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.
