Assignment task:
Academics disagree on whether "protecting nature for its own sake" is worthwhile or even possible - what do you think? If it is important or possible, what conservation tools might be practical ways to realize this goal? If not, what approaches to conservation should no longer be pursued? The debate over whether protecting nature for its own sake is worthwhile involves various viewpoints. It is important and possible because nature has intrinsic value, meaning it deserves protection even if it doesn't directly benefit humans. Practical ways to achieve this include creating national parks, enforcing wildlife protection laws, restoring damaged habitats, and involving local communities in conservation efforts. For example, the Yellowstone National Park in the U.S. preserves natural landscapes and wildlife, while Costa Rica's reforestation projects help restore biodiversity. If protecting nature purely for its own sake isn't practical, conservation should focus on sustainable use, balancing ecological health with human needs, and promoting eco-tourism or sustainable agriculture to support both the environment and local economies.