assume care generally about its wellbeing, I couldn’t help but worry about how many boats/cars/people were there simultaneously. So which is more important: the event’s encouragement for an appreciation of the outdoors or the risk of someone inadvertently bringing along an aquatic invasive species on their boat? Like John mentioned, this paradox brings up philosophical questions as well. A more anthropocentric view might support the argument that the environment is only worth saving so that our species can appreciate its existence. As much as I want the earth to be safe and left alone to prosper, I also have no desire to give up experiencing it myself, as I’m sure many a hiker doesn’t either.