Many people search
out heritage landmarks for aesthetic experience. Both beauty
and sublimity may be found in these places, they say. Therefore, we should preserve
them because they are sites of the beautiful and the sublime. In particular, "wild"
places, it is argued, are like art galleries where beauty and spirituality can come
together in cosmic meditation.
William Wordsworth
wrote that experiencing the beauty of what his vision of
wilderness was produces "a motion and a spirit, that impels . . . and rolls through all
things."
With regard to wildness,
some argue that designated wilderness areas are places
where the very meaning of aesthetic quality can be ascertained and that, therefore,
all beauty is dependent upon such sites. Muir, for example, claims that"None of
Nature's landscapes are ugly so long as they are wild."
The destruction of
a designated nature conservation site would be as bad as, even
worse than, the destruction of a painting by da Vinci or a sculpture by Michelangelo.
In principle, works of art can be recreated, but habitats with a primeval continuity
cannot be replaced.
The intensity and type
of beauty found in unique land forms, waterfalls, mountains,
oceans, deserts, plants, and animals–all shaped by natural forces–cannot be
replicated in urban or even pastoral settings. These places are both necessary and
sufficient conditions for a true sense of beauty. Hence, if the loss of this beauty is to
be avoided the preservation of sites illustrating green and built heritage is mandated.
